[GMAN]

Originally Posted by MichiganDriver

Hey G. You are obviously a smart guy and that's why your ultra conservative posts get under my skin just a little. You can't honestly believe that trickle down economics worked even a little can you?

Picture this. You and me are in a dark alley. I tell you that you should give me mucho greenbacks and in return I will trickle down a mean mess o coins on you. Are you dumb enough to fall for that? I doubt it. So why would you believe it just because someone with exceptional oratory skills lays that pile of crap on you? Reagan had a gift for oratory but Reagan did more to ruin this country than anyone else in our lifetimes.

For one thing Reagan talked about small government and then proceeded to double the national debt. It was about $1T when he took office and it was $2T when he left. There's a disconnect there.

Sure Reagan cut taxes and had he done so while simultaneously cutting expenses I would probably be his biggest fan. But he didn't do that! Instead of practicing what he preached he introduced America to the national credit card. Sure we seemed to be living better, passing costs on to future generations can be a beautiful thing. lol

I am a fiscal conservative. I believe in acting responsibly and paying my bills without handouts. I'm sorry but Ronald Reagan believed in borrowing from future generations so that his generation could live beyond their means and in the 90s we had to pay the bill. Dubya tried to be Reagan 2 and now we have to pay those bills.

Being conservative used to imply being fiscally responsible but starting in 1980 we had a reckless national economics experiment called "trickle down economics" and the country veered off on the path of living beyond our means and sticking future generations with the bill. I don't even have kids and I can't stomach that. How can parents stomach that for an instant? I don't get it.

I never thought of myself as an ultra conservative, just a conservative. I don't know why my being conservative would bother you if you are a fiscal conservative.

Trickle down did work, to an extent. The problem with trickle down is that it didn't go far enough. We all pay too much in taxes, not just the wealthy. The idea of trickle down economics is that you give the higher earners tax discounts and they will invest money that will provide more jobs and that will actually generate more tax revenue. Contrary to what some would like to believe, it did work. We came out of runaway inflation and interest rates which exceeded 21% under Carter. Reagan managed to get interest rates down along with slowing inflation. Some of that could have come from the fact that people didn't have confidence in Carter, but liked what Reagan said. The economy did prosper under Reagan. Reagan did increase spending, mostly on defense after Carter gutted our military. Reagan increased spending to the point that the Soviets could not keep up and it basically bankrupted them. That is the reason that they changed toward a more free market economy. I did very well under Reagan. I am curious as to why you think that Reagan ruined our country?

The problems we see today didn't start with Reagan. We have a government that has gotten out of control. We continue to elect irresponsible politicians to represent us. Many of those who are elected have never worked a real job in their lives. We even elected a president that has never held a real job, but managed to take over some of the largest segments of corporate America.

I think that we would be much better off in this country if we elected average citizens. We need to have people who have actually worked for a living. We need to elect people who have had to meet a payroll. There seems to be a real disconnect between our politicians and reality. I believe we have this from both parties. If Obama's spending continues we will have no choice but to raise taxes. In fact, he has put taxes in place that won't kick in until 2012. On the other hand, we cannot continue to lower taxes without cutting spending and the size of government.

We need to either make more responsible decisions as a country, or go bankrupt. Many who call them conservatives are in reality liberal. People are finally beginning to pay attention. In the private sector, when business is soft, we don't increase spending and debt. We cut costs, such as payroll. I would like to see our elected officials learn from the private sector.

[Jackrabbit379]

Originally Posted by GMAN

No matter where it was built, it is hard to believe that it is a prison.

Sure is!
Whether it's here in the U.S or Tim Buck Too, that's quite a facility! Looks like a dag gum resort. :lol:
I tell ya what, I'd request to go there, if I was to get thrown in the pokey.

[One]

Originally Posted by GMAN

I never thought of myself as an ultra conservative, just a conservative. I don't know why my being conservative would bother you if you are a fiscal conservative.

