GO ON THE RECORD on the TAX Bill!

[4/15]

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

This is the third time we have tried the failed Supply Trickledown Reaganomics.

Exactly why should it work this time?

Let’s remember that in the Reagan/Daddy era, the 1st time in 1980, we gave massive tax cuts to the rich & what we got was the 1982-83 recession & to get out of this recession Reagan created “DEMAND” by spending on Defense, including Star Wars as if there would be no tomorrow that increased our National Debt by well over 400%. Then to pay for this massive Defense “DEMAND” debt, Reagan turned around & taxed everyone earning him the sobriquet of, “THE GREAT TAXER.”

.

The 2nd time we tried the failed Supply Trickledown Reaganomics was in the Bush Jr era & what we got was the 2001-2002 recession & to get out of it, Junior created “DEMAND” with the, “Housing Bubble” by lowering the Prime Interest Rate from the Clinton’s all time >7% highs to his <1% lows promoting the so called ARM (Adjustable Rate Mortgage). But then to pay for his Iraq ILLEGAL NUCLEAR WMD Oil war, Junior burst his own “Housing Bubble” by increasing the Interest Rate 18 times in 27 consecutive months that broke the Financial glass bottom of our economy in August 2008 creating the greatest recession since the Great Depression in 1929.

.

So I now ask the same question once again:

Why would Supply Trickledown Reaganomics this time?

.

Sad.

.

Best Regards

Lobato1

.


My Reference on the “THE GREAT TAXER.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/opinion/the-great-taxer.html

.

.

Because Reaganomics worked but you wouldn't know that since you could have been alive at the time while using the New York Times as a reference lol

 

[Drumcollie]

This is the third time we have tried the failed Supply Trickledown Reaganomics.

Exactly why should it work this time?

Let’s remember that in the Reagan/Daddy era, the 1st time in 1980, we gave massive tax cuts to the rich & what we got was the 1982-83 recession & to get out of this recession Reagan created “DEMAND” by spending on Defense, including Star Wars as if there would be no tomorrow that increased our National Debt by well over 400%. Then to pay for this massive Defense “DEMAND” debt, Reagan turned around & taxed everyone earning him the sobriquet of, “THE GREAT TAXER.”

.

The 2nd time we tried the failed Supply Trickledown Reaganomics was in the Bush Jr era & what we got was the 2001-2002 recession & to get out of it, Junior created “DEMAND” with the, “Housing Bubble” by lowering the Prime Interest Rate from the Clinton’s all time >7% highs to his <1% lows promoting the so called ARM (Adjustable Rate Mortgage). But then to pay for his Iraq ILLEGAL NUCLEAR WMD Oil war, Junior burst his own “Housing Bubble” by increasing the Interest Rate 18 times in 27 consecutive months that broke the Financial glass bottom of our economy in August 2008 creating the greatest recession since the Great Depression in 1929.

.

So I now ask the same question once again:

Why would Supply Trickledown Reaganomics this time?

.

Sad.

.

Best Regards

Lobato1

.


My Reference on the “THE GREAT TAXER.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/opinion/the-great-taxer.html

.

.

It's the third time it has failed you by working.

The real question is why do you want Americans to stay poor and have Obama tax policies which only benefitted the rich?

 

[Drumcollie]

View attachment 38040 View attachment 38040

What I have said is, reduction of taxes is a very necessary objective of government--that if our form of economy is to endure, we must not forget private incentives and initiative and the production that comes from it. Therefore, the objective of tax reduction is an absolutely essential one, and must be attained in its proper order.

But I believe, and I think this can be demonstrated as fact by economists, both on the basis of history and on their theoretical and abstract reasoning, that until the deficit is eliminated from our budget, there is no hope of keeping our money stable. It is bound to continue to be cheapened, and if it is cheapened, then the necessary expenses of government each year cost more because the money is worth less. Therefore, there is no end to the inflation; there is finally no end to taxation; and the eventual result would, of course, be catastrophe.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmarotta/2013/02/28/dwight-d-eisenhower-on-tax-cuts-and-a-balanced-budget/#6a45876e5047

The idea that Eisenhower supported 90 percent tax rate is an out and out liberal lie. Eisenhower only supported a short term to pay off debts...no liberal ever supports paying off the debt.

