Has anyone noticed?????

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-03-22 02:10pm

Stormbringer wrote: Gotta love Reaganomics.

IIRC, it was working, only that the Democratic held Congress kept tacking
on PORK PORK PORK PORK

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-22 02:14pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Stormbringer wrote: Gotta love Reaganomics.
IIRC, it was working, only that the Democratic held Congress kept tacking
on PORK PORK PORK PORK

Not really. It never worked very though the democrats did make it worse with all the legislative pork.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-22 02:17pm

During Reagan's administration US government revenuers did increase by a huge amount. However congress proved its ability to spend 200% of any amount it is presented with.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-03-22 02:33pm

To the "America, love it or leave it" crowd, I say if you want a banana republic so bad, move to one. Some people love this country enough they're not afraid to criticise it.
If your political beliefs have all the rationality of a rabid religious faith, and any dissention from your point of view equals treason, it is YOU that should be rethinking citizenship in this country.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-03-22 02:49pm

About tax cuts...according to the Laffer Curve, tax revenue does not increase proportionally with income tax levels; it increases up to a maximum point, at which it then falls as tax levels increase. This is the idea behind supply-side taxation. It's all theoretical, of course, there's not a whole lot of great data to say anything either way.

Which brings us to the biggest problem with Republican supply-side economics...spending. They can talk a big game, but the Republican Party will rarely make an actual spending cut (without offsetting it with increased spending elsewhere) and will NEVER, EVER, EVER cut down the size of government under any circumstances. Which is why I will never vote Republican.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-22 02:59pm

Durran Korr wrote:Which brings us to the biggest problem with Republican supply-side economics...spending. They can talk a big game, but the Republican Party will rarely make an actual spending cut (without offsetting it with increased spending elsewhere) and will NEVER, EVER, EVER cut down the size of government under any circumstances. Which is why I will never vote Republican.

Neither party will cut down on the size of government. Simply adjust spending for their preffered branches and agencies.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-03-22 03:03pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:Which brings us to the biggest problem with Republican supply-side economics...spending. They can talk a big game, but the Republican Party will rarely make an actual spending cut (without offsetting it with increased spending elsewhere) and will NEVER, EVER, EVER cut down the size of government under any circumstances. Which is why I will never vote Republican.
Neither party will cut down on the size of government. Simply adjust spending for their preffered branches and agencies.

Obviously. At least the Democrats don't spout libertarian rhetoric occasionally and pretend they want to cut down the size of government.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-03-22 03:09pm

Durran Korr wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:Which brings us to the biggest problem with Republican supply-side economics...spending. They can talk a big game, but the Republican Party will rarely make an actual spending cut (without offsetting it with increased spending elsewhere) and will NEVER, EVER, EVER cut down the size of government under any circumstances. Which is why I will never vote Republican.
Neither party will cut down on the size of government. Simply adjust spending for their preffered branches and agencies.
Obviously. At least the Democrats don't spout libertarian rhetoric occasionally and pretend they want to cut down the size of government.

Then again, it is the republican party that is cuttng down on our civil freedoms, and still have the nerve to spout libertarian rhetoric

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-22 03:11pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Then again, it is the republican party that is cuttng down on our civil freedoms, and still have the nerve to spout libertarian rhetoric

And the Democrats don't take away our rights. They just enroll in the Government as Nanny program against our will.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-03-22 03:12pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:Then again, it is the republican party that is cuttng down on our civil freedoms, and still have the nerve to spout libertarian rhetoric
And the Democrats don't take away our rights. They just enroll in the Government as Nanny program against our will.

That they do. Which is why I dont like either party(though I hate the democrats less) neither really lives up to my political stance

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2003-03-22 03:25pm

Regarding the original topic, I've heard many pro-war Americans saying that the European countries' population is "anti-american".

You don't support the policy of the current administration so you're anti-american.

On the other hand, I've had several heated discussions with people who are strictly anti-war, and when I said that apart from the fact that war is a terrible thing removing Saddam would justify it, they started screaming about how a war can never be justified and called me 'Bush's whore'.

So it's actually both sides who over-generalize.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-22 03:30pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:yes, tax cuts on investment dividends. That will only help the wealthiest of the wealthy Of course, then he will increase spending.

No, it will help anyone who received dividends. In case you have not noticed, a fuckload more people then the top 1% are in the market. Hell I own stock that receive dividends.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-03-22 07:33pm

Basically, government spending is going to increase forever until large numbers of libertarians are elected to federal government positions, which will never happen (sorry, Marina).

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-03-22 07:54pm

Andrew J. wrote:Basically, government spending is going to increase forever until large numbers of libertarians are elected to federal government positions, which will never happen (sorry, Marina).

Just remember that we libertarians have gained power in other ways. See: Revolution, American, 1775-1783. You might say a revolution to overthrow a welfare state voted in by the majority of the people is undemocratic. Fortunately, as I am a small "r" republican, I couldn't give two shits about the will of the mob.

(Put the flamethrowers away--I'm only being half serious)

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-22 08:56pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:yes, tax cuts on investment dividends. That will only help the wealthiest of the wealthy Of course, then he will increase spending.
No, it will help anyone who received dividends. In case you have not noticed, a fuckload more people then the top 1% are in the market. Hell I own stock that receive dividends.

It's a matter of ratios. A wealthy person derives most of his income from capital gains, dividends, etc. A middle-class person derives some income from those sources, and most of his income from a job. A poor person derives 100% of his income from a job. So when you deliberately target tax breaks mostly at investors, you are effectively giving a graduated set of tax breaks which favour wealth.

The only fair tax system would be based entirely on consumption, such as a high sales tax. But no government will go for that because they will think that it encourages saving too much.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2003-03-22 09:15pm

Darth Wong wrote:The only fair tax system would be based entirely on consumption, such as a high sales tax. But no government will go for that because they will think that it encourages saving too much.

Only if you don't tax food and such. Otherwise, you get the same result, since poor people consume (and are taxed on) 100% of their monthly income.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2003-03-23 09:55pm

Most people seem to think that Anti-war means anti-american.

http://specials.msn.com/special/america ... efault.asp

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2003-03-24 04:18am

I've been called anti-american before. I honestly didn't find it all that insulting.