|
Post by lakhota on Jun 13, 2011 0:39:59 GMT -5
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Jun 13, 2011 6:22:57 GMT -5
I took pleasure in voting against him in 2006. So did I. I am a lifelong rep, but that ass had to go. He has a lot of brass, trying for a comeback, after being voted out in disgrace.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 13, 2011 7:41:46 GMT -5
I think it is wrong to write off a guy without goggling him and doing some research. The first few links are very informative. We get it! You're a sexual deviant. Congratulations...typical liberal... Save your personal attacks for someone that gives a ....
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 13, 2011 7:43:13 GMT -5
*lol* Because we all know the WSJ has never endorsed an economically suicidal policy--deregulation of OTC derivatives, NINJA loans, rocket docket foreclosures, ZIRP, etc., etc. The Wall Street Journal is NEVER wrong.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 13, 2011 7:44:13 GMT -5
Deny it as much as you want, but when Regan cut taxes on the rich and raised payroll taxes on the middle class and the poor tax revenue did go up. So the Laffer curve works.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 22:44:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2011 7:49:10 GMT -5
Revenue went up... do you have some discussion of which demographics paid more specifically?
Yes, the Laffer curve is a curve.... and when you are talking cutting the upper level from tax brackets from 70%, there is a rise. ... but it is not a straight line up... lol... and we have long passed the pinnacle and headed back down...
I would also poing out that 1) Laffer himself said his curve should be used to raise/lower taxes, and 2) while reagan did lower the higher income tax brackets, he also removed loopholes and altogether raised about 11 other taxes which generated revenue....
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on Jun 13, 2011 9:12:57 GMT -5
LOL, even if it "works," as the tax rate for the rich approaches zero, revenue approaches zero. It's basically a downward pointing parabola/ellipse (not a hyperbola that would have revenue reach infinity as tax rate approaches zero) with the end points at zero and one hundred percent. According to the curve that always works, the tax rate for the rich should be about fifty percent (Well, that assumes there isn't a skew) I think it is wrong to write off a guy without goggling him and doing some research. The first few links are very informative. We get it! You're a sexual deviant. Congratulations...typical liberal... Someone who wants the tax rate for the rich to be zero is a liberal? Someone doesn't get it. And how would you know unless you looked? And what are you talking about?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 22:44:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2011 15:32:33 GMT -5
Kitty.. i'll take it at face value that you didn't google Santorum. About 5 years ago, when Santorum needed to be ejected, there was a man, Dan Savage, who took exception to Santorum's public stance on homosexuality, and ran a contest in which he had people come up with the best made up definitions of Santorum... the winner was... well, positively both brilliant and disgusting... After the win, Savage started a campaign to spread the definition everwhere.... and still 5 years later, with no active work on it since then, it is one of the main things that pops up when you google Santorum...
So... google Santorum... and see what happens...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 22:44:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2011 15:32:33 GMT -5
This message has been deleted.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Jun 13, 2011 16:15:59 GMT -5
Yes, why would she actually verify something before spouting off on it? Perez would never do that...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 22:44:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2011 16:41:07 GMT -5
No more lunatic?? Why.. that is lunacy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by marshabar1 on Jun 13, 2011 16:47:00 GMT -5
My favorie Santorum story is about him taking a dead fetus home to his children. Man, that is warped... Father First, Senator SecondIn his Senate office, on a shelf next to an autographed baseball, Sen. Rick Santorum keeps a framed photo of his son Gabriel Michael, the fourth of his seven children. Named for two archangels, Gabriel Michael was born prematurely, at 20 weeks, on Oct. 11, 1996, and lived two hours outside the womb. Upon their son's death, Rick and Karen Santorum opted not to bring his body to a funeral home. Instead, they bundled him in a blanket and drove him to Karen's parents' home in Pittsburgh. There, they spent several hours kissing and cuddling Gabriel with his three siblings, ages 6, 4 and 1 1/2. They took photos, sang lullabies in his ear and held a private Mass. "That's my little guy," Santorum says, pointing to the photo of Gabriel, in which his tiny physique is framed by his father's hand. The senator often speaks of his late son in the present tense. It is a rare instance in which he talks softly. He and Karen brought Gabriel's body home so their children could "absorb and understand that they had a brother," Santorum says. "We wanted them to see that he was real," not an abstraction, he says. Not a "fetus," either, as Rick and Karen were appalled to see him described -- "a 20-week-old fetus" -- on a hospital form. They changed the form to read "20-week-old baby." More (if you can stomach it): www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61804-2005Apr17.htmlI think that's wonderful. I remember a cousin who was still born, I was only four and my imagination went wild. I had perfect trust that God had taken him to heaven but I would have liked to see him. It was such a void. Dreamed about him a lot.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Jun 13, 2011 17:05:06 GMT -5
No more lunatic?? Why.. that is lunacy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm glad he's still on ignore even after the name change...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 22:44:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2011 17:05:23 GMT -5
Wow. Santorum did that?? Incredible. I'm speechless. What a healthy way to let little kids say goodbye to the coming baby they never really understood except that he was a big deal. Good for the whole family. Closure.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 22:44:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2011 17:14:26 GMT -5
Yes, why would she actually verify something before spouting off on it? Perez would never do that... Legitimately, who would EXPECT to find that when they googled Santorum? I live in PA. I know i dislike him... to put it mildly... but i had no idea of the Santorum 'google problem' until it was on Stewart a few weeks ago...
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 13, 2011 17:29:37 GMT -5
Santorum has a frothiness problem.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 22:44:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2011 18:37:43 GMT -5
Yeah.. they say he is too white for the job.. whatever that means....
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 13, 2011 20:22:12 GMT -5
Yeah.. they say he is too white for the job.. whatever that means.... No, they say he has a frothiness problem. Google him.
|
|