It's funny how no liberal wants to do real research and find out what Eisenhower really said.


This meme is rated:

 

[Lobato1]

It's the third time it has failed you by working.

The real question is why do you want Americans to stay poor and have Obama tax policies which only benefitted the rich?

Huh? Were you on the sauce?
For starters Prez Obama increased taxes on the rich from 35% t0 39%
.
BTW For the time being as of today, Wednesday, January 3, 2018 our economy is still booming under Prez Obama's Fiscal year 2017 budgeted programs because Republicans had shot themselves on their foot a 2nd time when they were unable to come up with a budget of their own up to a couple of weeks ago thanks to the so called "Freedom Caucus" (the previous Teabaggers), led again a 2nd time by Rafaelito Cruz, or Ted as he LUVs to call himself, that forced the incompetent Tax Cheater & ILLEGAL Pervert Commander in Chief to cut deals with the Democrats by extending Prez Obama's Fiscal Year 2017 budget that started October 1, 2016 & should have ended September 30, 2017.
.
Very, very tough huh?

.
Best Regards
Lobato1

.

 

[Lobato1]

Because Reaganomics worked but you wouldn't know that since you could have been alive at the time while using the New York Times as a reference lol

Exactly what did you not understand that Supply sided Reagonomics to create jobs gave us the 1982-83 recession??
.
WTF does The New York Times have to do with Paul Krugman's "The Great Taxer" article per se??? I could have chosen an other reference to Krugman's article because the Nobel Paul Krugman's Op-Ed articles also appear here in the conservative Houston Chronicle
.
Oh yeah, one last thought about your New York Times BS to sidetrack debating Krugman's article & where he includes how we seniors have to pay taxes a 2nd time on our Social Security pension & that I have 1st hand knowledge because I personally catch the full 100% brunt of it, made worst because those $16,000 & $32,000 break points have remained constant for the past 30 years with no adjustment for cost of living increases.
.
Best Regards
Lobato1
.

 

[Lobato1]

What I have said is, reduction of taxes is a very necessary objective of government--that if our form of economy is to endure, we must not forget private incentives and initiative and the production that comes from it. Therefore, the objective of tax reduction is an absolutely essential one, and must be attained in its proper order.

But I believe, and I think this can be demonstrated as fact by economists, both on the basis of history and on their theoretical and abstract reasoning, that until the deficit is eliminated from our budget, there is no hope of keeping our money stable. It is bound to continue to be cheapened, and if it is cheapened, then the necessary expenses of government each year cost more because the money is worth less. Therefore, there is no end to the inflation; there is finally no end to taxation; and the eventual result would, of course, be catastrophe.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmarotta/2013/02/28/dwight-d-eisenhower-on-tax-cuts-and-a-balanced-budget/#6a45876e5047

The idea that Eisenhower supported 90 percent tax rate is an out and out liberal lie. Eisenhower only supported a short term to pay off debts...no liberal ever supports paying off the debt.

It's funny how no liberal wants to do real research and find out what Eisenhower really said.


This meme is rated:
View attachment 38073

BS; It is the so called Conservative Republicans not Liberals that have been spending as there would be no tomorrow for the past 40 years.
.

Allow me to teach you Government 101;

.

Inconvenient “FACTS” Republicans ignore &/or LIE about:

Let’s start by government 101 basics in that our country budgets on a fiscal year basis from the previous year starting October 1 & ends the following fiscal year on September 30.



Ergo: Fiscal year 2009 was budgeted by the Bush Jr. administration & started on October 1, 2008 & ended September 30, 2009 with approximate a 12 Trillion buck National Debt (with a minus 2 Trillion bucks in red ink for fiscal 2009).



Now let’s debate simple numbers as follows & in round numbers plus or minus 2%:

.

