Originally Posted by UGLY

"There are historical precedents other than those cited directly by Laffer. For example, in 1924, Secretary of Treasury Andrew Mellon wrote, "It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower rates." Exercising his understanding that "73% of nothing is nothing" he pushed for the reduction of the top income tax bracket from 73% to an eventual 24% (as well as tax breaks for lower brackets). Personal income-tax receipts rose from $719 million in 1921 to over $1 billion in 1929"

From WIKI feel free to read the entire entry.

Yeah, I went to wiki...

Arthur Betz Laffer (pronounced /ˈl?fər/<sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference">[1]</sup>) (born August 14, 1940 in Youngstown, Ohio), is an American "supply-side" economist who became influential during the Reagan administration as a member of Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board (1981-1989). Laffer is also known for the Laffer curve, an illustration of tax elasticity which asserts that, in certain situations, a decrease in tax rates could result in an increase in tax revenues.

A little bit more for the kool aide crowd here:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...692027,00.html

What in the world is an unfunded tax cut? I've never heard it put that way, but I'll have to remember that.

Tax cuts aren't funded or unfunded, they are a taking of money by the gubmint. Spending is funding or unfunded.

I'll have to search for the chart, but I recall a chart showing that the rich pay a very constant percentage year after year, regardless of what the tax rate is. Raising taxes on the rich is a futile attempt to transfer wealth to the g'mint as the rich are the most educated people on earth in how to shield (and keep) their money. Rich people pay the taxes they want to pay, it's ultimately the middle class that gets socked.

I do need to reseach whether King Obama has messed with the payroll withholding, as my paycheck is $500 less per pay period than it used to be, and I didn't take a pay cut. If I have to give up my pool boy, gardeners, or house cleaners The Nuts will be Tea Baggin.

By the way, I'm all for teh geys in the military, go for it.

Originally Posted by washed up wrestler

Yeah, I went to wiki...

Arthur Betz Laffer (pronounced /ˈl?fər/<sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference">[1]</sup>) (born August 14, 1940 in Youngstown, Ohio), is an American "supply-side" economist who became influential during the Reagan administration as a member of Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board (1981-1989). Laffer is also known for the Laffer curve, an illustration of tax elasticity which asserts that, in certain situations, a decrease in tax rates could result in an increase in tax revenues.

What are you trying to say here. Under Reagen and his tax rate cuts the tax revenues increased and so did defense spending.

Originally Posted by washed up wrestler

A little bit more for the kool aide crowd here:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...692027,00.html

Make all the claims you want but history backs up tax cuts. But hey WUW if you want to you can pay more taxes, there is a section where you can volunteer more money to the gov on your tax forms, feel free to pay more.

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

I'm sure some women would feel uncomfortable showering with openly strait men, I'm sure some men would be uncomfortable showering with openly gay men, I'm sure some white men are uncomfortable showing with black men, I'm sure some muslim men are uncomfortable showering with openly jewish men. What I don't see is how the possibility of making people uncomfortable is grounds for blatant discrimination.

Now maybe you can answer my question:

I don't know why whites would be uncomfortable showering with blacks or muslims with jewish. If they aren't gay then showering isn't a problem. It is the thought of another guy leering at you in the shower that makes people uncomfortable. Call me a neanderthal if you wish, but I am realistic. Thinking that men ranging in ages of 18-30 and are freshly out of boot camp or training where they learn how to survive and thrive in some of the toughest situations imaginable aren't going to take offense to an openly gay man in the same shower is naive. When that happens, they will sue. Mark my words.

The difference between that and when the military was desegregated is a difference in the times. In 1948, there probably weren't enough lawyers brave enough to take a case like that. The lawyers probably feared for their lives if they would have taken the case. I don't know for sure, but if you listen to anyone who lived back then, it seems to be the case. Let's face it, we wouldn't have needed Martin Luther King Jr. in the 60's if white lawyers would've taken cases for black men or women in the 40's.

Anyone who thinks young men today really give a rats ass about another mans sexual preference, simply does not know the youth of today. They do not have nearly the number of hangups of you old farts.