US unemployment rises. Again.

So your theory has never actually worked, but you guarantee it will next time?

No.... Actually, supply side theory did work, and it worked very well. We had the longest period of peacetime prosperity in our history. More consecutive months of job growth and unemployment decline than ever before, inflation brought into check, the 'Carter Malaise' ended, interest rates lowered, housing starts increased...on and on... virtually every economic indicator improved.
 
I understand and agree with you totally.

I might have missed the point.

I do know for a fact that there are some families living out of their cars and tents in different places in the US.

Many of those people are there via lifestyle choices of drugs and alcohol-those that want/need help can get it and that was my point.
 
No.... Actually, supply side theory did work, and it worked very well. We had the longest period of peacetime prosperity in our history. More consecutive months of job growth and unemployment decline than ever before, inflation brought into check, the 'Carter Malaise' ended, interest rates lowered, housing starts increased...on and on... virtually every economic indicator improved.



If that's true, it shouldn't be a problem for you to provide some verifiable proof, should it?
 
Perhaps I should rename you LIE-ability, except you suck at lying, too. It's so easy to disprove your pathetic falsehoods.




Here's your claim, which was false:







As the facts show, you are ignorant, and you compound your ignorance with lying.


An income tax amendment to the Constitution was first proposed by Senator Norris Brown of Nebraska. He submitted two proposals, Senate Resolutions Nos. 25 and 39. The amendment proposal finally accepted was Senate Joint Resolution No. 40, introduced by Senator Nelson W. Aldrich of Rhode Island, the Senate majority leader and Finance Committee Chairman...On July 12, 1909, the resolution proposing the Sixteenth Amendment was passed by the Sixty-first Congress and submitted to the state legislatures.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteen...s_Constitution




Note, lying Liability, that Senators Brown and Aldrich were both Republicans . The 61st Congress was dominated by Republican majorities in both houses. The President at the time was William Howard Taft, another Republican. The 16th's ratification was certified by his Secretary of State, Philander Knox, another Republican.


Wilson succeeded Taft.


History lesson for you, idiot: All three candidates, including Taft, the Republican, and Teddy Roosevelt, who ran as a Progressive, advocated an income tax, which was implemented during Wilson's first term.


Now, explain again how Woodrow Wilson "did" the 16th Amendment, LIE-ability.


Have fun calling Teddy Roosevelt a socialist, you fucking moron, although I'm sure that by your twisted standard, he probably was.



I'm sure you learned a lot yesterday.

Thank me.

You should also listen to Dixie, STY, bravo, Damn Yankee, ID, charver, Threedee, and of course The Great Cap't Billy a lot more. (Sorry if I left someone out.)

You have two ears, and one mouth. You would do a lot better if you listened twice as much as you spoke.

I know it's hard for a young under educated marxist, but you may learn something.

Now stop asking , or telling me to do your homework for you.
 
I'm sure you learned a lot yesterday. Thank me. You should also listen to Dixie, STY, bravo, Damn Yankee, ID, charver, Threedee, and of course The Great Cap't Billy a lot more. (Sorry if I left someone out.) You have two ears, and one mouth. You would do a lot better if you listened twice as much as you spoke. I know it's hard for a young under educated marxist, but you may learn something. Now stop asking , or telling me to do your homework for you.

OK, fair enough. I'll give thanks where thanks are due.





Thanks, Liability, for being on the other side.
 
Many of those people are there via lifestyle choices of drugs and alcohol-those that want/need help can get it and that was my point.

You're right, and it's not a big deal.

I didn't mean anything by it.

I got into the discussion at the end, and I do enjoy your opinion and posts as well.

I'd hate for you to think I was being negative.
 
You're right, and it's not a big deal.

I didn't mean anything by it.

I got into the discussion at the end, and I do enjoy your opinion and posts as well.

I'd hate for you to think I was being negative.

