View Full Version : CONS REALLY DON'T GET IT
Let's see, the Army couldn't get body armour for the troops in Iraq. The dollar is at new lows. The Deficit is at record levels. Let's take in LESS money. That will solve the problem. DUUUHHHH...
"The point is the preponderance of these revenues will go to upper-income people, people who make a million dollars or more," Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) said yesterday. "It's a question of priorities."
Yep, like that's been working. They say if you put a lever that dispenses food in front of a monkey, the monkey will pull it until it chokes to death on the food. Truly Clueless.
(*linky*) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050900651.html?nav=rss_email/components)
wa8rti
05-10-2006, 11:41 AM
I love it when GWB and his henchmen brag about the jobs created and the number of people in the work force. Do they ever mention how many of those jobs created are minimum wage without benefits? Or how many manufacturing jobs their big business buddies have shipped off shore?? #Or how their policies are extinguishing the middle class. We are heading for the South American model- a small rich elite, a gigantic mass of poor and a tiny middle class sandwiched in between.
KF0RT
05-10-2006, 12:29 PM
Uhhh... wrong forum?
73, Rob
N5PVL
05-10-2006, 12:36 PM
I'm not sure if QRZ has a specific "clueless moron" forum for those who think we all should pay higher taxes and hamstring our own economy.
I suppose they could all move to North Korea or Cuba if they want to live in a third-world socialist "paradise".
Quote[/b] (KF0RT @ May 10 2006,08:29)]Uhhh... wrong forum?
73, Rob
Durned it - happened again. Clicked on Ragchew and ended up in T&O. Your right Zed-RT. Sorry. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif
Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ May 10 2006,08:36)]I'm not sure if QRZ has a specific "clueless moron" forum for those who think we all should pay higher taxes and hamstring our own economy.
I suppose they could all move to North Korea or Cuba if they want to live in a third-world socialist "paradise".
I'm not much for Korea, Cuba or China. Why don't you go? You'd feel at home in a country that discourages free speech.
N5PVL
05-10-2006, 02:34 PM
Demonstrate where I have ever limited anyone's freedom of speech.
If you are going to make an arguement, why not try to find something valid to say?
- I won't complain though, your bogus character attack proves my point about mindless liberals.
I thank you for that.
KD6NIG
05-10-2006, 02:48 PM
They don't get it? #What?
If they tax the rich more, they won't contribute nearly as much as they would to the campaigns. #They can't trash each other over our TV sets without the moolah to pay for said thrashings.
Besides, when I heard the headline on my local news outlet this morning, the spin was "this will help many MIDDLE CLASS americans who would now fall into the category." #Now, never mind that the middle class people affected are definetely on the upper end of the scale. #All people heard was MIDDLE CLASS and HELP and thats exactly the message they wanted conveyed. #Though it didn't help us all, they hope everyone remembers it that way. Obviously. They only extended it 2 years.....when's the next presidential election? 2 YEARS. Perfect oppurtinuty for them to be 'nice guys' and to do it again with the same fanfare right before another election. Funny how this stuff happens in the months proceeding one, doesn't it?
Its the same as the $100 rebate they floated regarding the gas prices. #Everyone takes the $100 and smiles, thanks the government and gets this nice happy feeling. #Sure, said $100 won't even get them to work for 2 weeks, but its the thought that counts, and the hopeful thought that while we're handing you $100 here, we're taking a few grand elsewhere. #Takes your mind off it for a second though, and when you're at the polls, they hope you're thinking happy thoughts.
They get it, they get it precisely. #We've been blinded before by promises of tax cuts. #We've all grinned when we got that extra check from the government. #They know this and will keep playing that card till its dog eared and faded.
We have nobody to blame but ourselves. #How many people would get that $100 check and set it aflame in protest? #Not many of us, I'm sure. #
We only get fed the same Bravo Sierra because most of us continue to bite.
N5PVL
05-10-2006, 03:07 PM
Yeah, I agree that $100.00 rebate idea was pretty dumb. I'm glad it didn't fly.
You can get the straight scoop on the higher gas prices here (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2006/05/10/196843.html). - The $100.00 rebate deal was just an embarassing example of pandering.
Jobs, you bet.
I went through this before. Most of those jobs were paying about $100 per month plus combat pay via the draft! Problem is they were in Viet Nam as a GI.
Don't forget the profits made by the companies that make the weapons of war. I wonder which political party they are contributing to?
N5PVL
05-10-2006, 04:10 PM
"Most Jobs" were in the military, huh? #- Which planet are you talking about, I wonder? Here on planet Earth, the militrary comprised less that 1% of the total workforce during the vietnam era.
