Why are you voting for whoever for President?

[LaFireEducator]

He has asked for returning to Clinton era tax levels during several of the debt limit negotiations. The GOP has immediately rejected them.

As one post has already stated, he did support tax increases on all taxpayers.

This is especially critical now that Obama wants to hit high-income taxpayers again, after just getting 4 1/2% more out of them.

By the way, I might support these tax increases if all government spending, except for spending associatted with the military and wars, were immediattly reset to Clinton era spending.

[scfire86]

By the way, I might support these tax increases if all government spending, except for spending associatted with the military and wars, were immediattly reset to Clinton era spending.

I would agree with this if you are also willing to pay higher taxes to support the current levels for those items. Otherwise, this is yet another one of your continued idiotic statements.

[FyredUp]

I would agree with this if you are also willing to pay higher taxes to support the current levels for those items. Otherwise, this is yet another one of your continued idiotic statements.

At least it was more applicable that snotty comments about unicorns and rednecks.

[LaFireEducator]

I would agree with this if you are also willing to pay higher taxes to support the current levels for those items. Otherwise, this is yet another one of your continued idiotic statements.

I would have no issues paying higher taxes if spending, especially welfare, entitlements and all of the other social safety net crap was reduced to Clinton era expenditures.

And that includes unemployment being reduced to an absolute maximum of 56 weeks.

I have no desire to pay higher taxes to suppiort the freeloaders that currently ride the social safety net.

[scfire86]

I have no desire to pay higher taxes to suppiort the freeloaders that currently ride the social safety net.

What makes you believe the good citizens of Bossier Parish like paying taxes for your phony baloney Pub Ed job? A job we both know could go away tomorrow and no one would notice.

I'm certain there are communities that don't have your position in their locale and I'm also certain the words, "we need a Pub Ed Director" have never been muttered.

[LaFireEducator]

What makes you believe the good citizens of Bossier Parish like paying taxes for your phony baloney Pub Ed job? A job we both know could go away tomorrow and no one would notice.

I'm certain there are communities that don't have your position in their locale and I'm also certain the words, "we need a Pub Ed Director" have never been muttered.

I have no idea what any of that has to do with the subject at hand.

I guess you don't want to continue to discuss Obumba's assualt on the rich.

[scfire86]

I have no idea what any of that has to do with the subject at hand.

Of course you don't. You don't many ideas about anything.

I guess you don't want to continue to discuss Obumba's assualt on the rich.

Then you must have hated Reagan's assault on the rich, and you must consider Eisenhower a communist when their taxation policy is stacked next to Obama's.

[LaFireEducator]

Of course you don't. You don't many ideas about anything.

Funny thing is I have plenty of ideas. I guess I'm just not into assaulting one's character.


Then you must have hated Reagan's assault on the rich, and you must consider Eisenhower a communist when their taxation policy is stacked next to Obama's.

Actually, yes.

The rich are the drivers of the economy. Taxing them at even the current rate of 40%, especially when you add in state income taxes is not only bad policy but it's also immoral. The government simply has no ... none ..nada ... rights to that big of a slice of somebody's income.

It's simply not, nor ever should be, the role of the rich to bankroll social programs for the poor. In fact, it shouldn't even be the role of government.

Unfortunately, the poor have gotten so used to living on government handouts as compared to taking responsibility for their own lives we'll likely never be able to turn back the clock.

I guess I just find it funny that your buddy Obama can't make the tax cuts he promised when the reps gave him the tax increase on the rich, and in fact he actually wants more.

Actually, it's more tragic than funny.

[Spencer534]

So when should economic stimulus be ceased if recovery is not occurring? Does Hayek state that?

When the recovery starts, stimulus should definitely end, but Hayek is against any large stimulus.

Not what you said. Reread your original post. I responded to it, not what you meant to say. .

This is what I said originally: "Yes the deficit is 70% of 2008 & 2009, but that was the first stimulus more than anything else. The deficit is still 170% more than any other Bush year."
This is what I said the second time: "As I stated, the current deficit is 70% of 2008, but the current deficit is 170% of the other years under Bush."
How is my meaning different?

Okay. I support those policies.

And I would support raising taxes on everyone only as a compromise if the spending cuts were 10 to 1. Why do you support raising taxes?

This line from that website pretty much shoots down your claims that he was opposed to public employees being able to collectively bargain:

One can't say he was opposed to public employee collective bargaining because there are no references to him supporting it. I would submit that in his years as president he never pushed to ban or not allow that ability. Had he done so, I would agree with you, but he did not. I posted an excerpt from a letter he wrote that states he was indeed opposed to strikes by public employees. He referred to them as "militant" actions. So really, your bullet points are not accurate given the excerpt I cited from the page you posted.

