Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 41

Thread: The New Party of Reagan? :)

  1. #21
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,959
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4064558]I believe in Las Vegas. I think its best days are ahead of it. [/QUOTE]

    Las Vegas shouldn't exist. That'll be the first city to descend into cannibalism during an apocalypse.

  2. #22
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4064535]steve wynn's company just reported record earnings, something like double in Q2 as they were in Q1. the message that Obama is hurting his business isn't backed up by facts.[/QUOTE]
    He didn't sound like he was saying that Obama had a personal vendetta against his company, bit.

    He basically said the truth: that Obama is awful. In relative terms our unemployment rate is astronomical. And Obama would rather see these people "organized" into the public sector than employed in the private.

    Socialism.

  3. #23
    [QUOTE=sackdance;4064567]
    He basically said the truth: that Obama is awful. In relative terms our unemployment rate is astronomical. [/QUOTE]

    the President doesn't control the unemployment rate.

  4. #24
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4064521]WB you always rail on about the destruction of the dollar

    it never actually happens

    the dollar is the world's currency and nothing will replace it in the near term. Not the Euro, not the Yuan. Heck there aren't nearly enough 500 Euro bills in the world to be used like people use 100 dollar bills. they price gold in dollars. they price oil in dollars. the Dollar is not going to be destroyed because they print a little more of it.[/QUOTE]

    ??? Nobody said the dollar wasn't the world currency? If you have US dollars in your pocket and we devalue the dollar by increasing the supply of them the dollars in your pocket don't buy as much stuff, you have become poorer, your ability to drive demand in the economy is reduced unless your wages go up faster than inflation, highly unlikely when the supply of labor is much higher than the demand for it.

    I got a heating oil delivery yesterday $1,026.40 for 250 gallons of heating oil. My wife brought home groceries yesterday about $140.00 for less than a shopping cart of food. It cost us about $126.00 to fill up 2 cars this week. Our electric bills are running about $50.00 a month ahead of last year and our State just raised income tax rates and our town raised property taxes. Now while I’m in the luxurious position of being able to afford these increases, I can tell you I’m going to spend less on other stuff. I guarantee you other people who don’t have the same luxury that I do are spending a lot less on other stuff. I looked at that oil bill and said to my wife, how are middle class people who heat their homes with oil and have kids to feed going to decide whether to heat their homes or feed their families this winter. The answer to that is if we continue to erode peoples buying power they won’t have to make a choice, they won’t be able to do either.

    That’s really what high budget deficits in relation to real GDP means. That’s the reason why I’m willing to pay more in taxes but only if we are on a sustainable spending course that takes into account the real wealth of our country not some perceived wealth of a handful of very rich guys on Wall Street or Silicone valley.

    Like you I'm a bleeding heart, unlike you I understand the spending path we are on can't be closed through class warefare alone.

  5. #25
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,959
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4064582]I got a heating oil delivery yesterday $1,026.40 for 250 gallons of heating oil.[/QUOTE]

    Get an Energy Kinetic boiler. They f*cking sip oil, bro...most efficient thing on the market hands down. It takes about 90 seconds for the thing to go from stone cold to 180 degrees.

    The thing will save you about 250 gallons a year in oil. Some states do rebates for installing them too....
    Last edited by PlumberKhan; 07-20-2011 at 01:57 PM.

  6. #26
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4064582]??? Nobody said the dollar wasn't the world currency? If you have US dollars in your pocket and we devalue the dollar by increasing the supply of them the dollars in your pocket don't buy as much stuff, you have become poorer, your ability to drive demand in the economy is reduced unless your wages go up faster than inflation, highly unlikely when the supply of labor is much higher than the demand for it.[/quote]

    inflation where wages go up is better than deflation where wages never go up. a weak recovery with mild inflation is better than a complete collapse and a stagflation cycle.

    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4064582]
    I got a heating oil delivery yesterday $1,026.40 for 250 gallons of heating oil. My wife brought home groceries yesterday about $140.00 for less than a shopping cart of food. It cost us about $126.00 to fill up 2 cars this week. Our electric bills are running about $50.00 a month ahead of last year and our State just raised income tax rates and our town raised property taxes. [/quote]

    the dollar is only a part of that equation. commodities, world wide are going up with increased demand from India and China. why don't you ever address increased demand? it's always the same story with you the fed printed money therefore everything goes up in price. It's not just the money supply it's also the commodity supply. when there's a war in Libya and the supply of light sweet crude to europe is disrupted, the price of heating oil will rise, and the fed had nothing to do with it. Everyone in China is eating Pecans and the price of Pecans is going through the roof, what does that have to do with the dollar?

