UKC Forums (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=53)
-- Clinton's body list (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/showthread.php?threadid=928308960)

quote:

---

Originally posted by truly
Amazing how a few tax increases in the right areas can lead to such a strong economy....
The Progressive Caucus has put out their vision for a budget, in response to the Ryan plan and the mainstream Democratic plans. The Progressive plan would have us running a budget surplus in short order and provide lots of money for roads, bridges and other infrastructure that would create lots of jobs too.....

---

__________________
the oldest ride in the park, but still the longest line.

Clinton's body list can't even come close to matching Bush's.

Well, if you would like to look at the actually numbers of military fatalities between the two administrations, here it is:

Clinton ('93-'00): 7,500
Bush ('01-'06): 8,792

The fact that Bush has higher number of military deaths does not surprise, but the fact that Clinton's is so high makes a guy scratch his head. The United States was involved in two wars when Bush held the office. How did your prized Clinton have such a high total? And it wasn't all from Kosovo and Somalia.

__________________
Walk softly and carry a big stick.

I guess that the over one million civilians of women and children con't count, huh? Bush called collateral damage. Beside the refugees that went to tent villages and other countries.

One million huh? Where did you get that number, or is it just the biggest one that you understand. After the US invaded both Iraq and Afghanistan, many people that sought refuge in another country came back to their homes once the governments were overthrown. Bush didn't kill anyone, and collateral damage cannot be avoided when the enemy hides in the populous. If you want to count civilian populations that died, check into the civilian body count of Kosovo. Are you going to blame all of that on Clinton? Probably not huh? Nobody likes it, but it was Congress that agreed to send troops to Afghanistan and Iraq. This was not a police action that can be approved by a presidential order.

I think it is high time young Billy went back to school.

__________________
Walk softly and carry a big stick.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rance56
lol, are sure it wasnt that huge bubble of a stock market that artifically inflated everyones wealth for that period?

and please connect the dots for me on what tax increases you are talking about and how they lead to a strong economy.

---

__________________
patriotism is supporting your country all of the time and your government when it deserves it.
if you think the price of education is high, check out the cost of ignorance!

quote:

---

Originally posted by michael.magorian
One million huh? Where did you get that number, or is it just the biggest one that you understand. After the US invaded both Iraq and Afghanistan, many people that sought refuge in another country came back to their homes once the governments were overthrown. Bush didn't kill anyone, and collateral damage cannot be avoided when the enemy hides in the populous. If you want to count civilian populations that died, check into the civilian body count of Kosovo. Are you going to blame all of that on Clinton? Probably not huh? Nobody likes it, but it was Congress that agreed to send troops to Afghanistan and Iraq. This was not a police action that can be approved by a presidential order.

I think it is high time young Billy went back to school.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by truly
rance, folks have thrown around the lie that "tax cuts are good for the economy" for so long that many people have started to believe it. But the opposite is actually true. Let me give you an example-
If the tax rate is the same whether you make 250,000$ per year or one million or ten million, then you will try to pull all of the profit out of your business every year, year after year. If there is a progressive tax structure in which you pay more on income over a certain amount, say 250,000$ then you will be more inclined to roll profits/earnings back into your company. Lets just say that the tax rate on income over 250,000$ was 90%! Sounds alarming doesn't it? Well if you had a biz that looked like it was gonna make 400,000, near the end of the year you would make 150,000 of expenditures back into your company rather than let it get taxed so high. You might buy new tools and equipment, remodel or refurbish your work area, or even give your employees big fat end of the year bonuses. But whatever you had to do you would get your company to spend that 150,000 to avoid paying 90% tax on that money. And all of that 150k would get rolled back into the economy- local suppliers that provided equipment and tools, remodeled or refurbished work areas, and employees that got big fat bonuses would all benefit.
Remember the good old days when employers threw lavish Christmas parties? That all ended when we scrapped a more progressive tax plan for the more regressive one that we have now. Employers used to give vacation trips out as bonuses. Not much anymore...

---

__________________
the oldest ride in the park, but still the longest line.

quote:

---

Originally posted by truly
rance, folks have thrown around the lie that "tax cuts are good for the economy" for so long that many people have started to believe it. But the opposite is actually true. Let me give you an example-
If the tax rate is the same whether you make 250,000$ per year or one million or ten million, then you will try to pull all of the profit out of your business every year, year after year. If there is a progressive tax structure in which you pay more on income over a certain amount, say 250,000$ then you will be more inclined to roll profits/earnings back into your company. Lets just say that the tax rate on income over 250,000$ was 90%! Sounds alarming doesn't it? Well if you had a biz that looked like it was gonna make 400,000, near the end of the year you would make 150,000 of expenditures back into your company rather than let it get taxed so high. You might buy new tools and equipment, remodel or refurbish your work area, or even give your employees big fat end of the year bonuses. But whatever you had to do you would get your company to spend that 150,000 to avoid paying 90% tax on that money. And all of that 150k would get rolled back into the economy- local suppliers that provided equipment and tools, remodeled or refurbished work areas, and employees that got big fat bonuses would all benefit.
Remember the good old days when employers threw lavish Christmas parties? That all ended when we scrapped a more progressive tax plan for the more regressive one that we have now. Employers used to give vacation trips out as bonuses. Not much anymore...