While you can make a case his views on collective bargaining and government employee unions were only related to federal employees, you cannot make a case that the library, its website and the documents contained within show my bullet points to be inaccurate. The letter you refer to is in the material from the library. You had stated in a previous post that he was for collective bargaining. There is absolutely no evidence to show this. I know it is difficult, but the words you are looking for are "I was wrong".

Please dont take this as I am an FDR hater. I completely disagree with his expansion of the government, but he was a great wartime leader (the most important job a president can have) and his positive attitude as a tenet of leadership helped bring our country through some of its roughest days.

[Spencer534]

Then you must have hated Reagan's assault on the rich, and you must consider Eisenhower a communist when their taxation policy is stacked next to Obama's.

There was a higher tax rate, but there was no assault. Obama has opened a class war and divided the country. His statements such as "it is time they pay their fair share" which are completely inaccurate, have led low-information voters to buy that crap hook, line, and sinker.

[Spencer534]

In fact, it shouldn't even be the role of government.

I would say it is not the role of the federal government, but there needs to be safety nets for people truly in trouble until they can get back on their feet.

[scfire86]

Funny thing is I have plenty of ideas. I guess I'm just not into assaulting one's character.

One must have character in order for it to be assaulted.

Actually, yes.

The rich are the drivers of the economy. Taxing them at even the current rate of 40%, especially when you add in state income taxes is not only bad policy but it's also immoral. The government simply has no ... none ..nada ... rights to that big of a slice of somebody's income.

Only if one believes the government plays no role in helping that individual acquire wealth.

It's simply not, nor ever should be, the role of the rich to bankroll social programs for the poor. In fact, it shouldn't even be the role of government.

Aahhh....let them eat cake. The cute notion that private charity can or ever will provide for the vulnerable in society has been disproven by bitter experience ever since Dickensian Britain. Do we really need to learn that lesson again? Well, apparently, some of us do.

Unfortunately, the poor have gotten so used to living on government handouts as compared to taking responsibility for their own lives we'll likely never be able to turn back the clock.

Does that include the children who were unfortunate enough to be born to idiot parents?

I guess I just find it funny that your buddy Obama can't make the tax cuts he promised when the reps gave him the tax increase on the rich, and in fact he actually wants more.

What's even funnier is the tax cuts you so righteously embrace are one of the very big reasons the US is now a debtor nation.

Actually, it's more tragic than funny.

In your case it is just the opposite.

[scfire86]

When the recovery starts, stimulus should definitely end, but Hayek is against any large stimulus.

The UN recognizes approximately 200 nations. Can you point to one that has totally embraced Hayek's ideals and tell us whether or not the citizens of that country are better or worse off than we are in the US? The only nation that comes to mind with a government that is totally untaxed is Somalia. And last I heard no one was willing to invest in timeshares along their coastline. Which I'm told by a former neighbor who was there during the Blackhawk Down episode is one of the most beautiful beaches he's ever seen.

This is what I said originally: "Yes the deficit is 70% of 2008 & 2009, but that was the first stimulus more than anything else. The deficit is still 170% more than any other Bush year."
This is what I said the second time: "As I stated, the current deficit is 70% of 2008, but the current deficit is 170% of the other years under Bush."
How is my meaning different?

They're both wrong.

And I would support raising taxes on everyone only as a compromise if the spending cuts were 10 to 1. Why do you support raising taxes?

Because research has shown the US was a much healthier economy when the top marginal tax rate was hovering around 50%.

While you can make a case his views on collective bargaining and government employee unions were only related to federal employees, you cannot make a case that the library, its website and the documents contained within show my bullet points to be inaccurate. The letter you refer to is in the material from the library. You had stated in a previous post that he was for collective bargaining. There is absolutely no evidence to show this. I know it is difficult, but the words you are looking for are "I was wrong".

I can make the case that he didn't oppose collective bargaining for public employees based upon his writings and the website you linked. You claimed he opposed union organization for public employees. I'll admit I was wrong when you do the same.

Please dont take this as I am an FDR hater. I completely disagree with his expansion of the government, but he was a great wartime leader (the most important job a president can have) and his positive attitude as a tenet of leadership helped bring our country through some of its roughest days.

I agree with his expansion of government. In fact I can state unequivocally it was that expansion that kept the US from total collapse.

There was a higher tax rate, but there was no assault. Obama has opened a class war and divided the country. His statements such as "it is time they pay their fair share" which are completely inaccurate, have led low-information voters to buy that crap hook, line, and sinker.

