Brexit Thread

[POD Knows]

As usual, you missed the point entirely, are your a short bus guy because if you are, please let me know and I will quit teasing or replying to you. I know you have more brains in your farts because you have stated that on here which is really good and I hope you do well in school tomorrow. Now, you sleep tight you little treasure.

* you

Wow, amazingly well done you spell check douche bag, how many fucking words did I spell wrong in this sentence.

[POD Knows]

Don't really understand the "irony" of it, the EU was destined to create nationalism and now we are seeing the result. It was somewhat predictable but surprising nonetheless. I think it is great and hope more countries follow.

I think that's the irony he was referring to...

You ended your sentence with a preposition and three periods, that is incorrect.

[AZGrizFan]

Maybe but I will concede the point, I just look at it differently. If a political party raises income taxes to increase revenue but it has the opposite effect and reduces revenue because of slower growth, is that ironic? I don't think it is but some people might, depends on your perspective.

If.

Reagan raised taxes 11 times in 8 years. Show me a Republican that doesn't think that was the Golden Age.

He also reduced the top marginal tax rate from 69% to 38% during his presidency.

[OL FU]

If.

Reagan raised taxes 11 times in 8 years. Show me a Republican that doesn't think that was the Golden Age.

He also reduced the top marginal tax rate from 69% to 38% during his presidency.

The idea that reagon was a tax raiser is only mentioned by people who can't see the forest for the trees . It is just stupid shit

[POD Knows]

If.

Reagan raised taxes 11 times in 8 years. Show me a Republican that doesn't think that was the Golden Age.

He also reduced the top marginal tax rate from 69% to 38% during his presidency.

This houndawg guy is uninformed, they counted the elimination of some tax deductions as tax increases which they technically are but were minor in the scheme of things. There were a TOTAL of 11 individual tax increases when you do the math that way, so each change in a deduction is counted as a tax increase. Reagan did agree to a tax increases in 86 I believe which is when these individual actions occurred.

[kalm]

* you

Wow, amazingly well done you spell check douche bag, how many fucking words did I spell wrong in this sentence.

*?

1). I'm not pretending to be smart. I have a Rec Mgmt. degree from a directional school.

2). That's MISTER Doucebag to you.

[AZGrizFan]

Wow, amazingly well done you spell check douche bag, how many fucking words did I spell wrong in this sentence.

*?

1). I'm not pretending to be smart. I have a Rec Mgmt. degree from a directional school.

2). That's MISTER Doucebag to you.

Douchebag*

[kalm]

He also reduced the top marginal tax rate from 69% to 38% during his presidency.

The idea that reagon was a tax raiser is only mentioned by people who can't see the forest for the trees . It is just stupid shit

Reagan didn't dramatically cut taxes on top earners and corporations? I thought that was the whole idea of supply side? Free up that money and everyone benefits! Were there no tax increases in the 1980's? Why were they necessary? Did the burden shift from one group to another? Did the Democratic congress buy into trickle down and knowingly approve of the transfer?

[kalm]

*?

1). I'm not pretending to be smart. I have a Rec Mgmt. degree from a directional school.

2). That's MISTER Doucebag to you.

Douchebag*

Fuck!

[POD Knows]

Wow, amazingly well done you spell check douche bag, how many **** words did I spell wrong in this sentence.

*?

1). I'm not pretending to be smart. I have a Rec Mgmt. degree from a directional school.

2). That's MISTER Doucebag to you.

Nah, you pretend to be smart but I am getting bored with this site so I think I will dedicate my time to trolling your posts, correcting your spelling errors, correcting your nonfactual posts even though you rarely cite facts. I will reply to each and every one of your posts with the same pithy, irrelevant, smart ass comments that you have mastered on this site and some others.

You will be my special project until I get bored.

BTW, I spelled douchebag wrong in my other post, why didn't you catch that one. I left it there for you, it was low hanging fruit.

[POD Knows]

*?

1). I'm not pretending to be smart. I have a Rec Mgmt. degree from a directional school.

2). That's MISTER Doucebag to you.

Douchebag*

Thank you.

[kalm]

*?

1). I'm not pretending to be smart. I have a Rec Mgmt. degree from a directional school.

2). That's MISTER Doucebag to you.

Nah, you pretend to be smart but I am getting bored with this site so I think I will dedicate my time to trolling your posts, correcting your spelling errors, correcting your nonfactual posts even though you rarely cite facts. I will reply to each and every one of your posts with the same pithy, irrelevant, smart ass comments that you have mastered on this site and some others.

You will be my special project until I get bored.

BTW, I spelled douchebag wrong in my other post, why didn't you catch that one. I left it there for you, it was low hanging fruit.

Well I'm truly flattered...

But I already have CID1990 to do this for me.

