Say Anything Blog

So…a person known for being a great communicator should not be our president because you think they are Hitlerish…interesting…

Excuse me, you were saying?

Yes, when he preaches what is essentially the same message.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Hitler: Germany will be great again; just follow me.

Obama: America will be great again; just follow me.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

So he is an Aryan take over the world kill all Jews Catholics homos and capitalists vegetarian house painter?

I guess I missed that speech. Was it on Fox?

So he is an Aryan take over the world kill all Jews Catholics homos and capitalists vegetarian house painter?

I guess I missed that speech. Was it on Fox?

Obama: America will be great again; just follow me.

Gee r-Gumby, should I Google some Raygun speeches to find similar Hitlerish language?

Excuse me, you were saying?

Gee r-Gumby, should I Google some Raygun speeches to find similar Hitlerish language?

You can try, Master Baiter, but you will find that President Reagan preached the value of conservative principles that already made America great; he wasn’t a demagogue like Hitler and Obama. He never said he was ashamed of America, only the ignorant lefties.

Obama hates white people and Jews, but is a Mommy fascist instead of a Daddy fascist, like Hitler.  He will simply take things away from us “for our own good”.  He’ll just tax and regulate everything away from us, until all that’s left is what he thinks we should have.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

My but you are a queer little man, r-Gumby.
However you are my good buddy, so have a nice day.

Reagan preached the value of conservative principles?

It is time to put America back to work; to make our cities and towns resound with the confident voices of men and women of all races, nationalities and faiths bringing home to their families a decent paycheck they can cash for honest money.
For those without skills, we’ll find a way to help them get skills.

For those without job opportunities, we’ll stimulate new opportunities, particularly in the inner cities where they live.

For those who have abandoned hope, we’ll restore hope and we’ll welcome them into a great national crusade to make America great again!

“I’m from the government and I’m here to help”?

The time is now, my fellow Americans, to recapture our destiny, to take it into our own hands. But, to do this will take many of us, working together. I ask you tonight to volunteer your help in this cause so we can carry our message throughout the land.

Yes, isn’t now the time that we, the people, carried out these unkempt promises? Let us pledge to each other and to all America on this July day 48 years later, we intend to do just that.

Obama or Raygun?

Excuse me, you were saying?

“I’m from the government and I’m here to help”?

Again you show your craven dishonesty, Master Baiter.
Why not post the entire quote?  Here it is, and it is exactly the opposite of what Obama and Hitler preached:

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

How dishonest of you to leave out the first part, thereby giving an entirely false impression.  Par for the course for you, Master Baiter.  Shame on you!

Save America; boycott the MSM.

RBB, do you notice any philosophical difference in the two:

Obama is basically saying you can’t do it by yourself, because you’re apparently too pathetic of a person, so we will take care of your helpless self.

Reagan is saying that we can do it, but it takes effort from all of us, so let’s get ‘er done.

I mean seriously “For those without job opportunities, we’ll stimulate new opportunities, particularly in the inner cities where they live.” What kind of bullshit is this.  How is the government going to “stimulate” anything except by taking away money from those who have it, and therefore reduces their ability to be productive, and distribute it to the poor?

How about “we’re not going to take away so much of your money so you can afford to start businesses, then we as a group can grow together?”

Y’know who is like Hitler?

HITLER!!!  And no one else.

Jebus, you people are fuckin’ unhinged.

Do great communicators make great presidents? Must be. Ronald Reagan was a great president known as the “Great Communicator”.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

Carrick

I mean seriously

“For those without job opportunities, we’ll stimulate new opportunities, particularly in the inner cities where they live.”

What kind of bullshit is this.  How is the government going to “stimulate” anything except by taking away money from those who have it, and therefore reduces their ability to be productive, and distribute it to the poor?

I know, I know, even Raygun wasn’t Reaganesqe.
BBRAAAAHAAHAA!!!!

You were saying, C?

Excuse me, you were saying?

Do great communicators make great presidents?

Depends on what they’re communicating.

Reagan wanted to create jobs through the private sector, using the principles of free enterprise.  Once again, you willfully mislead, Master Baiter.  You have no integrity.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

"jack”: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

Save America; boycott the MSM.

You got me on that one.  Not the “gotcha!” debate style has much meaning.

Guess I would have to see how Reagan was planning on stimulating “new opportunities”.  If it were done with less government or via tax relief, then it would be appropriate, and would be consistent with Reagan’s philosophy.

Seriously, nobody, except liberals who depend on a “down trodden” populace vote, wants to see people to reman down trodden.  The question isn’t whether the goal is reasonable, the question is whether the plan for getting there is reasonable.

As far as I can tell, your man Barack Obama’s approach is higher taxes and more government spending.

Do you dispute that this is the case?

Guess I would have to see how Reagan was planning on stimulating “new opportunities”. If it were done with less government or via tax relief,
then it would be appropriate, and would be consistent with Reagan’s philosophy.