    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4064582]
    Like you I'm a bleeding heart, unlike you I understand the spending path we are on can't be closed through class warefare alone.[/QUOTE]

    i never said that... but you and I are in agreement there must be some tax increases and some revenue created. there is not a path forward totally spending cuts.

  7. #27
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4064595]Get an Energy Kinetic boiler. They f*cking sip oil, bro...most efficient thing on the market hands down. It takes about 90 seconds for the thing to go from stone cold to 180 degrees.[/QUOTE]

    Probably a good idea. The hot water heater doesn't burn a crazy amount of oil. Much of the fill was from last winter. I was really thinking ahead to this winter and thinking how are people in New England going to deal with this? It's also amazing to me that No. 2 Heating oil cost more then premium gas with all the additional taxes piled on.

  8. #28
    [QUOTE]=bitonti;4064599]inflation where wages go up is better than deflation where wages never go up. a weak recovery with mild inflation is better than a complete collapse and a stagflation cycle. [/QUOTE]

    We are in stagflation right now. We aren't producing enough jobs to put pressure on wages. The supply of workers is way higher then the demand.


    [/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE]the dollar is only a part of that equation. commodities, world wide are going up with increased demand from India and China. why don't you ever address increased demand? it's always the same story with you the fed printed money therefore everything goes up in price. It's not just the money supply it's also the commodity supply. when there's a war in Libya and the supply of light sweet crude to europe is disrupted, the price of heating oil will rise, and the fed had nothing to do with it. Everyone in China is eating Pecans and the price of Pecans is going through the roof, what does that have to do with the dollar? [/QUOTE]

    It looks like year over year oil prices are up about 25% and the USD has declined about 12% against a broad basket of currency's. The answer is both are at play but 12% is directly attributed to government/Fed policy which are both tied to each other.

    By the way since as you point out Oil is priced in USD, as the dollar falls against a broad basket of currencies, countries who's currency is rising are able to buy more oil at a lower price which tends to increase demand and drive the price up. The reduction in the dollar when things are priced in dollars not only makes us poorer and less able to buy commodities, it makes our competitors richer and able to buy more of them than they normally would increasing demand by those countries.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 07-20-2011 at 03:09 PM.

  9. #29
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4064572]the President doesn't control the unemployment rate.[/QUOTE]
    And I can't control your reading comprehension.

    If you want to snip a paragraph to make unrelated points, I can't stop you ... I can't even organize you.

  10. #30
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4064572]the President doesn't control the unemployment rate.[/QUOTE]

    He probably shouldn't have promised to keep it under 8% then, huh? At least you can admit he's a liar :rolleyes:

  11. #31
    [QUOTE=Revi$_I$l@nd;4064674]He probably shouldn't have promised to keep it under 8% then, huh? At least you can admit he's a liar :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    No he was wrong. He did not live up to his promise. That is not a lie/does not make him a liar.

  12. #32
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    An interesting opinion piece.

    [B]The GOP’s fuzzy math[/B]

    [B]By [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/matt-miller/2011/02/24/ABBcOYN_page.html"]Matt Miller[/URL], Wednesday, July 20, 9:40 AM[/B]

