stevenash Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 Raising taxes is sometimes a necessity. But doing when the economy is strong rather than when it is failing is the difference. Why have you never answered my questions about raising taxes. If somebody is looking to open a business and has narrowed his choices to two states, will he/she open it( and provide hundreds or thousands of jobs) where the taxes are lower or where they are higher? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenash Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 Sure, a company makes a major decision to move everything, lock stock and barrel just for the sake of paying their executives more money. Excellent common sense response. Your business acumen is startling. You need to get over the class envy stuff. It doesn't become you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenash Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 Big Girl, I noticed that you did quite a bit of research on the tax policies of Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush. While you are at it, please let me know what the tax policies were of John F. Kennedy. In the case of George H.W. Bush, he did promise not to raise taxes but he did something our current President cannot comprehend ( nor can you) He compromised with a Democratic run Senate and House in order to keep the country running smoothly and did not permit an ideology to over ride common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smitty Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 are you saying that reagan didnt raise taxes 11 times? What about heh bush. ? Remember when he said "no new taxes" he subsequently raised taxes. Why is that? I'll say it's quite possible some taxes were raised while Reagan was President. BUT -- I know of only one that he actively was involved in. It was a deal with the Speaker (Democrat). That was his first mistake to think he could trust the Speaker's word. The deal was, for every 1 dollar in new taxes the House would cut 2 dollars in spending. Well, the taxes came but the spending cuts did not. Couldn't even trust the Dems back then. Any other taxes were offered by the House, I'm sure Reagan had to go along on some to get other things Reagan wanted. I believe these were like cigarette and gas taxes. But -- the tax cuts that Reagan actively wanted -- and got -- was income tax reductions. Again, like I've said before, revenue double into the treasury. Was that money used to reduce the any deficits? NO!! The Dems, who controlled both Houses, SPEND the money and DID NOT use it to pay the bills. A little lesson on the adverse affects of high taxes, do a little research on the Laffer Curve. Art Laffer advised Reagan... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smitty Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 are you saying that reagan didnt raise taxes 11 times? What about heh bush. ? Remember when he said "no new taxes" he subsequently raised taxes. Why is that? I was talking about Bush 2, not Bush 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big girl Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 I'll say it's quite possible some taxes were raised while Reagan was President. BUT -- I know of only one that he actively was involved in. It was a deal with the Speaker (Democrat). That was his first mistake to think he could trust the Speaker's word. The deal was, for every 1 dollar in new taxes the House would cut 2 dollars in spending. Well, the taxes came but the spending cuts did not. Couldn't even trust the Dems back then. Any other taxes were offered by the House, I'm sure Reagan had to go along on some to get other things Reagan wanted. I believe these were like cigarette and gas taxes. But -- the tax cuts that Reagan actively wanted -- and got -- was income tax reductions. Again, like I've said before, revenue double into the treasury. Was that money used to reduce the any deficits? NO!! The Dems, who controlled both Houses, SPEND the money and DID NOT use it to pay the bills. A little lesson on the adverse affects of high taxes, do a little research on the Laffer Curve. Art Laffer advised Reagan... what happened during his presidency. The US went from being the biggest lender to the biggest debtor. The Congress raised taxes right? Why do you blame Obama for current tax increases that have occurred? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big girl Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 I'll say it's quite possible some taxes were raised while Reagan was President. BUT -- I know of only one that he actively was involved in. It was a deal with the Speaker (Democrat). That was his first mistake to think he could trust the Speaker's word. The deal was, for every 1 dollar in new taxes the House would cut 2 dollars in spending. Well, the taxes came but the spending cuts did not. Couldn't even trust the Dems back then. Any other taxes were offered by the House, I'm sure Reagan had to go along on some to get other things Reagan wanted. I believe these were like cigarette and gas taxes. But -- the tax cuts that Reagan actively wanted -- and got -- was income tax reductions. Again, like I've said before, revenue double into the treasury. Was that money used to reduce the any deficits? NO!! The Dems, who controlled both Houses, SPEND the money and DID NOT use it to pay the bills. A little lesson on the adverse affects of high taxes, do a little research on the Laffer Curve. Art Laffer advised Reagan... you dont know what you are talking about, do you? You just made up some stuff that does not maje any sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenash Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 you dont know what you are talking about, do you? You just made up some stuff that does not maje any sense. ROFLMAO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smitty Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 you dont know what you are talking about, do you? You just made up some stuff that does not maje any sense. Did you look up the Laffer Curve? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smitty Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 obamacare is not socialized medicine. The insurance on the exchange comes from private insurance companies. Smh When privite individuals, or companies, are forced to do something by the government, what would YOU call it? By the way, obama has stated he wants single payer health care. This is the first step. One can't throw a frog in a boiling pot of water, he'll jump. But -- if you start slow and then build up, well, sorry, it's too late. I just heard that the disgrazed mayor of San Diego, in congress at one time, said that they wanted obamacare to look like the VA. The VA is SOCIALISM and is killing people. You can wish for that type of system for you and your family, but as for mine, we'll stick with the best health care in the world that's run by the private sector. That's why when the Republican tsunami happens in November, obamacare WILL be defunded! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenash Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 Smitty, she may look it up but likely wont understand it. If she does understand it and is unwilling to acknowledge it, you will get one of these:1. I am college educated and will no longer debate with idiots2. That information is from Republicans and all of their informationis untrue.3. ROFLMAO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big girl Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 When privite individuals, or companies, are forced to do something by the government, what would YOU call it? By the way, obama has stated he wants single payer health care. This is the first step. One can't throw a frog in a boiling pot of water, he'll jump. But -- if you start slow and then build up, well, sorry, it's too late. I just heard that the disgrazed mayor of San Diego, in congress at one time, said that they wanted obamacare to look like the VA. The VA is SOCIALISM and is killing people. You can wish for that type of system for you and your family, but as for mine, we'll stick with the best health care in the world that's run by the private sector. That's why when the Republican tsunami happens in November, obamacare WILL be defunded! what is the definition of a socialist? Someone who wants the government to control all forms of production. When has the president said he desired that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenash Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 Its better to judge a person by his actions rather than his words AKA " If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it, PERIOD." "This will be the most transparent administration in history". Those are all fine words but they weren't honored by the author. 77 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 Healthcare ,GM, banking etc.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smitty Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 what is the definition of a socialist? Someone who wants the government to control all forms of production. When has the president said he desired that? Have you checked what the EPA is doing lately? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenash Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 Big Girl, would you then say that as long as there are a few things not being run by the government, that it would not qualify as socialism? If so, would you still define it as capitalism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthoftheBorder Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 So what you're saying is the middle class just needs to pull "pull ourselves up by our bootstraps" If the wealthy are keepin their money, it may be that they do not trust the federal government and the policies being enacted and therefore are choosing not to invest in capital intensive ventures that produce jobs but rather investing in passive investments that are not intensive on producing jobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthoftheBorder Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 Have you checked what the EPA is doing lately? He doesn't say it, he just writes executive orders that have the affect of killing private sector job growth!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smitty Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 Have you checked what the EPA is doing lately? Killing jobs! Even ticking the unions off. http://freebeacon.com/issues/unions-slam-obama-epa-rule/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenash Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 The article refers to 485,000 overall jobs lost . These are coal miners, electrical workers, utility workers, boilermakers and railroad workers. I don't understand this, BIg Girl and PamFam. Aren't these the VERY people our President vowed to improve life for? Aren't these the "little guy", the "average Joe" that those heartless Republicans refuse to think about? This sure is confusing. Mr. Obama told us how he wanted to protect those folks and act on their behalf. This must be a Republican article. But wait, much of the info is coming from Unions, another bastion of support for our President. Hmmm, I wonder if the President might be more interested in politics than helping the common man. Could that possibly be? No way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smitty Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 Lowering taxes on the rich does not help the economy. The "trickle down" theory is a bust. Wealth has to be created first before it can trickle down. BigGirl, let me ask you something -- when was the last time you asked a poor person for a job?? 5GallonBucket 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenash Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 Smitty, they much prefer the trickle up poverty theory to the trickle down wealth theory because seemingly, it's more "fair". What they still don't get it that if you tax and regulate the wealthy out of existence, there is no one to malign and no money to be had ( they, of course, believe the government could manage that "wealth" a lot better) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smitty Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 less regulation, taxes so they can pay their executives more money. Would you like to be paid more? Prolly so! So why do you worry about other's getting paid more? Again -- how does it personally effect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big girl Posted June 5, 2014 Report Share Posted June 5, 2014 Jobs are being shipped overseas. Wealth will never trickle down. Did it happen under reagan, bush 1, bush 2. Have you ever walked up to a rich guy for a job? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big girl Posted June 5, 2014 Report Share Posted June 5, 2014 He does not meet the definition of a socialist. What you guys are saying is akin to someone being 1/2 pregnant, either you are pregnant or you are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.