Ever hear of a liberal who wouldn't make up outrageous, obvious lies in order to "prove" thier dubious points?
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ May 10 2006,03:49)]Let's see, the Army couldn't get body armour for the troops in Iraq. The dollar is at new lows. The Deficit is at record levels. Let's take in LESS money. That will solve the problem. DUUUHHHH...
"The point is the preponderance of these revenues will go to upper-income people, people who make a million dollars or more," Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) said yesterday. "It's a question of priorities."
Yep, like that's been working. They say if you put a lever that dispenses food in front of a monkey, the monkey will pull it until it chokes to death on the food. Truly Clueless.
(*linky*) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050900651.html?nav=rss_email/components)
Same mentality that keeps the ARRL filing petitions to give 1% of Amateurs the ability to interfere with 99% of amateurs and sell it to us all as "progress".
Same mentality that laments the loss of knowledgable Amateurs and proposes to remove test elements to make that better.
Same mentality that wants to draw younger people to Amateur Radio who like computers by giving them HF access with no code test where there isn't enough bandwidth for decent data speeds.
Same mentality that seeks to solve Katrina-like emergency communications issues with more infrastructure dependent digital equipment when there was no infrastructure after Katrina.
Shall I go on?
K9STH
05-10-2006, 05:22 PM
Topic moved to the more appropriate forum.
Glen, K9STH
One of the QRZ.com moderators
N5PVL,
I was referring to the 2nd post made by wa8rti when he was referring to the jobs created by this administration.
Don't know about 1% of the population during the Viet Nam era either. Not counting the military, DoD made up a very large percentage of the US Civil Service workforce. I was a part of that too. One site I looked at states that in Asia and the Pacific alone that we had some 750,000 troops involved in 1969 and the total military was some 2.4 million. That's just active duty.
Add in all the contractors and spinoffs from the business of war and there was lots of employment.
I was only pointing out that GIs don't make a lot of money for what they are expected to do when the time comes.
Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ May 10 2006,10:34)]Demonstrate where I have ever limited anyone's freedom of speech.
If you are going to make an arguement, why not try to find something valid to say?
- I won't complain though, your bogus character attack proves my point about mindless liberals.
I thank you for that.
You can NOT limit anyones free speech, but your constant sniping with 'Comrade' and 'Socialist Libs' who are "Seditious" is just that. An attempt to limit the discussion to what you like to hear. Knock yourself out. The only one you're fooling is yourself.
*linky* (http://images.ucomics.com/comics/tt/2006/tt060511.gif)
Quote[/b] ]You can NOT limit anyones free speech, but your constant sniping with 'Comrade' and 'Socialist Libs' who are "Seditious" is just that. An attempt to limit the discussion to what you like to hear. Knock yourself out. The only one you're fooling is yourself
And I can point to at least a half a dozen posts by you in the last week where you characterize anybody on this board who doesn't agree with you as "neo-cons", or republican members as "idiots".
Hypocrite crybaby.
Quote[/b] (AC0H @ May 11 2006,09:58)]Quote[/b] ]You can NOT limit anyones free speech, but your constant sniping with 'Comrade' and 'Socialist Libs' who are "Seditious" is just that. An attempt to limit the discussion to what you like to hear. Knock yourself out. The only one you're fooling is yourself
And I can point to at least a half a dozen posts by you in the last week where you characterize anybody on this board who doesn't agree with you as "neo-cons", or republican members as "idiots".
Hypocrite crybaby.
I have yet to call anybody here an "idiot". I'm certain I would've noticed being banned if I did. Neo-con is a category as far as I'm concerned. It is the people who became conservatives because of the promises made during the early '90s by Newt and crew. Wow, lies, lies and more lies. No wonder you're all having trouble knowing the truth. If it hit you in the face, you'd swear it was a pack of lies.
So, I take it you're equating:
Calling someone "seditous" and "treasonous" in a time of war, with "neo-con"? Like comparing a whale and a guppy. It's like those people who bandy the word "racist" around so much it loses it's meaning. I could care less if you agree with me. Makes for some pretty good laughs. You put out the facts and come up with spin. You quote from the N.Y. Times, The Manchester Guardian, and Washington Post and in return get NewsMax and Drudge. And that's IF you deign to reply.
I'm not the one crying about the polls. And I'm not the one who's draping myself in the flag and God and calling everyone else Commie atheists. Hmmm... more name calling. The refuge of the immature who can't stand to bear the facts - and - who doesn't have the ammo to refute them. Facts is facts. I didn't make up the polls. The Republican party is out of touch, like a doddering old codger weaving down the street and people are watching and betting how long it will take him to fall. I won't reap the fallout that comes with the fact that CONS REALLY DON'T GET IT.
