Sarah Palin sparkly OU shirt

[Sooner8th]

So 8th, was Kennedy a supply sider?

55 years ago? really?

[yermom]

Well he beat McCain so it was going to be bad no matter which one won...and then you had to throw out chicken little and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

But you do have Biden waiting in the wings for 2016...maybe battle tested Hillary can save the dems.

you know Gore won the popular vote, right?

[olevetonahill]

you know Gore won the popular vote, right?

Its happened before and Im sure it will happen again.

[8timechamps]

1. after your freakout about a blowjob?

2. gore would have been so much better than bush. who could possible be worse?

Obama, according to a recent poll.

[yermom]

Its happened before and Im sure it will happen again.

i'm just saying it's not like W was some slam dunk because Gore sucked

they both sucked, and no one really wanted either of them... we would have been better off with 4 more years of Clinton

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

you know Gore won the popular vote, right?A preview of the looming disaster that has come to pass, since '06:(

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

... we would have been better off with 4 more years of ClintonYes, as long as he had a congress that was pretty fiscally responsible, like we had 1997-2000. They kept Clinton from poisoning the well.

[Sooner in Tampa]

you know Gore won the popular vote, right?

You do know that this fact doesn't mean jack ****, right?

[yermom]

You do know that this fact doesn't mean jack ****, right?

maybe he has a People's President trophy somewhere

[Sooner in Tampa]

maybe he has a People's President trophy somewhere

2814

[Sooner8th]

i'm just saying it's not like W was some slam dunk because Gore sucked

they both sucked, and no one really wanted either of them... we would have been better off with 4 more years of Clinton

You mean the guy you guys impeached and tried to kick out of office?

You mean the guy that couldn't run for another term because your party pushed through your beloved term limits?

Be careful what you wish for - you just might get it. Hello dumbass dubya.

[olevetonahill]

You mean the guy you guys impeached and tried to kick out of office?

You mean the guy that couldn't run for another term because your party pushed through your beloved term limits?

Be careful what you wish for - you just might get it. Hello dumbass dubya.

Oh Kind and Most knowledgeable Sir, Yermom is on your side He's a Lib dem all the way.

[Sooner in Tampa]

You mean the guy you guys impeached and tried to kick out of office?


Yeah...the c@ck$ucker who lied to a Grand Jury...that's him

[Sooner8th]

Yeah...the c@ck$ucker who lied to a Grand Jury...that's him


clinton lied and nobody died.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMStCHtUNeY

He lied to a grand jury that was setup by your party on the stupid lawsuit. wwwwWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAA i want my country back, can't win at the ballot box so try to impeach him.

If you people are so worried about lying, why didn't you impeach bush? He lied and got us into a war. losers

You poeple and this thread is boring me

[okie52]

1. after your freakout about a blowjob?

2. gore would have been so much better than bush. who could possible be worse?

1. The freakout was over "perjury"...not the BJ. I did love how Slick Willy pointed his finger at the American public and stated that "he did not have sexual relations with that woman".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs

Just another "vast right wing conspiracy"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwtkorQKGFE

Heh heh...yeah, it was the pubs that were freaking out.

2. Yeah, Gore looks like he was a real winner...could have had our economy even more dedicated to ethanol, windmills, and blocking real energy development while spending trillions to refreeze the north pole.

[okie52]

55 years ago? really?

Statute of limitations on tax cuts for supply siders?

[okie52]

i'm just saying it's not like W was some slam dunk because Gore sucked

they both sucked, and no one really wanted either of them... we would have been better off with 4 more years of Clinton

I think I said they both sucked...just Gore sucked more IMO.

I wish Bill had stayed another term in hindsight...could've had 9/11 and his own recession to deal with.

[okie52]

you know Gore won the popular vote, right?

And...?

[Sooner in Tampa]

clinton lied and nobody died.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMStCHtUNeY

He lied to a grand jury that was setup by your party on the stupid lawsuit. wwwwWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAA i want my country back, can't win at the ballot box so try to impeach him.

If you people are so worried about lying, why didn't you impeach bush? He lied and got us into a war. losers

You poeple and this thread is boring me

Certainly a man of your standing and integrity cannot condone lying a grand jury? Where is the benefit it that? I mean, perjury is perjury, right?

As far as you parroting the tired lib line that Bush lied...well, we don't need to re-hash that do we? I mean, really...how much of the intelligence gathered during that did you see? Let's just make a small wager that I have just a wee bit more than you and I have a much different account of what happened during that era.

Your bored? So sorry, we will try and keep up...we want you to be entertained.

[okie52]

clinton lied and nobody died.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMStCHtUNeY

He lied to a grand jury that was setup by your party on the stupid lawsuit. wwwwWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAA i want my country back, can't win at the ballot box so try to impeach him.

If you people are so worried about lying, why didn't you impeach bush? He lied and got us into a war. losers

You poeple and this thread is boring me

Why didn't you impeach him? You had congress in 2006?

[okie52]

Oh Kind and Most knowledgeable Sir, Yermom is on your side He's a Lib dem all the way.

8th attacks in all directions!!!

[Sooner8th]

1. The freakout was over "perjury"...not the BJ. I did love how Slick Willy pointed his finger at the American public and stated that "he did not have sexual relations with that woman".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs

Just another "vast right wing conspiracy"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwtkorQKGFE

Heh heh...yeah, it was the pubs that were freaking out.

2. Yeah, Gore looks like he was a real winner...could have had our economy even more dedicated to ethanol, windmills, and blocking real energy develpment while spending trillions to refreeze
the north pole.

You know okie52 - I'd LOVE to teach you but you can't learn, you are too much of a lemming. You whine and complain about bush then claim it's "our" (dems) fault for bush. You wish you clinton had another term, but you and yours tried to kick him out of office in a vast rightwing conspiracy. Ken Starr was appointed as independent counsel investigator, who investigated rightwingnut claims like Vince Foster then went on a witch hunt while telling fellow republicans - I am going to investigate ANYTHING the president has ever done.

Bill Clinton lied to a GRAND JURY.

As you call see in the video George W. Bush lied to the WHOLE COUNTRY and you didn't impeach him.

Get off the blow job and the lying about, you should lie about cheating on your wife, it was meaningless. You shouldn't lie to send men and women to die in combat!

[Sooner8th]

Why didn't you impeach him? You had congress in 2006?

WOW again our fault! LOL TOO FUNNY!!!!!

Take responsibly for your own party!

January 29, 2002 - you and your party HAD FOUR YEARS TO IMPEACH HIM!!!!

lemming

[okie52]

You know okie52 - I'd LOVE to teach you but you can't learn, you are too much of a lemming. You whine and complain about bush then claim it's "our" (dems) fault for bush. You wish you clinton had another term, but you and yours tried to kick him out of office in a vast rightwing conspiracy. Ken Starr was appointed as independent counsel investigator, who investigated rightwingnut claims like Vince Foster then went on a witch hunt while telling fellow republicans - I am going to investigate ANYTHING the president has ever done.

