"Well, let me say that on the Republican side, this is their holy grail"

[NJ Stinks]

Well, let me say that on the Republican side, this is their holy grail, these tax cuts for the wealthy. This is -- seems to be their central economic doctrine.

- President Barack Obama, December 7, 2010


Apparently, this particular sentence uttered at yesterday's press conference was THE focus on conservative talk radio today.

Yep, just like fat people do not liking being told they are indeed fat, greedy people don't like being told they are indeed greedy.

Lets start with Rush on the radio today. Isn't it enough that Rush creates jobs because his show is a big moneymaker? :( Why should Rush have to pay higher taxes too? :( After all, as The Man Himself pointed out, if Rush needs a better road, he'll build one himself.

Denny Prager used a different tact. It was more like - oh those silly but cuddly irrational liberals. They just don't understand that us obviously more clear thinking conservatives want to help people too. It's just that we believe that it's not the responsibility of the government to take our tax money and help people - the private sector will do it. (What he didn't say was when conservatives might get around to doing it. :rolleyes: )

Prager gets an extra paragraph because he tried to explain why a family making $250,000 isn't rich. (Denny insisted that he kept his credibility with all of his audience in mind when he was citing this example.) I'll skip the small stuff and go right to the beef. Prager says a average family has two kids is going to pay $25,000 for each kid to go to private school so there goes $50,000 of the $250,000 right there. What a load of horse manure! :lol: There are so many holes in this supposedly "ordinary living expense", I'll just move on....

To champion lightweight Mike Gallagher. Mikey can't understand anything so he asks questions like: Why does a guy like Keith Olbermann, who makes $31,000 an hour, want to see any tax increases? :rolleyes: (Mikey likes to add "that he just doesn't get it" when discussing all things Left. :sleeping: )

Ordinarily, I wouldn't be listening to these flag-waving "patriotic" American conservatives but today I was stuck in cars at an auto auction. When I turned the radio on I was expecting to hear the right's opinions on the tax cut deal. Instead it was all about how they are really not that fat. :ThmbDown:

[johnhannibalsmith]

.. Instead it was all about how they are really not that fat. :ThmbDown:

I enjoyed the whole essay feel - thesis, support, closing with a reference to the thesis...

...problem is here - one of us is missing something here with this metaphor since of the three examples you cite (4 if you include the unclear Rush reference), you actually only really make the case for Prager talking about how he's not fat, not all of them... or was there more... or what???


EDITED TO note that yeah, there are only two examples (or 3). I re-read this and I'm even more confused. I'm thinking this is an NJStinks style lib thread ala (ie) "Olbermann Still Sucks..."

[PhantomOnTour]

I see your point, but then again, I don't.

[NJ Stinks]

It may just be a bad essay :) but I'll try to clear it up somewhat.

Rush is the one who claimed on his show today that he does more than enough for the country creating jobs revolved around his show. Rush is the one who claims he shouldn't have to pay more taxes too. [Hence, Rush does not think he is being greedy - it should be obvious that he's a victim here.] I assume Rush was joking about the fact that he doesn't even need the government for transportation purposes because, for example, Rush can build his own road if he wants one.

Prager claims the right is not greedy - he just thinks we would better off paying less taxes and take some of that extra money we didn't fork over to the government and use it to help people who need help.

Gallagher - I just threw in the silly question he asked. Another thing he claimed he doesn't get is why liberals hate rich people - as if that's what this whole thing is all about.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Well that's a bit clearer... tackle this one for me, now... please?

1) What percentage of "the right" or "conservatives" do you believe to be rich* in the US?

(* lets not harp on semantics, rich in the way that it has been applied lately)

2) What percentage of the US population at large is considered rich?

3) Do you consider me more conservative or liberal?

4) Do you suspect that I am rich?

5) Why would people that may not benefit whatsoever from extending all breaks, in fact if you believe liberals, they suffer from those extensions - why would those people support the conservative view that maintains lower rates?

6) Do you think maybe you missed the point on a couple of those shows to make your own point... which is why it didn't work that well... :p

The conservatives that you listen to on the radio are wealthy because they are celebrities - so you naturally have taken the position that their position is one of greed, they have money. A very large percentage of this country identifies themselves as more conservative than liberal - if any one of these $25,000 / yearly salaried conservatives had espoused the same politics, would you have made the same association to greed?

[Lefty]

I'm sick of you libs crying that silly tax cuts for the wealthy mantra. First of all they want more money from all who make over 250,000 yrly. Do you not realize that this will affect small business' and it will mean less jobs if the tax cuts expire? I guess you don't stinks or you wouldn't be repeating the stupidest mantra ever uttered.
The rich or anybody else ALWAYS invests their money more wisely than the govt. ALWAYs.
Those so called wealthy will invest their money in their businesses and hire people to run those businesses. But if the govt takes it, then that's less money for them to invest.
Just beause somebody gets wealthy by risking his money, working hard, why should he be punished for that effort?
BTW, stinks, the so called wealthy already pay the bulk of the taxes.

[newtothegame]

Well, let me say that on the Republican side, this is their holy grail, these tax cuts for the wealthy. This is -- seems to be their central economic doctrine.

- President Barack Obama, December 7, 2010


Apparently, this particular sentence uttered at yesterday's press conference was THE focus on conservative talk radio today.

Yep, just like fat people do not liking being told they are indeed fat, greedy people don't like being told they are indeed greedy.

Lets start with Rush on the radio today. Isn't it enough that Rush creates jobs because his show is a big moneymaker? :( Why should Rush have to pay higher taxes too? :( After all, as The Man Himself pointed out, if Rush needs a better road, he'll build one himself.

Denny Prager used a different tact. It was more like - oh those silly but cuddly irrational liberals. They just don't understand that us obviously more clear thinking conservatives want to help people too. It's just that we believe that it's not the responsibility of the government to take our tax money and help people - the private sector will do it. (What he didn't say was when conservatives might get around to doing it. :rolleyes: )

Prager gets an extra paragraph because he tried to explain why a family making $250,000 isn't rich. (Denny insisted that he kept his credibility with all of his audience in mind when he was citing this example.) I'll skip the small stuff and go right to the beef. Prager says a average family has two kids is going to pay $25,000 for each kid to go to private school so there goes $50,000 of the $250,000 right there. What a load of horse manure! :lol: There are so many holes in this supposedly "ordinary living expense", I'll just move on....

To champion lightweight Mike Gallagher. Mikey can't understand anything so he asks questions like: Why does a guy like Keith Olbermann, who makes $31,000 an hour, want to see any tax increases? :rolleyes: (Mikey likes to add "that he just doesn't get it" when discussing all things Left. :sleeping: )

Ordinarily, I wouldn't be listening to these flag-waving "patriotic" American conservatives but today I was stuck in cars at an auto auction. When I turned the radio on I was expecting to hear the right's opinions on the tax cut deal. Instead it was all about how they are really not that fat. :ThmbDown:

"Lets start with Rush on the radio today. Isn't it enough that Rush creates jobs because his show is a big moneymaker? :( Why should Rush have to pay higher taxes too? :( After all, as The Man Himself pointed out, if Rush needs a better road, he'll build one himself."
Do you not believe Rush creates Job's? Or is it your questioning of what you percieve him to be crying about paying more taxes?
Cause in either case, I would imagine you could provide us with an actual number of how many people Rush does employee. Also, it should be relatively easy to show what their average salary is as well :rolleyes: .
And as to whether or not he should pay more in taxes, you know what NJ, your right...he should. And just so he wouldnt lose his way of life by paying more in taxes, would you care to know how most RICH people would make up the loss in income? ...here's a hint (it might cause layoffs)! So would you really be affecting him? Now, I know I know...call him evil for wanting to keep what he EARNED!
So, let's see what we have accomplished here...by taxing the rich or business' which make over a certain amount, we cause layoffs...good job NJ! You libs will NEVER get it that businesses will NOT lose money (unless your a government run business).

Denny Prager used a different tact. It was more like - oh those silly but cuddly irrational liberals. They just don't understand that us obviously more clear thinking conservatives want to help people too. It's just that we believe that it's not the responsibility of the government to take our tax money and help people - the private sector will do it. (What he didn't say was when conservatives might get around to doing it. :rolleyes: )

We have gone over this time and time again...there are many threads concerning and involving this. Conservatives and repugs donate more then libs! Those damn eveil cons and repugs...how dare them donate more...we will tax it out of them! lol

Prager gets an extra paragraph because he tried to explain why a family making $250,000 isn't rich. (Denny insisted that he kept his credibility with all of his audience in mind when he was citing this example.) I'll skip the small stuff and go right to the beef. Prager says a average family has two kids is going to pay $25,000 for each kid to go to private school so there goes $50,000 of the $250,000 right there. What a load of horse manure! :lol: There are so many holes in this supposedly "ordinary living expense", I'll just move on...

I am not sure where you were going with the above except to say maybe you think the guy is lying?? I can tell you I raise my grandaughter and currently pay more then 10% of my GROSS salary in just her education (starting catholic high school). That number is ONE child! So, I could easily see how they guy above (in a prominent private school) could pay that much for two kids. Or is it your contention that its not "ordinary"? Why is it not ordinary?
Is it because it's not ordinary in YOUR world? Ahhh got it...we are now back to the if it doesnt fit YOUR agenda then its not right theory? lol...You really are a piece of work!

[NJ Stinks]

Well that's a bit clearer... tackle this one for me, now... please?

1) What percentage of "the right" or "conservatives" do you believe to be rich* in the US? Don't know. Many righties are righties for religious reasons, guns, "family values" etc. The money factor is probably a bigger factor in the Blue States.

(* lets not harp on semantics, rich in the way that it has been applied lately)

2) What percentage of the US population at large is considered rich? The top 5% for sure.

3) Do you consider me more conservative or liberal? Conservative. You have liberal tendencies but you just can't buy the idea that the government may be the best solution. Except in the most obvious situations.

4) Do you suspect that I am rich? Tough question. You may have been at one time but health expenses and/or health problems may have taken a toll.

5) Why would people that may not benefit whatsoever from extending all breaks, in fact if you believe liberals, they suffer from those extensions - why would those people support the conservative view that maintains lower rates?
Because these people are clueless. (Yea. I'm an uppidy liberal who thinks blah...blah...blah...) They simply don't grasp the fact that you can't get blood out of a rock. In other words, if the people who own the most wealth don't pay their fair share, the country is screwed. Because the rest of the country will never be able to make up the difference with the taxes they pay. The proof is in the pudding. Today the country is broke and getting more broke everyday. Ten years ago we weren't. One can say that the mortgage crisis/recession is the biggest culprit for today's deficit but the fact is no effort was made to pay for the Iraq War and Afghanistan since they began. In other words, since 2003 our country has been getting screwed while a small percentage of the population kept accumulating incredible wealth without paying their fair share to the country that made their wealth possible and secures that wealth for them everyday.

