Reagan Speaks to Us Again

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Hitler also saved a lot of people. Want documentation? So do I.

In other words, please back up one claim. Just post one pitiful source, other than “John S.'s imagination.” It’s not a reputable academic source.

No, we were not at war, unless you mean in South America, at war against the poor people, and any clergy or journalists who dared to interfere.

Plese, learn something, ANYTHING.

He did it by raising taxes (and by the way, people did NOT sit down and refuse to work en masse because of the tax increase, contrary to libertarian orthodoxy). So now are taxes good, Hitler-lover? Don’t let your head explode trying to rationlize this.

Please, you are the most easily debunked member in this forum. That’s not a trivial distinction, either.

I would, if there were one.
[/quote]

First off you can not compare me to hitler because hitler was a socialist like yourself. Compare me to Jefferson and Washington.

It was called the Cold war, anyone with a middle school education should know about this.

Now the social security thing is going to be fun to explain to you, Before we do that we must look at the massive tax cuts Reagan gave the economy, perhaps reading this would give you a good start http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm.

See Reagan proved that if you have lower taxes revenue increases over time. Now what raising taxes does is create a jolt but causes massive damage later on. Thankfully the massive tax cuts Reagan gave us where able to offset most of the damage the tax increase caused. I do not agree with saving social security but I do understand how and why he did it.

We also have to take a look at the savings rate of the people back then, the Tax could be afforded at that time unlike increasing taxes today. Perhaps some economics 101 would help you understand this a little more.

Now read the article I gave you and we can disprove your whole the rich got the best treatment nonsense.

Now I know you won’t read because I took the liberty of looking your name up on google and found out you have been a troll on many sites where people have slapped you around with economics. You would think after being proven wrong time and time again you would realize that it is not me who is wrong but it is sadly you.

Here is a philosophy that has helped many many people its called Laissez-faire Capitalism.

This will be my last post concerning you. Perhaps a smarter liberal will come by and give me a real debate on the video I posted.

Oh and please feel free to list all the people I have had disprove me. Its a shame that my original post got deleated, it had much more information about taxes.

22

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Don’t know. I still see it.

By the way, good idea letting the claim about Marx go.[/quote]

I’m sure you’re heartbroken at the missed opportunity to propagandize, Level 4.

23

Oh yes, Hitler was such a socialist that he cracked down on and demonized organized labor, brought drastically increased private investment into the country, promoted fierce nationalism, outlawed all other political parties (including the Communists–a confusing move using your “logic”) and attacked the Soviet Union (in the likely case you don’t know, all of this is directly opposite of what socialists support). But, you don’t know anything economics, politics, or history. Why should you know anything about Hitler?

Also, I can compare you to Hitler so long as you compare me to Mao. The comparisons are equally absurd.

The Nazi party was called the “National Socialist” party. They weren’t socialist. The US is called capitalist, yet you swear up and down that we are not capitalist (until you want to give capitalism credit for our wealth). “Must-see TV” is anything but. Clearly, the name doesn’t necessarily mean anything.

Furthermore, a “cold war” is not a war. In any case, it was one in which we were the aggressor.

I don’t doubt it.

[quote] Before we do that we must look at the massive tax cuts Reagan gave the economy, perhaps reading this would give you a good start http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm.
[/quote]

Based on your posting history, I know more about Reagan’s tax policies than you do. You’re the one that needs to read up.

Oh my God, I didn’t think you were stupid enough to trot this old horse out.

Yes, they did double, increasing by 99.6%, but they also doubled over every decade since WWII. They went up 502.4% during the 40s, 134.5% during the 50s, 108.5% during the 60s. Real growth in individual income tax rates was 10.6% from 1981 to 1991, which was the lowest growth rate of any decade since 1940. Here, have some charts:

http://www.econdataus.com/recgro09.html

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf

Furthermore, Reagan increased the FICA tax rate by 25%, so some of this already modest growth, allegedly due to tax cuts, was actually due to a tax increase.

You don’t even know which end is up.

I told you your imagination is not sufficient documentation. Here, have another chart:

http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/income_top_0_1_marginal_tax.gif

After all your talk, I’m actually eager for you to prove me wrong. I don’t know what I would do if it happened.

Read a book, then we’ll talk.

Please provide examples. Anyone can say “X helped people,” and if that’s all they say, you can’t decide whether it’s right or wrong (which is of course the point–after being completely dismantled so often, you’re understandably nervous about committing yourself to a statement)

This couldn’t have been a better final post. You make the mistake of thinking a communist has anything in common with a liberal.