Bill Clinton lied to a GRAND JURY.

As you call see in the video George W. Bush lied to the WHOLE COUNTRY and you didn't impeach him.

Get off the blow job and the lying about, you should lie about cheating on your wife, it was meaningless. You shouldn't lie to send men and women to die in combat!

Why didn't you guys impeach 8th? You had congress in 2006? Just want to whine about it rather than do something?

Ooops...maybe its another vast right wing conspiracy as the combat veteran Hillary might say...

[okie52]

WOW again our fault! LOL TOO FUNNY!!!!!

Take responsibly for your own party!

January 29, 2002 - you and your party HAD FOUR YEARS TO IMPEACH HIM!!!!

lemming


And you had it in 2006 but did NOTHING. A lot of talk about lies from dems and they did nothing. I guess you just didn't have the evidence to support those "lies".

[TAFBSooner]

Why didn't you impeach him? You had congress in 2006?

(The Dems had Congress starting in 2007.)

Cost benefit analysis?

Cost: Too many Dems were complicit in voting for the Iraq invasion. And Cheney*.

Benefit: Low because the Republican brand was already . . . tarnished. And it would only have lopped off a year or so of Bush's term.


* We now have a trend of VP's being chosen at least in part for impeachment insurance.

[okie52]

(The Dems had Congress starting in 2007.)

Cost benefit analysis?

Cost: Too many Dems were complicit in voting for the Iraq invasion. And Cheney*.

Benefit: Low because the Republican brand was already . . . tarnished. And it would only have lopped off a year or so of Bush's term.


* We now have a trend of VP's being chosen at least in part for impeachment insurance.

How much time was left on Clinton's term? 2 years? The pubs still got the WH in 2000/2001.

The pubs brand was tarnished and the dems were probably (politically) smart not to push the issue and there were many dems that had supported the war...but if they had been misled by W with false info then they probably should have pushed the issue.

[Sooner8th]

Why didn't you guys impeach 8th? You had congress in 2006? Just want to whine about it rather than do something?

Ooops...maybe its another vast right wing conspiracy as the combat veteran Hillary might say...

The list of what he "investigated" White House Travel Office personnel, potential political abuse of confidential FBI files, Madison Guaranty, Rose Law Firm, Paula Jones law suit and, most notoriously, possible perjury and obstruction of justice to cover up President Clinton's sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. The Lewinsky portion of the investigation included the secret taping of conversations between Lewinsky and coworker Linda Tripp, requests by Starr to tape Lewinsky’s conversations with Clinton, and requests by Starr to compel Secret Service agents to testify about what they might have seen while guarding Clinton. With the investigation of Clinton’s possible adultery, critics of Starr believed that he had crossed a line and was acting more as a political hit man than as a prosecutor.

Tell me he was not on a witch hunt.

[Sooner8th]

(The Dems had Congress starting in 2007.)

Cost benefit analysis?

Cost: Too many Dems were complicit in voting for the Iraq invasion. And Cheney*.

Benefit: Low because the Republican brand was already . . . tarnished. And it would only have lopped off a year or so of Bush's term.


* We now have a trend of VP's being chosen at least in part for impeachment insurance.

WOW - surprising bright answer, didn't throw any talking point about about it.

Basically we moved on - whereas it seemed pubs couldn't get over losing to clinton twice.

[okie52]

The list of what he "investigated" White House Travel Office personnel, potential political abuse of confidential FBI files, Madison Guaranty, Rose Law Firm, Paula Jones law suit and, most notoriously, possible perjury and obstruction of justice to cover up President Clinton's sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. The Lewinsky portion of the investigation included the secret taping of conversations between Lewinsky and coworker Linda Tripp, requests by Starr to tape Lewinsky’s conversations with Clinton, and requests by Starr to compel Secret Service agents to testify about what they might have seen while guarding Clinton. With the investigation of Clinton’s possible adultery, critics of Starr believed that he had crossed a line and was acting more as a political hit man than as a prosecutor.

Tell me he was not on a witch hunt.

Oh, 8th, I do think it was a witch hunt...without a doubt. He probably shouldn't have been impeached over the "lie". Still, Billy boy put himself in that position by lying to the grand jury and to the American public. Hillary's vast right wing conspiracy didn't help matters, either.

[okie52]

WOW - surprising bright answer, didn't throw any talking point about about it.

Basically we moved on - whereas it seemed pubs couldn't get over losing to clinton twice.

8th...you need to know who will usually be on your side as it seems to be lost on you.

yermom, Tafb, rockonsooner, sometimes skysooner, boulder79 (I've probably left out a few)...they will often support the left...I'm not sure if they want you as a spokesperson but they are not usually going to be arguing against you.

[REDREX]

Oh, 8th, I do think it was a witch hunt...without a doubt. He probably shouldn't have been impeached over the "lie". Still, Billy boy put himself in that position by lying to the grand jury and to the American public. Hillary's vast right wing conspiracy didn't help matters, either.---I would take Bill or Hill over the fool we have in the office now

[okie52]

---I would take Bill or Hill over the fool we have in the office now

Without a doubt on Bill...Hillary probably but she seems more prone to foot in mouth disease than with Bill.

[Sooner in Tampa]

You know okie52 - I'd LOVE to teach you but you can't learn, you are too much of a lemming. You whine and complain about bush then claim it's "our" (dems) fault for bush. You wish you clinton had another term, but you and yours tried to kick him out of office in a vast rightwing conspiracy. Ken Starr was appointed as independent counsel investigator, who investigated rightwingnut claims like Vince Foster then went on a witch hunt while telling fellow republicans - I am going to investigate ANYTHING the president has ever done.

Bill Clinton lied to a GRAND JURY.

As you call see in the video George W. Bush lied to the WHOLE COUNTRY and you didn't impeach him.

Get off the blow job and the lying about, you should lie about cheating on your wife, it was meaningless. You shouldn't lie to send men and women to die in combat!

Oh 8th...you are relying too much on talking points again...parroting the tired lib line that Bush lied...well, we don't need to re-hash that do we? I mean, really...how much of the intelligence gathered during that did you see? Let's just make a small wager that I have just a wee bit more than you and I have a much different account of what happened during that era.

[TAFBSooner]

Certainly a man of your standing and integrity cannot condone lying a grand jury? Where is the benefit it that? I mean, perjury is perjury, right?

As far as you parroting the tired lib line that Bush lied...well, we don't need to re-hash that do we? I mean, really...how much of the intelligence gathered during that did you see? Let's just make a small wager that I have just a wee bit more than you and I have a much different account of what happened during that era.

Your bored? So sorry, we will try and keep up...we want you to be entertained.

So, you are implying that there is a secret body of evidence that would exonerate Bush and Cheney. But this body of evidence can't be revealed because it's (probably beyond) Top Secret. All that means is that there was stronger evidence, than the Bush team used in the sales job, of something that wasn't true. There were no useable WMDs. (There were expired chemical weapons, and no capacity to make more.)