I did not think you were being negative, you are as entitled to your thoughts and opinions like the rest of us...you know what they say about us assholes...we all have one :D

Besides, you are correct that there are homeless-some of which are there due to unforeseen circumstances, but I dare say they are the exception not the rule. I also submit that for those who want real help it is there for them.
 
OK, fair enough. I'll give thanks where thanks are due.





Thanks, Liability, for being on the other side.

Fair enough.

Please keep in mind that I'm not a republican, and I know that the reps are responsible for much of what we have to deal with today.

I've been just as harsh with the republican party (Bush) as the dems for the last 40+ years.

They've traded our liberty for security and helped make us into the police state we have to live with today.
 
We get it.... YOU don't! Union Labor and Collective Bargaining have driven the manufacturing sector completely out of this country. This began happening long before the eight years of Reagan, which incidentally, are the ONLY eight years in American history supply-side economic strategies have been tried. It resulted in nearly 30 years of prosperity and economic growth, in spite of dismantling policies from every administration to follow.

You Libtards like to lump Bush Sr. and GW in with Ronnie, as a supply-sider, but that is completely inaccurate. H.W. Bush was NOT a supply-sider, in fact, he coined the phrase "Voodoo Economics" to describe the philosophy, and his son knew even less about it.

"Starting with Reagan in 1980, the Republican Party embraced and implemented "supply-side" economics. The central theory of supply-side economics was politically an easy sell: if the government cuts tax rates – especially on the wealthy – the wealthy will feel more inclined to earn more money. This will encourage the wealthy to make even more money. This will lead to higher tax revenue, which will more than offset the loss of revenue from the initial tax cuts. The central problem is no matter how you look at the results, they didn’t work as advertised.

Reagan started the implementation in 1981, cutting upper-income taxes from roughly 70% to 50%. But a funny thing happened. Tax revenues were stagnant for 4 years from 1981 to 1984. For the years 1981-1984, revenues from individual taxpayers were (in billions) $285, $297, $288 and $298, (click on historical budget data) respectively. While the double-dip recession is partially responsible for the first two years, the economy came out of the recession November 1982. Yet for two more years, the rich didn’t feel unencumbered enough to increase their work efforts. At the same time, discretionary spending increased from $307 billion to $379 billion – an increase of 29%. This discrepancy between revenues and receipts then continued for the rest of Reagan’s presidency. Here is a chart from the St. Loius Federal Reserve that shows the discrepancy. Expenditures are blue and receipts are red.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/13/280505/-The-Complete-Failure-of-Supply-Side-Economics


There are three problems with Reagan’s overall economic policy. The first is the massive amount of debt he incurred for economic growth (which we’ll get too in a minute). The second was Reagan did not implement the other side of conservative fiscal policy – cutting spending. The third problem was the US did not achieve a super-human rate of national product growth. The median quarterly change in GDP during Reagan’s tenure was 3.85%. This is a good rate of growth. But the cost was substantial because to achieve this growth Reagan used debt which the US has not paid off.

Bush 43 has attempted the same policy with the exact same result. Bush 43 has cut taxes twice. Yet revenue from individual taxpayers has not increased sufficiently to make-up for the loss in revenue. Revenue from individual taxpayers was $994 billion in 2001 and $1.08 trillion in the third quarter of 2006. However, Bush 43 has increased discretionary spending from $649 billion in 2001 to $967 billion in 2005. As a result, the gap between federal revenue and spending is similar to Reagan’s graph."

If supply side economics had worked we wouldn't be in the mess we're in. To blame it on 12% of the population that is unionized is a big part of the corporate propaganda that has you brainwashed. Don't you ever get tired of being a toadie for multinational corporate greed?
 
30 yrs of conservative 'free market' ideology has driven this country to the brink of disaster.
Your 'socialism' fears are based on the corporate propaganda that is responsible for your stupidity.

how so? explain how liberal socialistic politicies would help this country as compared to these so called conservative free market ideas you speakj of.
 
Back
Top