Hillary Sucks.

[dishwab]

Read a great line yesterday... voting for Hillary because she's a woman is like eating shit because it looks like chocolate.

I don't think I get the joke...

[marshallnoise]

Read a great line yesterday... voting for Hillary because she's a woman is like eating shit because it looks like chocolate.

Nailed it.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[estoguy]

Read a great line yesterday... voting for Hillary because she's a woman is like eating shit because it looks like chocolate.

[BraveUlysses]

sounds like you need a safe space :rofl:

the fact that your own stated views do not stand up to basic scrutiny is not my fault.

[gwb72tii]

:rofl: you've lost any credibility to complain about substance when you bring nothing to the table, ever.

you never, ever own up to being wrong

never provide even the smallest shred of information to back your assertions

go post on freerepublic, it's the perfect forum for you.

i rest my case
back to ignore

[BraveUlysses]

honestly ulysses, if you offered anything of substance, an opinion backed by anything other than a personal attack, any f**king useful thing for others to read and debate with you, you might have some sort of value here.
your like a midget boston terrier trying to hang on my pant leg.
manup and act like an adult

instead of making a further fool of yourself, show me please where the data from previous tax cuts do not support my claims
manup and post something intelligent
Schnitzer at least will engage in adult conversation, something you seem unable to do

:rofl: you've lost any credibility to complain about substance when you bring nothing to the table, ever.

you never, ever own up to being wrong

never provide even the smallest shred of information to back your assertions

go post on freerepublic, it's the perfect forum for you.

[gwb72tii]

*claims to be data driven*



*handwaves away anything contrary to what he already believes*

you're a hack, through and through.

honestly ulysses, if you offered anything of substance, an opinion backed by anything other than a personal attack, any f**king useful thing for others to read and debate with you, you might have some sort of value here.
your like a midget boston terrier trying to hang on my pant leg.
manup and act like an adult

instead of making a further fool of yourself, show me please where the data from previous tax cuts do not support my claims
manup and post something intelligent
Schnitzer at least will engage in adult conversation, something you seem unable to do

[BraveUlysses]

Unfortunately your generation did start that... glad I never subscribed.

You gotta remember, millennials didn't come up with this shit on their own, they were told this shit by their parents (later baby boomers and early gen x).

[BraveUlysses]

yes yes yes i've heard it all before, from the likes of you, the left and economic "experts"
Reaganomics was predicted to leave a huge hole in the budget when it was passed, and was i believe the larges tax cut ever although i might be wrong on that.
Go look at what happened. There was NO reduction in tax receipts, There were record capital gain taxes collected (predicted to decrease) and record personal taxes collected (predicted to decrease)
There was NO reduction.
There was however a huge increase in economic activity and job creation.
and before you mention the deficit
If the democratic dominated congress would have held back on spending that they promised to do the budget would never have had the hole in it that happened.

You can espouse whatever economic theories and pseudo economic experts you want, but the actual economic data backs me up

i'm an old mechanical engineer so logic/data means a lot to me.

i'm an old mechanical engineer so logic/data means a lot to me.

i'm an old mechanical engineer so logic/data means a lot to me.

i'm an old mechanical engineer so logic/data means a lot to me.

i'm an old mechanical engineer so logic/data means a lot to me.

i'm an old mechanical engineer so logic/data means a lot to me.

*claims to be data driven*



*handwaves away anything contrary to what he already believes*

you're a hack, through and through.

[mrsleeve]

^
As you know I dont ascribe to the mantra of the generation I am lumped in with either.

I grew up old school, I didnt get the special feelers treatment, I had very very great influences from my G-parents and Great aunt and uncle. We were rewarded for good deeds, hard work and knowing right from wrong, and you learned not to fuck up very often. I hope to have half the wisdom of my G-pa when I get another 30 years on me. That said the county I grew up in was a lot like growing up in the mid 50s from a societal stand point in the 80's and early 90's very conservative and traditional to this day, though strangely keeps religious affiliations to ones self by and large.

[Schnitzer318is]

we have something like 98 million job age people out of the workforce
what if we added 30 million back?

We had more industrial diversity in the 80's. More manufacturing, tech was getting huge, etc. Our industries are much more focused now with much fewer jobs available because there are more monopolies (fewer companies offering employment) in the industries we have left. The jobs we DO have available are entry to workforce jobs that were once intended for high schoolers, service and entertainment industry jobs. Adding more of those won't generate much revenue.

but wholeheartedly agree with you an spending. somewhere sometime spending has to be contained or frozen.
balancing the budget is not magic. I believe it takes 7 years of level spending to get there. social programs today are on a short road to ruin. we all know that. GWB was castigated by democrats for bringing up the sustainability of social security and he dropped it like a hot rock

At least we agree on something. ;) Social Security is a dead end now. Let the tax payer shoulder their own retirement responsibilities. SS started out as a decent idea, but now doesn't collect enough from this working generation, to pay for the last. Not sure why that is... I know we pay heavily into it, and I assume all other workers do as well.

here's the reason why i believe her to be unfit

You'll get no argument here... she's terrible.

edit: here's one more statistic. We have all time record federal income tax receipts. and we will run a 1.4 trillion deficit. taxes collections are not the problem and never have been. it's the spending

and it was the decade of decadence because of the growth unleashed by tax cuts

We do collect plenty of taxes were we to cut all, or even most, spending. Can't do that. Need to increase taxes and cut spending. It wouldn't be forever, as you said 5-7 years could do it. Then we could go back to even lower than current tax rates if desired.