Given the rhetoric from conservatives towards organized labor I can easily state they are also engaging in class warfare. The target being the working class. In fact, given that conservative economic policies have seen aggregate wealth shift upward over the last three decades I can make the case that in the battle of class warfare, the upper 1% is clearly winning. Can you point to one conservative fiscal policy in the last 30 years that benefited the middle class MORE than the upper 1% and corporate interests? I'll help you. There are none.

[scfire86]

Deleted by user.

[FyredUp]

Deleted by user.

Is there a particular reason why you can't remain in topic? You have continuously fired snotty shot after snotty personal attack here. If you want a serious discourse instead of appearing as an angry troll why can't you just post your views without those additional remarks? LA, spencer and I have remained on topic only to have you respond with attacks, snotty comments, and nonsense, that is irrelevant to the topic. if you don't want to be labeled as a troll then stop acting like one.

[scfire86]

Is there a particular reason why you can't remain in topic? You have continuously fired snotty shot after snotty personal attack here. If you want a serious discourse instead of appearing as an angry troll why can't you just post your views without those additional remarks? LA, spencer and I have remained on topic only to have you respond with attacks, snotty comments, and nonsense, that is irrelevant to the topic. if you don't want to be labeled as a troll then stop acting like one.

I am on topic and am not angry at all. In fact it is just the opposite. One can see the spittle flying off the lips of folks like LAFE in his responses. If anything I'm educating him by enlightening his hypocrisy. He should be thanking me.

[FyredUp]

I am on topic and am not angry at all. In fact it is just the opposite. One can see the spittle flying off the lips of folks like LAFE in his responses. If anything I'm educating him by enlightening his hypocrisy. He should be thanking me.

Sorry not true, you brought Unicorns and myths into your response to me, you have religiously fired unnecessary snotty and stupid remarks at LA all across these boards and your comments here were not precipitated by any attacks on you.

Again, if you don't want to be thought of as a troll stop acting like one.

[LaFireEducator]

I am on topic and am not angry at all. In fact it is just the opposite. One can see the spittle flying off the lips of folks like LAFE in his responses. If anything I'm educating him by enlightening his hypocrisy. He should be thanking me.

And what hypocrisy is that?

Government should not be taking care of people's needs from cradle to grave. Housing, food stamps, heat and electric and now cell phones, not to mention 96 ... Ninety-friggin-Six ... weeks of umeployment, and Obumba still wants more. Sorry, but while I may agree that in certain circumstances it is perfectly resonable for government to provide LIMITED SHORT-TERM ASSISTANCE to people it is not the role of government to provide long-term LIFESTYLE assistance, except in the c ase of children and elderly.

You choose to not graduate high school. Too bad, suck it up and don't expect me to help you. Decided not to use bit rth control and you ahd a baby at 16. Then another one at 18. Ain't my damn problem. You drank, did coke, crack or decided that committing crime was a good choice ... Again ... Ain't my issue.

Government's job is to provide for the common good - highways, border security, air traffic control and military as examples, and LIMITED regulation, not cradle to grave lifestyle support and certainly not the scope of regulation loved by this administration.

Lowe rates for the rich. Make the 48% that don't pay taxes now pay taxes. Get rid of uneeded departments like Education and give a portion of the budget to the states where it will be truly effective. And spend a whole lot less, especially in the area of social welfare and regulation. it's really a very simple formula.

[scfire86]

Government's job is to provide for the common good - highways, border security, air traffic control and military as examples, and LIMITED regulation, not cradle to grave lifestyle support and certainly not the scope of regulation loved by this administration.

Lowe rates for the rich. Make the 48% that don't pay taxes now pay taxes. Get rid of uneeded departments like Education and give a portion of the budget to the states where it will be truly effective. And spend a whole lot less, especially in the area of social welfare and regulation. it's really a very simple formula.

Really? Where in their is the requirement the taxpayer should pay for a phony baloney Pub Ed job?

Funny that you believe government shouldn't be providing cradle to grave programs. Yet conservatives had no problem supporting a candidate just a few months ago who did just that in his home state.

You think those you disparage have it so well. Quit your job and join them. Then get back to us how great you have it. I promise to act jealous.

[scfire86]

Sorry not true, you brought Unicorns and myths into your response to me, you have religiously fired unnecessary snotty and stupid remarks at LA all across these boards and your comments here were not precipitated by any attacks on you.

Again, if you don't want to be thought of as a troll stop acting like one.

Give the victimization schtick a rest. It doesn't suit you.