6) Do you think maybe you missed the point on a couple of those shows to make your own point... which is why it didn't work that well... :p
The point of these shows was/is to keep the clueless clueless.
These are hard times for the USA. The wealthy have got to start paying/contributing more. It's as simple as that. Right wing propaganda spread by these radio shows fool people into thinking the wealthy are somehow victims of their own success when it comes to taxes. It's pathetic and un-American IMO.

The conservatives that you listen to on the radio are wealthy because they are celebrities - so you naturally have taken the position that their position is one of greed, they have money. A very large percentage of this country identifies themselves as more conservative than liberal - if any one of these $25,000 / yearly salaried conservatives had espoused the same politics, would you have made the same association to greed?
I'm not sure I understand the last question. But I'll answer as best I can.
As I said above, people are conservative for many reasons besides money. Obviously, somebody making $25G's is not against the tax increases because it will cost them money. Especially because people making less than $250G's were going to keep their tax cuts under the Democratic plan.

I was an accountant. It was not extraordinary to have a Form 1040 where the somebody was making $4M in a year and $2M of that income was in capital gains. So that person was paying roughly at a tax rate of 15% on half (the $2M in capital gains) of the income reported. That's almost OK if the country has a surplus and doesn't need the money. But the way things are in the USA today, it's just plain wrong. In short, these Bush tax cuts have weakened and continue to weaken the financial stability of the country IMO.

And for what exactly?

[NJ Stinks]

Newtothegame and Lefty, I just saw your posts. I am dead tired.

But I'll be back tomorrow with a reply.

[Lefty]

Get some rest sonny.
BTW, you don't think that paying 15% on Capital Gains is enough?
You do realize that the money they invest has already been taxed once dont'cha?
Btw, if an investment goes bad, the govt doesn't rush in and give that money back do they? I thought not.

[Tom]

Can't you libs ever do anything without making other people pay for it?
Being really serious here - why the hell do we need to keep lib in the country? Would we not be better off getting rid of them and keeping only people who contribute?

How many anchors does this boat need?
You know, being a citizen mean you have rights AND responsibilities.

[ArlJim78]

Whatever your opinion is of the Bush tax cuts, they occurred something like 10 years ago. They are now solidly engrained throughout the system. Letting a tax cut expire which has been in effect for 10 years is the same thing as raising taxes.

When trying to decide the correct course of action for tax policy right now, it would be better if people would drop the emotions and their envy of the rich.

The question is do you think that at this time the best thing to do is to single out people for tax increases based on income? While it might satisfy your thirst for what you perceive as social justice, the truth is it is unfair and harmful.

Why do people think that confiscated wealth in the hands of government is more beneficial than if that wealth remains in the hands of the people who created it? The people who earned that money have a track record of growing wealth, of creating jobs and opportunities. Governments track record is one of squandering other peoples money on boondoggles and social engineering.

[Robert Goren]

The richest man I know is a farmer who gets millions in farm subsidies each year. He still wants tax cuts and talks about a balanced budget and spending cuts but fights to keep his farm subsidy. Needless to say, he gives money to every republican candidate for federal office in the state. I will believe the republicans are serious about smaller government when I hear farm state republicans talking about cutting farm subsidies. I am pretty sure that it won't happen in my lifetime.

[lamboguy]

The richest man I know is a farmer who gets millions in farm subsidies each year. He still wants tax cuts and talks about a balanced budget and spending cuts but fights to keep his farm subsidy. Needless to say, he gives money to every republican candidate for federal office in the state. I will believe the republicans are serious about smaller government when I hear farm state republicans talking about cutting farm subsidies. I am pretty sure that it won't happen in my lifetime.thats all about local politics. they do and say anything they want to get elected. i saw ted kennedy do the same thing in mass. for 40 years. he got reagan to give the state of mass. billions of dollars for a project called the big did. that project went on for over a decade and mass. was never in a recession like the rest of the country because there were so many jobs created for this project. repubicans from mass voted for him every time because he brought the money here. yet on a national level he was a whipping board to all the republicans that dispized him. today the republicans are all against this stupid health insurance bill, not because they are against the healthcare, but because of all the earmark spending and handouts that went to potential democratic voters and not their own.

[DJofSD]

Liberals never have enough of other people's money.

[johnhannibalsmith]

As I said above, people are conservative for many reasons besides money.

That's very good to read from you. Sometime I wonder if you formulate opinions or merely adopt them. Just please remember that you said that when the less popular brand of clueless is being kept clueless.

:kiss:

[Johnny V]

Keeping the Bush tax cuts in place are probably not really going to help the economy much at all. Raising taxes on anyone however will hurt the economy. Cutting the tax rates for all would probably be a boost. Keeping them where they are at is a wash. No cut. no gain.
We have all seen the percentages of the total tax the various income levels contribute. The rich pay more which they should under our tax system but this class warfare, soak the rich ideas some have are not healthy nor fair. I saw a statistic that said the top 2% of income earners contribute over 30% of all the money spending. If true, that is a powerful stat IMO.

[Tom]

The top 2% do more for this country than the bottom 50%.

[Ocala Mike]

The top 2% do more for this country than the bottom 50%.


Tell that to the guys and gals in the military. The top 2% in this country wouldn't piss up your ass if your guts were on fire, unless they could make a buck doing it.

You probably meant to write "The top 2% do more TO this country than the bottom 50%."


Ocala Mike

[boxcar]

Newtothegame and Lefty, I just saw your posts. I am dead tired.

But I'll be back tomorrow with a reply.

Save your state-worshiping drivel. Your ultimate goal for a tightly government-regulated and controlled, one-size-fits-all lifestyle for all (equal outcomes) is tiresome and patently absurd to say the very least (which is why communism has never worked and socialism is failing around the world dismally). :sleeping: :sleeping: Instead, meditate on these profound words and let their meaning sink in, if it be possible:

Friend, you cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. And what one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government can’t give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody. And when half of the people get the idea they don’t have to work because the other half’s going to take care of them, and when the other half get the idea it does no good to work because somebody’s going to get what I work for. That, dear friend, is about the end of any nation. -- Dr. Adrian Rogers

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Tell that to the guys and gals in the military. The top 2% in this country wouldn't piss up your ass if your guts were on fire, unless they could make a buck doing it.

You probably meant to write "The top 2% do more TO this country than the bottom 50%."


Ocala Mike

Hey, Mike, you, too, should try to stay away from analogies. In the context, it would be clear even to a 10-year old that Tom was referencing wealth and what the wealthy do for this country in terms of generating wealth and all the jobs, inventions, entrepreneurial ideas, etc. that are good, beneficial consequences of that wealth.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Keeping the Bush tax cuts in place are probably not really going to help the economy much at all. Raising taxes on anyone however will hurt the economy. Cutting the tax rates for all would probably be a boost. Keeping them where they are at is a wash. No cut. no gain.
We have all seen the percentages of the total tax the various income levels contribute. The rich pay more which they should under our tax system but this class warfare, soak the rich ideas some have are not healthy nor fair. I saw a statistic that said the top 2% of income earners contribute over 30% of all the money spending. If true, that is a powerful stat IMO.

Exactly right! You get it! It will not do that much "for" the economy, but allowing them to lapse would have dire consequences "to" the economy.

Boxcar

[jognlope]

I think letting them expire in 2 years is appropriate and if some debt comission cuts to spending can be put in place, then that's the right combination. I mean, what else is there to say... it's a done deal.

[Tom]

Tell that to the guys and gals in the military. The top 2% in this country wouldn't piss up your ass if your guts were on fire, unless they could make a buck doing it.

You probably meant to write "The top 2% do more TO this country than the bottom 50%."


Ocala Mike

No, I meant it the way I wrote it, and I stand by it.
And don't try to lump the military into an economic discussion - it is really beneath you.

[bigmack]

The top 2% in this country wouldn't piss up your ass if your guts were on fire, unless they could make a buck doing it.
Do ya ever get the feeling that you're mentally unstable?

Class warfare. I love it.

[boxcar]

Well, let me say that on the Republican side, this is their holy grail, these tax cuts for the wealthy. This is -- seems to be their central economic doctrine.

- President Barack Obama, December 7, 2010


Apparently, this particular sentence uttered at yesterday's press conference was THE focus on conservative talk radio today.

Okay...allow me to get you up to speed. That was yesterday's news. That was part of what the double-talking, forked-tongued, duplicitous president said yesterday. Here is what is coming out of the White today:

Double-Dip Recession Possible Without Tax Deal, Obama's Top Economic Aide Warns

Outgoing White House economic adviser Larry Summers warned Wednesday that failure to pass a new tax cut compromise would significantly raise the risk of a double-dip recession.

"To pass this bill in the next couple of weeks would materially increase the risk that the economy would stall out and we would have a double dip," he told reporters at the White House.

So, there you have it, NJ. These "Bush tax cuts for the rich" are absolutely needed in order to spare the country from the likelihood of a double-dip recession. You disagree with the official WH position of your messiah?

Take your day old newsprint and use it to line a birdcage or something. What BO condemned yesterday is necessary today to save the U.S. economy. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Boxcar
P.S. Oops I forgot to include the link -- courtesy of Fox News, of course. :lol: :lol:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/08/double-dip-recession-possible-tax-deal-obamas-economic-aide-warns/

[Lefty]

Boxcar, and today Obama his own darn self was parroting what Summers said.

[boxcar]

Of course, NJ, at a press conference on Tuesday, the one who you think walks on water, said clearly:

we don't have the danger of a double dip recession.

That was this past Tuesday, December 14, 2010 Year of our Lord (err...the real Lord, that is).

But we can make a sandwich out of the above "comforting" words by rewinding to some other remarks BO made back in November of this year with respect to his take on a "double dip recession":

Obama warns of 'double-dip recession'

"It is important though to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession," he said.