I would have hoped that you were man enough to admit the obvious, that you’re hopelessly confused and have no idea what you’re talking about. I guess you’re a little too emotional to let go of your fantasies. So good idea. Take your ball and run along. You’re out of your league, and you will continue to be swatted aside until you dust off a couple of brain cells and think about things a little bit.

Well, me, for one.

24

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Don’t know. I still see it.

By the way, good idea letting the claim about Marx go.[/quote]

I’m sure you’re heartbroken at the missed opportunity to propagandize, Level 4.[/quote]

Who’s propagandizing, when you can’t come up with a single sentence to support any criticism of me?

What about Marx? Did he kill someone or not?

25

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I do think that too many of you guys (not specifically the posters on this thread) take his bait. He’s an internet bully and a hypocrite, and his MO is obvious:

Control discussion by controlling the definition of terms.

Intimidate with circumlocution and sententiousness, avoiding plain speaking.

Attack the intellect and character of his opponent with every response in attempt to demoralize him and mold overall perception of both opponent and self.

Knock the crux of any argument off course by constantly focusing upon the crimes of his opponent’s side (deflecting from and certainly not excusing the atrocities spawned by his own side).

But my favorite part is that he will never, ever ever, ever let you get the last word.

He’s a Level 4 purchaser of capitalist pig products, but a Level 5 hubristic disinformation machine.

[/quote]
Possibly, but you may be giving him too much credit.

26

Wonder of wonders! John hasn’t replied! Where did he go?

27

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I do think that too many of you guys (not specifically the posters on this thread) take his bait. He’s an internet bully and a hypocrite, and his MO is obvious:

Control discussion by controlling the definition of terms.

Intimidate with circumlocution and sententiousness, avoiding plain speaking.

Attack the intellect and character of his opponent with every response in attempt to demoralize him and mold overall perception of both opponent and self.

Knock the crux of any argument off course by constantly focusing upon the crimes of his opponent’s side (deflecting from and certainly not excusing the atrocities spawned by his own side).

But my favorite part is that he will never, ever ever, ever let you get the last word.

He’s a Level 4 purchaser of capitalist pig products, but a Level 5 hubristic disinformation machine.

[/quote]
Possibly, but you may be giving him too much credit.[/quote]

Oh hey there, Tiribulus. I was greatly surprised that Cortes did not substantiate any of his claims. Since you make them as well, perhaps you tell me what you mean, and give examples? Otherwise, it would seem that you’re just talking out of your ass. In other words, it would seem like you’re projecting your failures onto me.

28

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Wonder of wonders! John hasn’t replied! Where did he go?[/quote]

Unlike you I have a job so I require sleep.

All your points where a bunch of nonsense. You have been discredited just like every other forum you go to. But just for you I will dismantle you one more time.

29

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Oh yes, Hitler was such a socialist that he cracked down on and demonized organized labor, brought drastically increased private investment into the country, promoted fierce nationalism, outlawed all other political parties (including the Communists–a confusing move using your “logic”) and attacked the Soviet Union (in the likely case you don’t know, all of this is directly opposite of what socialists support). But, you don’t know anything economics, politics, or history. Why should you know anything about Hitler?

Also, I can compare you to Hitler so long as you compare me to Mao. The comparisons are equally absurd.

The Nazi party was called the “National Socialist” party. They weren’t socialist. The US is called capitalist, yet you swear up and down that we are not capitalist (until you want to give capitalism credit for our wealth). “Must-see TV” is anything but. Clearly, the name doesn’t necessarily mean anything.

Furthermore, a “cold war” is not a war. In any case, it was one in which we were the aggressor.

I don’t doubt it.

[quote] Before we do that we must look at the massive tax cuts Reagan gave the economy, perhaps reading this would give you a good start http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm.
[/quote]

Based on your posting history, I know more about Reagan’s tax policies than you do. You’re the one that needs to read up.

Oh my God, I didn’t think you were stupid enough to trot this old horse out.

Yes, they did double, increasing by 99.6%, but they also doubled over every decade since WWII. They went up 502.4% during the 40s, 134.5% during the 50s, 108.5% during the 60s. Real growth in individual income tax rates was 10.6% from 1981 to 1991, which was the lowest growth rate of any decade since 1940. Here, have some charts:

http://www.econdataus.com/recgro09.html

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf

Furthermore, Reagan increased the FICA tax rate by 25%, so some of this already modest growth, allegedly due to tax cuts, was actually due to a tax increase.