Trickle down did work, to an extent. The problem with trickle down is that it didn't go far enough. We all pay too much in taxes, not just the wealthy. The idea of trickle down economics is that you give the higher earners tax discounts and they will invest money that will provide more jobs and that will actually generate more tax revenue. Contrary to what some would like to believe, it did work. We came out of runaway inflation and interest rates which exceeded 21% under Carter. Reagan managed to get interest rates down along with slowing inflation. Some of that could have come from the fact that people didn't have confidence in Carter, but liked what Reagan said. The economy did prosper under Reagan. Reagan did increase spending, mostly on defense after Carter gutted our military. Reagan increased spending to the point that the Soviets could not keep up and it basically bankrupted them. That is the reason that they changed toward a more free market economy. I did very well under Reagan. I am curious as to why you think that Reagan ruined our country?

The problems we see today didn't start with Reagan. We have a government that has gotten out of control. We continue to elect irresponsible politicians to represent us. Many of those who are elected have never worked a real job in their lives. We even elected a president that has never held a real job, but managed to take over some of the largest segments of corporate America.

I think that we would be much better off in this country if we elected average citizens. We need to have people who have actually worked for a living. We need to elect people who have had to meet a payroll. There seems to be a real disconnect between our politicians and reality. I believe we have this from both parties. If Obama's spending continues we will have no choice but to raise taxes. In fact, he has put taxes in place that won't kick in until 2012. On the other hand, we cannot continue to lower taxes without cutting spending and the size of government.

We need to either make more responsible decisions as a country, or go bankrupt. Many who call them conservatives are in reality liberal. People are finally beginning to pay attention. In the private sector, when business is soft, we don't increase spending and debt. We cut costs, such as payroll. I would like to see our elected officials learn from the private sector.

OOOOk , Actually when you give someone a tax break, they do not tend to reinvest that money into the business but rather increase executive wages and stuff the extra cash into swiss banks or stock. Exec wages and corporated earnings have drastically shot up in the years since this crazy Chicago school of economics bull was 1st used and worker wages dropped or remained stagnant. Bush cut taxes drastically on the rich and go figure, tax revenue dropped and net gain in jobs: zero.
Carter admin. inflation was largely due to the bill for the Bonds sold to pay for the Vietnam war became due.
And As to Politicians...we need people making laws that know about laws and how to write them so theres not 100 loopholes drilled into them for sweetheart business. We need the lawmakers to be able to write the laws themselves, not have them written by those that it concerns like industry groups. Industry can afford to hire tons of lawyers to write super complicated bills that the lawmakers staff cannot sufficiently analyse to find the hidden loopholes. Thats why we like lawmakers to know LAW and RULE of LAW and not businessmen going into politics to write the laws governing their own industry ROFLMAO so when they claim they 'need to spend more time with the familiy and make more money in the prvate sector' they go to exploiting.
And what are theses taxhikes you claim Obama has made to kick in 2012???

[GMAN]

Originally Posted by One

OOOOk , Actually when you give someone a tax break, they do not tend to reinvest that money into the business but rather increase executive wages and stuff the extra cash into swiss banks or stock. Exec wages and corporated earnings have drastically shot up in the years since this crazy Chicago school of economics bull was 1st used and worker wages dropped or remained stagnant. Bush cut taxes drastically on the rich and go figure, tax revenue dropped and net gain in jobs: zero.
Carter admin. inflation was largely due to the bill for the Bonds sold to pay for the Vietnam war became due.

That doesn't make any sense. Do you have a link? As I recall, the high inflation during the Carter administration was caused by the hugh spike in oil prices. That was in the early years of OPEC and high oil prices. When the price of oil goes up the costs of everything else also rises. That was the primary reason for high inflation during that time. Interest rates also reached over 21%. Hundreds of car and RV dealers were driven out of business due to the high cost of floor planning. Floor plan interest reached as high as 23% with one dealer that I knew. Vietnam had been over for about a decade when Carter came into office. Bonds to finance the war should have been maturing over more than a decade. Another factor was the out of control spending during that period. Carter did get rid of most of the limo's for his cabinet.

And As to Politicians...we need people making laws that know about laws and how to write them so theres not 100 loopholes drilled into them for sweetheart business. We need the lawmakers to be able to write the laws themselves, not have them written by those that it concerns like industry groups. Industry can afford to hire tons of lawyers to write super complicated bills that the lawmakers staff cannot sufficiently analyze to find the hidden loopholes. Thats why we like lawmakers to know LAW and RULE of LAW and not businessmen going into politics to write the laws governing their own industry ROFLMAO so when they claim they 'need to spend more time with the family and make more money in the private sector' they go to exploiting.
And what are theses tax hikes you claim Obama has made to kick in 2012???