And just to show you that I am fair and balanced, here's the link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34016726/ns/business-economy_at_a_crossroads/

NJ, it appears that we have a president who is DOUBLE DIP FLIP-FLOPPER, don't we? :lol: :lol: All this coming from greatest genius to walk the earth since Jesus Christ himself! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

I'm sick of you libs crying that silly tax cuts for the wealthy mantra. First of all they want more money from all who make over 250,000 yrly. Do you not realize that this will affect small business' and it will mean less jobs if the tax cuts expire? I guess you don't stinks or you wouldn't be repeating the stupidest mantra ever uttered.
The rich or anybody else ALWAYS invests their money more wisely than the govt. ALWAYs.
Those so called wealthy will invest their money in their businesses and hire people to run those businesses. But if the govt takes it, then that's less money for them to invest.
Just beause somebody gets wealthy by risking his money, working hard, why should he be punished for that effort?
BTW, stinks, the so called wealthy already pay the bulk of the taxes.

Lefty. consider this. Somebody invests in a capital asset that has nothing to do with any business he may be involved in. It could be an investment he made in land or a building somewhere. So we'll just call it investment property. The person holds the investment property for 15 years. Let's say the investment property cost that person $500,000 in 1990. And the person sold the investment property for $1.5M in 2005 - not an unreasonable assumption considering the soaring cost of real estate before 2008.

So that person made $1M on the sale that is treated as a capital gain. The capital gains tax is 15% and the person pays $150,000 and keeps the other $850,000 in profit on the sale.

Exactly how many jobs were created by this investment?

The example above is not an isolated incident. How many people in this country can even consider buying investment property? The top 10% would be my guess since they own at least 80% of the country's wealth. (Don't misunderstand me. A family that buys a second home up in the mountains for their personal use is not the same thing as the investor above. Even if the family considers the cabin in the mountains an investment - because it is.) Hence, I maintain that very few Americans are receiving the benefit of this preferential 15% tax rate and these same people are benefitting over and over again.

And I haven't even mentioned that if your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return.

Anyway, Lefty, for much of your life and mine capital gains were taxed at a rate of at least 28%. (During the War in Vietnam there was a surtax of 5% to 10% on capital gains depending on the year to help pay for the war). And, as you may remember, before 1980 the country hardly had any deficits at all. But then the tax rates started to plunge. See the link below:

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf

In closing, you keep telling how stupid I am. Or how much you can't stand me crying about tax rates for the wealthy. So I'll leave you with this question:

Why should a steel worker making $40 an hour or $83,000 a year have to pay at a tax rate of 25% while investors like the one in the example above pay at a tax rate of 15%?

[bigmack]

Why should a steel worker making $40 an hour or $83,000 a year have to pay at a tax rate of 25% while investors like the one in the example above pay at a tax rate of 15%?
What do you think 'the investor' was doing for the 15 years? Did it ever occur to you that he/she would be earning other income and paying taxes on that as well as paying quite a sum in property taxes?

You compare capital gains tax with income tax and wonder why you're considered less than bright? :bang:

[boxcar]

What do you think 'the investor' was doing for the 15 years? Did it ever occur to you that he/she would be earning other income and paying taxes on that as well as paying quite a sum in property taxes?

You compare capital gains tax with income tax and wonder why you're considered less than bright? :bang:

Make nice to NJ, Mack. Don't be too hard on him. His pathetic, lame attempts to justify his indefensible position are examples of him desperately grasping at straws. He deserves pity, not anger. :( :( :(

Boxcar

[Ocala Mike]

The wealthy, who presumably pay taxes at the top of the personal income tax bracket, are the "movers and shakers" who create the jobs in our economy. I propose, therefore, that income tax rates be "indexed" to the unemployment rate. The higher the unemployment rate, the higher the marginal tax rate at the top, and vice versa. Why shouldn't the "job creators" put their money where their mouths are?


Ocala Mike

[boxcar]

The wealthy, who presumably pay taxes at the top of the personal income tax bracket, are the "movers and shakers" who create the jobs in our economy. I propose, therefore, that income tax rates be "indexed" to the unemployment rate. The higher the unemployment rate, the higher the marginal tax rate at the top, and vice versa. Why shouldn't the "job creators" put their money where their mouths are?


Ocala Mike

I have a better idea: Let's "index" the longevity of politicians' careers to the unemployment rate, since inordinate government meddling into the private sector is the number one reason for our economic woes. (Oh, wait...we did that last month, didn't we?)

Boxcar

[Secretariat]

I would like to hear some Republicans respond to three questions.

1. Why haven't the tax cuts for the wealthy over the last decade really trickled down to the middle and the poor? Wages have been flat for the middle class over the last decade.

2. Why if controlling the debt is of prime importance has every Republican President since and including Reagan run huge deficits?

3. Why do Republicans support outsourcing which increases unemployment in this country and therefore cuts into the revenue this country collects to pay down debt?

I kind of know how you'll answer, especially number 3, but I just need to actually see it posted.

[boxcar]

I would like to hear some Republicans respond to three questions.

Well...since you phrased your question that way, it precludes answers from those who aren't Republicans, doesn't it? Oh well...but the good news is that I get to save valuable time because rocks would understand me before you would. However, you get to lose out on my valuable wisdom and knowledge. Your loss. My gain. I'll take it. :D :D :ThmbUp:

Boxcar

[Tom]

I would like to hear some Republicans respond to three questions.

1. Why haven't the tax cuts for the wealthy over the last decade really trickled down to the middle and the poor? Wages have been flat for the middle class over the last decade.

2. Why if controlling the debt is of prime importance has every Republican President since and including Reagan run huge deficits?

3. Why do Republicans support outsourcing which increases unemployment in this country and therefore cuts into the revenue this country collects to pay down debt?

I kind of know how you'll answer, especially number 3, but I just need to actually see it posted.

1. I disagree - we were doing good until the dems took over congress.

2. Because they are politicians. Many of us came out solidly against Bush's spending during his second term. The first one he got a pass because we were at war. When he stopped fighting the war and left the troops there, many of us turned against him - rightfully so. The Tea Party evolved from our attempts to clean up our own side of the aisle. We have since purged many repubs and will purge many more. The new status quo is no second chances. You guys should try it sometime.

3. I speak for myself, but I do not support outsourcing. I favor whatever severe measures we can come up with. For instance, GM - you build cars in Mexico and Canada - you sell them there, not here. Period. Would YOU support that Sec? How about the government - which is DEM CONTROLLED FOR TWO YEARS NOW, Sec - go after China seriously for it's manipulation of currency and DEMAND fair trade or we shut down ALL imports from China. Would YOU support that, Sec?

Tax rates for business should be tied to employment - you hire, your rates goes down. You lay off, you outsource, your rate goes up. Sky's the limit on this one - up to 100% of earnings, or down to NO TAX if you provide enough jobs. Can YOU live with that, Sec?

You left out 4.

I'll respond anyway.

4. Jobs Americans will not do. Make it MANDATORY. You WILL pick cabbage or you will NOT get another dollar in assistance. The is NO EXCUSE for able-bodied people doing manual labor.

OH, btw,

5. Posted earlier today - stop ALL farm subsidies.

[NJ Stinks]

What do you think 'the investor' was doing for the 15 years? Did it ever occur to you that he/she would be earning other income and paying taxes on that as well as paying quite a sum in property taxes?

You compare capital gains tax with income tax and wonder why you're considered less than bright? :bang:

No doubt you think you made another scintillating point. If it was a building, the investor rented it out. If it was just land, the real estate taxes would be minimal. And the land could have been leased out too.

According to the Tax Foundation, in 2006 (the last year stats are available), the country paid $999,506,000 in federal income taxes. Included in the almost $1T in income tax collected was $117,793,000 that was paid in federal capital gains tax.

Therefore, capital gains taxes accounted for over 10% of all federal income taxes collected in 2006.

If the capital gains tax rate was 28% instead of 15%, we could have paid for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2006. Our elected officials chose not to.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/23440.html

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/2089.html

[NJ Stinks]

3. I speak for myself, but I do not support outsourcing. I favor whatever severe measures we can come up with. For instance, GM - you build cars in Mexico and Canada - you sell them there, not here. Period. Would YOU support that Sec? How about the government - which is DEM CONTROLLED FOR TWO YEARS NOW, Sec - go after China seriously for it's manipulation of currency and DEMAND fair trade or we shut down ALL imports from China. Would YOU support that, Sec?



I really like this response. I was thinking of buying a new Ford car - the Fiesta. (I like hatchbacks and I wanted to buy an American car for a change for what I consider to be good reasons.) The damn Fiestas I saw were assembled in Mexico and a lot of the parts came from Brazil. I'm not buying a Fiesta. :mad:

And if at all possible, I wouldn't buy zip from the Chinese. Except at a local Chinese restaurant, of course. :)

[boxcar]

If the capital gains tax rate was 28% instead of 15%, we could have paid for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2006. Our elected officials chose not to.

And...the elected officials YOU voted for still haven't gotten us out of Iraq or Afghanistan, have they? Why do they insist of running up the War Tab? Get on that for us and find out, will ya? Be sure to get back to us.

Boxcar

[bigmack]

If the capital gains tax rate was 28% instead of 15%, we could have paid for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2006. Our elected officials chose not to.
If the tax on lower incomes was 18% instead of 10% we could do all that then some. Our elected officials chose not to.

Beep, beep, comin' through. Two-way street don'tcha know.

[NJ Stinks]

"Lets start with Rush on the radio today. Isn't it enough that Rush creates jobs because his show is a big moneymaker? :( Why should Rush have to pay higher taxes too? :( After all, as The Man Himself pointed out, if Rush needs a better road, he'll build one himself."
Do you not believe Rush creates Job's? Or is it your questioning of what you percieve him to be crying about paying more taxes?
Cause in either case, I would imagine you could provide us with an actual number of how many people Rush does employee. Also, it should be relatively easy to show what their average salary is as well :rolleyes: .
And as to whether or not he should pay more in taxes, you know what NJ, your right...he should. And just so he wouldnt lose his way of life by paying more in taxes, would you care to know how most RICH people would make up the loss in income? ...here's a hint (it might cause layoffs)! So would you really be affecting him? Now, I know I know...call him evil for wanting to keep what he EARNED!
So, let's see what we have accomplished here...by taxing the rich or business' which make over a certain amount, we cause layoffs...good job NJ! You libs will NEVER get it that businesses will NOT lose money (unless your a government run business).

Denny Prager used a different tact. It was more like - oh those silly but cuddly irrational liberals. They just don't understand that us obviously more clear thinking conservatives want to help people too. It's just that we believe that it's not the responsibility of the government to take our tax money and help people - the private sector will do it. (What he didn't say was when conservatives might get around to doing it. :rolleyes: )

We have gone over this time and time again...there are many threads concerning and involving this. Conservatives and repugs donate more then libs! Those damn eveil cons and repugs...how dare them donate more...we will tax it out of them! lol

Prager gets an extra paragraph because he tried to explain why a family making $250,000 isn't rich. (Denny insisted that he kept his credibility with all of his audience in mind when he was citing this example.) I'll skip the small stuff and go right to the beef. Prager says a average family has two kids is going to pay $25,000 for each kid to go to private school so there goes $50,000 of the $250,000 right there. What a load of horse manure! :lol: There are so many holes in this supposedly "ordinary living expense", I'll just move on...

