Can't make this (stuff) up

[Mr.B]

"Detention--well, that's what happens when you don't do your homework and talk in class." :chalo:

That was my problem...I did my homework....then showed it to someone who didn't wanna see it....

[Mr.B]

"A similar panic-evoking Biblical prophetical connection was made concerning Sadam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait; also something about a red calf being born somewhere......"

"I seem to remember something about a red calf. Biblical prophecies are funny. As soon as one is shot down, another one appears on the scene."

I incorrectly spoke of a red calf; it was, Biblically speaking, a red heifer; mentioned in the Book of Daniel:

"In the Book of Daniel is a reference to a Red Heifer. In Daniel 12:10, God tells Daniel that in the last days, "many shall be purified and made white"; a reference to the purification ritual of the Red Heifer, "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isa 1:18, Num 19:6). The analogy appears to relate to a partner of the returning End Time messiah. (Wikipedia)"

They're not as much funny as they are misinterpreted or taken out of context by those who spout off doomsday prophecies.

[rstrong]

I incorrectly spoke of a red calf; it was, Biblically speaking, a red heifer;

So a bit of a red herring then.

[Mr.B]

I incorrectly spoke of a red calf; it was, Biblically speaking, a red heifer;

"So a bit of a red herring then."

Nah...that's too fishy.

[Bungalow Bill]

I don't know about Clinton's entire record, but he did raise the top tax rate

I'd bet that it was still lower than in the Reagan years.

Under Reagan it went from 70% down to 50% then to 38.5 and then
down to 28% in his last year in office, then back up to 31% under Bush I.

And Bush II had a projected surplus, which he apparently couldn't stand and instituted a large tax cut to take care of it.

Bush II spent like a drunken sailor:

In the first three years of the Bush administration, government spending has climbed - in real, inflation-adjusted terms - by a staggering 15.6 percent. That far outstrips the budget growth in Clinton's first three years, when real spending climbed just 3.5 percent. Under the first President Bush, the comparable figure was 8.3 percent; under Ronald Reagan, 6.8 percent, and under Jimmy Carter, 13.3 percent. No, that's not a mistake: Bush is a bigger spender than Carter was.

To be sure, Bush's budgets have had to account for Sept. 11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But even when defense spending is excluded, discretionary spending has soared by nearly 21 percent in Bush's first three years. In Clinton's first triennium, nondefense discretionary spending declined slightly. If their budgets were all you had to go by, you might peg Bush for the Democrat and Clinton for the Republican.

Big tax cut and lots of spending. Yeah, no wonder the deficit went up, and the GOP
put it there, the same party that is constantly whining about it.

Yes, Reagan was a spendthrift who jacked up the deficit.

Reagan was not even remotely a spendthrift. As much as Carter increased spending, Reagan increased it even more on top of that.
A spendthrift actually is a wasteful big spender. The combination of spend
and thrift does make it a bit confusing. And yes, Ronnie spent a lot of money and increased
the deficit.

As a general rule the left prefers more government services at the cost of more spending and higher taxes.

As a general rule the right prefers less spending and lower taxes, at the cost of less government services.

Both can be considered responsible and fiscally conservative, so long as income matches spending.

Reagan, Bush I and Bush II chose a different option: Crank up spending, lower taxes, and pass the bill to the next generation. That's not being a spendthrift, and it's not being fiscally conservative. It's slow-motion child molestation.

The only fiscally conservative President in recent decades was Bill Clinton. His Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, through the implementation of spending restraints and small tax increases, mandated the budget be balanced over a number of years. This was in a Democrat-controlled Congress - not a single Republican voted for it.

And he succeeded, bringing in a balanced budget for a year or two, whether you count Social Security or not. Needless to say, his opponents were quick to explain why paying down the debt was a bad idea.

Yep and then Bush was elected and put an end to any thought of
fiscal responsibility. Great job, Dumbya.

[Bungalow Bill]

That was my problem...I did my homework....then showed it to someone who didn't wanna see it....

I thought maybe the cat ate it.

[Bungalow Bill]

I incorrectly spoke of a red calf; it was, Biblically speaking, a red heifer; mentioned in the Book of Daniel:

"In the Book of Daniel is a reference to a Red Heifer. In Daniel 12:10, God tells Daniel that in the last days, "many shall be purified and made white"; a reference to the purification ritual of the Red Heifer, "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isa 1:18, Num 19:6). The analogy appears to relate to a partner of the returning End Time messiah. (Wikipedia)"

They're not as much funny as they are misinterpreted or taken out of context by those who spout off doomsday prophecies.

