The Answer For Everything

[Cap'n Cat]

OK, I admit it, I pulled that Ford thing outta my ass.

[OL FU]

OK, I admit it, I pulled that Ford thing outta my ass.

No shit. OR maybe a lot of shit

[Cap'n Cat]

OK, I admit it, I pulled that Ford thing outta my ass.

No shit. OR maybe a lot of shit

My biggest learning from Conks on this board is never letting the truth get in the way of.........anything!!!

[OL FU]

No ****. OR maybe a lot of ****

My biggest learning from Conks on this board is never letting the truth get in the way of.........anything!!!

A lesson well learned

[AZGrizFan]

...and the big banking firms were bailed out by Bush & Paulson....but, by all means, continue your ill-informed & delusional rant....

Cap'n Cat, as always, is on top of this sh*t. Conks read and interpret as they please, despite facts.

Yeah. You got burned on the Ford thing and you're talking to US about facts?

[Wedgebuster]

OK, I admit it, I pulled that Ford thing outta my ass.

Fords have always originated from somebody's ass.

[Ibanez]

Irresponsible bailouts????


Ford is in talks about paying back the guv NEXT YEAR.
GM thinks it will pay back the guv in THREE YEARS.
A couple big banking firms HAVE paid back the guv and others are in a position to do so soon.


Your Conk blinders and rote ConkHate are getting in the way seriously, Z.

Ford didn't take any bailout money.

That was put in there to ensure you are paying attention.

[Cap'n Cat]

Cap'n Cat, as always, is on top of this sh*t. Conks read and interpret as they please, despite facts.

Yeah. You got burned on the Ford thing and you're talking to US about facts?

You got a problem with that, Bluto?

[JohnStOnge]

Am I missing something or did he fail to take into account the economic disturbance associated with the "9-11" World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks?

Also, I don't think he said anything about how there were signs of economic decline initiated during 2000.

I find it amusing that he accuses others of being "simplistic."

[kalm]

Am I missing something or did he fail to take into account the economic disturbance associated with the "9-11" World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks?

Also, I don't think he said anything about how there were signs of economic decline initiated during 2000.

I find it amusing that he accuses others of being "simplistic."

Right, yet we forged on ahead with the tax cuts, because - you know - they are the answer to economic decline and they increase tax revenues.

[AZGrizFan]

Yeah. You got burned on the Ford thing and you're talking to US about facts?

You got a problem with that, Bluto?

A problem with you pulling shit outta your ass as fact and then accusing us of ignoring facts? Yeah....

[89Hen]

Am I missing something or did he fail to take into account the economic disturbance associated with the "9-11" World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks?

Since those were planned by the government....

[Cap'n Cat]

You got a problem with that, Bluto?

A problem with you pulling shit outta your ass as fact and then accusing us of ignoring facts? Yeah....

I apologize to everybody for that. Been watching too much Fox News.

[AZGrizFan]

Am I missing something or did he fail to take into account the economic disturbance associated with the "9-11" World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks?

Since those were planned by the government....

Stop it Hen! Those guys mean business!!

[kalm]

BTW, Saint Reagan raised taxes 11 times after he cut the top marginal rate.

[Cap'n Cat]

BTW, Saint Reagan raised taxes 11 times after he cut the top marginal rate.

I really can't blame Reagan. He was just a Conk figurehead and his handlers fvcked everything up while he was napping. His career petered out in California in the sixties.

[89Hen]

I really can't blame Reagan. He was just a Conk figurehead and his handlers fvcked everything up while he was napping. His career petered out in California in the sixties.

Not sure WTF you're talking about.

[youtube][/youtube]

[kalm]

I really can't blame Reagan. He was just a Conk figurehead and his handlers fvcked everything up while he was napping. His career petered out in California in the sixties.

Not sure WTF you're talking about.

[youtube][/youtube]

That skit is a classic.

[houndawg]

42

Beeblebrox for President!

[JohnStOnge]

Right, yet we forged on ahead with the tax cuts, because - you know - they are the answer to economic decline and they increase tax revenues.

I've always taken the position that people should not vote on the basis of perception that one party or another will "cause" the economy to be better. The reality is that they do but I think it's foolish. I think people should vote on the basis of what they want in terms of the long term direction of the country. Do we value liberty more or do we value personal security and insulation from risk more? And if you're going to think about the economy, think about the long term. In that vein, to me, the approach of trying to have government solve every problem and insure the well being of each individual while financing it through "soak the rich" or "progressive" taxation is leading to inevitable collapse.

As far as revenues go, I think it's reasonable to say there is a point at which raising taxes further reduces revenue as well as a point where lowering taxes further does that. Obviously at 0 tax there is no revenue. And at 100 percent tax there would likely be very little revenue because nobody would see any point in trying to generate income. It's reasonable to think that somewhere in between there is a "maximum yield" point on the curve.

But I don't even think we should be thinking like that. I think it is more of a moral/philosophical issue. We shouldn't be thinking in terms of what maximizes revenue yield. We should be thinking in terms of drastically cutting the size of role of government so that not nearly so much yield is required.

[kalm]

Right, yet we forged on ahead with the tax cuts, because - you know - they are the answer to economic decline and they increase tax revenues.

I've always taken the position that people should not vote on the basis of perception that one party or another will "cause" the economy to be better. The reality is that they do but I think it's foolish. I think people should vote on the basis of what they want in terms of the long term direction of the country. Do we value liberty more or do we value personal security and insulation from risk more? And if you're going to think about the economy, think about the long term. In that vein, to me, the approach of trying to have government solve every problem and insure the well being of each individual while financing it through "soak the rich" or "progressive" taxation is leading to inevitable collapse.

As far as revenues go, I think it's reasonable to say there is a point at which raising taxes further reduces revenue as well as a point where lowering taxes further does that. Obviously at 0 tax there is no revenue. And at 100 percent tax there would likely be very little revenue because nobody would see any point in trying to generate income. It's reasonable to think that somewhere in between there is a "maximum yield" point on the curve.

But I don't even think we should be thinking like that. I think it is more of a moral/philosophical issue. We shouldn't be thinking in terms of what maximizes revenue yield. We should be thinking in terms of drastically cutting the size of role of government so that not nearly so much yield is required.

So tax giveaways that fail to increase revenue and the majority of which go to people who don't need them while many others are having difficulty finding employment, affording healthcare and higher education, and we as a nation are increasing our debt isn't a moral issue?

I have no problem cutting unneccessary spending and limiting government influence in many areas, but practically speaking and at this moment following the libertarian road to utopia ain't the moral or fiscally responsible thing to do.