I am not sure where you were going with the above except to say maybe you think the guy is lying?? I can tell you I raise my grandaughter and currently pay more then 10% of my GROSS salary in just her education (starting catholic high school). That number is ONE child! So, I could easily see how they guy above (in a prominent private school) could pay that much for two kids. Or is it your contention that its not "ordinary"? Why is it not ordinary?
Is it because it's not ordinary in YOUR world? Ahhh got it...we are now back to the if it doesnt fit YOUR agenda then its not right theory? lol...You really are a piece of work!



Concerning Rush. Let's say he has $50M in taxable income. If the highest tax rate is pushed up from 35% (Bush tax rate) to 39.6% (Clinton tax rate), Rush will have to pay an extra $2,040,000 a year. If you think Rush is going to start eliminating payroll over $2M, I disagree.

Concerning Prager. To the first point, have you heard donations to charities are down? That means the private sector may not be a reliable source to help the disabled, seniors, etc. To the second point, I don't consider a private school an ordinary and necessary expense. Now that's easy for me to say since I don't have any kids. But I have been paying high property taxes to pay for the public schools where I live for the last 30 years. Private school is a luxury - not a necessity. I say that knowing you and many other people don't want to hear it.

This particular point reminds me of something I think Limbaugh said the other day. He was scoffing at the students at Columbia who said they were selling drugs because Columbia costs so much to attend. Rush suggested as sarcatically as possible that those students should have went to community college if they couldn't afford Columbia. As much as I hate to say it, Rush raised a valid point for once.

So now I guess I'm back to being the proverbial "piece of work". ;)

[NJ Stinks]

And...the elected officials YOU voted for still haven't gotten us out of Iraq or Afghanistan, have they? Why do they insist of running up the War Tab? Get on that for us and find out, will ya? Be sure to get back to us.

Boxcar

Good point, Boxcar.

[NJ Stinks]

If the tax on lower incomes was 18% instead of 10% we could do all that then some. Our elected officials chose not to.

Beep, beep, comin' through. Two-way street don'tcha know.

I doubt your first sentence is true but I get your point.

[newtothegame]

Concerning Rush. Let's say he has $50M in taxable income. If the highest tax rate is pushed up from 35% (Bush tax rate) to 39.6% (Clinton tax rate), Rush will have to pay an extra $2,040,000 a year. If you think Rush is going to start eliminating payroll over $2M, I disagree.

Concerning Prager. To the first point, have you heard donations to charities are down? That means the private sector may not be a reliable source to help the disabled, seniors, etc. To the second point, I don't consider a private school an ordinary and necessary expense. Now that's easy for me to say since I don't have any kids. But I have been paying high property taxes to pay for the public schools where I live for the last 30 years. Private school is a luxury - not a necessity. I say that knowing you and many other people don't want to hear it.

This particular point reminds me of something I think Limbaugh said the other day. He was scoffing at the students at Columbia who said they were selling drugs because Columbia costs so much to attend. Rush suggested as sarcatically as possible that those students should have went to community college if they couldn't afford Columbia. As much as I hate to say it, Rush raised a valid point for once.

So now I guess I'm back to being the proverbial "piece of work". ;)

Private school is a luxury??? Lol...well in a sense your right....BUT, have you not seen the recent release of documents showing that AMERICAN kids are falling way behind the rest of the world when it comes to education?
Yet you wish to keep them in the same public schools where this education is failing?? Or, you want to penalize those of us who are attempting to do something about it?? Yep, a piece of work as I said!

As for Rush and two million a year more in taxes....If you think for a minute, ANYONE, (rush included) will just accept that loss and not in turn do everything he can to keep it....well the "piece of work" here would apply as well!

[boxcar]

So now I guess I'm back to being the proverbial "piece of work". ;)

Huh? When was the time you ever escaped that status? :D :D

Boxcar
P.S. But we still luv you anyhow. :D

[NJ Stinks]

Private school is a luxury??? Lol...well in a sense your right....BUT, have you not seen the recent release of documents showing that AMERICAN kids are falling way behind the rest of the world when it comes to education?
Yet you wish to keep them in the same public schools where this education is failing?? Or, you want to penalize those of us who are attempting to do something about it?? Yep, a piece of work as I said!

As for Rush and two million a year more in taxes....If you think for a minute, ANYONE, (rush included) will just accept that loss and not in turn do everything he can to keep it....well the "piece of work" here would apply as well!

At least I got one thing right.

Even Boxcar agrees that I'm a piece of work! :jump: ;)

[johnhannibalsmith]

... the country paid $999,506,000 in federal income taxes. Included in the almost $1T in income tax.

Mr. NjStinks, CPA, Equ., sir,


What is 999,506,000 + 494,000?

[cj's dad]

[QUOTE=NJ Stinks

Private school is a luxury - not a necessity. . ;)[/QUOTE]

Edited by me. Growing up in a certain neighborhood in my childhood, private schools were needed because the areas were so bad.

God bless Mom for seeing the difference between the educational availabilities at the time. Love ya Mom !!

[boxcar]

At least I got one thing right.

Even Boxcar agrees that I'm a piece of work! :jump: ;)

Don't get too giddy. You're hardly a masterpiece. ;)

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

Mr. NjStinks, CPA, Equ., sir,


What is 999,506,000 + 494,000?

I give up, John. What did I miss? :confused:

[johnhannibalsmith]

... the country paid $999,506,000 in federal income taxes. Included in the almost $1T in income tax

I know you progressive types think big with the zeros, but lets get to a billion before we hit a trillion... almost 1% of $1Tin income tax... :p

[Robert Goren]

I got to give it to the republicans who cut this deal with Obama. They went from looking like shills for rich people to saviors of the country and turned the liberal democrats into ideologues holding up unemployment for needy job seekers over wanting to punish the rich. I never thought they were that smart.

[NJ Stinks]

I know you progressive types think big with the zeros, but lets get to a billion before we hit a trillion... almost 1% of $1Tin income tax... :p

I should have addded three more zeros to both dollar amounts in post #37. :blush:

Which would have still got us to the 10%.

[Ocala Mike]

[QUOTE=bigmack]If the tax on lower incomes was 18% instead of 10% we could do all that then some. Our elected officials chose not to.
/QUOTE]

Yes, and if the people have no bread, let them eat cake. Talk about class warfare!


Ocala Mike

[newtothegame]

[QUOTE=bigmack]If the tax on lower incomes was 18% instead of 10% we could do all that then some. Our elected officials chose not to.
/QUOTE]

Yes, and if the people have no bread, let them eat cake. Talk about class warfare!


Ocala Mike

Ahh , your right Mike, class warfare is EXACTLY what YOU are referring too. Its ok to raise taxes on the rich, but don't raise on everyone else...right??? :bang:
How is that NOT class warfare???

[Robert Goren]

The rich long ago declared war on the rest of us. Now when we fight back we are accused of starting a class war.

[DJofSD]

The rich long ago declared war on the rest of us. Now when we fight back we are accused of starting a class war.
I'll start asking around to find out when that declaration was given. We need a date to mark on the calendar.

[newtothegame]

The rich long ago declared war on the rest of us. Now when we fight back we are accused of starting a class war.

War was declared??? :lol: You libs never cease to amaze me....
Was it war while you were working and collecting a paycheck from them? Or was this some realization you came to after???
I am sure you have proof of assault and battery right? I mean after all, that's what war is....
Police reports?? hmmmm
Did you try the court system???
Ohhh wait...your NOT really talking about war...your talking about oppression.....
The rich have oppressed you by taking what was rightfully yours????
And well wait...that would include theft of some sort...
Again...police reports???
Nope, can't be theft....
So maybe, its the system?? You just don't like how its set up as you were NOT able to take up the pursuit of happiness, life, or liberty???
Maybe there is a document you can point me too that say's you were ENTITLED to something more then you obtained??
Well damn Rob...buddy...I think you might come up empty handed on that document too...:faint:
Why don't ya just be straight forward and say what ya really want.....
Of course you know by saying what you WANT, that which someone else has, thats called ENVY....
Class ENVY to be more precise.....
Now I could be mistaken...but somewhere in here there is supposed to be something about personal responsibility.....
Are you responsible for yourself robert?? Or is someone else??? :bang:

[delayjf]

1. Why haven't the tax cuts for the wealthy over the last decade really trickled down to the middle and the poor? Wages have been flat for the middle class over the last decade.

If middle class wages have remained stagnate as you claim, while tax revenues have increased to record levels under Bush, then those revenue increases have been paid entirely by the rich.

[Tom]

If middle class wages have remained stagnate as you claim, while tax revenues have increased to record levels under Bush, then those revenue increases have been paid entirely by the rich.


Gold Star for Jeff! :ThmbUp:

[boxcar]

The rich long ago declared war on the rest of us. Now when we fight back we are accused of starting a class war.

I would dearly love to see the specifics in your case on how the rich have raped, pillaged and plundered you personally, as well as your lifestyle. If you're convincing, I'll create a Victims' Bill of Rights.

Waiting with bated breath,
Boxcar

[ArlJim78]

The blame the rich mentality is misguided, you should be blaming government.

In some ways I think those on the left who hate the rich and blame them for all our ills while looking to government for justice, if the truth were known, are really fighting the same war as the TeaParty type people who see the same crimes and injustices but realize that its all enabled by crony capitalism and corrupt big government overreaching, and want to take government back from these types.

Okay so its the collaboration of big fat cat businessmen and corrupt politicians that cause our problems. So lets attack the problem at its source using the system we have which is the ballot box. Thinking that you are going to solve the problem by having government tax away on the weathly is stupid. Getting wealthy in and of itself is not a bad thing to be punished, you don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. Our economy depends on people seeking to get wealthy.

There is no difference between big business gaming the system to their advantage than there is for teachers or big labor doing the same. Government should not be picking the winners and losers because it is a huge invitation for cronynism and foulplay.

All you people who are so fond of big government calling the shots are enabling the very ills which have infected our society top to bottom because once government starts being the arbiter of who gets what you will find every thief and con man under the sun in line for a taste while at the same time an independent small guy has no shot at bucking the system because he is not well enough connected to get the right waivers or grants or favorable regulations that the big curroptocrats are able to get.