Red calf. Red heifer. When the cosmic shit hits the fan, it really won't matter.

[Mr.B]

" When the cosmic sh*t hits the fan, it really won't matter."

You must be referring to that climate change thingy that ain't really happening, right?

[Colonel Taylor]

I don't know about Clinton's entire record, but he did raise the top tax rate

I'd bet that it was still lower than in the Reagan years.

Under Reagan it went from 70% down to 50% then to 38.5 and then
down to 28% in his last year in office, then back up to 31% under Bush I.

And Bush II had a projected surplus, which he apparently couldn't stand and instituted a large tax cut to take care of it.

Bush II spent like a drunken sailor:

In the first three years of the Bush administration, government spending has climbed - in real, inflation-adjusted terms - by a staggering 15.6 percent. That far outstrips the budget growth in Clinton's first three years, when real spending climbed just 3.5 percent. Under the first President Bush, the comparable figure was 8.3 percent; under Ronald Reagan, 6.8 percent, and under Jimmy Carter, 13.3 percent. No, that's not a mistake: Bush is a bigger spender than Carter was.

To be sure, Bush's budgets have had to account for Sept. 11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But even when defense spending is excluded, discretionary spending has soared by nearly 21 percent in Bush's first three years. In Clinton's first triennium, nondefense discretionary spending declined slightly. If their budgets were all you had to go by, you might peg Bush for the Democrat and Clinton for the Republican.

Big tax cut and lots of spending. Yeah, no wonder the deficit went up, and the GOP
put it there, the same party that is constantly whining about it.

Yes, Reagan was a spendthrift who jacked up the deficit.

Reagan was not even remotely a spendthrift. As much as Carter increased spending, Reagan increased it even more on top of that.
A spendthrift actually is a wasteful big spender. The combination of spend
and thrift does make it a bit confusing. And yes, Ronnie spent a lot of money and increased
the deficit.

As a general rule the left prefers more government services at the cost of more spending and higher taxes.

As a general rule the right prefers less spending and lower taxes, at the cost of less government services.

Both can be considered responsible and fiscally conservative, so long as income matches spending.

Reagan, Bush I and Bush II chose a different option: Crank up spending, lower taxes, and pass the bill to the next generation. That's not being a spendthrift, and it's not being fiscally conservative. It's slow-motion child molestation.

The only fiscally conservative President in recent decades was Bill Clinton. His Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, through the implementation of spending restraints and small tax increases, mandated the budget be balanced over a number of years. This was in a Democrat-controlled Congress - not a single Republican voted for it.

And he succeeded, bringing in a balanced budget for a year or two, whether you count Social Security or not. Needless to say, his opponents were quick to explain why paying down the debt was a bad idea.

Yep and then Bush was elected and put an end to any thought of
fiscal responsibility. Great job, Dumbya.

I'm going from memory here but Clinton only had a majority his first 2 years when things sputtered along? Correct? When the economy took off and cutting took place was when Newt and company took over congress with the contract with America.
Under Bush he blew it the first years although the Towers falling may of had something to do with it, Also the drunken spending started under Pelosi and Reid. How many times did Bush on the record warn of the collapse of the housing market and such? Spending went up under Bush put took to the stars when the libs took over!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM Barney, Shumer and company and most libs LAUGHED and made fun of Bush and BLOCKED legislation to curtail fannie and freddie. Idiots!!!

[rstrong]

A reminder now that the hot weather is arriving: Never leave your dog inside your car on a hot day. It can get up to 150 degrees inside the car. And you have to cook a dog at 350 or you'll get sick.

[O Really]

A reminder now that the hot weather is arriving: Never leave your dog inside your car on a hot day. It can get up to 150 degrees inside the car. And you have to cook a dog at 350 or you'll get sick.

Funny.
But a serious problem. People just don't realize how quickly the inside of a car can get how hot - even if the windows are partly down. They get into the car and it feels hot, but only for a short period of time because they get moving, turn on the a/c, whatever. Sitting in that heat for just 10 minutes can cook a dog - and the dog's human would certainly be sick.