Lawyers should not be allowed to write laws that they must work with. It isn't hard to draft a law. Something is either right or wrong. We don't need about 90% of the laws we have today. No matter which side of the law you are on, the only ones who really benefit are lawyers. We may need lawyers to prosecute or defend laws, but they should not be allowed to write them. It is lawyers who have put the loopholes in our laws. In fact, those whom we elect don't write the laws which bear their name. Bills are written by lawyers for special interest groups and then presented to our elected representatives to be introduced on the floor of the senate or congress. Just look at this industry. The latest bill for EOBR's was supposed to have been written by the CEO of Maverick. I am confident that he most likely paid a lawyer to write the bill as he wanted. The bill was then given to Senator Pryor of Arkansas and Senator Alexander of Tennessee to put before congress. Both sponsored the bill, but they didn't write it. Personally, I think that it would be a good idea for any of these representatives to have to write any bill that they presented and that bore their name. It would probably significantly reduce the number of bills or laws with which we must deal.

It isn't just industry that writes and pushes new laws or bills. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers and other organizations with their own agenda's push their own legislation. You should know by now that these so called lawmakers don't bother to read most of the bills for which they vote. They didn't even bother to read the biggest spending bill in our history before passing it. If they won't bother to read a bill which has such significance, you should not expect them to take the time to read a bill of lesser impact.

I just read about the taxes that Obama has introduced which are to kick in in 2012. They have been reported since he entered office, but most people don't give it a second thought since they have not kicked in yet. I believe there are 24 different taxes. Bill O'Reilly interviewed him before the Super Bowl. Of course, he side stepped the issue. There is no way that Obama can spend the way he has the last 2 years and not raise taxes to a significant level. To finance his massive expansion of government he must raise taxes. The only way government can finance reckless spending is with tax hikes. My guess is that he set it up this way so that he could get reelected. Once reelected, he could care less what the American people think. Judging from his attitude he doesn't care what people think now. He continues to spend and implement legislation that has already been ruled unconstitutional.

[GMAN]

If you want specifics about the Obama tax hikes, just google "Obama Tax Hikes" and you will find several references to articles from Fox and ABC, among others.

[One]

Originally Posted by GMAN

If you want specifics about the Obama tax hikes, just google "Obama Tax Hikes" and you will find several references to articles from Fox and ABC, among others.

No doubt that i would find plenty of references, especially on 'news' outlets that like to have convervative thinktanks and lobbyists on and introduce them as 'experts'

We can also google 'Obama from Mars' and find references, doesnt mean its true.

[One]

Originally Posted by GMAN

Lawyers should not be allowed to write laws that they must work with. It isn't hard to draft a law. Something is either right or wrong. We don't need about 90% of the laws we have today. No matter which side of the law you are on, the only ones who really benefit are lawyers. We may need lawyers to prosecute or defend laws, but they should not be allowed to write them. It is lawyers who have put the loopholes in our laws. In fact, those whom we elect don't write the laws which bear their name. Bills are written by lawyers for special interest groups and then presented to our elected representatives to be introduced on the floor of the senate or congress. Just look at this industry. The latest bill for EOBR's was supposed to have been written by the CEO of Maverick. I am confident that he most likely paid a lawyer to write the bill as he wanted. The bill was then given to Senator Pryor of Arkansas and Senator Alexander of Tennessee to put before congress. Both sponsored the bill, but they didn't write it. Personally, I think that it would be a good idea for any of these representatives to have to write any bill that they presented and that bore their name. It would probably significantly reduce the number of bills or laws with which we must deal.

It isn't just industry that writes and pushes new laws or bills. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers and other organizations with their own agenda's push their own legislation. You should know by now that these so called lawmakers don't bother to read most of the bills for which they vote. They didn't even bother to read the biggest spending bill in our history before passing it. If they won't bother to read a bill which has such significance, you should not expect them to take the time to read a bill of lesser impact.