[boxcar]

Yesterday I stated that the Liar-in-Chief is intentionally talking out of both sides of his mouth in trying to sell congress on the idea of extending the current tax rates. Clearly, he's positioning himself now on this debate so that he'll be able "win" the debate near the next election, regardless how the economy performs between now and then. Let's look at, yet, another flip-flop example.

In order to sell this to congress, the WH position is that extending the Bush tax cuts is necessary because it will create jobs, to wit:

Obama Says Tax Compromise Will Help Create Jobs

Dec. 9 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said the compromise tax plan he’s agree to with congressional Republicans will give businesses incentives to grow and hire and help create “millions of jobs.”

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-09/obama-says-tax-compromise-will-help-create-jobs.html

But today on NPR, the prez talked out of the other side of his mouth:


Obama: Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich Won’t Create ‘One Single Job’

INSKEEP: Let me ask you about something that we heard from one of our listeners. … The question that we got was: “Please ask him how keeping the tax rate for the richest the same as it has been for a decade creates one single job.”

OBAMA: It doesn’t, which is why I was opposed to it — and I’m still opposed to it.

The question that is begging to be asked (so I'll oblige) is this: (And no, it's not who is the real Obama because I already know who and what he is) Just who does Obama think is going to create the millions of jobs that he claimed earlier would be created? The poor? Who, in this country, are the job creators?

NPR, being the BO apologists they are, fully realized that BO contradicted himself from what he said earlier. So, they came up with this lame spin job:

But Obama’s comments seems to be at odds with the message that the White House has been pushing in trying to sell its tax deal, touting that it will create millions of jobs. On Wednesday, White House economic advisor Larry Summers even warned that not passing the tax deal, “would materially increase the risk the economy would stall out and we would have a double dip [recession].” Cribbing a talking point from conservatives while appearing on MSNBC yesterday afternoon, White House economic advisor Austan Goolsbee explained, “I think the president’s judgment on why extend the Bush tax cuts was ordinary people need to have some certainty that when they wake up January 1st, we haven’t fumbled around and now their taxes are going to go up by several thousand dollars.” (emphasis mine)

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/10/obama-bush-cuts-no-jobs/

So, NPR decides to appeal to Goolsbee's explanation as the reason for this "seeming" contradiction. But Goolsbee's perverse logic, being what it is, unwittingly tries to explain away this contradiction by stating that BO was really being less than truthful with "ordinary people" earlier! :bang: :bang:
Permit me to interpret.

The "ordinary people" are the unwashed Americans -- the unenlightened -- the know-nothings in America -- the stupid tea party types who don't know any better, etc.. BO spun it that way because this is what the stupid masses wanted to hear. So, he obliged them by telling them that the economy would improve and jobs would be created by extending the status quo for the next two years.

This strategy of lies puts BO in a win-win situation. If the economy should improve significantly between now and close to election, he can take credit. Likewise, if the economy doesn't improve significantly, he can also take credit by saying to the world, "See, I told you so. Supply side economics doesn't work." And then on top of that come down like a sledge hammer on the Republicans for holding him and the Democrat Party "HOSTAGE" -- for forcing him and his party to go along with something they knew wouldn't work! (The Evil One must be proud of his faithful servant's duplicity!)

Of course, the Party of Stupid is too stupid to see this trap. The Repugs should back out of this " compromise deal" ASAP! The very fact that BO wants this to go through so badly (before January 1) should be enough to tell any thinking person that he is setting the Republicans up.

Boxcar

[bigmack]

The rich long ago declared war on the rest of us. Now when we fight back we are accused of starting a class war.
Why are most corporate contributions to democrusts? Why are most Wall Street contributions to demospatz? How many of the 'rich' are demofats?

Neanderthals still live in world of demorats for the workin' man and repu's for the rich. They need to evolve. Get it?

[JustRalph]

This just about covers it........the Golden Goose be da rich

Don't forget, 47% of Americans don't pay a damn dime

[NJ Stinks]

This just about covers it........the Golden Goose be da rich

Don't forget, 47% of Americans don't pay a damn dime

Of course the rich are paying a higher percentage of total taxes paid. They are the only ones making more money. How the hell could it go any other way? :bang:

[boxcar]

Of course the rich are paying a higher percentage of total taxes paid. They are the only ones making more money. How the hell could it go any other way? :bang:

By getting the 47% of non-taxpayers to contribute to society, as the rich do. As it is, far too many of these are being made comfortable in their poverty by the state and, therefore, have no incentive to become productive members of society, as the rich are.

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

By getting the 47% of non-taxpayers to contribute to society, as the rich do. As it is, far too many of these are being made comfortable in their poverty by the state and, therefore, have no incentive to become productive members of society, as the rich are.

Boxcar

You're right, Boxcar. There is nothing more comfortable than abject poverty. What was I thinking? ;)

[boxcar]

You're right, Boxcar. There is nothing more comfortable than abject poverty. What was I thinking? ;)

You obviously weren't; for you forgot about ALL the free money society's freeloaders collect for doing nothing. You forgot about all the ObamaBucks maniacs out there -- those who want something for nothing.

Meanwhile, you should try working a lot harder on that "thinking" thing, okay? The overtime would certainly not hurt you. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Tom]

The thing is, Obama has now admitted the truth and the dem lie has been exposed.

He has a golden opportunity right now - to become a real president.
Will he wake up and step up?








naw! :D

[DJofSD]

Not unless Michelle says it's OK.

Got to go now.

[Lefty]

Stinks, the fair way would be a flat tax where we all pay the same percentage. The rich would still pay more, but I know libs don't want fairness.
They want to punish success!

[boxcar]

Stinks, the fair way would be a flat tax where we all pay the same percentage. The rich would still pay more, but I know libs don't want fairness.
They want to punish success!

Lefty, can you give all the advantages that a your flat tax would have over the Fair Tax?

Boxcar

[Lefty]

Boxcar, we had this debate many years, ago, remember? No sense having it again. Either one is better than the one we have now, but I prefer the flat tax.

[boxcar]

Boxcar, we had this debate many years, ago, remember? No sense having it again. Either one is better than the one we have now, but I prefer the flat tax.

Shirely U. Jest. I've had so many "debates" on this forum, I can't keep count. :D

But you're right that either one would be better, however of the two the Fair Tax would be best tax system by far. ;)

Let me just reiterate a point I made earlier about the Fair Tax system that I think could be the most important of them all: With a consumption-based tax system, the taxpayers would be 100% autonomous and anonymous. The government wouldn't get to know who is paying what, nor should they. It's not the state's business in a truly free society because the people should be able to exercise 100% control of their property at all times, which means we'd get to see the very first penny we have earned!. Conversely, any income-based system would still put the state in control because they would still have first dibs on our property and get to confiscate a portion of it right off the top. Still too close to Marxism for comfort. End of discussion.

Have a great weekend,
Boxcar

[Lefty]

Boxy, several yrs ago, you and I had a spirited debate that lasted over several days. I guss your memory not as good as mine. LOL

[boxcar]

Boxy, several yrs ago, you and I had a spirited debate that lasted over several days. I guss your memory not as good as mine. LOL

Are you kidding? I'd doing well to remember just my bible verses. :D

But I do remember discussing this in depth some years ago -- just not with whom. Sorry, Lefty, nothing personal, and you should not construe this admission to mean that you were necessarily a boring debater. :D

Boxcar

[Lefty]

It was a good debate, and I enjoyed it. I think we both made great points.
No hard feelings at all!

[boxcar]

It was a good debate, and I enjoyed it. I think we both made great points.
No hard feelings at all!

You're really a good sport. How badly did I beat you, by the way? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[Lefty]

Thanks. I think you got me by a head. But I still think i'm right. I'm stubborn.

[bigmack]

There are three examples in recent history when large, broad based reductions in graduated tax rates did result in job growth.

In the 1960s under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson
In the 1980s under President Reagan
from 2003 – 2007 under President Bush.
AND, each time tax rates were reduced, tax revenue collected by the government increased.

Nobody, not even the most blindly partisan commentators try to claim that the economic crisis of 2008 – 2010 was caused by, or made worse by the tax cuts of 2003.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/jgwoth.png
http://libertyworks.com/will-obamas-job-growth-ever-equal-bushs/

[Secretariat]

If middle class wages have remained stagnate as you claim, while tax revenues have increased to record levels under Bush, then those revenue increases have been paid entirely by the rich.

This link shows the continued slow growth in real income for the poor in middle class as compared to the upper class, and it is well documented, so I won’t waste the time on whether middle class wages have remained stagnant. They have, and you are quite aware of this.

http://www.newmericans.com/tag/middle-class/

But, in assuming your assertion, that if we now live in a society where tax revenues are being paid more and more by a smaller group of people, (the rich), and the lower and middle class (due to stagnant wages and job growth) are paying less in taxes, then it follows that because the middle class now has LESS wealth, it also means means that their standard of living for the vast majority of middle class Americans over this same period will suffer. It also means because the middle class has less wealth, that they have less wealth to purchase goods which help drive the economy. And when jobs are outsourced for lower wages abroad, this also reduces middle class wealth and middle class tax revenue. It creates a vicious cycle where because the middle class have less wealth, then they often seek out goods at cheaper prices which leads to purchases of more and more foreign made goods which are produced by countries where there are no wage controls, or any controls at all thus increasing more jobs abroad to produce these cheap goods and therefore losing more and more American jobs.

As Bernie Sanders said just yesterday, 1% of Americans now control 90% of the wealth of the nation. The cry of class warfare always emerges when progressive tax rates on the upper class are discussed. This is nothing new. But in actual figures the current tax policies have indeed led to a class warfare of its own where the rich have become dramatically richer, and the middle class and poor stagnating in wage growth against the last decade of inflation.

The more that middle class wages stagnate, the more that revenue will ultimately have to be made up by the rich.

As to the success of George W. Bush all we need to look at is the size of the deficit and spending that occurred under him far exceeding the revenues collected, and also the vast decline in the financial industry under his stewardship, not to mention the promise that two wars can be fought that were not paid for on the books , but which were simply funded via Communist Chinese loans.

[Secretariat]

1. I disagree - we were doing good until the dems took over congress.

2. Because they are politicians. Many of us came out solidly against Bush's spending during his second term. The first one he got a pass because we were at war. When he stopped fighting the war and left the troops there, many of us turned against him - rightfully so. The Tea Party evolved from our attempts to clean up our own side of the aisle. We have since purged many repubs and will purge many more. The new status quo is no second chances. You guys should try it sometime.