    It’s one thing for a political party to lose its moral bearings – after all, community values evolve, and large swaths of people and their elected representatives can end up on the wrong side of history on such questions as slavery, suffrage, and civil rights. But when a party loses its mathematical bearings – well, that’s a little shocking.
    Yet that’s what’s happened to the Republican Party. The debt ceiling endgame has exposed the denial gripping the GOP in the face of the inevitable loss of “lower taxes” as the core of the party’s identity. You can feel the Republicans’ pain; tax cuts have been the party’s defining issue since Ronald Reagan rode them to power in 1980. But in an aging America, the numbers no longer work, and Republicans have failed to develop a new conservative vision to replace their fading mantra.
    The [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/tea-party-backed-cut-cap-and-balance-debt-measure-passes-house/2011/07/19/gIQAjyXhOI_story.html"]“cap, cut and balance” plan[/URL] passed by the House Tuesday night captures Republican denial perfectly. The plan would cap federal spending at 19.9 percent of GDP by 2018, with the goal of lowering it to18 percent over time. Similar caps have been endorsed by most of the GOP’s presidential candidates.
    You’d never know from listening to Republicans that these goals are mathematically and politically unattainable.
    But they are. Why? If there’s one fact you need to emblazon in your mind to make sense of the current debate, it is that Ronald Reagan ran the federal government at 22 percent of GDP back when our population was much younger. (Under President Obama, the extraordinary measures enacted to fight the recession – plus a collapse in the denominator, GDP -- have boosted spending to around 24 percent, while revenue has dropped to 15 percent from its 18-19 percent longtime average).
    It is simply not plausible to argue that as we double the number of seniors on Social Security and Medicare, Uncle Sam will be able to operate at spending levels 10 to 20 percent below those over which America’s modern conservative icon presided. (Though, as my colleague [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-new-party-of-reagan/2011/07/19/gIQAuckfOI_story.html"]Dana Milbank notes[/URL], Reagan agreed to raise taxes 11 times.) Today there’s no question: Taxes must rise.
    Republican “thinking” about these facts is telling. [URL="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304567604576452092271106816.html"]According to the Wall Street Journal[/URL], House leaders picked 19.9 percent as their cap “because it is in line with the average spending level over the last thirty years.”
    Well, sorry, GOP: The average spending levels of the last 30 years are irrelevant because we weren’t retiring 76 million baby boomers over the last 30 years. And decades ago per capita health costs for seniors were far smaller than they are today.
    Let me pause so there’s no caricaturing of these views as belonging to some “tax and spend liberal.” I’ve advocated more “conservative” changes to Social Security than Paul Ryan did in his budget or his prior “roadmap.” I’ve urged progressives to realize that if we don’t slow Medicare’s outsized growth, there will be no money left for poor children, infrastructure, or R&D. And I’ve said we need to [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/03/AR2010030301396.html"]learn from countries like Singapore[/URL] that get outstanding results in health care while spending a fraction of what we spend. So count me as a longtime entitlement reformer who has the arrows from my friends on the left to prove it.
    Here’s the point: Even if we enacted the platonic ideal of sane entitlement reform, and trimmed defense (as we need to), Republican budget math still doesn’t come close to adding up. Instead, as my colleagues at the [URL="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/07/spending_cap.html"]Center for American Progress have shown[/URL], shrinking spending to sub-Reagan levels while retiring the boomers would involve dramatic cuts in everything else Americans think of as government – from national parks to NASA to the FBI to cancer research to student loans.
    So why does the GOP pretend otherwise? Because acknowledging mathematical reality is too politically painful. Because uttering this simple phrase – “to accommodate the retirement of the baby boomers, taxes will need to rise” – is forbidden by official Republican doctrine.
    Because official Republican doctrine has banned honest math.
    Aversion to honest math explains why the Ryan budget embraced by the GOP doesn’t balance the budget — even after Medicare changes that may prove fatal to the party -- until the 2030s and racks up at least $14 trillion in debt between now and then.
    That’s because the Ryan budget cuts taxes. Balanced budget math in an aging America doesn’t work without higher taxes.
    This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t cut taxes in the near-term to goose the economy. But when it comes to a long-term fiscal fix, the GOP’s math anxiety has produced months of debt ceiling charades instead of framing the debate we really need, which is this: Once the economy has more fully recovered, how do we lift taxes to fund the boomers’ retirement in ways least harmful to economic growth?
    My own view is that this means slashing payroll taxes and corporate income taxes, while more than offsetting those tax cuts with higher taxes on consumption and dirty energy. But we can’t even get to this conversation until Republicans relinquish the fantasy that we can keep cutting overall taxes as America ages.
    At bottom, this fantasy masks fear. Republicans’ refusal to let go of the old time religion shows how little work the party has done to craft an agenda equal to America’s current challenges. The party has abandoned problem-solving for brand preservation. If tax cuts aren’t our defining issue, Republican pols ask themselves, what distinguishes us from Democrats? Why should voters choose us?
    Maybe the Gang of Six can end the GOP’s war on math, but I’m skeptical. For now, if it’s a choice between defying math and staring into this policy and political abyss, Republicans choose defiance.