[Bungalow Bill]

I'm going from memory here but Clinton only had a majority his first 2 years when things sputtered along? Correct? When the economy took off and cutting took place was when Newt and company took over congress with the contract with America.
Under Bush he blew it the first years although the Towers falling may of had something to do with it, Also the drunken spending started under Pelosi and Reid. How many times did Bush on the record warn of the collapse of the housing market and such? Spending went up under Bush put took to the stars when the libs took over!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM Barney, Shumer and company and most libs LAUGHED and made fun of Bush and BLOCKED legislation to curtail fannie and freddie. Idiots!!!

I don't know if the Contract with America had anything to do with it, but the top tax rate was
raised and that didn't do any harm. Bush II had a projected surplus when he came into office
and that disappeared with his large tax cut. Fannie and Freddie were just one of the reasons
for the housing collapse. The financial industry bears a lot of responsibility for what happened.
Just look at the chart. It goes down gradually from Truman to Carter, then it shoots way
back up when Ronnie came into office. Hey big spender.

[GoCubsGo]

It's also misleading, the 2009 Obama is Shrubs budget.

[rstrong]

I don't know if the Contract with America had anything to do with it

Of course not. It was just an election gimmick, forgotten immediately after.

Even the president of the Cato Institute pointed out the "the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%."

Bush II had a projected surplus when he came into office
and that disappeared with his large tax cut.

And his massive increase in spending. One more time:

In the first three years of the Bush administration, government spending has climbed - in real, inflation-adjusted terms - by a staggering 15.6 percent. That far outstrips the budget growth in Clinton's first three years, when real spending climbed just 3.5 percent. Under the first President Bush, the comparable figure was 8.3 percent; under Ronald Reagan, 6.8 percent, and under Jimmy Carter, 13.3 percent. No, that's not a mistake: Bush is a bigger spender than Carter was.

To be sure, Bush's budgets have had to account for Sept. 11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But even when defense spending is excluded, discretionary spending has soared by nearly 21 percent in Bush's first three years. In Clinton's first triennium, nondefense discretionary spending declined slightly. If their budgets were all you had to go by, you might peg Bush for the Democrat and Clinton for the Republican.

The financial industry bears a lot of responsibility for what happened.

It's certainly a big part of it.

Another is that the rich were paying taxes on their income over $400,000 at a 70% rate when Reagan entered the White House. By 2008 they were paying taxes at less than half that rate BEFORE loopholes, and at 18.5% after. This change coming while the incomes of the rich more than quintupled, and the rest of Americans got somewhat poorer.

According to a February 2011 analysis of 2007 IRS statistics by a columnist for Tax Notes, the average taxpayer residing in New York City's posh Helmsley Building (owned before her death by Leona Helmsley, who once reportedly said that "only the little people pay taxes") paid only 14.7 percent of his income in federal taxes while New York City janitors and security guards (such as those employed by the Helmsley Building) paid about 24 percent. Helmsley residents were taxed less for Social Security and Medicare, and much of their $1.17 million average income was in capital gains, which are taxed at the same rate as the wages of modestly paid (up to $34,000 a year) workers. [Forbes, 2-22-2011; Tax Notes, 2-21-2011]

Another part of the problem: "In 1952, the corporate income tax accounted for 33 percent of all federal tax revenue. Today, despite record-breaking profits, corporate taxes bring in less than 9 percent."

[Colonel Taylor]

Fannie and Freddie were just one of the reasons
for the housing collapse. The financial industry bears a lot of responsibility for what happened.

I was involved full tilt in the housing industry at the time and It drove the entire economy at the time. I know contractors right here in Hendersonville who started out selling new homes for $130,000.00 and within a few years the same houses were being sold for nearly $300,000.00 to people who couldn't afford a $100,000.00 home. This drove the big box stores, anything contracting from plumbing, electric, appliance and so on. Those who were smart enough KNEW this couldn't last and sold and prepared but it was the Shumers, Franks, Pelosis, Reid and others who LAUGHED and RIDICULED Bush and company who were giving warnings, they even went as far as block legislation.
As far as the 09 budget being Bush's may well be but it was OBlamer who squandered the money on paying back his donors Solyndra, auto industry and so on. The most massive spending under Bush was by the D congress and senate. The last two years.
Who here didn't know the crash was coming?

[Colonel Taylor]

Another is that the rich were paying taxes on their income over $400,000 at a 70% rate when Reagan entered the White House. By 2008 they were paying taxes at less than half that rate BEFORE loopholes, and at 18.5% after. This change coming while the incomes of the rich more than quintupled, and the rest of Americans got somewhat poorer.