3. I speak for myself, but I do not support outsourcing. I favor whatever severe measures we can come up with. For instance, GM - you build cars in Mexico and Canada - you sell them there, not here. Period. Would YOU support that Sec? How about the government - which is DEM CONTROLLED FOR TWO YEARS NOW, Sec - go after China seriously for it's manipulation of currency and DEMAND fair trade or we shut down ALL imports from China. Would YOU support that, Sec?

Tax rates for business should be tied to employment - you hire, your rates goes down. You lay off, you outsource, your rate goes up. Sky's the limit on this one - up to 100% of earnings, or down to NO TAX if you provide enough jobs. Can YOU live with that, Sec?

You left out 4.

I'll respond anyway.

4. Jobs Americans will not do. Make it MANDATORY. You WILL pick cabbage or you will NOT get another dollar in assistance. The is NO EXCUSE for able-bodied people doing manual labor.

OH, btw,

5. Posted earlier today - stop ALL farm subsidies.


1. Middle class wages stagnated during Bush's first and second term, and the great majority of Bush's job creation was in government jobs created expanding government, not in the private sector. In fact there was private sector job loss during Bush. Also spending went through the roof during the first Bush term with a Republican Congress from fighting two wars without paying for them, and passage of an entitlement presecription drug plan for seniors to buy votes for the 2004 election. Those things led to deficits while the GOP looked away. and the overall performance on the financial market during Bush's term was abysmal finishing his term with the markets almost 4000-5000 points less on the DOw than when he took office Pitiful.

2. I agree they are all politicians, but that is not an excuse. The GOP's battle cry is always, we can't afford it - debt and deficits, but they have simply failed to deliver on that promise. They spent and spent in the Bush administration. The only spending they don't like is spending when a Democrat is in the Executive.

3. I am pleased at your outsourcing comments. Maybe common ground. However, Democratic attempts to place prohibitive tax disadvantages on outsourcing companies have always been fought back hard by the GOP as the government intruding on the free market place. So, I encourage you to write your Republican Senators and Congressmen with your position on outsourcing.

4. The problem with forced picking cabbage is we let businesses hire cheap labor of undocumented workers to pick cabbage for peanuts. If we stop that and pay a decent wage to unemployed Americans, they'll do it. The problem is American workers are not being truly competitive, but are competing against undocumented immigrants who will work for less then minimum wage. I'm always amazed at the outrage of middle class Republicans at the poor and the unemployed who struggle to put food on their table, and have no problems looking askance at companies who received billions in corporate welfare and ship jobs overseas to countries who hire workers at near slave wages and conditions. That's somehow considered smart and good business, but the guy who won't work for less than minimum wage picking cabbage is a real bum and should be pilloried.

5. I agree on some of the farm subsidies. They're insane, but ALL of them. I can't make that broad a statement, In the 80's the dream of the family farm really died as agrabusiness took over. Some of those subsidies intended for the family farm are now just corporate welfare for the agrabusiness. I'd like to see a cost study done on eliminating all farm subsidies and what it would lead to in terms of increased food prices, and fuel prices/ethanol. Have you ever seen such a study?

[Tom]

1. and the overall performance on the financial market during Bush's term was abysmal finishing his term with the markets almost 4000-5000 points less on the DOw than when he took office Pitiful. You forget to mention that the last two years of his second term were DEMOCRAT years in congress. End of story.

2. I agree they are all politicians, but that is not an excuse. Did you totally not read my reply about the Tea Party and how we were CLEANING UP Republicans? OR just cut and paste from your email today? What are you doing to clean up the dems?

3. However, Democratic attempts to place prohibitive tax disadvantages on outsourcing companies have always been fought back hard by the GOP as the government intruding on the free market place. Earth to Sec....Dems had BOTH HOUSES for the last two years and FAILED TO GET THE JOB DONE. DID THEY EVEN TRY??????

4. The problem with forced picking cabbage is we let businesses hire cheap labor of undocumented workers to pick cabbage for peanuts.
Just how much do you figure picking cabbage is worth? Here is how it works in the real world - you pay what the job is worth.

5. Have you ever seen such a study? I would assume one is coming out soon, seeing how DEMS controlled all of the government the last two years. You tell me where it is??

Did you enjoy seeing your boy president reduced to bell hop status Friday? :lol:

[Lefty]

two unfunded wars eh, sec.
The war against poverty is unfunded and that has cost over 6 trillion, so far.
Medicare is unfunded.
The continuation of unemployment is unfunded.
The stimulus was unfunded.
Everything the dims have passed since Obama has been pres has been unfunded.
Lots of things are unfunded but instead of criticizing the dims and Obama, you want to back and rain on GW.
Taking out Sadam was the right thing to do. The Wiki leaks guy says he DID have weapons of Mass Destruction and was going to put them back in play as soon as the heat was off. Thanks to GW Sadam will not become another Hitler.
Nowthe dims are saying we must retain the middle class tax cuts or we will go into into a double dip recession. For the last 10 years these hippocrites have been saying ONLY the rich benefitted from Bush's tax cuts. Now all of a sudden the story has changed. These guys can't tell a story the same way twice.

[Ocala Mike]

Secretariat is moving like a tremendous machine!


Ocala Mike

[boxcar]

Secretariat is moving like a tremendous machine!


Ocala Mike

You mean like a runaway locomotive racing to its destruction?

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

two unfunded wars eh, sec.
The war against poverty is unfunded and that has cost over 6 trillion, so far.
Medicare is unfunded.
The continuation of unemployment is unfunded.
The stimulus was unfunded.
Everything the dims have passed since Obama has been pres has been unfunded.
Lots of things are unfunded but instead of criticizing the dims and Obama, you want to back and rain on GW.
Taking out Sadam was the right thing to do. The Wiki leaks guy says he DID have weapons of Mass Destruction and was going to put them back in play as soon as the heat was off. Thanks to GW Sadam will not So isbecome another Hitler.
Nowthe dims are saying we must retain the middle class tax cuts or we will go into into a double dip recession. For the last 10 years these hippocrites have been saying ONLY the rich benefitted from Bush's tax cuts. Now all of a sudden the story has changed. These guys can't tell a story the same way twice.

Comparing the cost of the war on poverty in this country or the health of people in this country (Medicare) with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is absurd. So is comparing the cost of those wars with trying to get us out of recession here (the stimulus).

Comparing Saddam as a threat with Hitler is beyond even this place.

The last part about the middleclass tax cuts was a great point, Lefty.

One for three is pretty damned good for any rightie here. :jump:

[johnhannibalsmith]

...Comparing Saddam as a threat with Hitler is beyond even this place...

You must not remember the way his personal army treated civilians. The daily torture of citizens played on the news for citizens to watch and fear.

Compare him to Hitler - no and you're being a completed dolt if you want to mangle what he said to spark that flame - he's making a very accurate point about one thing that GWB did absolutely correctly -

He took a madman with delusions of grandeur out of the equation before the comparison was valid. Unlike your silly trivialization, Bush this and Bush that - he made the world a better place the day that guy was gone and made sure people like you could criticize the merits of certain comparisons.

[NJ Stinks]

You must not remember the way his personal army treated civilians. The daily torture of citizens played on the news for citizens to watch and fear.

Compare him to Hitler - no and you're being a completed dolt if you want to mangle what he said to spark that flame - he's making a very accurate point about one thing that GWB did absolutely correctly -

He took a madman with delusions of grandeur out of the equation before the comparison was valid. Unlike your silly trivialization, Bush this and Bush that - he made the world a better place the day that guy was gone and made sure people like you could criticize the merits of certain comparisons.

Couldn't disagree with you more. Bush's worst move was invading Iraq.

Yea, Saddam was bad guy. So what? There are a lot of bad guys out there we live with because they are no threat to us or our allies.

One thing is for sure. You and I are looking out the same window. But we ain't seeing the same view. That doesn't necessarily make one of us a dolt - it just means one of us needs glasses.

So do yourself a favor and check this place out if you get a chance:

http://www.lenscrafters.com/eyeglasses/designer-eyeglass-frames-sunglasses-and-contact-lenses

:faint:

[JustRalph]

with the benefit of hindsight.....NJ is right about Iraq.

There were at least a couple different motives for going to Iraq, none of them worth a damn without "real WMD's" Saddam was a bastard and there are many many bastards out there. There were better ways to do what we did. He did have chemical weapons stashed away, and if you don't think those are just as bad as Nukes, you are wrong. The difference is the delivery system and the range of casualties. It's very hard to throw chemical weapons across borders. With any real danger, it must be delivered by a missile. Israel is the one that was truly threatened by that.

I was all for it. But then again I also believed the Intel of 8 different countries that said it was all real. I was also more for some of the ulterior motives. Those being a show of force. A ramped up military and the other things that occur when you actually go to war. It was all squandered.

I am proud of the many things accomplished for the "good" Iraqi people. Like purple fingers and the like. I just don't think we went about it the right way, after the first month. There were many more bad guys that should have been rolled over (once we were there) and as usual we are still dealing with those assholes today. Because we didn't go far enough. If you are going to pull the trigger, you better go full bore. Nope, can't do that. Politics got in the way.

But then again, we are all speaking from hindsight. It's not a fair comparison.

[boxcar]

Couldn't disagree with you more. Bush's worst move was invading Iraq.

Yea, Saddam was bad guy. So what? There are a lot of bad guys out there we live with because they are no threat to us or our allies.

One thing is for sure. You and I are looking out the same window. But we ain't seeing the same view. That doesn't necessarily make one of us a dolt - it just means one of us needs glasses.

So do yourself a favor and check this place out if you get a chance:

http://www.lenscrafters.com/eyeglasses/designer-eyeglass-frames-sunglasses-and-contact-lenses

:faint:

The blind telling others they cannot see? :rolleyes: Saddam and his terrorist buddies were mutual enemies of the U.S. Saddam would have gladly accommodated their desires and used them as his puppets to do in their common enemy. You have already conceded that Saddam was a bad guy. And terrorists are bad guys; yet in your alternate universe we're supposed to believe that both would not conspire to do harm to the U.S.?

Leave your mother ship and come down to earth. Get to feel what solid ground feels like under your feet for a change. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

with the benefit of hindsight.....NJ is right about Iraq.

There were at least a couple different motives for going to Iraq, none of them worth a damn without "real WMD's" Saddam was a bastard and there are many many bastards out there. There were better ways to do what we did. He did have chemical weapons stashed away, and if you don't think those are just as bad as Nukes, you are wrong. The difference is the delivery system and the range of casualties. It's very hard to throw chemical weapons across borders. With any real danger, it must be delivered by a missile. Israel is the one that was truly threatened by that.