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- GWB, January 2003

You're right, Bush didn't "lie." He merely passed on a batch of lies from British intelligence. Phhht.

[Sooner8th]

Oh, 8th, I do think it was a witch hunt...without a doubt. He probably shouldn't have been impeached over the "lie". Still, Billy boy put himself in that position by lying to the grand jury and to the American public. Hillary's vast right wing conspiracy didn't help matters, either.

Her saying it?

[okie52]

Her saying it?

Yeah, her saying it. I think that added fuel to the fire initially before the real facts broke on the matter...probably made some pubs like to twist the knife just a little more than otherwise.

[Sooner8th]

Oh 8th...you are relying too much on talking points again...parroting the tired lib line that Bush lied...well, we don't need to re-hash that do we? I mean, really...how much of the intelligence gathered during that did you see? Let's just make a small wager that I have just a wee bit more than you and I have a much different account of what happened during that era.

He did lie - do I have to post the videos?

Oh ****ing please - really? They went as far as outing an undercover CIA agent who was looking into where or not they had material to make a nuclear weapon. Another rightwing talking point.

Yes we do have a much different account of what happened - you have rightwing talking points and I have reality.

[REDREX]

He did lie - do I have to post the videos?

Oh ****ing please - really? They went as far as outing an undercover CIA agent who was looking into where or not they had material to make a nuclear weapon. Another rightwing talking point.

Yes we do have a much different account of what happened - you have rightwing talking points and I have reality.----Left wing talking points right on queue

[olevetonahill]

Heh, I found a Pic of you guys arguing with matlock8th
http://www.betternation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/pig-wrestling_789027i.jpg

[Sooner in Tampa]

He did lie - do I have to post the videos?

Oh ****ing please - really? They went as far as outing an undercover CIA agent who was looking into where or not they had material to make a nuclear weapon. Another rightwing talking point.

Yes we do have a much different account of what happened - you have rightwing talking points and I have reality.
8th, is your blood pressuring rising? You seem to be a bit stressed...may even annoyed. I thought you were bored? Please make up your mind.

My account is based on fact, experience, and reason...something you seem to be void of at this point and time. I will make this quite simple for your, in order for GWB to have lied, he would have KNOWN that Iraq did not possess chemical weapons. Are we really going to accuse the President of the United States of going to war for ****s and grins? Really? A man with your depth of knowledge and profound insight certainly wouldn't make such an accusation now, would you? Please, tell me you have something more to add to this discussion and that is not based a talking point...or the preposterous notion that GWB went to war because of his father. Please tell me you have an original thought.
Definition of LIE1
a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intent[1]) to deceive

[FaninAma]

What works? clinton and obama tax rates are doing a hell of lot better than bush's. End of debate.

So you won't answer the question and after 3 more pages of you replying with "Oh yeah, well Bush and Cheyney sucked so much worse...blah, blah, blah, blah blah" I think I can safely assume you do not want to give a specific answer to the question. What ever works? Really? And who determines that? The wondrous economist or politicians in DC? LOL.

It is apparent that even the Obama Koolaid drinkers are hard pressed to defend this President on his accomplishments so they have to compare him to the 2nd worst President of the last 100 years.

However, and this may shock you, I much prefer his Middle East policy to Bush's. I detest sending men and women into harm's way to benefit the Jamie Dimon's of the world.

[Sooner8th]

Yeah, her saying it. I think that added fuel to the fire initially before the real facts broke on the matter...probably made some pubs like to twist the knife just a little more than otherwise.


wwwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAA

Hilary called us out on the obvious.

I love how you people run around calling dems socialists with unamerican views get their teenie tiny little feelings hurt when the truth is spoken of you.

****ing cry babies.

[Sooner8th]

So you won't answer the question and after 3 more pages of you replying with "Oh yeah, well Bush and Cheyney sucked so much worse...blah, blah, blah, blah blah" I think I can safely assume you do not want to give a specific answer to the question. What ever works? Really? And who determines that? The wondrous economist or politicians in DC? LOL.

It is apparent that even the Obama Koolaid drinkers are hard pressed to defend this President on his accomplishments so they have to compare him to the 2nd worst President of the last 100 years.

However, and this may shock you, I much prefer his Middle East policy to Bush's. I detest sending men and women into harm's way to benefit the Jamie Dimon's of the world.

Let me talk slow and use small words so you can understand.

What works is what I'm interested in. Bush's rates didn't work. Clinton's and Obama's do. Do I have to spell it out? 39.6 works better than at 35 under bush.

Now YOU tell me at what level will you be happy at? 25 like romeny proposed? 20? 15? 10? 5? 0?

You ask about 40-50-60% and no one is suggesting those levels - just made up rightwing sh!t.

[okie52]

wwwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAA

Hilary called us out on the obvious.

I love how you people run around calling dems socialists with unamerican views get their teenie tiny little feelings hurt when the truth is spoken of you.

****ing cry babies.

Cry if you must about Hillary's embarrassing accusation. After all, it was the right wing that planted monica in the oval office and sent slick willy a box of cigars. It was the right wing conspiracy that forced slick willy to lie. Yet, the egg on your face has never seemed to bother you.

Carry on...you have always be entertaining.

[Sooner8th]

8th, is your blood pressuring rising? You seem to be a bit stressed...may even annoyed. I thought you were bored? Please make up your mind.

My account is based on fact, experience, and reason...something you seem to be void of at this point and time. I will make this quite simple for your, in order for GWB to have lied, he would have KNOWN that Iraq did not possess chemical weapons. Are we really going to accuse the President of the United States of going to war for ****s and grins? Really? A man with your depth of knowledge and profound insight certainly wouldn't make such an accusation now, would you? Please, tell me you have something more to add to this discussion and that is not based a talking point...or the preposterous notion that GWB went to war because of his father. Please tell me you have an original thought.
Definition of LIE1
a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intent[1]) to deceive


Either he was lying or he is too stupid to know it was a lie or he is too lazy to find out if it was a lie or he just didn't ****ing care.

You're choice.

BTW - you want he to have known because any of the other three is an indictment of your ability to judge who to vote for. and he has a history of lying - my tax cuts will not cause deficits.

[okie52]

Let me talk slow and use small words so you can understand.

What works is what I'm interested in. Bush's rates didn't work. Clinton's and Obama's do. Do I have to spell it out? 39.6 works better than at 35 under bush.

Now YOU tell me at what level will you be happy at? 25 like romeny proposed? 20? 15? 10? 5? 0?

You ask about 40-50-60% and no one is suggesting those levels - just made up rightwing sh!t.

You mean Clinton's rates for all Americans? You're fine, I'm sure, with Clinton's rates that were for all Americans that were paying taxes. Obama didn't use Clinton's rates...just the top rate. Obama is using most of Bush's rates rather than Clinton's. I'm sure you can check with the DNC for confirmation.

