U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
Old 02-19-2009, 04:06 PM
Location: New York, New York
4,861 posts, read 5,922,856 times
Reputation: 1019


Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
Did you even read what I posted?
Reagan increased defense spending but the Democrats, who controlled appropriations back then, refused to give him corresponding cuts in other domestic programs and instead increased spending. That is why there were "massive deficits."

And the tax cuts did not cause a "downturn." Just the opposite.
Who feeds you these lies? Here this is from another looney lefty site.
The Bush Tax Cut Is Now about the Same Size As the Reagan Tax Cuts - 4/19/01

The Legacy of the Reagan Tax Cut
Even if the Bush tax cut represented only a modest proportion of the properly measured Reagan tax cut, the basic logic of the comparison would be problematic. The Reagan tax cut does not represent a valid basis for evaluating what size tax cut is fiscally responsible.
Even with the subsequent tax increase in 1982, the 1981 tax cut imposed a damaging fiscal legacy on the nation. The unified budget deficit rose from $74 billion in 1980 to $221 billion in 1986 and a peak of $290 billion in 1992. As a percentage of GDP, the deficit (adjusted for the economy's business cycle) rose from 0.7 percent in 1980 to a peak of 4.8 percent in 1986.
Some advocates for the Bush tax proposal have argued that the Reagan tax cuts were not a cause of the large budget deficits during the 1980s. Rather, they argue, the problem arose because of large spending increases. This argument is not supported by the evidence. CBO produces estimates of revenues and outlays that adjust for the state of the business cycle. These figures indicate that, adjusted for the state of the business cycle, revenue fell from 19.4 percent of GDP in 1981 to 16.9 percent of GDP in 1986 and 17.3 percent in 1987. Outlays rose from 19.9 percent of GDP in 1981 to 21.7 percent in 1986 and 20.6 percent in 1987. Between 1981 and 1987, revenues fell three times as much as a percentage of GDP as spending increased. (Revenues declined by 2.1 percent of GDP while outlays increased by 0.7 percent of GDP.) Furthermore, all of the increase in outlays relative to GDP was due to interest outlays, which themselves mostly reflected the tax cuts. Excluding interest, outlays actually fell: Non-interest outlays fell from 19.7 percent of GDP in 1981 to 19.4 percent in 1986 and 18.8 percent in 1987. These data clearly demonstrate that the Reagan tax cuts played a substantial role in the budget deficits of the 1980s and early 1990s.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 02-20-2009, 06:39 AM
27,903 posts, read 33,471,836 times
Reputation: 4016

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-20-2009, 01:32 PM
Location: Prepperland
13,156 posts, read 9,236,886 times
Reputation: 9038
REMEMBER: Since 1933, no dollars have been in circulation. Federal Reserve notes (dollar bills) are not dollars.
Everything denominated in dollars, but payable with "dollar bills" is part of the ongoing fraud.
FRNs have no par value. They are worthless.

A real dollar is still worth one dollar. A dollar bill is worth less than zero - it's a debt.
The inflation in retail price is not in dollars, but in "dollar bills".
By incrementally debasing the dollar in our minds, we have been made hostages of the banking system.

TITLE 12,CHAPTER 3,SUBCHAPTER XII,sec. 411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption
" Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in LAWFUL MONEY on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank."

LAWFUL MONEY - "The terms 'lawful money' and 'lawful money of the United States' shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States..."
Title 12 United States Code, Sec. 152.

"Dollars, or units; each to be of the value of a Spanish milled as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four-sixteenths parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard, silver."
--- Sec. 9, Coinage Act of 1792, January 1792

According to Title 31 of the U.S. code, a silver dollar complies with
the original Coinage Act.
31 USC Sec. 5112. Denominations, specifications, and design of coins
(e)(1) ...weight 31.103 grams;
(e)(4) have inscriptions ... 1 Oz. Fine Silver ... One Dollar

"Federal reserve notes are legal tender in absence of objection
MacLeod v. Hoover (1925) 159 La 244, 105 So. 305

Article 1, Section 8. U.S. Constitution.
The Congress shall have Power
...To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and
fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Article 1, Section 10. U.S. Constitution No State shall
... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and
silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any ... Law impairing
the Obligation of Contracts, ...

What few realize is that Congress never had the power to CREATE money.
If it did, why would it need the power to borrow it? In fact, what we
perceive as "munny", is not money, at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-20-2009, 08:27 PM
1,330 posts, read 1,046,080 times
Reputation: 202
Originally Posted by aaronstlcards View Post
When Bush came into office eight years ago, America had a surplus, today, were 1,000,000,000,000 dollars in debt...
Disregarding this lie (Bush inherited a deficit), your solution was to elect a guy who will do what? Enact the biggest pork spending bill in history with the promise of more to come?

Christ, do you see why thinking Americans are frustrated? We have idiots making decisions for the rest of us.

Here's the solution.

1) Make the voting age at least 25 (so people have a chance to live through and see at least parts of two economic cycles)

2) Only allow tax filers to vote. I didn't say "rich" people. I said contributors. If you aren't contributing to the country, you should NOT have the right to make decisions for the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-21-2015, 07:57 AM
736 posts, read 564,874 times
Reputation: 696
After 9 months, Bush (or Cheney) came into office and had to deal with terrorism and spend heavily on our military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Clinton was already bombing Iraq in the mid 90s so this was nothing new but on a larger scale and effort.

Clinton's housing affordability intiative in the mid-90s and wall street proved to be a disaster in 2004 as housing prices could not just go up forever for 5-10% or more.

There's more blame on Clinton than Bush. Bush's term was the result of what Clinton did in Iraq and housing, and dot-com and Greenspan. And I did vote for Bill but I can se with clear eyes the cause. Did Bush cause the Dot-com bubble on wall street too? Both parties spend far too much.

We just need someone to change it for the better good than for their own pockets, friends, or what their legacy will be once they vacate 1600 Pennsylvania and play less golf.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top