[OL FU]

The idea that reagon was a tax raiser is only mentioned by people who can't see the forest for the trees . It is just stupid ****

Reagan didn't dramatically cut taxes on top earners and corporations? I thought that was the whole idea of supply side? Free up that money and everyone benefits! Were there no tax increases in the 1980's? Why were they necessary? Did the burden shift from one group to another? Did the Democratic congress buy into trickle down and knowingly approve of the transfer?

If you are actually responding to my post which is honestly difficult to tell, I know some forests you should walk through.i don't care if you like Reagan or not. But the idea that he was in totality a tax raiser is simply stupid and revisionist. But you go ahead a fool yourself.

So now that I have had my first cup of coffee and at some level have removed myself from grumpy old man syndrome, I will add . I was only addressing the comment that I have seen on this board that Reagan was a tax increaser not a reducer. That comment is a little like calling a day rainy because of one 15 minute thunderstorm. A lot of your questions above have to deal with whether the policies were good, bad or fair. That is a totally different discussion and one that is fairly debatable. But to the issue of overall taxes, they went down during Reagan's term, it is not questionable unless you are either trolling or wearing partisan blinders. Did Reagan agree to increases absolutely. Generally on much less substantial items than income. Were they fair? Did they shift the burden of taxes to lower incomes? a different discussion. Look at federal taxes as a percent of GDP, that will answer the question.

[houndawg]

If.

Reagan raised taxes 11 times in 8 years. Show me a Republican that doesn't think that was the Golden Age.

As usual, you missed the point entirely, are your a short bus guy because if you are, please let me know and I will quit teasing or replying to you. I know you have more brains in your farts because you have stated that on here which is really good and I hope you do well in school tomorrow. Now, you sleep tight you little treasure.

Is this a question, PUD Nose?

[houndawg]

He also reduced the top marginal tax rate from 69% to 38% during his presidency.

This houndawg guy is uninformed, they counted the elimination of some tax deductions as tax increases which they technically are but were minor in the scheme of things. There were a TOTAL of 11 individual tax increases when you do the math that way, so each change in a deduction is counted as a tax increase. Reagan did agree to a tax increases in 86 I believe which is when these individual actions occurred.

yes, that's why they called them tax increases.

[houndawg]

Agreements aren't worth the paper that they are printed on because governments are not trustworthy but it makes guys like you feel good. Countries that traded with each other also warred with each other, alliances like the EU, League of Nations, the UN and the rest are useless. History proves this, isn't that ironic but predictable.

And they were all created to create cooperation and reduce nationalistic tendencies in the hopes of reducing the threat of large scale conflicts.

How ironic.

kalm for the win.

[houndawg]

*?

1). I'm not pretending to be smart. I have a Rec Mgmt. degree from a directional school.

2). That's MISTER Doucebag to you.

Douchebag*

He's using the French spelling..

[kalm]

Reagan didn't dramatically cut taxes on top earners and corporations? I thought that was the whole idea of supply side? Free up that money and everyone benefits! Were there no tax increases in the 1980's? Why were they necessary? Did the burden shift from one group to another? Did the Democratic congress buy into trickle down and knowingly approve of the transfer?

If you are actually responding to my post which is honestly difficult to tell, I know some forests you should walk through.i don't care if you like Reagan or not. But the idea that he was in totality a tax raiser is simply stupid and revisionist. But you go ahead a fool yourself.

So now that I have had my first cup of coffee and at some level have removed myself from grumpy old man syndrome, I will add . I was only addressing the comment that I have seen on this board that Reagan was a tax increaser not a reducer. That comment is a little like calling a day rainy because of one 15 minute thunderstorm. A lot of your questions above have to deal with whether the policies were good, bad or fair. That is a totally different discussion and one that is fairly debatable. But to the issue of overall taxes, they went down during Reagan's term, it is not questionable unless you are either trolling or wearing partisan blinders. Did Reagan agree to increases absolutely. Generally on much less substantial items than income. Were they fair? Did they shift the burden of taxes to lower incomes? a different discussion. Look at federal taxes as a percent of GDP, that will answer the question.

No one said "Reagan was a tax increaser not a reducer."

All Houndawg stated was that Reagan raised taxes 11 times in 8 years. That is factually correct. He also opined that the 80's were golden years for conks. Not a fact but probably true.



You can argue the substance of these increases but they were significant. Even Bruce Bartlett acknowledged that the '82 tax increase was probably the largest peacetime increase in history. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... -raising-/

I'm sure taxes under Reagan were a net reduction but that's not the entire story.

[OL FU]

If you are actually responding to my post which is honestly difficult to tell, I know some forests you should walk through.i don't care if you like Reagan or not. But the idea that he was in totality a tax raiser is simply stupid and revisionist. But you go ahead a fool yourself.