Prez Bush Junior inherited a $5.5 Trillion National Debt (with a plus 230 Billion surplus for fiscal 2001) & in turn left a $12 trillion National Debt (with a minus 2 Trillion bucks in red ink for fiscal 2009), “PLUS” an “UNPAID” Iraq war for the incoming Prez Obama administration, meaning a 220% increase to the National Debt plus a three year Iraq war commitment negotiated with the Maliki government in December 2008 after Republicans lost the 2008 elections & without the consent of our Congress & much less consulting the incoming Obama Administration.



Prez Obama inherited a $12 Trillion National Debt with a minus 2 Trillion bucks of red ink for fiscal year 2009 budgeted by the Bush Jr. administration (“PLUS” a 2 trillion buck international commitment for an “UNPAID” Iraq war signed by Bush Jr in Baghdad December 2008 without Congressional approval & much less consulting the incoming Obama Administration that would have to honor those backdoor commitments) & it ended with $19.9 Trillion meaning a 50% increase to the National Debt



Some other interesting facts you may want to know:



The Reagan/Daddy team encountered a total historical National Debt of $950 billion in 1980 Dollars & left a $4.5 Trillion debt for the incoming Clinton administration meaning a staggering 474% increase to the National Debt.

.

Clinton inherited a $4.5 Trillion National Debt & left a $5.5 Trillion debt for the Prez Bush Junior administration (& plus 200 billion surplus for fiscal 2001), meaning a 22% increase to the National Debt.

.
.

.

.

Check it out the history of our National Debt yourself,

My Reference: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current



Best Regards
Lobato1 .

 

[Lobato1]

What I have said is, reduction of taxes is a very necessary objective of government--that if our form of economy is to endure, we must not forget private incentives and initiative and the production that comes from it. Therefore, the objective of tax reduction is an absolutely essential one, and must be attained in its proper order.

But I believe, and I think this can be demonstrated as fact by economists, both on the basis of history and on their theoretical and abstract reasoning, that until the deficit is eliminated from our budget, there is no hope of keeping our money stable. It is bound to continue to be cheapened, and if it is cheapened, then the necessary expenses of government each year cost more because the money is worth less. Therefore, there is no end to the inflation; there is finally no end to taxation; and the eventual result would, of course, be catastrophe.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmarotta/2013/02/28/dwight-d-eisenhower-on-tax-cuts-and-a-balanced-budget/#6a45876e5047

The idea that Eisenhower supported 90 percent tax rate is an out and out liberal lie. Eisenhower only supported a short term to pay off debts...no liberal ever supports paying off the debt.

It's funny how no liberal wants to do real research and find out what Eisenhower really said.


This meme is rated:
View attachment 38073

DEFICITS:

That few & much less the Teabaggers understand about the difference between the Total National Debt versus Deficits & these Deficits impact on the Obama Administration due to the imposition of "THREE" more years to December 2011 of an unpaid Iraq war.

..

& lets remember that this estimated "$TWO" Trillion buck commitment that the incoming Prez Obama administration would have to honor was negotiated with the Maliki government in December 2008 after Republicans had lost the 2008 elections & it was without the consent of our Congress & much less consulting the incoming Obama Administration.

.
You can thank me now for educating you.

.


.

BTW: Fiscal 2009 budgeted by the Bushistas ended with a National Debt of well over $14 Trillion bucks or red ink

.

Best Regards
Lobato1.
.
.

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

Exactly what did you not understand that Supply sided Reagonomics to create jobs gave us the 1982-83 recession??
.
WTF does The New York Times have to do with Paul Krugman's "The Great Taxer" article per se??? I could have chosen an other reference to Krugman's article because the Nobel Paul Krugman's Op-Ed articles also appear here in the conservative Houston Chronicle
.
Oh yeah, one last thought about your New York Times BS to sidetrack debating Krugman's article & where he includes how we seniors have to pay taxes a 2nd time on our Social Security pension & that I have 1st hand knowledge because I personally catch the full 100% brunt of it, made worst because those $16,000 & $32,000 break points have remained constant for the past 30 years with no adjustment for cost of living increases.
.
Best Regards
Lobato1
.View attachment 38125

1. you are not a senior unless you are talking about High School
2.I was in my early 20's when Reagan was president. I experienced Reaganomics as a poor person. I lived like a rich man during Reagan

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

DEFICITS:

That few & much less the Teabaggers understand about the difference between the Total National Debt versus Deficits & these Deficits impact on the Obama Administration due to the imposition of "THREE" more years to December 2011 of an unpaid Iraq war.

