BF2S Forums Double-dip recession imminent

Harmor wrote:

Democrats controlled congress and spent faster than the doubling of the tax revenue to the government as a result of the tax cuts.  Also the tax cuts grew the economy out of the enemic late 70's economy the second worst president, Carter, brought us.

It wasn't until 1993 when the Republican's took charge under Bill Clinton that we got surpluses.  Granted, in 2005-2006 when Bush was in charge he took those surpluses and turned them back into deficits.

The current depression is a result of regulators insisting on giving homes to people who could not afford them (i.e. Urban Renewal projects and homes for the poor).  Banks were forced to make these loans or else face fines.

Then when this all blew up your side blames the degregulation that Democrat's put in place.  In 2003 the Republican's tried to fix some of this but were blocked by Democrats.


You can not tax yourselves into prosperity.  If that was true we would be living in a panacea by now.

Grats on giving a completely one-sided and inaccurate mishistory. And fucking lawl at 'my side'. Now I know you're a moron that doesn't read or understand anything that other people write here. You have the comprehension level of Mitch or Shifty.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-07-11 13:57:53)

Harmor wrote:

Again your side will attack the messenger instead of the message when they can't win on a debate.  Sad.

Yes, I am attacking you. You're a fucking moronic tool who doesn't understand the things he regurgitates. My side? I'm not a fucking liberal and I'm not a fucking Democrat. I'm a fucking Libertarian. Know what that means? It means I believe in free market economics, far more than you do, without all the emotional baggage that the Republican party brings to the table. I believe in freedom and personal responsibility. You believe whatever it is that Fox News and the Republican Party want you to believe whether it's contradictory or not. To you, Reagan is a God and Obama is the antichrist. You're a goddamn moron.

P.S. - I voted for McCain.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-07-11 14:11:40)

Harmor, no one is arguing that lower taxes is not good for the economy. What is unhealthy for the economy is substantial deficit spending by the government, something Reagan succeeded in. Taxation is rather mute when the government spends at such high levels.

I feel sorry for those who value their party over their country.

Last edited by Phrozenbot (2010-07-11 15:45:12)

Phrozenbot wrote:

Harmor, no one is arguing that lower taxes is not good for the economy. What is unhealthy for the economy is substantial deficit spending by the government, something Reagan succeeded in. Taxation is rather mute when the government spends at such high levels.

I beg to differ.  The increased spending that I approved of was the increases in our defense.  This effectively kill the Soviets who couldn't keep up.  However, it was the Democrats who, to get increase spending, insisted on all these domestic programs.  So since Tip O'Neal was in charge, well they played their card.

Phrozenbot wrote:

I feel sorry for those who value their party over their country.

I'm a Conservative before I'm a Republican.  Actually I sometimes vote Libertarian when the Republican is a RINO.  Like in this election I'll be voting for Pamela J. Brown instead of Abel Maldonado, a Republican who voted to increase taxes $1,000/year in Feb 2009.

We have had debates to about Reaganomics and no one's view was changed so why repeat it?


I have plenty of foibles, as you noted, but lets focus on the fact that this economy is going into the shitter with these increased taxes.

Can we all agree that increasing taxes does not increase economy growth at least?  How about that for common ground.



P.S. For the record I voted for McCain as well...even donated to his campaign and the RNC.

Last edited by Harmor (2010-07-11 17:22:26)

too small a sample size
might as well post a bf2s poll

Last edited by eleven bravo (2010-07-21 20:26:03)

Al-qaeda

Reciprocity wrote:

If low taxes are so vital to economic growth, why did the Bush years suck so much?

Can you make a case where raising taxes increased economic freedom and growth?

Harmor wrote:

Can you make a case where raising taxes increased economic freedom and growth?

can you make a case where lowering taxes increased economic freedom and growth?  You continually whine about the bush tax cuts and how important they are, and yet, they didn't do anything for the economy of the last 10 years.

eleven bravo wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

If low taxes are so vital to economic growth, why did the Bush years suck so much?

Can you make a case where raising taxes increased economic freedom and growth?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-World … _expansion

Requires a World War first and near 0% unemployment rate.

Reciprocity wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Can you make a case where raising taxes increased economic freedom and growth?

can you make a case where lowering taxes increased economic freedom and growth?  You continually whine about the bush tax cuts and how important they are, and yet, they didn't do anything for the economy of the last 10 years.

I really don't know how many times it needs to be explained... but presidents have fuck all to do with the economy.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Can you make a case where raising taxes increased economic freedom and growth?

can you make a case where lowering taxes increased economic freedom and growth?  You continually whine about the bush tax cuts and how important they are, and yet, they didn't do anything for the economy of the last 10 years.

I really don't know how many times it needs to be explained... but presidents have fuck all to do with the economy.

I'm not saying they do, either.  I'm just questioning harmor's logic.  He's insisting that these "bush" tax cuts are vital to the economy, while there's no proof beyond drudge report editorials.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

I really don't know how many times it needs to be explained... but presidents have fuck all to do with the economy.

I'm not saying they do, either.  I'm just questioning harmor's logic.  He's insisting that these "bush" tax cuts are vital to the economy, while there's no proof beyond drudge report editorials.

No, what we need is a constitutional amendment permanently enshrining specific tax brackets with no loopholes, in perpetuity (except in times of declared war). The government should be permanently limited to a certain percentage of all income, without deficits. Want to add a new department? Get rid of an old one first.

We need stability more than we need a certain set of tax breaks.

I would definitely support a firm limit on government spending.

eleven bravo wrote:

i dont think there will be another amendment passed for anything in my lifetime

If there is any amendment that needs to pass, it's the one I described A balanced budget amendment coupled with permanent tax brackets.