You don’t even know which end is up.

I told you your imagination is not sufficient documentation. Here, have another chart:

http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/income_top_0_1_marginal_tax.gif

After all your talk, I’m actually eager for you to prove me wrong. I don’t know what I would do if it happened.

Read a book, then we’ll talk.

Please provide examples. Anyone can say “X helped people,” and if that’s all they say, you can’t decide whether it’s right or wrong (which is of course the point–after being completely dismantled so often, you’re understandably nervous about committing yourself to a statement)

This couldn’t have been a better final post. You make the mistake of thinking a communist has anything in common with a liberal.

I would have hoped that you were man enough to admit the obvious, that you’re hopelessly confused and have no idea what you’re talking about. I guess you’re a little too emotional to let go of your fantasies. So good idea. Take your ball and run along. You’re out of your league, and you will continue to be swatted aside until you dust off a couple of brain cells and think about things a little bit.

Well, me, for one.
[/quote]

Hitler’s party is a socialist party. Yes Socialism has private enterprise but his party was still socialist, how we are even debating this is amazing. You are self proclaimed socialist, you are more in lines with Mao and Hitler where I am in lines with Jefferson, my comparissons are logical while your’s are irrational.

Tax revenue increases over time with tax cuts while tax increases bring about a jolt. I have already explained this in my social security explanation. Again a simple economics 101 class at any community college should be more then enough to teach you about this.(Maybe you can even get mommy to pay for it).

Tax Cuts vs. Government Revenue – Mackinac Center This would be a good read for you.

With your graphs they forget one important note, inflation. Again cherry picking facts and thinking I wouldn’t call you out on them. You also forget to mention that these points in time where also bubbles that they created. Causing massive damage later on.

I would go further but you have been dismantled again and I am bored. Perhaps a liberal will come around that doesn’t try to distort facts, I doubt I will ever see one but I can keep hoping my little Mao lover.

Perhaps it is time to find another forum you have been exposed here.

30

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Wonder of wonders! John hasn’t replied! Where did he go?[/quote]

Unlike you I have a job so I require sleep.

All your points where a bunch of nonsense. You have been discredited just like every other forum you go to. But just for you I will dismantle you one more time.[/quote]

I have a job too. Where do you think I am all weekend? And this is about the hundredth time you claimed to discredit me, but for the life of me, I can’t figure out where you’ve done it.

31

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Wonder of wonders! John hasn’t replied! Where did he go?[/quote]

Unlike you I have a job so I require sleep.

All your points where a bunch of nonsense. You have been discredited just like every other forum you go to. But just for you I will dismantle you one more time.[/quote]

I have a job too. Where do you think I am all weekend? And this is about the hundredth time you claimed to discredit me, but for the life of me, I can’t figure out where you’ve done it.

[/quote]

Look right above your post. Maybe next time you debate me you won’t try to use every bubble in existence to back up your claim. You lost this debate but here is a prize for competing a picture of a kitty.

32

I thought you were going to refute me? Instead, all you do is repeat yourself: “Hitler was a socialist. Don’t ask me how, I don’t know, I’m just engaging in a pathetic attempt to dump all my ideology’s troublemakers off onto socialism.”

I agree, it’s amazing we’re still discussing this, because you have been made out to be such a fool, and yet you’re still repeating yourself. I would very much like you to show how I am like Mao and Hitler. Except, to do that, you’d probably need to know something about socialism, which you clearly don’t, as you stick your fingers in your ears and insist that Hitler was a socialist, despite doing everything the exact opposite way a socialist would do things.

Quit dodging the question.

Yes, revenues increase over time, that’s exactly the point. They increase when you cut taxes, they increase when you raise taxes, they increase when you leave tax rates alone. You are trying to give Reagan credit for something that always happens.

Which I’ve already expanded upon to include the things you left out.

I’ve had econ 101. You have not. You’ve been wrong about everything you’ve claimed.

No, actually, they don’t. That’s why I didn’t talk about the growth rates during the 70s, because they look artificially high. But had you actually read my post, you would have seen where the real growth rate was the lowest in over 50 years. I’ll say it again for you, since you have so much trouble with reading comprehension: Reagan’s terms saw the least growth in tax revenues of any president since the 1940s, SURPRISE, just like all the real economists predicted. George H. W. Bush was right: Reagan’s policies were voodoo economics. But, they do spare the delicate emotions of sensitive persons such as yourself.