[okie52]

Either he was lying or he is too stupid to know it was a lie or he is too lazy to find out if it was a lie or he just didn't ****ing care.

You're choice.

BTW - you want he to have known because any of the other three is an indictment of your ability to judge who to vote for. and he has a history of lying - my tax cuts will not cause deficits.

Thank God you always choose people of integrity..."If you want to keep your health plan, you can keep it."

[Sooner8th]

You mean Clinton's rates for all Americans? You're fine, I'm sure, with Clinton's rates that were for all Americans that were paying taxes. Obama didn't use Clinton's rates...just the top rate. Obama is using most of Bush's rates rather than Clinton's. I'm sure you can check with the DNC for confirmation.

right there in black and white - dumbass.

[Sooner8th]

Thank God you always choose people of integrity..."If you want to keep your health plan, you can keep it."

Number of deaths from the keeping your health plan?

1 or 2% didn't get to keep theirs.

wwwwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaa

[okie52]

right there in black and white - dumbass.

Keep on entertaining Einstein....you are your own worst enemy.

[REDREX]

Don't waste your time Okie

[Sooner8th]

Cry if you must about Hillary's embarrassing accusation. After all, it was the right wing that planted monica in the oval office and sent slick willy a box of cigars. It was the right wing conspiracy that forced slick willy to lie. Yet, the egg on your face has never seemed to bother you.

Carry on...you have always be entertaining.

Embarrassing? You said yourself it was a witch hunt.

[okie52]

Number of deaths from the keeping your health plan?

1 or 2% didn't get to keep theirs.

wwwwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaa


Obama admin. knew millions could not keep their health insurance
BY INVESTIGATIONS


http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance-f8C11484394

Since you are a man of integrity you obviously missed this the last time I posted it.

[okie52]

Don't waste your time Okie

Actually Red I find him quite entertaining.

This man's devotion to anything dem is unique. Hell, he even attacks posters on his own side of an issue.

[okie52]

Embarrassing? You said yourself it was a witch hunt.

It was...but that didn't remove the egg on Hillary's face...nor yours, evidently.

[Sooner8th]

Keep on entertaining Einstein....you are your own worst enemy.

did you not see the rates?

[Sooner8th]

Actually Red I find him quite entertaining.

This man's devotion to anything dem is unique. Hell, he even attacks posters on his own side of an issue.

How about your devotion to rightwing talking points to the point of blaming us for bush?

[okie52]

did you not see the rates?

Did you post them?

[okie52]

How about your devotion to rightwing talking points to the point of blaming us for bush?

I blamed you (dems) for putting up a worse candidate as in chicken little leaving nothing but a choice between bad and worse.

[Sooner8th]

Did you post them?

YES, READ!!!!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Heh, I found a Pic of you guys arguing with matlock8th
http://www.betternation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/pig-wrestling_789027i.jpgIt's like midtowner and all the leftists, including the lawyers, that bounce in and out of here all rolled into one, to form the 8th. He? is a composite, and has similar understanding of government as all the stalwart thinkers he represents. No amount of persuasion will permeate the crania, and all attempts are made with accusations of stupidity.

[okie52]

YES, READ!!!!

Still don't see them 8th...feel free to repost them. (and get your lower case examined)

[olevetonahill]

It's like midtowner and all the leftists, including the lawyers, that bounce in and out of here all rolled into one, to form the 8th. He? is a composite, and has similar understanding of government as all the stalwart thinkers he represents. No amount of persuasion will permeate the crania, and all attempts are made with accusations of stupidity.

Yup. He comes across as LAS whenever he declares himself WINNER, Matlock when posts all the charts and graphs and paragraphs. Marfa when hes being a condescending Pompous self righteous prick .

[Sooner8th]

Actually Red I find him quite entertaining.

This man's devotion to anything dem is unique. Hell, he even attacks posters on his own side of an issue.

When i say you i mean all of you - not just you okie52.

This is my frustration - you say clinton lied - i point out bush did too - then it's not he didn't and obama lied - i say yep both did but no one died.

You go on to say bush didn't lie and we don't know what we weren't told. then you start to whine about Hillary saying vast rightwing conspiracy, well more agree with her than disagree. History is going down on her side.

We talk about tax rates and it's proven clintons and obamas tax rate works and bush's didn't. conservatives IE republicans only talk about the top tax rate so that is what i focus on.

The funnies part is when you accuse me of looking up talking points or regurgitating them when that is ALL you got! No facts can change your mind. See capital gains taxes.

[okie52]

Yup. He comes across as LAS whenever he declares himself WINNER, Matlock when posts all the charts and graphs and paragraphs. Marfa when hes being a condescending Pompous self righteous prick .

Don't run this one off Vet...he is way too entertaining.

[TAFBSooner]

I blamed you (dems) for putting up a worse candidate as in chicken little leaving nothing but a choice between bad and worse.

Nobody considered Gore as being so bad until he got seriously to work on climate change after losing in December 2000. Remember he won the popular election.

He probably would have put the whole thing out of reach of court shenanigans if he didn't distance himself from Clinton because of Monica. That makes the Bill and Monica dealio the second most expensive such act, after the Yellow Rose of Texas distracted Santa Anna and won Texas for the settlers from America.

[olevetonahill]

Don't run this one off Vet...he is way too entertaining.

Hes too ****ing Stupid to be run off. I tried to be nice but i was throwing up in my mouth.Now I just ignore his ignorant *** and let Yall wallow in the mud with him.

[REDREX]

When i say you i mean all of you - not just you okie52.

This is my frustration - you say clinton lied - i point out bush did too - then it's not he didn't and obama lied - i say yep both did but no one died.

You go on to say bush didn't lie and we don't know what we weren't told. then you start to whine about Hillary saying vast rightwing conspiracy, well more agree with her than disagree. History is going down on her side.

We talk about tax rates and it's proven clintons and obamas tax rate works and bush's didn't. conservatives IE republicans only talk about the top tax rate so that is what i focus on.

The funnies part is when you accuse me of looking up talking points or regurgitating them when that is ALL you got! No facts can change your mind. See capital gains taxes.----How does Obama's tax rate "work" ?

[okie52]

When i say you i mean all of you - not just you okie52.

This is my frustration - you say clinton lied - i point out bush did too - then it's not he didn't and obama lied - i say yep both did but no one died.

You go on to say bush didn't lie and we don't know what we weren't told. then you start to whine about Hillary saying vast rightwing conspiracy, well more agree with her than disagree. History is going down on her side.

We talk about tax rates and it's proven clintons and obamas tax rate works and bush's didn't. conservatives IE republicans only talk about the top tax rate so that is what i focus on.

The funnies part is when you accuse me of looking up talking points or regurgitating them when that is ALL you got! No facts can change your mind. See capital gains taxes.

