Yes it is. But feel free to explain your logic in saying the point is irrevelant. Hey kid, I lived through the Reagan era. He claimed he could cut taxes, raise spending, and balance the budget. He was, of course, wrong, and history proved him wrong. It's called "the normal business cycle" - we came out of a long recession and period of high inflation (thanks to Paul Volker for whipping inflation, BTW) Not even Reagan's people believed in Supply Side economics. It's funny to find posters who still worship "voodoo economics". Here's a dose of reality - this country insbreastuted progressive taxation about 70 years ago, and our country has prospered with it. Taxing the rich at a higher rate works, history has proven it. Irrelevant - one person saying SOME critisism of Bush is unfair is meaningless without more information. The President screwed up. He didn't bother to stay informed about events in New Orleans. He appointed nitwits to top positions. The administration dithered when other state's National Guards were ready to go in and help. BUSH: "I HATE FREE SPEECH!" 1168speech, can Ask, and ye shall receive: First up: Bush 2, the Boy King's own words, from the official government website: "Look, here's the thing. Freedom to speak is a valuable... ROTFLOL Faster? Your speculation on my motives is incorrect and irrelevant - it's a weak argument, attacking the messenger. That's Incorrect - I don't ascribe foul motives to your beliefs, so feel free not to claim to know my motivations of thinking. LOL Of course you can, but it doesn't make it true. Yes you have - you said Bush did nothing wrong in handling the crisis in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Again you claim to know how I think - isn't that just revealing the weakness of your thinking? How can you claim not to make snap judgments without facts and yet you claim to know how I think? A bit of a contradition, no? Blah, blah, blah - save personal insults for somebody who cares. They only illustrate the weakness of your own convictions. Yes, really How deceptive of you - everybody pays taxes. Bottom income earners get to see 1-3 of their income go into social security, FICA, etc. That's a tax. BUSH: "I HATE FREE SPEECH!" 1165Mike Smith said something...? As usual, nothing more than the mindless, moronic poo whereupon he tries valiantly to form some sort of 'insult' but instead sounds more like... Contradicting yourself so soon? Of course tax cuts stimulate the economy. So does federal spending (Reagan and Bush loved to spend money, especially our money). The basis of your argument is flawed. Please show some evidence that tax hikes on the super rich slow the economy. I'd point out that in the one decade that most social conservatives hold up as the American ideal, the 1950s, taxes on the rich were much higher than they are now, and the minimum wage paid enough for a single worker to support his family. If high taxes on the rich slowed the economy, how come the USA had such great economic growth from the time progressive taxation was started till the present day? See, the strength of a country is not in how well the richest folks are doing, its the size and power of the middle clbutt. But again, feel free to show (and as you only make judgments after you know lots of facts, you must have your facts easily available) evidence that when we tax the rich more, it slows the economy down. Again with the personal insults? Could you save them for someone who will actually be insulted? Having a life, I don't give 1-2 a fig if you call me names, and it doesn't add to any kind of interesting or intelligent argument. Thanks!
|