I was all for it. But then again I also believed the Intel of 8 different countries that said it was all real. I was also more for some of the ulterior motives. Those being a show of force. A ramped up military and the other things that occur when you actually go to war. It was all squandered.

I am proud of the many things accomplished for the "good" Iraqi people. Like purple fingers and the like. I just don't think we went about it the right way, after the first month. There were many more bad guys that should have been rolled over (once we were there) and as usual we are still dealing with those assholes today. Because we didn't go far enough. If you are going to pull the trigger, you better go full bore. Nope, can't do that. Politics got in the way.

But then again, we are all speaking from hindsight. It's not a fair comparison.

My only regret for us going into Iraq (and now even Afghanistan more!) is that it appears we only know how to fight PC wars. The U.S. no longer has the killer instinct that soldiers must have in order to decisively win wars.

In my opinion, the U.S. should pull every single soldier out of every foreign country (including So. Korea) and put them on our borders. No soldier deserves to die because some moronic commander-in-chief wants to play nice with the enemy. And no foreign country deserves our fighting men and women. If they want freedom, let them shed their own blood for it. Or let the entire globe fall to communism, as far I'm concerned.

Boxcar

[johnhannibalsmith]

... That doesn't necessarily make one of us a dolt - it just means one of us needs glasses.

...:

You really are Mr. Weiner, aren't you - obfuscating and twisting - stop, stop, stop...

The original poster made the remark that a benefit of Operation Iraqi Freedom was that we had rid the world of a serious threat (at least in his own mind) and spared a nation from the regular brutality of his regime. The guy had very similar aspirations as Hitler did and that was the original poster's intent - we had learned something from history perhaps with folks like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini - you let them get too far and suddenly you need to arm an enemy to defeat a larger enemy... and on and on... you know...

You then sort of mangled his intent to simply minimize to its simplest form, as to allude that he was making our involvement in Iraq and disposition of the leader a straight analogy to Hitler and WWII. He wasn't, as near as I can tell, and neither am I.

The dolt comment was obviously in regards to the treatment of the original poster's intent with his comment and had nothing to do with your personal opinion on the matter. We actually probably agree more than we disagree on a point by point basis, but I can see you have the full cup blinkers on today, so...

:kiss:

Settle down fireball.

[delayjf]

I was all for it. But then again I also believed the Intel of 8 different countries that said it was all real.

The real unintended benefit from the Iraq war was that it "Motivated" Libya into giving up their WMD - which were substantial.

[NJ Stinks]

You really are Mr. Weiner, aren't you - obfuscating and twisting - stop, stop, stop...

The original poster made the remark that a benefit of Operation Iraqi Freedom was that we had rid the world of a serious threat (at least in his own mind) and spared a nation from the regular brutality of his regime. The guy had very similar aspirations as Hitler did and that was the original poster's intent - we had learned something from history perhaps with folks like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini - you let them get too far and suddenly you need to arm an enemy to defeat a larger enemy... and on and on... you know...

You then sort of mangled his intent to simply minimize to its simplest form, as to allude that he was making our involvement in Iraq and disposition of the leader a straight analogy to Hitler and WWII. He wasn't, as near as I can tell, and neither am I.

The dolt comment was obviously in regards to the treatment of the original poster's intent with his comment and had nothing to do with your personal opinion on the matter. We actually probably agree more than we disagree on a point by point basis, but I can see you have the full cup blinkers on today, so...

:kiss:

Settle down fireball.

dolt (dhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/omacr.giflt)
n. A stupid person; a dunce.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dolt
________________________________________

Now if Boxcar, Tom, or especially Mack called me a dolt, I would have patted myself on the back and said my work is done here. :cool: But when you do it, I've got to back and look again at what I said.

So I did. I don't it think was "dolt" worthy. "Taking out Saddam" was not "the right thing to do" IMO. And the Hitler comparison was out there too - as far as I could tell. ;)

[boxcar]

dolt (dhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/omacr.giflt)
n. A stupid person; a dunce.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dolt
________________________________________

Now if Boxcar, Tom, or especially Mack called me a dolt, I would have patted myself on the back and said my work is done here. :cool: But when you do it, I've got to back and look again at what I said.

So I did. I don't it think was "dolt" worthy. "Taking out Saddam" was not "the right thing to do" IMO. And the Hitler comparison was out there too - as far as I could tell. ;)

I know you're not a "dolt". You're just a piece of work that should be hanging up in some thrift store with a price tax of $2.99 hanging around your neck.

Boxcar

[johnhannibalsmith]

... And the Hitler comparison was out there too - as far as I could tell. ;)

It depends upon the way in which you compare the two. There are obviously elements of Hitler that are simply uncomparable. I read a long, long essay on Saddam a bunch of years ago and hadn't realized what a despicable miscreant he was and just how ambitious he was, regardless of the realities or consequences.

I can barely see straight from fatigue or I'd try to make a case built on something more tangible than memories of sumptin I read once upon a time.

Just be a dolt about it ya baby. :cool:

[NJ Stinks]

It depends upon the way in which you compare the two. There are obviously elements of Hitler that are simply uncomparable. I read a long, long essay on Saddam a bunch of years ago and hadn't realized what a despicable miscreant he was and just how ambitious he was, regardless of the realities or consequences.

I can barely see straight from fatigue or I'd try to make a case built on something more tangible than memories of sumptin I read once upon a time.

Just be a dolt about it ya baby. :cool:

Okey dokey. :ThmbUp:

[Secretariat]

Did you enjoy seeing your boy president reduced to bell hop status Friday? :lol:

Yes I did Tom, and he was reduced to bell hop status. He's become a joke to his base so I can understand your delight. This of course doesn't make the Republicans any better.

[Secretariat]

two unfunded wars eh, sec.
The war against poverty is unfunded and that has cost over 6 trillion, so far.
Medicare is unfunded.
The continuation of unemployment is unfunded.
The stimulus was unfunded.
Everything the dims have passed since Obama has been pres has been unfunded.
Lots of things are unfunded but instead of criticizing the dims and Obama, you want to back and rain on GW.
Taking out Sadam was the right thing to do. The Wiki leaks guy says he DID have weapons of Mass Destruction and was going to put them back in play as soon as the heat was off. Thanks to GW Sadam will not become another Hitler.
Nowthe dims are saying we must retain the middle class tax cuts or we will go into into a double dip recession. For the last 10 years these hippocrites have been saying ONLY the rich benefitted from Bush's tax cuts. Now all of a sudden the story has changed. These guys can't tell a story the same way twice.

Guess what Lefty. The fact that Obama has screwed up doesn't justify Bush's screw ups which helped take us from a budget surplus in the Clinton admin. into huge deficits and a fiscal disaaster. And yes, GW sold America that we could fight two unfunded wars and give seniors an unfunded presecription drug plan. Obviously, we couldn't without loaning billions of dollars from Commie China.

And taking Saddam "out" was not justified. The reason was WMD's which were never verified. And I like how you wish to pick and chose Assangue's information.

Only the rich have benefitted from the Bush tax cuts. Wake up and look at the increase in wealth to the the poor, middle class and wealthy in relation to inflation during the tax years. Those figures don't lie THe wealthy have almost doubled real wealth while the middle class has been stagnant and the poor just holding on. Arguing with you on that is pointless when you can simply do your own research in that regard with the Bureau of Labor and Statistics regarding wealth and wage increases.

I am no fan of Obama, but anyone still supporting GW Bush's policies is simply delusional and partisan.

[boxcar]

Guess what Lefty. The fact that Obama has screwed up doesn't justify Bush's screw ups which helped take us from a budget surplus in the Clinton admin. into huge deficits and a fiscal disaaster. And yes, GW sold America that we could fight two unfunded wars and give seniors an unfunded presecription drug plan. Obviously, we couldn't without loaning billions of dollars from Commie China.

And taking Saddam "out" was not justified. The reason was WMD's which were never verified. And I like how you wish to pick and chose Assangue's information.

Only the rich have benefitted from the Bush tax cuts. Wake up and look at the increase in wealth to the the poor, middle class and wealthy in relation to inflation during the tax years. Those figures don't lie THe wealthy have almost doubled real wealth while the middle class has been stagnant and the poor just holding on. Arguing with you on that is pointless when you can simply do your own research in that regard with the Bureau of Labor and Statistics regarding wealth and wage increases.

I am no fan of Obama, but anyone still supporting GW Bush's policies is simply delusional and partisan.

And I'm no fan of sophistry. So, gird up the loins of your mind, Sec, and answer me this: Since your complaint is that only the top income echelon benefited from the tax cuts, doesn't that complaint suggest that even deeper cuts for the lower income echelons would have been preferred -- even though the "Bush tax cuts" in their entirety were always billed by libs as "tax cuts for the rich" -- even though the Bush tax cuts in their entirety were always billed as being as destructive to our economy as the A-bombs were to Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Get back to me on this when you can, will ya?

Boxcar

[Tom]

Yes I did Tom, and he was reduced to bell hop status. He's become a joke to his base so I can understand your delight. This of course doesn't make the Republicans any better.

You are right.
That's what the election just did. :lol::lol:

[Tom]

Secretariat is moving like a tremendous machine!


Ocala Mike

A mimeograph machine! :lol:

[DJofSD]

More like a 1956 Chevy Bel Air on the streets of Havana.

[JustRalph]

More like a 1956 Chevy Bel Air on the streets of Havana.

The underlying metaphorical reference in this post is brilliant!

Kudos!

[Secretariat]

And I'm no fan of sophistry. So, gird up the loins of your mind, Sec, and answer me this: Since your complaint is that only the top income echelon benefited from the tax cuts, doesn't that complaint suggest that even deeper cuts for the lower income echelons would have been preferred -- even though the "Bush tax cuts" in their entirety were always billed by libs as "tax cuts for the rich" -- even though the Bush tax cuts in their entirety were always billed as being as destructive to our economy as the A-bombs were to Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Get back to me on this when you can, will ya?

Boxcar

Easy to get back to you.

The Clinton administration, without the Bush tax cuts, produced a budget surplus because the budget was actually funded. THe Bush tax cuts simply created a situation where more and more money had to be borrowed to make up for the increased spending that Bush and the Republican Congress added through two wars and a presecription plan for seniors that was not paid for. It was irresponsible. How can a party who created massive deficits and increased spending now proclaim the success of these tax cuts that did not create a new net single private sector job over eight years? The madness of trickle down has already shown that rich people simply take their tax cuts and either save it, OR invest it abroad. Either way even David Stockman Reagan's Budget Chief has said trickle down has not worked, and that extending the Bush tax cuts is devastasting to the economy. A loss in revenue estimated to be about 800 billion. Stockman is no wide eyed liberal. Wake up. He did.

[JustRalph]

Very Interesting development

http://www.cnbc.com/id/40641123

Losing the U.S. Triple A Rating due to the tax deal ?

[delayjf]

The Clinton administration, without the Bush tax cuts, produced a budget surplus because the budget was actually funded. THe Bush tax cuts simply created a situation where more and more money had to be borrowed to make up for the increased spending that Bush and the Republican Congress added through two wars and a presecription plan for seniors that was not paid for. It was irresponsible. How can a party who created massive deficits and increased spending now proclaim the success of these tax cuts that did not create a new net single private sector job over eight years?

1) So are you saying that trickle down worked under Clinton but not under Bush? Also, there was never a budget surplus under Clinton and his final budget (fy 2001) was bleeding red ink - Bush did not inherit a budget surplus.

2) Bush's tax cuts lead to record levels of tax revenues, all of it according to you paid for by the rich.

3) Tax cuts are responsible for increase Gov revenues, they are not responsible for increased Gov spending, Government officials are. And, as I recall Gore's prescription drug plan was more robust than Bush's, so to claim the democrats would not have spent that money (and probably more) is disingenuous.

4) I also question the job wage date that libs keep quoting, Have Union pay / benefits been stagnate for the past 20 years? What about the minimum wage? Federal / State employee salaries have all gone up, as well as the military.

[Robert Goren]

I think there a lot of forgetfulness concerning the Bush drug plan. At the time more and more people especially the elderly were turning to Canada to buy their drugs. The Bush drug was designed to stop that and it did.

[boxcar]

Easy to get back to you.

Apparently it wasn't so easy because you ducked my question entirely to babble about an unrelated subject. Go back to the drawing board and re-read my question again which had to do with your original pitch about how only the rich benefited from the tax cuts because they amassed so much more wealth than everyone else in the lower income levels, even though they only realized about an 11% reduction whereas the bottom income rung realized a 33-1/3% reduction.

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

Apparently it wasn't so easy because you ducked my question entirely to babble about an unrelated subject. Go back to the drawing board and re-read my question again which had to do with your original pitch about how only the rich benefited from the tax cuts because they amassed so much more wealth than everyone else in the lower income levels, even though they only realized about an 11% reduction whereas the bottom income rung realized a 33-1/3% reduction.

Boxcar

Your "bottom income rung" stat above reminds me of a day long ago. My homeroom teacher was passing out report cards. He handed one to "Eddie". Eddie looks at his report card and sees he's gotten all F's again in every subject. So Eddie says: "Damn! I worked twice as hard this semester as I did last semester."

My homeroom teacher's reply: "Nothin' times nothing is still nothin'."

[Secretariat]

1) So are you saying that trickle down worked under Clinton but not under Bush? Also, there was never a budget surplus under Clinton and his final budget (fy 2001) was bleeding red ink - Bush did not inherit a budget surplus.

We didn't have trickle down in Clinton. The wealthy were taxed at a much higher rate. We didn't have the huge deficts as we've had under Bush and Obama, and therefore have had to borrow less.

As to the Clinton budget, read fact check.org

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal. html

2) Bush's tax cuts lead to record levels of tax revenues, all of it according to you paid for by the rich. .

Not what I said. What I said was that the weath of the upper income levels grew substantially during the Bush admin, while the middle income levels were stagnant with wages actually below the rate of inflation. It follows that if there is an increase in wealth to the upper income levels they pay more taxes. With the loss in middle class revenues, it recedes the economy since the middle class tends to purchase more products and put dollars immediately back into the economy rather than having the luxury to save ro invest it abroad.

3) Tax cuts are responsible for increase Gov revenues, they are not responsible for increased Gov spending, Government officials are. And, as I recall Gore's prescription drug plan was more robust than Bush's, so to claim the democrats would not have spent that money (and probably more) is disingenuous.

Bottom line. Gore was not elected (supposedly). Bush was. And he and the Republican Congress instituted all that spending that was not funded.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html

"If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues."

http://rricketts.ba.ttu.edu/Tax%20Rates%20and%20Revenues.htm

4) I also question the job wage date that libs keep quoting, Have Union pay / benefits been stagnate for the past 20 years? What about the minimum wage? Federal / State employee salaries have all gone up, as well as the military.

Go the Bureau of Labor and Statistics and do your own research on this.

Union growth and membership has declined dramatically since Reagan, and they've had little power in elections. Comparing union growth in wages in relation to inflation pre-Reagan and post-Reagan is astonishing. Additionally, benefit packages have decreased for union members as well. Do you know what percentage of the American workforce is actually in a union today?

I am no fan of Obama. In fact his slogan is NO, we Can't. He's pretty much followed the exact same insane pattern of Bush. Unfunded spending with tax cuts for the rich. It's just insane whatever party you support. This tax cut bill is totally irresponsible.

[Secretariat]

I think there a lot of forgetfulness concerning the Bush drug plan. At the time more and more people especially the elderly were turning to Canada to buy their drugs. The Bush drug was designed to stop that and it did.

No problem, but he didn't pay for it. It was an entitlement which cost a lot to pay for. Money that had to be borrowed from Commie China since he refused to increase taxes to pay for it. Kind of strange that businesses can go abroad for bargains on proce, but a consumer in America trying to seek cheaper drug prices abroad is a criminal.

[Secretariat]

Your "bottom income rung" stat above reminds me of a day long ago. My homeroom teacher was passing out report cards. He handed one to "Eddie". Eddie looks at his report card and sees he's gotten all F's again in every subject. So Eddie says: "Damn! I worked twice as hard this semester as I did last semester."

My homeroom teacher's reply: "Nothin' times nothing is still nothin'."

A very wise home room teacher. But of course the right will say, "What do you expect from a member of the teacher's union?"

:D

[boxcar]

Your "bottom income rung" stat above reminds me of a day long ago. My homeroom teacher was passing out report cards. He handed one to "Eddie". Eddie looks at his report card and sees he's gotten all F's again in every subject. So Eddie says: "Damn! I worked twice as hard this semester as I did last semester."

My homeroom teacher's reply: "Nothin' times nothing is still nothin'."

Geesh...you need to take a very long sabbatical from your lame analogies. You see the problem is that guy in school "worked" but he spun his wheels unproductively and earned a failing grade for all his "work". At least the people on the bottom income rung didn't come away completely empty; for they earned some green.

What's next, Einistein: Wanna talk about disparity of incomes? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Tom]

We didn't have trickle down in Clinton.

But there was that nasty stain.....

[bigmack]

But there was that nasty stain.....
Bingo, bango.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/Laughingpig.gif

[JustRalph]

But there was that nasty stain.....

from here on referred to as "Evidence" .......

Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels come to mind

[johnhannibalsmith]

...And the Hitler comparison was out there too - as far as I could tell. ;)

I know that I promised that I'd try to hunt down an online version of the text that I had read or something equally interesting for you...alas... I made I half-assed effort yesterday during my busy day :rolleyes: ...

I couldn't find it, but I did stumble upon some show that the History Channel put together a few years ago on the subject. I haven't watched any of the You-Tube airings, but I looked to see if the entire thing was due to air any time and lo and behold - it seems to be on Sunday evening on History (International? It's the other History Channel high up on the dial) probably 8PM back in Jersey.

Maybe it will be awful, I'm not sure - but I've got it set to record and thought it may interest you as well.


-arv2BDjV0M

[Tom]

Correct you are, you Inglorious Basterd, you! ;)

Sunday night - it is very good and worth watching. :ThmbUp:

[riskman]

I think there a lot of forgetfulness concerning the Bush drug plan. At the time more and more people especially the elderly were turning to Canada to buy their drugs. The Bush drug was designed to stop that and it did.

This could be one of the reasons yet we still pay higher drug costs than most countries including Canada. Now that private insurers are in the game, they get a nice chunk of premiums and Big Pharma still gets to charge excessive prices. The big boys always get their way.

[Lefty]

johaanibalsmith, great find on finding that History Channel video. So I guess my Sadam Hitler comparison wasn't so far fetched, eh, stinks? You might not think takaing out Sadam was the right thin to do, but then, you didn't have to live under him didja?

[Tom]

One of the last groups defending Hitler in Berlin was muslim.
Watch the show.

[boxcar]

johaanibalsmith, great find on finding that History Channel video. So I guess my Sadam Hitler comparison wasn't so far fetched, eh, stinks? You might not think takaing out Sadam was the right thin to do, but then, you didn't have to live under him didja?

On Uranus where libs live, they probably think Saddam more closely resembled Mother Theresa. They probably think that Saddam was a really good leader because he exercised such tight controls over the masses, just way progressives in this country want to do with us. It's no wonder at all the libs are teed off at Bush for going in and upsetting the apple cart of one of their role models.

Boxcar

[skate]

Welp, if the Bush tax cuts hurt and the Fishbellie deficit cuts were so good , dang-o-dang, why -O-why was it that during the UncleGeorge years we (USA/FED. GOV>) took in almost $800 BILLION more revenue than we (USA) took in during the Fishbelliebill years...DA:confused: :) ;) ?

facts are facts, it's all there babe.:kiss:

[dartman51]

On Uranus where libs live, they probably think Saddam more closely resembled Mother Theresa. They probably think that Saddam was a really good leader because he exercised such tight controls over the masses, just way progressives in this country want to do with us. It's no wonder at all the libs are teed off at Bush for going in and upsetting the apple cart of one of their role models.

Boxcar

If you've got libs living on Uranus, the doctor can give you some salve for that, or maybe a shot in the buttocks. :lol:

[boxcar]

If you've got libs living on Uranus, the doctor can give you some salve for that, or maybe a shot in the buttocks. :lol:

No...I didn't say they lived on Myanus. I said they lived on Uranus. :D

Boxcar

[hcap]

No...I didn't say they lived on Myanus. I said they lived on Uranus. :D

BoxcarWatch out for those nasty Klingons.

[boxcar]

Watch out for those nasty Klingons.

You should take your own advice. Those bitter Klingers have clung on to you long ago and you have never have been able shake 'em loose. It's no wonder at all, therefore, that ever since then you have wanted to kling unto Big Gov for dear life.

Boxcar

[GaryG]

Passing of this bill was no victory for the republicans. They should have scuttled it along with the wing nut faction. Then make the tax cuts permanent after the new congress convenes. This will be a tough two years for Barry the Kenyan.