Yep, we can go on and on about the effects of tax increases and reductions on capital gains but one point you have never answered is that the guy you voted for stated he would raise the CG tax even if it reduced tax revenues...just to be fair. For a guy like yourself that supports "whatever works", that doesn't seem to jive. You just can't bring yourself to say he was wrong.

Most posters I've seen on here 8th regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative or somewhere in between have been able to admit mistakes or bad policies by their own party.

[okie52]

Nobody considered Gore as being so bad until he got seriously to work on climate change after losing in December 2000. Remember he won the popular election.

He probably would have put the whole thing out of reach of court shenanigans if he didn't distance himself from Clinton because of Monica. That makes the Bill and Monica dealio the second most expensive such act, after the Yellow Rose of Texas distracted Santa Anna and won Texas for the settlers from America.

I do remember he won the popular vote and he wasn't nearly as vocal then about climate change as he is now...but he was still outspoken about it. His approach to energy independence seemed to be born out of a comic book.

[TAFBSooner]

I do remember he won the popular vote and he wasn't nearly as vocal then about climate change as he is now...but he was still outspoken about it. His approach to energy independence seemed to be born out of a comic book.

Climate change is a much bigger problem than energy dependence, IMHO.

But here's a question for you: is allowing crude and natural gas exports good for our energy independence, especially in the long run? If they conflict, do you believe we should open up exports or not?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Originally Posted by okie52
Don't run this one off Vet...he is way too entertaining.

Hes too ****ing Stupid to be run off. I tried to be nice but i was throwing up in my mouth.Now I just ignore his ignorant *** and let Yall wallow in the mud with him.ya gotta wonder if the reality of the authoritarian nature of the Left is to be understood by their followers such as 8th, or if he fully realizes it, and simply refuses to admit it.

[Sooner8th]

Yep, we can go on and on about the effects of tax increases and reductions on capital gains but one point you have never answered is that the guy you voted for stated he would raise the CG tax even if it reduced tax revenues...just to be fair. For a guy like yourself that supports "whatever works", that doesn't seem to jive. You just can't bring yourself to say he was wrong.

Most posters I've seen on here 8th regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative or somewhere in between have been able to admit mistakes or bad policies by their own party.

answering you and tab together.

How does it work? JOBS - GPD - DEFICIT REDUCTION all better under clinton and obama than bush. What else is there to look at?

Here we go again - I tried to teach you that the change tax rate didn't make the revenue go up - it was already going up for the two years before the cuts. THEN it went down two years after the cuts to below where they were. The very best you can say is it was temporary which is not true, cg revenues follow the stock market!!!

DONE

[okie52]

Climate change is a much bigger problem than energy dependence, IMHO.

But here's a question for you: is allowing crude and natural gas exports good for our energy independence, especially in the long run? If they conflict, do you believe we should open up exports or not?

I see so much attached to energy independence over climate change. Our trade deficit used to be over $400,000,000,000 a year and with energy independence that is put back in the US economy and jobs, tax revenues, royalty income, etc... It also eliminates the need for the US to be subservient to middle east demands in protecting our oil supply.

In addressing climate change it has to be global rather than just punishing US industries and consumers. We've had this discussion before but it is craziness to hobble our economy while the rest of world, particularly China and India, use the cheapest resources to fund their economies.

I certainly think allowing exports of NG and oil (particularly NG) are good because it allows the explorationists to get global prices for their product rather than being stuck with regional prices that may not sustain exploration. NG drilling has practically vanished in the last 4 years because of low regional prices making it uneconomic to drill for ng. Yet worldwide US ng could be getting 2 to 3 times what they get here in the states so it would ramp up exploration again.

All the US has to do to protect itself from another embargo is to have a call on production on any oil and or NG that is produced in the US. If an embargo comes the US can use those resources which would be much better than the strategic petroleum reserves that could only sustain the US for a short period of time.

[REDREX]

I see so much attached to energy independence over climate change. Our trade deficit used to be over $400,000,000,000 a year and with energy independence that is put back in the US economy and jobs, tax revenues, royalty income, etc... It also eliminates the need for the US to be subservient to middle east demands in protecting our oil supply.

In addressing climate change it has to be global rather than just punishing US industries and consumers. We've had this discussion before but it is craziness to hobble our economy while the rest of world, particularly China and India, use the cheapest resources to fund their economies.

I certainly think allowing exports of NG and oil (particularly NG) are good because it allows the explorationists to get global prices for their product rather than being stuck with regional prices that may not sustain exploration. NG drilling has practically vanished in the last 4 years because of low regional prices making it uneconomic to drill for ng. Yet worldwide US ng could be getting 2 to 3 times what they get here in the states so it would ramp up exploration again.

All the US has to do to protect itself from another embargo is to have a call on production on any oil and or NG that is produced in the US. If an embargo comes the US can use those resources which would be much better than the strategic petroleum reserves that could only sustain the US for a short period of time.----Other than by pipeline ---which I don't see anywhere to lay one ----you will never export enough to balance the US market--- a lot of cheap or near worthless gas in the world

[okie52]

answering you and tab together.

How does it work? JOBS - GPD - DEFICIT REDUCTION all better under clinton and obama than bush. What else is there to look at?

Here we go again - I tried to teach you that the change tax rate didn't make the revenue go up - it was already going up for the two years before the cuts. THEN it went down two years after the cuts to below where they were. The very best you can say is it was temporary which is not true, cg revenues follow the stock market!!!

DONE

You tried to state something incorrectly that history has proven 3 times to be true...but you ignore it. But you still won't answer the fact that Obama said he would raise cg taxes even if it made revenues go down...why can't you just say he is wrong for a guy that just wants to go with whatever works?

You also chose to ignore that Kennedy dropped taxes and the economy flourished....

The jobs, the deficit, etc...are all better according to you because of the tax rates. Yet Obama's tax rates are a hybrid of Bush and Clinton's tax rates. He only raised the top rate...he didn't go back to the Clinton tax rates which had a much better economy, deficit reduction, employment than either Obama or Bush and Clinton also lowered the capital gains tax. So why didn't Obama go with everything Clinton did on taxes since Clinton had much better results?

[okie52]

----Other than by pipeline ---which I don't see anywhere to lay one ----you will never export enough to balance the US market--- a lot of cheap or near worthless gas in the world

I think they would have to ramp up LNG facilities although in the long run they would never be nearly as economic as a pipeline nor produce as much to balance the market...but it would still help on NG prices.

[REDREX]

I think they would have to ramp up LNG facilities although in the long run they would never be nearly as economic as a pipeline nor produce as much to balance the market...but it would still help on NG prices.---- Moving that much LNG is a dream---They were talking about the same thing in the 80's

[Sooner8th]

You tried to state something incorrectly that history has proven 3 times to be true...but you ignore it. But you still won't answer the fact that Obama said he would raise cg taxes even if it made revenues go down...why can't you just say he is wrong for a guy that just wants to go with whatever works?