---

__________________
All my life I wanted to be somebody, now I realize I should have been more specific. I carry a gun because I am too young to die and too old to take an asswhoopin.

No.......

quote:

---

Originally posted by brushrunretiree
You're right Triple K "o" got the Most Votes. Why People in Ohio voted up to six times for him. Can you say VOTER FRAUD?????

---

__________________
Track B4 Tree









Quality, Dependable Coon Lights--Built by a Coonhunter for Coonhunters
==================================
** Superior Lites

** Nitehunters.com

** Zepp's--Quality Products

** Tall Timber
Lights

**Boss Lights & Boss Pro


** They Twist it until they start believing it themselves**















Purina Dog Food
** Proven Results **

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Competition Coonhunters and Politicians
** Win anyway you have to & tell everyone what they want to hear **

As usual, you hear what you want to hear. A poll worker @ Cincinnati admitted to multiple voting. They were all in her family, so it was very easy to do. Charges are pending, but I'd say that the otrain will stifle the charges!

I just checked again. I did a search on Voter Fraud in Ohio. She was Indicted for admitting to FELONY VOTER FRAUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!It's a 18 month Prison Term. So, Believe what you want. Also they're looking at more people who voted absentee, then voted in person. Thank you

quote:

---

Originally posted by truly
rance, folks have thrown around the lie that "tax cuts are good for the economy" for so long that many people have started to believe it. But the opposite is actually true. Let me give you an example-
If the tax rate is the same whether you make 250,000$ per year or one million or ten million, then you will try to pull all of the profit out of your business every year, year after year. If there is a progressive tax structure in which you pay more on income over a certain amount, say 250,000$ then you will be more inclined to roll profits/earnings back into your company. Lets just say that the tax rate on income over 250,000$ was 90%! Sounds alarming doesn't it? Well if you had a biz that looked like it was gonna make 400,000, near the end of the year you would make 150,000 of expenditures back into your company rather than let it get taxed so high. You might buy new tools and equipment, remodel or refurbish your work area, or even give your employees big fat end of the year bonuses. But whatever you had to do you would get your company to spend that 150,000 to avoid paying 90% tax on that money. And all of that 150k would get rolled back into the economy- local suppliers that provided equipment and tools, remodeled or refurbished work areas, and employees that got big fat bonuses would all benefit.
Remember the good old days when employers threw lavish Christmas parties? That all ended when we scrapped a more progressive tax plan for the more regressive one that we have now. Employers used to give vacation trips out as bonuses. Not much anymore...

---

__________________
patriotism is supporting your country all of the time and your government when it deserves it.
if you think the price of education is high, check out the cost of ignorance!

When Clinton was pres i did not have to worry about my guns being takin away or paying 3.79 a gallon for gas or a ban on coal and i could feed my family with no problem .No problem figurin this out need not say no more opinons are like a** holes everyone has one at least for now anyway.

__________________
egillespie

quote:

---

Originally posted by billy doyce
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-...-us-occupation/
You right wingers just don't want to believe the truth. Young Billy just happens to be 79 years young. I been farther out on limbs after possums than you have away from your door step.

---

__________________
Walk softly and carry a big stick.

quote:

---

Originally posted by truly
Just to expand on this a bit- the "top marginal tax rate", that is, the rate paid on the highest incomes, in the past has been as high as 90% [in the 50's] and often been in the 50 to 70% range. When tax rates on high incomes were at this rate a business owner would run their business with the goal of LONG TERM STEADY profitability, so that he would have an income level that would remain consistent year after year, and hopefully as close to the level, but just below where that higher income tax bracket would kick in. Part of a long term profitability plan would be buying and maintaining the best quality equipment, and another part would be developing customer and employee loyalty. All of the monies spent would be targeted at flowing through the local community. Buying insurance from a local insurance salesman might have been slightly more expensive, but would put money back in the community and develop loyalty with the insurance salesman and his friends and family. Sponsoring a little league baseball team or a race car, supporting a theatre or garden club were all expenditures that would buy loyalty within the local community. And this is how having higher tax rates is actually good for the economy and for the quality of life in any given community.
Todays tax policies in which the top marginal tax rate is only slightly higher than other tax rates removes the incentives for business owners to plan for long term business profits and instead to maximize short term profits. We can see where that has gotten us. just look around you.