I just read about the taxes that Obama has introduced which are to kick in in 2012. They have been reported since he entered office, but most people don't give it a second thought since they have not kicked in yet. I believe there are 24 different taxes. Bill O'Reilly interviewed him before the Super Bowl. Of course, he side stepped the issue. There is no way that Obama can spend the way he has the last 2 years and not raise taxes to a significant level. To finance his massive expansion of government he must raise taxes. The only way government can finance reckless spending is with tax hikes. My guess is that he set it up this way so that he could get reelected. Once reelected, he could care less what the American people think. Judging from his attitude he doesn't care what people think now. He continues to spend and implement legislation that has already been ruled unconstitutional.

Once again you mis- state the facts, i dunno why it is that you do not seem to understand, but there is no law currently enforced that has been ruled unconstitutional. We have already covered this i think....

Like i said in my previous post, when we let industry write the legislation, then they build in their little loopholes, hand that overly complicated stack of **** to their bought and paid for corporatist legislator along with a promise of a nice campaign contribution. That is called corruption. Joe the Plumber can do plumbin' (maybe) but sure cannot write laws.
Madd would get no laws on the books if there wasnt support for it and someone could make a lot of money on it. Most laws concerning the trucking industry have ATA written all over it, no lil ol ma that lost her son to a truck with no brakes. This is a democracy, highly corrupted by big business $$$, yes, but no dictatorship.
madd didnt come up with the idea of eobrs, they just lobby for safer roads; Someone invented it, now someone wants to make it mandatory to buy his junk.
You know how this works.

[GMAN]

Originally Posted by One

Once again you mis- state the facts, i dunno why it is that you do not seem to understand, but there is no law currently enforced that has been ruled unconstitutional. We have already covered this i think....

You must have missed all the news reports. Virginia and Florida courts have ruled that the healthcare bill is unconstitutional since it involves forcing citizens to purchase a product. At least they ruled the forced participation as unconstitutional. You need to keep up, One. It has even been reported on the socialist networks.

Like i said in my previous post, when we let industry write the legislation, then they build in their little loopholes, hand that overly complicated stack of **** to their bought and paid for corporatist legislator along with a promise of a nice campaign contribution. That is called corruption. Joe the Plumber can do plumbin' (maybe) but sure cannot write laws.

I will try to explain this to you again, One. Lawyers do write most of our legislation. They write loopholes in an effort to circumvent the law. By putting in loopholes they have an opportunity to win no matter which side of the issue or law that they are on. Most of our legislators are lawyers, but they don't write most of the laws that they sponsor. In fact, most of they probably don't even read the bills that bear their name. My guess is that they are NOT going to sponsor a bill which curtails or in any way restricts their ability to make money from any legislation. Why do you think that tort reform has never been seriously addressed in any national legislation? Litigation is probably the main reason for rising healthcare costs. Yet, they won't address the issue. The reason is simple. Lawyers make money from litigation. You will not see meaningful tort reform in any healthcare or banking legislation as long as we have lawyers in legislative office. These are their customers and also their victims. Although these legislators don't write most of the bills that they sponsor, they won't go against their own self interest. We need people who have common sense who will do what is best for our country. Average citizens can do that best. The lawyers who are paid to write the legislation we see are paid hundreds of dollars per hour, often with taxpayer money.


Madd would get no laws on the books if there wasnt support for it and someone could make a lot of money on it. Most laws concerning the trucking industry have ATA written all over it, no lil ol ma that lost her son to a truck with no brakes. This is a democracy, highly corrupted by big business $$$, yes, but no dictatorship.
madd didnt come up with the idea of eobrs, they just lobby for safer roads; Someone invented it, now someone wants to make it mandatory to buy his junk.
You know how this works.

Big business is not the only segment that has corrupted this country. Don't forget other special interests such as big labor unions. And don't underestimate the power of a determined mother. MADD doesn't lobby for safer roads, but more restrictive legislation. They just try to sell their ideas as safety. It is difficult to argue against safety. After all, who would vote against safety?! The ATA does have their hands in a lot of trucking legislation. Unfortunately, what is good for the ATA is not necessarily in the best interest of the rest of us. One other thing. Why do you thing that a plumber is not as smart as a lawyer. A law degree, or any degree for that matter, is not necessarily an indication of having more intelligence than anyone who is non degreed. It only means that they had the ability to stick with their studies until they got a degree. In only shows that they have the ability to learn, not that they have more intelligence. A degree only demonstrates that someone is learned. There is a difference between education and intelligence. On the same note, just because someone is degreed doesn't necessarily mean that they have common sense. By the way, I had a friend that I grew up with that was a nuclear physicist. He quit physics and went back to the family business. That business was plumbing. He was very happy being a plumber. I would never assume that someone lacked intelligence because of what they did for a living or their income.