You also chose to ignore that Kennedy dropped taxes and the economy flourished....

The jobs, the deficit, etc...are all better according to you because of the tax rates. Yet Obama's tax rates are a hybrid of Bush and Clinton's tax rates. He only raised the top rate...he didn't go back to the Clinton tax rates which had a much better economy, deficit reduction, employment than either Obama or Bush and Clinton also lowered the capital gains tax. So why didn't Obama go with everything Clinton did on taxes since Clinton had much better results?

I have told you time and again you are looking at two years - look at more than two years. It does not hold water. When you learn that - I will teach you about the rest.

[okie52]

I have told you time and again you are looking at two years - look at more than two years. It does not hold water. When you learn that - I will teach you about the rest.

Can't answer the question eh 8th?

You voted for a guy that would raise taxes even if it lost tax revenues. So wrapped up in supporting a dem that you just can't bear to say anything against him.

[FaninAma]

Let me talk slow and use small words so you can understand.

What works is what I'm interested in. Bush's rates didn't work. Clinton's and Obama's do. Do I have to spell it out? 39.6 works better than at 35 under bush.

Now YOU tell me at what level will you be happy at? 25 like romeny proposed? 20? 15? 10? 5? 0?

You ask about 40-50-60% and no one is suggesting those levels - just made up rightwing sh!t.


So then does Clinton's lower Capital gain rates work better than Obama's or Bush I's capital gains rates? Which is it? BTW, 39.6% is not too far away from 40% DA. And you must have been all over Bush I's knob since he raised taxes despite a promise not to do so.

BTW, why are you on the board? You seemingly just want to insult and antagonize as many people as you can. And it is a reason I come here infrequently. Badge needs to do her job and moderate the board.


Do you think your insults make you look more credible or more intelligent?

I think that nobody is really as uncivil as you are unless they are trying to be a troll.

[Sooner8th]

Can't answer the question eh 8th?

You voted for a guy that would raise taxes even if it lost tax revenues. So wrapped up in supporting a dem that you just can't bear to say anything against him.

when you learn it doesn't we can move on. Go find the chart for cg tax revenues. look at the dates

[olevetonahill]

So then does Clinton's lower Capital gain rates work better than Obama's? BTW, 39.6% is not too far away from 40% DA.

BTW, why are you on the board? You seemingly just want to insult and antagonize as many people as you can. And it is a reason I come here infrequently. Badge needs to do her job and moderate the board.


Do you think your insults make you look more credible or more intelligent?

I think that nobody is really as uncivil as you are unless they are trying to be a troll.

Badge aint a Mod. except for the VBookie forum and thats just to make bets.

[okie52]

when you learn it doesn't we can move on. Go find the chart for cg tax revenues. look at the dates

I've looked at the dates but your argument doesn't hold water...the revenues went down after 3 years (during a recession) and then went back up after the recession...all with lower rates. But you still didn't answer the question about Obama 8th.

Until you can admit that Obama was wrong I guess we won't be moving on Carney.

[Sooner8th]

I've looked at the dates but your argument doesn't hold water...the revenues went down after 3 years (during a recession) and then went back up after the recession...all with lower rates. But you still didn't answer the question about Obama 8th.

Until you can admit that Obama was wrong I guess we won't be moving on Carney.

what does the going down during a recession tell you? you just admitted my position. you are half way there now, look at the down jones and see how far it went up and see how the revenues match the down jones almost perfectly.

[okie52]

Here's a game for 8th to play...let's see if he can.

A few of the things I hated about W's presidency...

He got us into Iraq...hindsight on my part but it was still a bad war, costly, and we lost many soldiers. I even had a son serve over there and would never (as I told him before he left) have justified harm coming to him to "free the Iraqis".

He allowed Iraq to diminish our fight in Afghanistan.

W didn't seem to have a good exit strategy for either war...particularly Afghanistan. He did sign a deal in 2008 with Iraq for the exit of US troops which Obama basically followed but he still had us committed to being there for at least 7 years...and even that now looks like it wasn't long enough if you believe in "nation building".

His spending was atrocious..largely due to 2 wars but Iraq was on his shoulders.

He tried to pass amnesty and didn't secure the border.

He never punished employers for hiring illegals (at least that I've ever seen).

Now your turn 8th wonder...see if you can say some things you don't like about Obama's administration. Just a few 8th. Come on...you can do it...

[Curly Bill]

Most true conservatives have no problem admitting Bush was a terrible president. Progressives/liberals/socalists, whatever you prefer to call them, almost to a person won't do the same with Obammy, though it's obvious he's the worst we've ever had. I think they like the taste of his taint too much!

[okie52]

what does the going down during a recession tell you? you just admitted my position. you are half way there now, look at the down jones and see how far it went up and see how the revenues match the down jones almost perfectly.

Your convoluted thinking has got you again 8th. Nobody was disputing the market plays a big role in capital gains revenues because that's where the revenues come from. But even when the rates were reduced by almost 1/3 the tax revenues went up during an economy that was already thriving but at higher rates it produced less revenue. Are you starting to get the picture yet or is it just "lower tax rates" are always a bad thing...(see Clinton on cg and Kennedy on taxes).

[okie52]

Most true conservatives have no problem admitting Bush was a terrible president. Progressives/liberals/socalists, whatever you prefer to call them, almost to a person won't do the same with Obammy, though it's obvious he's the worst we've ever had. I think they like the taste of his taint too much!

8th will struggle with this but it is good training for him. Being able to take that 1st step and say a dem actually did something wrong will help him. Maybe, slowly, he will come out of the shadows to see the light.

[Curly Bill]

8th will struggle with this but it is good training for him. Being able to take that 1st step and say a dem actually did something wrong will help him. Maybe, slowly, he will come out of the shadows to see the light.

Doubt it. I think he's actually a troll - no one is genuinely THAT stupid.

[okie52]

Doubt it. I think he's actually a troll - no one is genuinely THAT stupid.

Heh heh...I actually think I recognize his handiwork from another board before he either got booted or left. If its not him then it has to be his twin. Nonetheless I'm fascinated to see someone that spews dem rhetoric with such zeal and struggles so profoundly to admit a dem fault.

[Sooner8th]

Here's a game for 8th to play...let's see if he can.

A few of the things I hated about W's presidency...

He got us into Iraq...hindsight on my part but it was still a bad war, costly, and we lost many soldiers. I even had a son serve over there and would never (as I told him before he left) have justified harm coming to him to "free the Iraqis".

He allowed Iraq to diminish our fight in Afghanistan.

W didn't seem to have a good exit strategy for either war...particularly Afghanistan. He did sign a deal in 2008 with Iraq for the exit of US troops which Obama basically followed but he still had us committed to being there for at least 7 years...and even that now looks like it wasn't long enough if you believe in "nation building".

His spending was atrocious..largely due to 2 wars but Iraq was on his shoulders.

He tried to pass amnesty and didn't secure the border.