---

__________________
the oldest ride in the park, but still the longest line.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diggerman
Ben ,Please qualify this post as your opinion,There are absolutly no facts or figures to even remotely back this up.This is the liberal mantra to justify stealing from Job providers.It is a companies normal progression to grow through its profits,less profit less growth.More growth more jobs, more jobs,more withholding,more witholding,more revenue,more revenue,lower tax rate. Pay attention. ps.the lack of Christmas parties is not Bushes fault either,They fell victim to owi laws and liability suits.

---

__________________
patriotism is supporting your country all of the time and your government when it deserves it.
if you think the price of education is high, check out the cost of ignorance!

quote:

---

Originally posted by rance56


If i owned a business I would burn it to the ground before I paid 90 percent in taxes

---

__________________
patriotism is supporting your country all of the time and your government when it deserves it.
if you think the price of education is high, check out the cost of ignorance!

quote:

---

Originally posted by truly
Yes but you publicly state that "I SPEND MORE ON SPILT LIQUOR THAN YOU MAKE IN A YEAR." So we know you don't have to good of judgement. THat's a lot of spilt liquor Rance...... If you spill that much I wonder how much makes it to your mouth.... Must quite a bit.

---

__________________
the oldest ride in the park, but still the longest line.

quote:

---

Originally posted by michael.magorian
Quite the fact tree you throw out there with no real evidence to back it up. It's amazing they figured it up, beings Iraqis have no birth certificates and/or social security numbers. Most casualties in Iraq were Iraqis and caused by Iraqis, not Americans. But, you go ahead and sit back blaming the people that fight for your freedom to imply they killed millions and point the finger of blame at one man that acted on a congressional decision made by your elected officials.

If you would like to argue the history of the Iraq war, the politics of it, and the circumstances under which it was fought, you will have to try somewhere else. How you got to be so old, being so naive and gullible is beyond me, but acts as witness to the welfare state our country has become.

Oh and by the way when I spent over two years of my life in the Mideast because of the Iraq war, I didn't see any opossums on any limbs. The things I learned over there can't be found on any website full of BS "facts."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by truly
Just to expand on this a bit- the "top marginal tax rate", that is, the rate paid on the highest incomes, in the past has been as high as 90% [in the 50's] and often been in the 50 to 70% range. When tax rates on high incomes were at this rate a business owner would run their business with the goal of LONG TERM STEADY profitability, so that he would have an income level that would remain consistent year after year, and hopefully as close to the level, but just below where that higher income tax bracket would kick in. Part of a long term profitability plan would be buying and maintaining the best quality equipment, and another part would be developing customer and employee loyalty. All of the monies spent would be targeted at flowing through the local community. Buying insurance from a local insurance salesman might have been slightly more expensive, but would put money back in the community and develop loyalty with the insurance salesman and his friends and family. Sponsoring a little league baseball team or a race car, supporting a theatre or garden club were all expenditures that would buy loyalty within the local community. And this is how having higher tax rates is actually good for the economy and for the quality of life in any given community.
Todays tax policies in which the top marginal tax rate is only slightly higher than other tax rates removes the incentives for business owners to plan for long term business profits and instead to maximize short term profits. We can see where that has gotten us. just look around you.

---

__________________
"it's easy to sit there and say you'd like to have more money. and i guess that's what i like about it. it's easy. just sitting there, rocking back and forth, wanting that money."
Jack Handy

TAXES TO PAY FOR WAR

Congress enacted an income tax in October 1913 as part of the Revenue Act of 1913, levying a 1% tax on net personal incomes above $3,000, with a 6% surtax on incomes above $500,000. By 1918, the top rate of the income tax was increased to 77% (on income over $1,000,000, equivalent of 15,300,000 in 2012 dollars) to finance World War I. The average rate for the rich however, was only 15%. The top marginal tax rate was reduced to 58% in 1922, to 25% in 1925 and finally to 24% in 1929. In 1932 the top marginal tax rate was increased to 63% during the Great Depression and steadily increased, reaching 94% (on all income over $200,000, equivalent of 2,500,000 in 2012 dollars)in 1945. During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments.

Following World War II tax increases, top marginal individual tax rates stayed near or above 90%, and the effective tax rate at 70% for the highest incomes (few paid the top rate), until 1964 when the top marginal tax rate was lowered to 70%. Kennedy explicitly called for a top rate of 65 percent, but added that it should be set at 70 percent if certain deductions weren't phased out at the top of the income scale.The top marginal tax rate was lowered to 50% in 1982 and eventually to 28% in 1988. It slowly increased to 39.6% in 2000, then was reduced to 35% for the period 2003 through 2012. Corporate tax rates were lowered from 48% to 46% in 1981 (PL 97-34), then to 34% in 1986 (PL 99-514), and increased to 35% in 1993.