The growth in the 80's can not be directly attributed to tax cuts. We had other periods of growth where the tax rates were double than in the 80's and 90's.

With my generations view on history, "it happened in the past it dose not affect me now," and times have changed and there for we need to do something modern, since everyone told me growing up that " I am special and my feelings matter" we should only do things that I deem to be right....

Unfortunately your generation did start that... glad I never subscribed.

[gwb72tii]

Don't disagree there regarding the statistics. But you are going off data gleaned in the decade of decadence. The economic growth possible then... is not possible now. You need growth for a tax-cut policy to work. Reagan was getting 3.64% GDP growth per quarter on average during his presidency and Obama is getting 1.78%. The next POTUS could have a worse rate of growth to deal with (or stagnant).

In a perfect world where our government had not stuck us in a 20 trillion dollar hole... I'd be the first one saying we need low taxes and can afford social spending. But as it sits now, we need moderately higher taxes... and lower social spending. Oh, and to cut subsidies, defense spending, aid to other nations, etc, etc. But that's just a pipe dream because the corporations and special interests like the system we have now. It works for them.

Edit: Just going back and looking at the debt during the 80's out of curiosity. Reagan put us over 1 trillion, and ended at 2.6 trillion. Doesn't sound that great either. It DOES sound awesome when you compare it to the numbers added by GWB and Obama... but still I'd hardly call adding 186% to the national debt fiscally conservative, or successful.

At reagans's time nobody thought we'd be able to kill inflation or get the economy booming
slow growth is not permanent. debt fueled growth is a thing of the past.
taking more dollars out of the economy to pay down debt will further slow the economy. its a pandora's box almost.
and again, reagan was villified for getting a democrat controlled congress to agree to cut taxes. none of the experts thought there was any chance of it working.
the answer is growth
higher taxes kill growth
lower taxes broaden the tax base through job creation
we have something like 98 million job age people out of the workforce
what if we added 30 million back?

but wholeheartedly agree with you an spending. somewhere sometime spending has to be contained or frozen.
balancing the budget is not magic. I believe it takes 7 years of level spending to get there. social programs today are on a short road to ruin. we all know that. GWB was castigated by democrats for bringing up the sustainability of social security and he dropped it like a hot rock

all the more reason to vote trump
he is the best chance for change we have this election
a very flawed candidate
hillary will be more of the same that got us here

here's the reason why i believe her to be unfit
back when bill was elected she was responsible for firing the white house travel staff so her friends could get the business
she lied about it before admitting it
but she basically upended the lives of 7 people who had no skin in the game
could not have cared less about career service people who had served multiple administrations, whether they needed jobs, cared about their families
she has no compassion and then strives to avoid accountability

edit: here's one more statistic. We have all time record federal income tax receipts. and we will run a 1.4 trillion deficit. taxes collections are not the problem and never have been. it's the spending

and it was the decade of decadence because of the growth unleashed by tax cuts

[mrsleeve]

George you have to remember a lot of these guys were barely an itch in there fathers sack at best, when Regan 1st sat in the Oval. Me I was around when Carter was in office, but way to young to even remember that.

With my generations view on history, "it happened in the past it dose not affect me now," and times have changed and there for we need to do something modern, since everyone told me growing up that " I am special and my feelings matter" we should only do things that I deem to be right....

[Schnitzer318is]

You can espouse whatever economic theories and pseudo economic experts you want, but the actual economic data backs me up

Don't disagree there regarding the statistics. But you are going off data gleaned in the decade of decadence. The economic growth possible then... is not possible now. You need growth for a tax-cut policy to work. Reagan was getting 3.64% GDP growth per quarter on average during his presidency and Obama is getting 1.78%. The next POTUS could have a worse rate of growth to deal with (or stagnant).

In a perfect world where our government had not stuck us in a 20 trillion dollar hole... I'd be the first one saying we need low taxes and can afford social spending. But as it sits now, we need moderately higher taxes... and lower social spending. Oh, and to cut subsidies, defense spending, aid to other nations, etc, etc. But that's just a pipe dream because the corporations and special interests like the system we have now. It works for them.

Edit: Just going back and looking at the debt during the 80's out of curiosity. Reagan put us over 1 trillion, and ended at 2.6 trillion. Doesn't sound that great either. It DOES sound awesome when you compare it to the numbers added by GWB and Obama... but still I'd hardly call adding 186% to the national debt fiscally conservative, or successful.

[gwb72tii]

yes yes yes i've heard it all before, from the likes of you, the left and economic "experts"
Reaganomics was predicted to leave a huge hole in the budget when it was passed, and was i believe the larges tax cut ever although i might be wrong on that.
Go look at what happened. There was NO reduction in tax receipts, There were record capital gain taxes collected (predicted to decrease) and record personal taxes collected (predicted to decrease)
There was NO reduction.
There was however a huge increase in economic activity and job creation.
and before you mention the deficit
If the democratic dominated congress would have held back on spending that they promised to do the budget would never have had the hole in it that happened.

You can espouse whatever economic theories and pseudo economic experts you want, but the actual economic data backs me up