[golfhobo]

GMAN's Economics 101:

In the private sector, when business is soft, we don't increase spending and debt. We cut costs, such as payroll.

Analysis: Which puts workers out of a job, reducing the amount of money they have to spend on YOUR or other's products. They go on unemployment, which increases the amount YOU pay in business and personal taxes to support them.

Hobo's Economics 210:

In the private sector, when business is soft, we increase spending on advertising, marketing and R&D to INCREASE market share and revenues. We don't cut PAYROLL costs.... we cust PROFITS until we can afford to pay ourselves big bonuses! :roll:

Analysis: Workers keep their jobs and purchasing power while working to make the company more competitive through increased sales, production and market share. Owners/shareholders "suck it up" through tough times and shoulder the risk they "went all in for" in the first place! They MAKE money when the company makes money.

I've had my own business before. I took all the entrepreneurial courses, business courses and economics courses. I ALWAYS was under the impression that the OWNER of a "small" business, or the stockholders of a BIG one, were taking a RISK and would benefit from the profits of the business.... when there WERE profits. OVERHEAD was to be "managed," but workforce was to be maintained whenever possible. It takes more money to RE-TRAIN "newhires" than to keep current employees.

Today's corporations reduce costs by shipping jobs overseas or reducing workforce, their pay and/or benefits. Meanwhile, they pay themselves excessive salaries and bonuses and the stockholders don't care .... as long as THEY are getting their "expected" return!

I understand the concept of "bottom line," but I also know that it doesn't START with EXECUTIVE salaries and dividends being "protected."

Businesses GROW through Sales (that's jobs) and Production (more jobs.) Management (like government,) should be limited, and cost efficient. When management (or government) COSTS MORE than they produce.... the company becomes like a mortgage "under water." The debt service exceeds the equity.

As a shareholder or owner, I would rather have 10% of a million dollars of annual sales than 90% of a business that will close its doors before EOY.

[One]

Originally Posted by GMAN

Big business is not the only segment that has corrupted this country. Don't forget other special interests such as big labor unions. And don't underestimate the power of a determined mother. MADD doesn't lobby for safer roads, but more restrictive legislation. They just try to sell their ideas as safety. It is difficult to argue against safety. After all, who would vote against safety?! The ATA does have their hands in a lot of trucking legislation. Unfortunately, what is good for the ATA is not necessarily in the best interest of the rest of us. One other thing. Why do you thing that a plumber is not as smart as a lawyer. A law degree, or any degree for that matter, is not necessarily an indication of having more intelligence than anyone who is non degreed. It only means that they had the ability to stick with their studies until they got a degree. In only shows that they have the ability to learn, not that they have more intelligence. A degree only demonstrates that someone is learned. There is a difference between education and intelligence. On the same note, just because someone is degreed doesn't necessarily mean that they have common sense. By the way, I had a friend that I grew up with that was a nuclear physicist. He quit physics and went back to the family business. That business was plumbing. He was very happy being a plumber. I would never assume that someone lacked intelligence because of what they did for a living or their income.

Aha, the Va. and Fl. ruling, yes! The Va. judge ruled the mandate was unconstitutional, but not the whole law, but he is wrong; The Fl judge ruled the same but seems to think the two cannot be seperated. Talk about legislating from the bench! activist judges! Can i point out that other judges ruled the law as constitutional and we are now 2 for 2??duh! Besides nowhere in our constitution does it state that judges may over rule the legislative, in fact our founding fathers spoke out against one branch being able to over rule the other due to the threat to our democracy. Note Jefferson's reaction to Marbury v Madison.

So where did i say a plumber is unintelligent? i think you are mischaracterizing my statement. Im a mechanic/truck driver by trade and im not a dummy, nor are you, but we cannot muster the tasks of a lawyer, nor can a lawyer muster the tasks of a mechanic/truck driver. i would not try to rewire my house, thats the trade of an electrician, we cannot understand the intricacies of that trade untill we have been zapped. Its not a matter of intelligance but a matter of trade and education.