  13. #33
    More fuzzy math: I keep reading that 71% of America wants to pay more taxes.

    Doesn't add up.

    At all.

  14. #34
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,548
    [QUOTE=sackdance;4064844]More fuzzy math: I keep reading that 71% of America wants to pay more taxes.

    Doesn't add up.

    At all.[/QUOTE]

    Well 50 percent of Americans pay none..... so the lazy people who actually are home to answer the phone for this poll would be fine with you and I paying more.;)

  15. #35
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4064907]Well 50 percent of Americans pay none..... so the lazy people who actually are home to answer the phone for this poll would be fine with you and I paying more.;)[/QUOTE]

    Right. We have a 50% unemployment rate... but, fellas, tell me do you really believe that 71% of Americans have a real understanding of macroeconomics to effectively answer such questions? It's truly ludicrous. The vast majority of the public couldn't pass a basic test in the subject.

  16. #36
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;4064682]No he was wrong. He did not live up to his promise. That is not a lie/does not make him a liar.[/QUOTE]

    A broken promise is a lie. Doesn't matter how you spin it.

  17. #37
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,548
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4064911]Right. We have a 50% unemployment rate... but, fellas, tell me do you really believe that 71% of Americans have a real understanding of macroeconomics to effectively answer such questions? It's truly ludicrous. The vast majority of the public couldn't pass a basic test in the subject.[/QUOTE]

    I didnt say unemployed...I have PLENTY of employed acquaintences who earn 35K and less. WHY? They are basically lazy. No desire to better themselves. Happy living in an apartment, their kids are destined for a similar life. You know...the kids with cell phones, a WIE and a trip to Disney world all before age of 10.:rolleyes:

    Their Daddy posts on facebook all day about how he cant wait until the weekend. I do their tax return...he pays nothing.

    Difference between your view and mine is you believe they cant, I believe they dont wish to.



    EVERYONE should pay something................. this is a GREAT country.

  18. #38
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4066457]I didnt say unemployed...I have PLENTY of employed acquaintences who earn 35K and less. WHY? They are basically lazy. No desire to better themselves. Happy living in an apartment, their kids are destined for a similar life. You know...the kids with cell phones, a WIE and a trip to Disney world all before age of 10.:rolleyes:

    Their Daddy posts on facebook all day about how he cant wait until the weekend. I do their tax return...he pays nothing.

    Difference between your view and mine is you believe they cant, I believe they dont wish to.



    EVERYONE should pay something................. this is a GREAT country.[/QUOTE]

    I was pointing to the error in your reasoning when you said that 50% don't pay taxes, and commented that they would be available at home to take a call for a poll because of that. You know very well that avoiding paying taxes because of tax credits doesn't mean one doesn't work. Your statement made no sense, that's all.

  19. #39
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,548
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4066495]I was pointing to the error in your reasoning when you said that 50% don't pay taxes, and commented that they would be available at home to take a call for a poll because of that. You know very well that avoiding paying taxes because of tax credits doesn't mean one doesn't work. Your statement made no sense, that's all.[/QUOTE]


    What error? OK, 50 percent pay about 8 percent of total taxes. Forgive my rounding.

    However one gets there.... there is an abundance of people who pay NO TAX. Lets remove the earned income credit and child credit and raise raise rates on the wealthy.

    Lets see how that goes over..... it wont. Why? Because DEMS buy votes from 50 percent of the public.

  20. #40
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4066553]What error? OK, 50 percent pay about 8 percent of total taxes. Forgive my rounding.

    However one gets there.... there is an abundance of people who pay NO TAX. Lets remove the earned income credit and child credit and raise raise rates on the wealthy.

    Lets see how that goes over..... it wont. Why? Because DEMS buy votes from 50 percent of the public.[/QUOTE]

    You keep missing my point. Here's your quote:

    Well 50 percent of Americans pay none..... so the lazy people who actually are home to answer the phone for this poll would be fine with you and I paying more.;)

    Why would being in the 50% who don't pay taxes suggest that these are lazy people who are at home to answer the phone, rather than working stiffs who get tax credits... your connection of the two was factually wrong.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us