..

& lets remember that this estimated "$TWO" Trillion buck commitment that the incoming Prez Obama administration would have to honor was negotiated with the Maliki government in December 2008 after Republicans had lost the 2008 elections & it was without the consent of our Congress & much less consulting the incoming Obama Administration.

.
You can thank me now for educating you.

.


.

BTW: Fiscal 2009 budgeted by the Bushistas ended with a National Debt of well over $14 Trillion bucks or red ink

.

Best Regards
Lobato1.
.
.View attachment 38127

OMG the myth of Clinton had a surplus. lol
All Clinton did was shift money fro social security into the General Fund to appear to have had a surplus. lol
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-bill-clinton-didnt-balance-budget

 

[Lobato1]

OMG the myth of Clinton had a surplus. lol
All Clinton did was shift money fro social security into the General Fund to appear to have had a surplus. lol
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-bill-clinton-didnt-balance-budget

English ain't your 1st language & you were not able to understand the reference you have posted huh? & pardon my Texan.
.
For starters that reference is dated October 1998 & Clinton's Fiscal year 1999 ended with a balanced budget, Clinton's Fiscal Year 2000 ended with a small surplus & Clinton's Fiscal Year 2001 ended with a $230 Billion buck surplus.
.
As for your contentions of the Reagan years, were you on the sauce again? What was it? Poor or rich? & in your moronic words not mine & I quote you in part verbatim:
.
"I experienced Reaganomics as a poor person.
or
I lived like a rich man during Reagan"
.
.
BTW:
Since you have opted to become this forum's buffoon with your rules about what a senior is:
From Roget's Thesaurus;
Senior (noun)
noun someone of advanced years

• pensioner
• retiree
• senior
• elderly person

• geriatric
• golden-ager
• old fogey

• old person
• old-age pensioner
• old-timer

• • oldster
• patriarch
• retired person

.
Best Regards
Lobato1
.
.

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

English ain't your 1st language & you were not able to understand the reference you have posted huh? & pardon my Texan.
.
For starters that reference is dated October 1998 & Clinton's Fiscal year 1999 ended with a balanced budget, Clinton's Fiscal Year 2000 ended with a small surplus & Clinton's Fiscal Year 2001 ended with a $230 Billion buck surplus.
.
As for your contentions of the Reagan years, were you on the sauce again? What was it? Poor or rich? & in your moronic words not mine & I quote you in part verbatim:
.
"I experienced Reaganomics as a poor person.
or
I lived like a rich man during Reagan"
.
.
BTW:
Since you have opted to become this forum's buffoon with your rules about what a senior is:
From Roget's Thesaurus;
Senior (noun)
noun someone of advanced years

• pensioner
• retiree
• senior
• elderly person

• geriatric
• golden-ager
• old fogey

• old person
• old-age pensioner
• old-timer

• • oldster
• patriarch
• retired person

.
Best Regards
Lobato1
.
.

View attachment 38134

I see you don't know how to make a post either. all that wasted bullshit
And sonny English is my first language you pompous horses ass.
You are a bit confused about what I posted. go to school ask your teacher for help.

 

[Lobato1]

I see you don't know how to make a post either. all that wasted bullshit
And sonny English is my first language you pompous horses ass.
You are a bit confused about what I posted. go to school ask your teacher for help.

So?
What was it?

.
"I experienced Reaganomics as a poor person.
or
I lived like a rich man during Reagan"
.
.
ROTFLMAO
.
Best Regards
Lobato1
.
.