No need to guess, Carrick; that’s exactly what he wanted to do, and did, to a great extent.  Master Baiter is just doing his usual dishonest thing.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

The only problem with this analysis is that it is historically inaccurate. Reagan may have resisted calls for tax increases, but he ultimately supported them. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.

According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.

In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.

In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.

The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively.

Of course we all know what happened to the budget and the deficit under Ronnie. For that matter we all know what happened to the size of government under Ronnie.

Raygun was not Reaganesqe.
Sorry.

Excuse me, you were saying?

Illustration of a the difference between leftist rhetoric and fact.  The correct way to look at it is as % income…

The decrease in the upper income brackets was instrumental in returning money to the hands of the people who knew how to create more. Notice that the largest rate change in history came under Ronald Reagan in 1982.

Say what you like, but as usual, reality contradicts your tepid rhetoric.

Second try on the image:

Original source here.

Uhmmm C, didja read the report ya linked to?

If so, whatja learn?

Wouldja cut and paste a salient paragraph or two for us?

Excuse me, you were saying?

How about this one:

As Figure 1 shows, since 1960, average federal tax rates for middle-income households have increased and then declined modestly.  Over the same period, high-income households saw sharp drops in their federal tax rates.

Excuse me, you were saying?

Or this one:

Moreover, the drops were largest for the very highest-income households.  The average tax rate declined by a larger amount for households in the top one hundredth of 1 percent of the income scale (where incomes in 2004 averaged about $15 million) than for households in the top tenth of 1 percent (where incomes averaged above $3.7 million) or for households in the top 1 percent (where incomes averaged about $850,000). 

Excuse me, you were saying?

Ok Ok there is so much more but let’s just cut to the summary shall we?

In sum, Piketty and Saez’s new study shows that the federal tax system has become much less progressive over the past several decades, and the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts have continued this trend.  Over much the same several decades, pre-tax income inequality has grown as well.  Thus, during a period in which economic forces have been generating increased pre-tax inequality, changes in the tax system have exacerbated rather than mitigated the widening of the income gap. 

Or as we like to say: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Thanks Ronnie, ya done a heck of a job.
Welcome to the republican new world order.
Carlyle anyone?

Excuse me, you were saying?

Poor RBB, he mixes up facts with narrative. 

Notice his response to a graph (apparently he doesn’t know how to read them) is more words.

But if he likes words, here they are:

The decrease in the upper income brackets was instrumental in returning money to the hands of the people who knew how to create more.

There’s nothing left to debate here.  You’re flat wrong.

Master Baiter: Once again, you mislead; the drop in overall tax rate among the wealthy is because they do more investment and reinvestment than other people.  You forgot to mention(I’m sure) that your claim is not true of income tax rates.
In case you don’t know, investment and reinvestment is the fuel for economic growth, which provides jobs and income for the folks down the line.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Or as we like to say: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Another leftie Big Lie from you, Master Baiter.  The truth is that the rich get richer in our system, and the poor get richer as well, just not at the same rate.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

There’s nothing left to debate here.  You’re flat wrong.

Like that’s ever stopped rbb!

Barack Obama: All hat and no cattle since 1997!

Again, from C’s own report:

Over much the same several decades, pre-tax income inequality has grown as well.  Thus, during a period in which economic forces have been generating increased pre-tax inequality, changes in the tax system have exacerbated rather than mitigated the widening of the income gap.

There’s nothing left to debate here.

Excuse me, you were saying?

I gotta thank you C, great report. I’ve bookmarked it. Do you have any more like this?

Hey C, let me ask you this: are the facts your analysis of the charts and the narrative the charts or is it the other way around? How does that work in your world?

Excuse me, you were saying?

The data are the charts, tables etc.  The narrative is either analysis or discussion, or sometimes just bullshit.

I’ve got a bunch more like that, too sick to care to look now sorry.

What the data you are concentrating on shows is that income inequality has grown, which is another way of saying that the wealthy have gotten faster more quickly that the poor have.  All groups have benefited however, from the prosperity induced by Reagan’s tax cuts.

Only a socialist would care that somebody else is doing better than you are, and would want them to be unfairly taxed so they couldn’t do as well as they otherwise.  Because really that’s all “income inequality” measures.  Nobody has any right to another person’s money, except in return for services provided to that individual (colloquially “jobs")

There’s nothing left to debate here.

Agreed, RBB.

An increase in disparity between two incomes doesn’t mean opposite results. If person A makes 30k a year and person B makes 50k a year, then their incomes jump to 45k and 70k respectively...the disparity has increased, but both people are making money.

So you’re deliberately taking a quote to mean something it doesnt. And you’re lying about the tax rates to say “the poor get poorer”.

For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed of my country.

Kenny, thank you for not continuing the debate.

Excuse me, you were saying?