The libs have been in charge of both houses as much as the cons so why don't they change the tax laws?????
Until then I will use every loophole possible to keep MY MONEY.

liberal billionaires top the list of biggest super PAC donors with a little more than two weeks to go before Election Day. Three of the top five givers lean Democrat, while the king of unlimited money mountain — environmental crusader Tom Steyer of California — is lapping the competition, a Sunlight analysis finds.

[rstrong]

The libs have been in charge of both houses as much as the cons so why don't they change the tax laws?????[/b]

One more time: They did. Clinton's Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, through the implementation of spending restraints and small tax increases, mandated the budget be balanced over a number of years. This was in a Democrat-controlled Congress - not a single Republican voted for it. And he succeeded.

Carter didn't need to: It's when Reagan came to power that taxes for the rich were slashed.

And you can't say that Obama didn't try to end not make permanent Bush II's further "temporary" tax holiday for the rich. Republicans declared a murder-suicide pact with America, making it clear that they would filibuster EVERYTHING if they didn't get their way.

And BTW: Republicans were in charge of both houses AND the White House all at the same time for a couple years during Bush II's administration. The Democrats could not have stopped their agenda. Why didn't THEY fix tax laws? Why didn't they ban abortion like they keep promising? Etc. Etc.?

[Colonel Taylor]

If we're going to pick and choose from articles here's a few others. I was going by memory originally.

Dean Baker, a liberal economist, sees the stock market rise as a double-edged sword, leading to the bursting of the bubble in 2001 and perhaps helping shape a subsequent decade of only modest job growth. Baker also cited the Clinton administration's support for a strong dollar. "The policy of promoting an overvalued dollar gave us the record trade deficits that eventually peaked at almost 6 percent of GDP in 2006," Baker said.

The stock market will crash again and soon, it's being stimulated with free guvmit money. Mostly the rich are making even more using nearly zero interest rates, many of the companies are also buying back their own stocks. Income is and has been stagnant, nearly half created jobs are low income entry level and are still less then the middle class jobs lost. The economy isn't nearly as good as some would like ya to think.
The next crash will be the hardest because with our massive debt there will be little money to bail out anyone or anything!

And Daniel Mitchell, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, pointing to other factors that spurred the economy:

“The economy did do well under Clinton, but that was because of other policies he adopted and in spite of the ’93 tax increase,” Mitchell said, citing lower government spending as a share of gross domestic product, approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization, welfare reform, farm-subsidy reform. “These are the policies that boosted the economy. The tax increases in 1993 hurt, but were more than offset by other changes.”

I should of been more clear, change the entire tax code to eliminate the tax loop holes that most use to their benefit. I know no one who doesn't use what's handed to them.

[O Really]

I should of been more clear, change the entire tax code to eliminate the tax loop holes that most use to their benefit. I know no one who doesn't use what's handed to them.

Really. Yet back in the election you were telling the "libs" who favored increased taxes that they should just voluntarily pay in more no matter what they actually owe. And you have criticized people applying for and getting various benefits for which they were eligible. Like they should just say, "thanks but I won't take the money."

Here's some fun loopholes... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... -loopholes

BTW, why is there any such thing as a deduction, anyway? Oh yeah, (1) social engineering, like encouraging people to buy a house by a mortgage deduction; and (2) to favor the wealthy, like having lower capital gains rates and allowing deductions for stuff most people don't have. What's the chances of changing much of that?

[Bungalow Bill]

I was involved full tilt in the housing industry at the time and It drove the entire economy at the time. I know contractors right here in Hendersonville who started out selling new homes for $130,000.00 and within a few years the same houses were being sold for nearly $300,000.00 to people who couldn't afford a $100,000.00 home. This drove the big box stores, anything contracting from plumbing, electric, appliance and so on. Those who were smart enough KNEW this couldn't last and sold and prepared but it was the Shumers, Franks, Pelosis, Reid and others who LAUGHED and RIDICULED Bush and company who were giving warnings, they even went as far as block legislation.

But it wasn't Shumer or Frank or Pelosi who knew many of these no question mortgage
loans were toxic. They didn't then bundle them and sell them to suckers who thought
they were getting a good deal. That was mostly the financial industry which quickly saw
these suckers coming and were happy to take advantage of them and make a nice profit
along the way.