__________________
CEDAR GLEN ENGLISH - Jerry Lee Cottrill
ST MARYS, WV
304-834-0908 cell
"Home of the High-Lonesome Hounds"

"REMEMBER, THE STONE AGE DID NOT END BECAUSE THEY RAN OUT OF ROCKS!"

"A MANS EGO IS A HEAVY BURDEN FOR A HOUND TO BEAR!"

GRAND NITE CH PR CEDAR GLEN HIGH-LONESOME BLAZE (WILCOX THUNDER BLUE X GRIZZLY daughter)

PUP: Cedar Glen High Lonesome BANSHEE(BACKYARD L E X IZZY)

BEAGLE: Lucy

quote:

---

Originally posted by truly
Actually there are lots of facts and figures to back this up. From around the Depression [early 30's] to up to the Reagan presidency this country operated under an economic philosophy that could be termed "Demand side" economics. An increasingly large middle class [supported by high tax rates on the wealth class]had more and more cash to buy homes, cars, appliances, clothes, food, etc. This increased spending fueled the economy and everyone did better and better. Reagan ushered in "supply side" economics. Supply side economics aka trickle down aka neoliberal economic theory, aka Friedman's Chicago School economic policy have ruled ever since. While Bush Sr referred to it as "voodoo economics" he engaged in it too. As did Clinton, Bush Jr, and now Obama. While there are minimal differences in their economic policies they are all based on "supply side" economic theory. Supply side is supported by low tax rates on the wealth class and increasingly high tax rates on the working class.
For those who don't know the difference between supply side and demand side economic theory- here goes: Supply side economics theorizes that the most important part of a well run economy is the suppliers. Take care of the concerns of the suppliers- as in the business owners and the wealth class who hold the supply of money and capital and the economy will work just fine. This is where the term "trickle down" comes from. Take care of the wealth and their wealth will trickle down to the working class.
Demand side economics theorizes that if you take care of the working class of citizens in way that they have enough money so that they can buy the goods and services that they need and want that the economy will work fine. Demand siders believe that it is folks who have money to buy these goods and services that are the true "job creators", as their needs will be met by a person willing to sell goods or services to them.
A supply sider would say that McDonalds creates jobs. A demand sider would say that hungry people who have enough money to buy lunch create jobs. Who do you think is the job creator? If an economy had a bunch of supply siders who had goods and services to sell but there were no buyers how would that work out? If there was economy with a bunch of demand siders with money to spend and there were no supply siders how would that economy work out? A demand sider would suggest that in the vacuum of suppliers that some of them would become suppliers and fill that void. A working class miner if he knew that there would be lots of hungry folks with money in hand might open a diner. A lumberjack who knew that there were other lumberjacks with spending money might open a hardware store. But if a supply sider has no consumer base ready to buy from his businesses than how can they continue to operate? And this is where we are today, 30 years into supply side economics. We have an abundantly wealthy wealth class. They own and control the entire supply side. From sourcing to shipping and distribution, and to the end retail outlets, from McDonalds to Walmart, from Exxon to GE, they have the money and the control, and they have crowned themselves the almighty job creators. But what they don't have any more is a strong middle class with money to spend on their goods. Supply side has run it's course. It is no longer sustainable. It has skimmed all of the profits from the middle class. But they have market share and control, so they will keep it going by selling us less and less, but blocking out any competitors. And they will have more and more and more and we will have to wait for it to trickle down.
You can not have an economy that puts the wealth classes concerns over the working classes concerns in which the middle class still has long term sustainability. It just can't happen. This country has chosen to side with the wealth class. Obama has. Bush did. Clinton did. Bush Sr did. Reagan did.

---

__________________
All my life I wanted to be somebody, now I realize I should have been more specific. I carry a gun because I am too young to die and too old to take an asswhoopin.

i can understand the democrat vs republican debate, but truly is takign this to a capilitis vs socialist debate. he evens thinks bill clintions way of running a country is wrong. he admires china over the usa and thinks its ok for the governement to take 9 out of 10 dollars a person makes.not a corporation, but a individual.

i hope those of yall on the left will publically denounce this way of thinking. sociaism has been tried and fails. people like truly are a enemy of the usa and our way of life. they dont deserve this great country that we live in

__________________
the oldest ride in the park, but still the longest line.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rance56

If i owned a business I would burn it to the ground before I paid 90 percent in taxes

---

__________________
patriotism is supporting your country all of the time and your government when it deserves it.
if you think the price of education is high, check out the cost of ignorance!