 

[redtide]

Huh? Were you on the sauce?
For starters Prez Obama increased taxes on the rich from 35% t0 39%
.
BTW For the time being as of today, Wednesday, January 3, 2018 our economy is still booming under Prez Obama's Fiscal year 2017 budgeted programs because Republicans had shot themselves on their foot a 2nd time when they were unable to come up with a budget of their own up to a couple of weeks ago thanks to the so called "Freedom Caucus" (the previous Teabaggers), led again a 2nd time by Rafaelito Cruz, or Ted as he LUVs to call himself, that forced the incompetent Tax Cheater & ILLEGAL Pervert Commander in Chief to cut deals with the Democrats by extending Prez Obama's Fiscal Year 2017 budget that started October 1, 2016 & should have ended September 30, 2017.
.
Very, very tough huh?

.
Best Regards
Lobato1

View attachment 38123 .

wrong, many of obie's punitive regulations were undone freeing up business to hire and produce. Thank goodness for Trump

 

[Lobato1]

wrong, many of obie's punitive regulations were undone freeing up business to hire and produce. Thank goodness for Trump

Give a valid url reference to your contentions.
I have given mine.
BTW
Let's remember that on February 2009 unemployment was skyrocketing past 8.3% versus February 2017 with unemployment plunging below 4.6%.
.
Best Regards
Lobato1
.

 

[Lobato1]

wrong, many of obie's punitive regulations were undone freeing up business to hire and produce. Thank goodness for Trump

On this post, everything is right except for the February 2009 unemployment rate that was skyrocketing past 8.3% & not 10%, although in did in factpeak at 10%.
Best Regards
Lobato1
.
.

 

[Dawg]

View attachment 38040 View attachment 38040

back when gas wasn't 18 cent a gallon you never pumped

 

[Dawg]

On this post, everything is right except for the February 2009 unemployment rate that was skyrocketing past 8.3% & not 10%, although in did in factpeak at 10%.
Best Regards
Lobato1
.
.View attachment 38187

and it only cost taxpayers $9trillion
hellofa deal

unemployed never got close to 10%, not even close............especially if the 10's of 1000's of Muslims Obama brought to America

 

[Lobato1]

and it only cost taxpayers $9trillion
hellofa deal

unemployed never got close to 10%, not even close............especially if the 10's of 1000's of Muslims Obama brought to America

You for one are clueless spewing unadulterated BS when you can't even understand a simple graph clearly showing that the unemployment rate did in fact reached 10%.
.
The same can be said about your ignorance about how our country budgets on a Fiscal Year basis & that I have given references to each & all of my contention starting with the fact that the Bushista Fiscal Year 2009 ended with well over $14 Trillion bucks of red ink
"PLUS"
"$TWO" Trillion buck commitment that the incoming Prez Obama administration would have to honor that was negotiated with the Maliki government in December 2008 after Republicans had lost the 2008 elections & this agreement was without the consent of our Congress & much less consulting the incoming Obama Administration.
.
Sad.
.
Best Regards
Lobato1
.
.




.

 

[Dawg]

English ain't your 1st language & you were not able to understand the reference you have posted huh? & pardon my Texan.
.
For starters that reference is dated October 1998 & Clinton's Fiscal year 1999 ended with a balanced budget, Clinton's Fiscal Year 2000 ended with a small surplus & Clinton's Fiscal Year 2001 ended with a $230 Billion buck surplus.
.
As for your contentions of the Reagan years, were you on the sauce again? What was it? Poor or rich? & in your moronic words not mine & I quote you in part verbatim:
.
"I experienced Reaganomics as a poor person.
or
I lived like a rich man during Reagan"
.
.
BTW:
Since you have opted to become this forum's buffoon with your rules about what a senior is:
From Roget's Thesaurus;
Senior (noun)
noun someone of advanced years

• pensioner
• retiree
• senior
• elderly person

• geriatric
• golden-ager
• old fogey

• old person
• old-age pensioner
• old-timer

• • oldster
• patriarch
• retired person

.
Best Regards
Lobato1
.
.

View attachment 38134

SOS, name calling and ending with

Best Regards [sic]