On the contrary, I would LOVE for you to engage me with facts. But so far you refuse. And, the data on tax revenues from 1940 to 2007 is not cherry picking, sorry.

What bubbles? Who created? You’re incoherent. You’re so desperate to protect your juvenile fantasies from imploding that you don’t realize what you’re saying anymore.

WHERE?! You have posted ONE FACT that contradicts anything I said.

Maybe, but what do liberals have to do with me?

I know you’d love that. You wouldn’t have me around to constantly correct you.

Reality hurts. You can either be a man, and change your opinions accordingly, or you can continue to be a child and deny them. I wonder which you’ll pick?

33

What debate? I stomped you, there was no debate. A slaughter, massacre, public execution perhaps, but certainly not a debate.

Maybe spend more time reading, and less time looking up cat pictures on the Internet.

34

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

What debate? I stomped you, there was no debate. A slaughter, massacre, public execution perhaps, but certainly not a debate.

Maybe spend more time reading, and less time looking up cat pictures on the Internet.
[/quote]

You really are a slow one arn’t you. Now take your picture of a kitty and leave.

35

And he dodges the question AGAIN! Tell him what he’s won!

36

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
And he dodges the question AGAIN! Tell him what he’s won![/quote]

Dodging your questions? I answered all your questions. You have barricaded yourself with so much nonsense it is funny to watch you swing for the fences and miss every time. You are a joke my friend, just like every other forum you have ever visited you have been destroyed yet again.

The real world is going to be a bitch for you. You realize everyone thinks you are a joke right? You came into my thread and started talking nonsense. Not really sure what you are trying to prove.

You remind me of the kid who gets his ass kicked then stands up and says I won. I now realize that I am debating someone with a mental disability. So take your picture of your kitty and leave.

37

Hmmm…that’s funny, because right off the top of my head I noticed that have not addressed these:

I thought you were going to refute me? Instead, all you do is repeat yourself: “Hitler was a socialist. Don’t ask me how, I don’t know, I’m just engaging in a pathetic attempt to dump all my ideology’s troublemakers off onto socialism.”

I agree, it’s amazing we’re still discussing this, because you have been made out to be such a fool, and yet you’re still repeating yourself. I would very much like you to show how I am like Mao and Hitler. Except, to do that, you’d probably need to know something about socialism, which you clearly don’t, as you stick your fingers in your ears and insist that Hitler was a socialist, despite doing everything the exact opposite way a socialist would do things.

Quit dodging the question.

Yes, revenues increase over time, that’s exactly the point. They increase when you cut taxes, they increase when you raise taxes, they increase when you leave tax rates alone. You are trying to give Reagan credit for something that always happens.

No, actually, they don’t. That’s why I didn’t talk about the growth rates during the 70s, because they look artificially high. But had you actually read my post, you would have seen where the real growth rate was the lowest in over 50 years. I’ll say it again for you, since you have so much trouble with reading comprehension: Reagan’s terms saw the least growth in tax revenues of any president since the 1940s, SURPRISE, just like all the real economists predicted. George H. W. Bush was right: Reagan’s policies were voodoo economics. But, they do spare the delicate emotions of sensitive persons such as yourself.

On the contrary, I would LOVE for you to engage me with facts. But so far you refuse. And, the data on tax revenues from 1940 to 2007 is not cherry picking, sorry.

38

Ahahah!! I just saw this! More classic projection! Wow, right-wingers are messed up.

I’m giving you a chance to save a little face here: you say you’ve “kicked my ass,” so prove one of my claims wrong. You’d think that if I really am as wrong as you say I am, it would be easy for you to do, yet you haven’t managed it, and have simply been dodging questions for two pages.

Just ONE. With documentation please, not your usual babbling.

Who want to bet he doesn’t even try?

39

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Hmmm…that’s funny, because right off the top of my head I noticed that have not addressed these:

I thought you were going to refute me? Instead, all you do is repeat yourself: “Hitler was a socialist. Don’t ask me how, I don’t know, I’m just engaging in a pathetic attempt to dump all my ideology’s troublemakers off onto socialism.”

I agree, it’s amazing we’re still discussing this, because you have been made out to be such a fool, and yet you’re still repeating yourself. I would very much like you to show how I am like Mao and Hitler. Except, to do that, you’d probably need to know something about socialism, which you clearly don’t, as you stick your fingers in your ears and insist that Hitler was a socialist, despite doing everything the exact opposite way a socialist would do things.

Quit dodging the question.

Yes, revenues increase over time, that’s exactly the point. They increase when you cut taxes, they increase when you raise taxes, they increase when you leave tax rates alone. You are trying to give Reagan credit for something that always happens.

No, actually, they don’t. That’s why I didn’t talk about the growth rates during the 70s, because they look artificially high. But had you actually read my post, you would have seen where the real growth rate was the lowest in over 50 years. I’ll say it again for you, since you have so much trouble with reading comprehension: Reagan’s terms saw the least growth in tax revenues of any president since the 1940s, SURPRISE, just like all the real economists predicted. George H. W. Bush was right: Reagan’s policies were voodoo economics. But, they do spare the delicate emotions of sensitive persons such as yourself.

On the contrary, I would LOVE for you to engage me with facts. But so far you refuse. And, the data on tax revenues from 1940 to 2007 is not cherry picking, sorry.

Boy, how to tell him? I think you’re going to disappointed to discover that you’re the one living in a fantasy. You have not addressed one thing I’ve said. So I can only conclude, that you agree that Ronald Reagan is a mass-murderer, and have no problem with it, and that his policies resulted in the lowest tax revenues in over 60 years.

The bottom line is, you’re trying much harder to convince yourself than you are me.
[/quote]

First I will start with your last point, I am not trying to convince anyone. You are beyond reach and I have looked at the alternatives and the Free market is the only way to go, this is no reasurance topic for me.

We will then begin with taxes and by the end of this maybe you will see why raising taxes are bad.

Taxes are money taken from the private sector the fund the goverment(local, state, and federal).

First lets say that you and I pay 50% of our income in taxes, lets say that we live in the same state and there is no federal tax just state. If we raise our taxes to 60% the government gets 10% more money. But I am only making 40%. I then will start working less or my quality of work will decline, what if the state next to us has only 40% income tax? I will move there. Now the government is losing money for many different reasons depending on what I do. If I work less I get paid less they get less income, if my quality of work goes down people won’t but it that means revenue decreases. If I leave the state they lose the most revenue. And that is also not including the massive unemployment that will follow because a buisnesses greatest expense is there employees, when they need to make money we are the first to go. Driving up the amount of money the government has to pay to take care of people.

Now lets say taxes stay the same. I will either continue to work the same or I will move to a state where taxes are lower. Revenue will decrease because of the ability to vote with my feet.

Now we get to tax decreases. Our 50% tax gets cut to 25%. The government takes a hit in revenue. Now I am making more money. I will then work harder to get more because I am a selfish individual. As you and I work harder and make more money the government starts to take in more. Then I take my money and start investing in other companies in our state. This causes their buisness to exapand hiring more people at higher wages goverment takes in more money. As this happens fewer and fewer people are on the welfare programs meaning the governments cost to operate are less and less. As this continues you will reach a surplus point where the government takes in more then it spends.

Lets say you are a marathon runner and you break your leg in the middle of a run. Raising taxes is like taking morphine and getting up and running, sure you may comeplete the run but you have done a lot more damage to your body then what orginally was there. Where as lowering taxes is like you going to the doctor putting a cast on, then after its off doing rehab and coming back stronger.

If you look at your charts every time they raise taxes things go great for a 1-3 years then things begin to collapse. Where as with a tax decrease you take the pain but you fix the problems.

I have to go to work so I will read your response when I am off.

40

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I do think that too many of you guys (not specifically the posters on this thread) take his bait. He’s an internet bully and a hypocrite, and his MO is obvious:

Control discussion by controlling the definition of terms.

Intimidate with circumlocution and sententiousness, avoiding plain speaking.

Attack the intellect and character of his opponent with every response in attempt to demoralize him and mold overall perception of both opponent and self.

Knock the crux of any argument off course by constantly focusing upon the crimes of his opponent’s side (deflecting from and certainly not excusing the atrocities spawned by his own side).

But my favorite part is that he will never, ever ever, ever let you get the last word.

He’s a Level 4 purchaser of capitalist pig products, but a Level 5 hubristic disinformation machine.

[/quote]
Possibly, but you may be giving him too much credit.[/quote]

Oh hey there, Tiribulus. I was greatly surprised that Cortes did not substantiate any of his claims. Since you make them as well, perhaps you tell me what you mean, and give examples? Otherwise, it would seem that you’re just talking out of your ass. In other words, it would seem like you’re projecting your failures onto me.
[/quote]
Assume whatever you want.