Quote[/b] ]Neo-con is a category as far as I'm concerned. It is the people who became conservatives because of the promises made during the early '90s by Newt and crew.
And as far as I'm concerned "socialist liberal" is just a category. Embrace your pinkness.
Quote[/b] (AC0H @ May 11 2006,11:38)]Quote[/b] ]Neo-con is a category as far as I'm concerned. It is the people who became conservatives because of the promises made during the early '90s by Newt and crew.
And as far as I'm concerned "socialist liberal" is just a category. Embrace your pinkness.
I would give a qualified reply to that but church's everywhere would point the finger and say "See, that's how you get banned from QRZ." Let's just say the nights are interesting. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
A small reply dripping with small mindedness from a small mind. How appropriate. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
W4HAY
05-14-2006, 12:03 PM
It's easy to see why many, using the grossly over-simplified economic models used to teach high school and Freshman college economics, would think that increasing tax rates would increase tax revenues and vice versa . Not surprisingly, many politicians and media 'experts' still accept these models as valid. Others, knowing most of the electorate still cling to these simplistic models, hoodwink them into thinking tax rate cuts reduce revenue.
Q: Who said this:
Quote[/b] ]The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital . . . the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.
A: Newt Gingrich
B: Rush Limbaugh
C: Dubya
D: John F. Kennedy
For the answer, and a look at the real world of taxation economics, click here (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008374).
Quote[/b] (W4HAY @ May 13 2006,23:03)]It's easy to see why many, using the grossly over-simplified economic models used to teach high school and Freshman college economics, would think that increasing tax rates would increase tax revenues and vice versa . Not surprisingly, many politicians and media 'experts' still accept these models as valid. Others, knowing most of the electorate still cling to these simplistic models, hoodwink them into thinking tax rate cuts reduce revenue.
Q: Who said this:
Quote[/b] ]The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital . . . the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.
A: Newt Gingrich
B: Rush Limbaugh
C: Dubya
D: John F. Kennedy
For the answer, and a look at the real world of taxation economics, click here (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008374).
The quote tells me that an increase in capital gains tax directly affects the investment decisions. Tax goes up, investments go up. Whether that logic makes sense or not is up to you, but that is what your JFK qute says. It is directly related.
On the research and development end of the business world, many (not all) corporations are deciding to pocket tax decreases as al2i talked about his buddy elsewhere. They invest in foreign cars for their wives rather than get a tax break for investment in research and development. The wife bugs them for a new German car, and they buy it and lay-off Fred. No incentive to tell the wife no. Many companies are making more than enough for the top administrative people to be doing well, so they lay off their development teams. It has become too easy to drop these people, pocket the profits that those people made for them, sell out their interests, and retire.
And you really think that the less money you collect, the more money you get? Makes sense to me. Not.
Also your ill-inforrmed article says "The stock market has recovered from its implosion in Bill Clinton's last year in office...". Clinton took office in 1992. In this terms, we saw the stock market increase over 6000 points or over doubling. Recocery is measured in gains. Where is the doubling ot the NYSE in the past 5 years? It is about even with the beginning level. How can anyone say that this is a recovery. This columnist is really saying that this is good performance for a mental retard at the helm. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
W4HAY
05-15-2006, 11:48 AM
Quote[/b] ]And you really think that the less money you collect, the more money you get? Makes sense to me. Not.
Slept through Econ 301, did we?
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Go back and read the article again, but this time turn on your brain's B+ supply. Tax RATES go down, tax REVENUES go up. Kennedy proved it, Reagan proved it, the Republican legislators proved it, and Dubya proved it.
The reason deficits go up is that politicians on both sides of the aisle respond to increasing revenues by increasing spending like a kid with a stolen credit card.
We're going to have budget problems until either politicians develop some fiscal common sense and restraint, or we throw the spendthrifts out of office.
Quote[/b] (W4HAY @ May 14 2006,22:48)]Quote[/b] ]And you really think that the less money you collect, the more money you get? #Makes sense to me. #Not.
Slept through Econ 301, did we?
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Go back and read the article again, but this time turn on your brain's B+ supply. #Tax RATES go down, tax REVENUES go up. Kennedy proved it, Reagan proved it, the Republican legislators proved it, and Dubya proved it.
The reason deficits go up is that politicians on both sides of the aisle respond to increasing revenues by increasing spending like a kid with a stolen credit card.
We're going to have budget problems until either politicians develop some fiscal common sense and restraint, or we throw the spendthrifts out of office.