He never punished employers for hiring illegals (at least that I've ever seen).

Now your turn 8th wonder...see if you can say some things you don't like about Obama's administration. Just a few 8th. Come on...you can do it...

I've already given that list.

Nothing about losing 825,000 private sector jobs?

Nothing about a pathitic 1.67% average gdp?

I've already given that list, go look it up.

[Sooner8th]

Your convoluted thinking has got you again 8th. Nobody was disputing the market plays a big role in capital gains revenues because that's where the revenues come from. But even when the rates were reduced by almost 1/3 the tax revenues went up during an economy that was already thriving but at higher rates it produced less revenue. Are you starting to get the picture yet or is it just "lower tax rates" are always a bad thing...(see Clinton on cg and Kennedy on taxes).

OK now you are changing your premise, you said over and over cg tax rates were cut and tax revune went up. You posted a video from noted cg tax revenue expert charles gipson and demaned i answer you question. Now you telling me well - the market going up plays a big role in cg revenues. Which is it?

OK you are really super close, just take that last step. Go find the income produced from cg and compare it to cg revenues and you will find - SURPRISE they didn't collect at the same rate.

You claim is somehow having lower rates people made more money from the stock market. Lower tax rates don't magically produce more income.

[olevetonahill]

Doubt it. I think he's actually a troll - no one is genuinely THAT stupid.

He is a troll Bro. I been saying that since he sprang on the scene a coupla months ago. He was board member for over 2 years and Never posted . then one day he Magically appeared and started talkin down to everyone.

[TAFBSooner]

I see so much attached to energy independence over climate change. Our trade deficit used to be over $400,000,000,000 a year and with energy independence that is put back in the US economy and jobs, tax revenues, royalty income, etc... It also eliminates the need for the US to be subservient to middle east demands in protecting our oil supply.

In addressing climate change it has to be global rather than just punishing US industries and consumers. We've had this discussion before but it is craziness to hobble our economy while the rest of world, particularly China and India, use the cheapest resources to fund their economies.

I certainly think allowing exports of NG and oil (particularly NG) are good because it allows the explorationists to get global prices for their product rather than being stuck with regional prices that may not sustain exploration. NG drilling has practically vanished in the last 4 years because of low regional prices making it uneconomic to drill for ng. Yet worldwide US ng could be getting 2 to 3 times what they get here in the states so it would ramp up exploration again.

All the US has to do to protect itself from another embargo is to have a call on production on any oil and or NG that is produced in the US. If an embargo comes the US can use those resources which would be much better than the strategic petroleum reserves that could only sustain the US for a short period of time.

Discounting climate change for now:
Why should we be drilling for new NG if there's no domestic demand for it (as evidenced by the low market price)? Fossil fuels are finite. If we ship our "hundred year supply" overseas, it won't last a hundred years, and we'll soon be back where we were before fracking. I can see where you would disagree from the point of view of the extraction industry, or even the Oklahoma/North Dakota/Texas economies, but from the US point of view, we will need all that NG sooner or later.

[olevetonahill]

Discounting climate change for now:
Why should we be drilling for new NG if there's no domestic demand for it (as evidenced by the low market price)? Fossil fuels are finite. If we ship our "hundred year supply" overseas, it won't last a hundred years, and we'll soon be back where we were before fracking. I can see where you would disagree from the point of view of the extraction industry, or even the Oklahoma/North Dakota/Texas economies, but from the US point of view, we will need all that NG sooner or later.

Why do you still call them Fossil Fuels?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Most true conservatives have no problem admitting Bush was a terrible president. Progressives/liberals/socalists, whatever you prefer to call them, almost to a person won't do the same with Obammy, though it's obvious he's the worst we've ever had. I think they like the taste of his taint too much!Terrible? not a principled conservative, but certainly not terrible to the degree that the actual socialists and/or fascists are.

[TAFBSooner]

Why do you still call them Fossil Fuels?

When did somebody try to change the name?

[olevetonahill]

When did somebody try to change the name?

From what Ive read Oil is not from Dead plants and animals Its a Hydrocarbon, the scientest that every one wants to quote says Titan one of Saturns Moons is drowning in Hydrocarbon and the atmosphere is Largely Methane gas.

The Myth of Fossil Fuel to me is Much the same as the Myth of creation is to some others.

[TAFBSooner]

From what Ive read Oil is not from Dead plants and animals Its a Hydrocarbon, the scientest that every one wants to quote says Titan one of Saturns Moons is drowning in Hydrocarbon and the atmosphere is Largely Methane gas.

The Myth of Fossil Fuel to me is Much the same as the Myth of creation is to some others.

They are hydrocarbons either way, by definition.

The theory of which you speak is abiogenesis. The Russians built their oil industry on it, and did OK. Under either theory, petroleum is still being created, so it's technically a renewable resource. However, also under either theory it's being produced at such a slow geological-scale rate that it might as well be finite.

[olevetonahill]

They are hydrocarbons either way, by definition.

The theory of which you speak is abiogenesis. The Russians built their oil industry on it, and did OK. Under either theory, petroleum is still being created, so it's technically a renewable resource. However, also under either theory it's being produced at such a slow geological-scale rate that it might as well be finite.

THATS why asked Why do you still refer to it as "Fossil Fuel"

[okie52]

I've already given that list.

Nothing about losing 825,000 private sector jobs?

Nothing about a pathitic 1.67% average gdp?

I've already given that list, go look it up.

Nah. I've never seen it 8th so it didn't happen. prove me wrong. I know you can't do it

Still havent seen you admit how stupid Obama was to say he would raise taxes even if it would reduce revenues...so you must agree with him.

[okie52]

OK now you are changing your premise, you said over and over cg tax rates were cut and tax revune went up. You posted a video from noted cg tax revenue expert charles gipson and demaned i answer you question. Now you telling me well - the market going up plays a big role in cg revenues. Which is it?

OK you are really super close, just take that last step. Go find the income produced from cg and compare it to cg revenues and you will find - SURPRISE they didn't collect at the same rate.

You claim is somehow having lower rates people made more money from the stock market. Lower tax rates don't magically produce more income.

Never changed my premise. I stated during a thriving economy when tax rates were lowered revenues went up the very next year...you just avent been able to grasp it. Take off the blinders..You might see how hard people are laughing at you.

[Curly Bill]

He is a troll Bro. I been saying that since he sprang on the scene a coupla months ago. He was board member for over 2 years and Never posted . then one day he Magically appeared and started talkin down to everyone.

Maybe he's one of the stooges over at the NSA and he's reporting us all back to Obammy?

[BoulderSooner79]

Terrible? not a principled conservative, but certainly not terrible to the degree that the actual socialists and/or fascists are.

Bush was terrible due to his invasion of Iraq, IMO. I don't care if he was conservative, liberal, communist, fascists or anarchist. Nothing he did, or could have done would balance the scales for that monumentally bad decision and its consequences.