So now that I have had my first cup of coffee and at some level have removed myself from grumpy old man syndrome, I will add . I was only addressing the comment that I have seen on this board that Reagan was a tax increaser not a reducer. That comment is a little like calling a day rainy because of one 15 minute thunderstorm. A lot of your questions above have to deal with whether the policies were good, bad or fair. That is a totally different discussion and one that is fairly debatable. But to the issue of overall taxes, they went down during Reagan's term, it is not questionable unless you are either trolling or wearing partisan blinders. Did Reagan agree to increases absolutely. Generally on much less substantial items than income. Were they fair? Did they shift the burden of taxes to lower incomes? a different discussion. Look at federal taxes as a percent of GDP, that will answer the question.

No one said "Reagan was a tax increaser not a reducer."

All Houndawg stated was that Reagan raised taxes 11 times in 8 years. That is factually correct. He also opined that the 80's were golden years for conks. Not a fact but probably true.



You can argue the substance of these increases but they were significant. Even Bruce Bartlett acknowledged that the '82 tax increase was probably the largest peacetime increase in history. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... -raising-/

I'm sure taxes under Reagan were a net reduction but that's not the entire story.

Then I apologize. Probably read it and then jumped to the conclusion that this was like other threads where clearly it was said that Reagan was a net tax increaser

[OL FU]

PS, for all the discussion of the entire story, one of the things that today's republicans seem to forget, which they need to remember, was that Reagan for all his rhetoric was pragmatic. Take what you can get even if you have to give a little in return.

[Ibanez]

Yes, the idea being that a group of countries that are economically interdependent would be less likely to engage in armed conflict. You can disagree with that philosophy if you want, but it is what it is.

Agreements aren't worth the paper that they are printed on because governments are not trustworthy but it makes guys like you feel good. Countries that traded with each other also warred with each other, alliances like the EU, League of Nations, the UN and the rest are useless. History proves this, isn't that ironic but predictable.

I see the problem here...you can't divorce fact from opinion.

[Ibanez]

Agreements aren't worth the paper that they are printed on because governments are not trustworthy but it makes guys like you feel good. Countries that traded with each other also warred with each other, alliances like the EU, League of Nations, the UN and the rest are useless. History proves this, isn't that ironic but predictable.

And they were all created to create cooperation and reduce nationalistic tendencies in the hopes of reducing the threat of large scale conflicts.

How ironic.

That can't be. Pod said so.

[houndawg]

Nah, you pretend to be smart but I am getting bored with this site so I think I will dedicate my time to trolling your posts, correcting your spelling errors, correcting your nonfactual posts even though you rarely cite facts. I will reply to each and every one of your posts with the same pithy, irrelevant, smart ass comments that you have mastered on this site and some others.

You will be my special project until I get bored.

BTW, I spelled douchebag wrong in my other post, why didn't you catch that one. I left it there for you, it was low hanging fruit.

Well I'm truly flattered...

But I already have CID1990 to do this for me.

..and better, too.

[houndawg]

If you are actually responding to my post which is honestly difficult to tell, I know some forests you should walk through.i don't care if you like Reagan or not. But the idea that he was in totality a tax raiser is simply stupid and revisionist. But you go ahead a fool yourself.

So now that I have had my first cup of coffee and at some level have removed myself from grumpy old man syndrome, I will add . I was only addressing the comment that I have seen on this board that Reagan was a tax increaser not a reducer. That comment is a little like calling a day rainy because of one 15 minute thunderstorm. A lot of your questions above have to deal with whether the policies were good, bad or fair. That is a totally different discussion and one that is fairly debatable. But to the issue of overall taxes, they went down during Reagan's term, it is not questionable unless you are either trolling or wearing partisan blinders. Did Reagan agree to increases absolutely. Generally on much less substantial items than income. Were they fair? Did they shift the burden of taxes to lower incomes? a different discussion. Look at federal taxes as a percent of GDP, that will answer the question.

No one said "Reagan was a tax increaser not a reducer."

All Houndawg stated was that Reagan raised taxes 11 times in 8 years. That is factually correct. He also opined that the 80's were golden years for conks. Not a fact but probably true.



You can argue the substance of these increases but they were significant. Even Bruce Bartlett acknowledged that the '82 tax increase was probably the largest peacetime increase in history. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... -raising-/

I'm sure taxes under Reagan were a net reduction but that's not the entire story.

Taxes are for little people.

[houndawg]

No one said "Reagan was a tax increaser not a reducer."

All Houndawg stated was that Reagan raised taxes 11 times in 8 years. That is factually correct. He also opined that the 80's were golden years for conks. Not a fact but probably true.



You can argue the substance of these increases but they were significant. Even Bruce Bartlett acknowledged that the '82 tax increase was probably the largest peacetime increase in history. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... -raising-/

I'm sure taxes under Reagan were a net reduction but that's not the entire story.

Then I apologize. Probably read it and then jumped to the conclusion that this was like other threads where clearly it was said that Reagan was a net tax increaser

Don't go soft on me now....