No, I don't know anything about that. I only understand maximizing revenue. I believe you would note that if tax rates were to drop to zero, the tax revenue would drop to zero. If tax rates were to run up to 100%, tax revenue would be very low also; near zero.
As it sits right now, the taxe rate on certain income levels are lower, much lower than what they were in the past.
Maybe I am wrong, but I thing that the economy is always changing, and that the leadership should follow certain indicators showing the direction of the economy, and respond by setting tax code parameters towards moving the economy in certain directions. With the service sector of our economy becoming more global, there should be protections in place helping the service end of our economy to prop it up in the event we need to draw in our resources at a later date for unpredicted reasons.
What do you think, and what economic elasticities are you considering when you suggest we require a tax rate decrease?
KG4CGC
05-15-2006, 02:43 PM
I heard rumors to the idea that Dubya is not worried about the deficit because Jesus will be here soon. So let's spend it up! We won't have to pay back no one!
Since the public school system is teaching little Johnny has two moms, instead of economics, many miss the point that tax cuts work, and they work every time they are tried....
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/65877.htm
ka6vec
05-16-2006, 11:31 AM
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ May 10 2006,09:29)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ May 10 2006,03:49)]Let's see, the Army couldn't get body armour for the troops in Iraq. The dollar is at new lows. #The Deficit is at record levels. #Let's take in LESS money. # That will solve the problem. #DUUUHHHH...
"The point is the preponderance of these revenues will go to upper-income people, people who make a million dollars or more," Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) said yesterday. "It's a question of priorities."
Yep, like that's been working. #They say if you put a lever that dispenses food in front of a monkey, the monkey will pull it until it chokes to death on the food. # Truly Clueless.
(*linky*) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050900651.html?nav=rss_email/components)
Same mentality that keeps the ARRL filing petitions to give 1% of Amateurs the ability to interfere with 99% of amateurs and sell it to us all as "progress".
Same mentality that laments the loss of knowledgable Amateurs and proposes to remove test elements to make that better.
Same mentality that wants to draw younger people to Amateur Radio who like computers by giving them HF access with no code test where there isn't enough bandwidth for decent data speeds.
Same mentality that seeks to solve Katrina-like emergency communications issues with more infrastructure dependent digital equipment when there was no infrastructure after Katrina.
Shall I go on?
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Liberals are the monkeys that keep pulling the Handel. when the food runs out simple solution raise taxes add another Handel so more monkeys can over indulge until they get over weight then add another handel to provide health care for the monkeys.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif & it goes on & on 73 Floyd ka6vec
w0aew
05-16-2006, 12:19 PM
Quote[/b] (ka6vec @ May 16 2006,04:31)]http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Liberals are the monkeys that keep pulling the Handel.
Only Gretel gets to pull Handel.
K0RGR
05-16-2006, 12:58 PM
Reagan and Bush Sr. proved that if you cut taxes, you increase the deficit to low Earth orbit. Dubya proved that you can cut them so much that the deficit reaches all the way to Mars. As that famous Texan, Lloyd Bentson said to Dan Quayle in their debate "...If you let me write $200 Billion worth of hot checks every year, I could give you the illusion of prosperity, too...". Sadly, GWB is writing closer to a trillion dollars in bad checks every year, and charging them to future generations.
Clinton proved you can balance the budget if you "pay as you go". Show me a Republican balanced budget since the early days of the Eisenhower administration. The Republican claim of fiscal restraint is without merit. Republicans haven't tried to eliminate the deficit since 1929, which was when it was exactly the wrong thing to do.
That was a nice oil company propaganda piece. If we completely eliminated oil company profits, it would not affect the price of gasoline. That's why gas is 14 cents a gallon this morning in Venezuela? It's $2.59 a gallon in Tijuana, but it's important to note that while Mexico has its own oil, it imports refined gasoline and diesel.
Quote[/b] ]
Clinton proved you can balance the budget if you "pay as you go". Show me a Republican balanced budget since the early days of the Eisenhower administration.
Please, let me highlight this part. Excellent post, RGR.
kc8uzl
05-16-2006, 02:23 PM
Republicans granted don't know much about budgets, but the only reason is because they are rich enough that they never really had to untill they became president. So, the idea of having to do a budget is forgien to them.
Quote[/b] (WA5OES @ May 16 2006,08:19)]Quote[/b] (ka6vec @ May 16 2006,04:31)]http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Liberals are the monkeys that keep pulling the Handel.
Only Gretel gets to pull Handel.
Greta plays Handel with a handle?? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
They say hearing goes first, but I'm certain it's spelling. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif