[quote="Short Hand":13dbf]
1. You didnt compare it to other presidency's.
2. You did't even get it during Reagen's Term.
3. that chart looks like a quick microsoft excel chop up, give me a link please to the site. (even though the info on it is not that impressing).
as it seems you just uploaded this today to this site (is it your site)
[i]hudasstch.gif 20-Jun-2004 08:01 7k at 8:01 around the time of your post. Why not just remotely link it as you should ? are you concerned about the sites bandwidth ? or is this just your excel work as it looks.[/i]
link for more to see this-[url][b] [url="http://www.colonelbrands.com/images/"]http://www.colonelbrands.com/images/[/url][/b][/url]
in relation to the taxes.
typical for a capitilistic view, to see that. You would think that helping the poor with larger cuts would help out. How much is the government making off them in the first plaxce in taxes ???? Their is a reason these friggin rich people are responsible for 90 %.... because they are filthy rich. So. WHy not just give the poor who don't have that much to give the government in the first place a larger tax cut then their rich counter parts ????? if its only 10 % ? would this not give them the needed power to better themselves, and oddly enough put more money into the economy itself how little it may be. Poverty is a vicious cycle that most people don't quite understand until you are exposed to it clearly. My family itself at 1 point was on welfare for nearly half a year up in Canada. If it had not been for those checks in those months while my single mother with a baby would probably would have had to given up custody of us. compasion for the poor people, it hard to give but it works miracles.
http://www.colonelbrands.com ... mind me if im wrong but this looks like it may be your site, since their is no way to upload images to this site via public, unless your a web master. your name is colonel, your avatar is in "theme" of all of the stuff on that site........WHat a source to use peole "YOU OWN CHART"
If garry had half a brain while reading this and not huis current state of fanboy mentallity he my have seen all the fualts that came with it. I guess he see's large formations of words in order and he thinks that must be ownage. sorry but it ain't. ed:[/quote:13dbf]
Short Hand - Sorry it took awhile to get back to you - steaks on the grill this afternoon at a neighbor's house rock: !
1) I'm not sure what you mean by comparing it to other presidencys. The epidemic was discovered after President Reagan took office so it is only natural that his expenditures would be less than the guys that followed him, Our government has built-in increases for everything. My point was that he was spending money on it - and a great deal of money.
2) As I said, I realize that the article was from the year after he left office, but the point was that it was from a budget he approved (budgets are approved the year before the expenditure) and the that we were spending more on AIDS than cancer, which really doesn't make sense, other than the fact it is a political issue. (that has nothing to do with this discussion - this discussion is only about whether he ignored the problem)
3) The chart came from this website:
http://www.texashousing.org/txlihis/pol ... uddeb.html and the only point of the chart was that spending increased every year. I posted it on the site that I use for my sigs because I figured it was easier for folks to see the chart than click on a link. BTW - thanks for posting a link to my web site - if you really want to help the poor buy a shirt from me!
4)
"You would think that helping the poor with larger cuts would help out." I can't really debate you on this because it comes down to whether you believe in free enterprise or socialism. Yes, I believe that capitalism is the best method and history confirms it. We have one of the highest standards of living in the world. As for your statement, the cuts given to the poor
were more, as a percentage, than what was given to the upper class, and if you believe the folks that you are quoting the upper class actually paid more taxes under President Reagan because he closed all of their loopholes.
I understand what you are saying about welfare being important. I believe in having a safety net for folks to fall back on (and spending for those programs increased during the Reagan years too BTW) but I also believe that the American system was geared in the past in such a way that it encouraged people to stay on welfare instead of working their way off the rolls. I think President Clinton's administration put the first restrictions on the length of time you can draw welfare - but I'm not sure about that one - I'd have to look it up. But that's a debate for a different thread.
06-21-2004, 08:14 PM
. I never thought I would see this 
Linear Mode