[okie52]

Discounting climate change for now:
Why should we be drilling for new NG if there's no domestic demand for it (as evidenced by the low market price)? Fossil fuels are finite. If we ship our "hundred year supply" overseas, it won't last a hundred years, and we'll soon be back where we were before fracking. I can see where you would disagree from the point of view of the extraction industry, or even the Oklahoma/North Dakota/Texas economies, but from the US point of view, we will need all that NG sooner or later.

Well it's really closer to a 200 year supply from what I know and as red pointed out, the amount that could be exported would not amount to enough to substantially affect our price nor would it make a dent in our reserves.

What...you have no faith in our green technology that is going to free us from hydrocarbons in the next 50-100 years? We certainly have plenty of dems that are willing to commit our economy to green energy right now whether the technology is there or not.

[Sooner8th]

Nah. I've never seen it 8th so it didn't happen. prove me wrong. I know you can't do it

Still havent seen you admit how stupid Obama was to say he would raise taxes even if it would reduce revenues...so you must agree with him.

So if you didn't see it, it didn't happen. If I don't say I disagree, I must agree, kinda like when you're party wanted to have non-votes counted as no votes in union elections. Lemming.

It was on a different thread, look it up if you want to know so badly.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Bush was terrible due to his invasion of Iraq, IMO. I don't care if he was conservative, liberal, communist, fascists or anarchist. Nothing he did, or could have done would balance the scales for that monumentally bad decision and its consequences.disagreement noted. What the current powers that be are doing is terrible, and will cause more harm to the country than W's actions.

[Sooner8th]

Never changed my premise. I stated during a thriving economy when tax rates were lowered revenues went up the very next year...you just avent been able to grasp it. Take off the blinders..You might see how hard people are laughing at you.

Yes you are, your premise is, well was, lowering tax rates drove up revenues, see you post above about how raise taxes even if it would reduce revenues period, no qualifiers. This is what you have argued from the beginning, until the last few posts.

NOW you say in a thriving economy with the stock market going up, which is a big driver in cg tax revenue, your words not mine, taxes go up, but when there a recession, taxes go DOWN, then in a recovery taxes go up, again your words not mine. So to make up the difference in tax revenues at a lower tax rate somehow more income must be produced by lowering taxes. You have not shown me:

1.) that it did work

2.) HOW it works

good luck

[Sooner8th]

disagreement noted. What the current powers that be are doing is terrible, and will cause more harm to the country than W's actions.

over 4,000 american soldiers dead? really? Let's see you tried to pin Benghazi on obama, 4 dead, not his fault though. Where do you get over 4,000 dead and a trillion dollars in debt from Obama?

[Curly Bill]

When are we going to address the troll question?

[Curly Bill]

I know there's Vet's thinking that this is matlock. What about it being LAS, but this time in full-blown liberal mode, having dispensed with the covering act that he really is a republican?

[SCOUT]

8th is funny.

[okie52]

Yes you are, your premise is, well was, lowering tax rates drove up revenues, see you post above about how raise taxes even if it would reduce revenues period, no qualifiers. This is what you have argued from the beginning, until the last few posts.

NOW you say in a thriving economy with the stock market going up, which is a big driver in cg tax revenue, your words not mine, taxes go up, but when there a recession, taxes go DOWN, then in a recovery taxes go up, again your words not mine. So to make up the difference in tax revenues at a lower tax rate somehow more income must be produced by lowering taxes. You have not shown me:

1.) that it did work

2.) HOW it works

good luck

Your math is really bad Einstein...did the market grow over 30% between 97-98? How about from 98-99...did it grow 30% again? That's how much it would have had to have grown to yield the difference from lower tax rate vs the old tax rate just to produce the same revenues if only the market was the factor...but, of course, the tax revenues at the lower rate even did better than that...but I know math will be lost on you so don't strain yourself trying to figure it out.

[okie52]

So if you didn't see it, it didn't happen. If I don't say I disagree, I must agree, kinda like when you're party wanted to have non-votes counted as no votes in union elections. Lemming.

It was on a different thread, look it up if you want to know so badly.

Never happened 8th. You can't do it...there must be some therapy for you...perhaps a government program like obamacare could help with type of financial aid

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Originally Posted by RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
disagreement noted. What the current powers that be are doing is terrible, and will cause more harm to the country than W's actions.

over 4,000 american soldiers dead? really? Let's see you tried to pin Benghazi on obama, 4 dead, not his fault though. Where do you get over 4,000 dead and a trillion dollars in debt from Obama?Rules of engagement were all phkd up, and I'm pretty certain that was not the doing of Bush.

What price do we put on all the broken laws by the current presidency, not to mention mountains of socialism and usurping our lawful freedoms, as well as enabling and even fostering massive illegal immigration, and almost countless mounds of horrendous horseship by the government under Obear. At this point it's immeasurable, but it's far from over.:obama icon:

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Do we not have an Obear smoking a cigarette icon? If not, why not?

[okie52]

I know there's Vet's thinking that this is matlock. What about it being LAS, but this time in full-blown liberal mode, having dispensed with the covering act that he really is a republican?

I don't think he's a troll...he's too vested in his spiel. Stupid for sure but that goes with his blinders.

[Sooner8th]

Your math is really bad Einstein...did the market grow over 30% between 97-98? How about from 98-99...did it grow 30% again? That's how much it would have had to have grown to yield the difference from lower tax rate vs the old tax rate just to produce the same revenues if only the market was the factor...but, of course, the tax revenues at the lower rate even did better than that...but I know math will be lost on you so don't strain yourself trying to figure it out.

HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA too funny....changed it again. stock market was BIG FACTOR, now just a factor.

So you admit, when you cut tax rates, tax revenues go down and incomes have to go up to generate the revenues at a lower rate to replace the taxes that would be collected if you kept taxes rates the same.

You are catching on. So....explain to me how exactly if markets didn't go up enough to cover the decrease from the tax cut, how more income was generated to raise taxes revenues over pre tax amounts?

[Sooner8th]

Your math is really bad Einstein...did the market grow over 30% between 97-98? How about from 98-99...did it grow 30% again? That's how much it would have had to have grown to yield the difference from lower tax rate vs the old tax rate just to produce the same revenues if only the market was the factor...but, of course, the tax revenues at the lower rate even did better than that...but I know math will be lost on you so don't strain yourself trying to figure it out.

Here is it - this too ****ing funny.

OK EINSTEIN, I looked it up and you are right it didn't go up over 30% from 1997 to 1998.

It went up over 40%

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ****ING DUMBASS- typical republican is so convinced he is right didn't even bother to check it out.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA TOO ****ING FUNNY!!!

DJI DECEMBER 27, 1996 6,650.91

DJI DECEMBER 24, 1998 9,643.32

A GAIN OF 40.5% HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

STOP IT YOUR KILLING ME

TELL ME AGAIN THE ONE ABOUT CUTTIN' TAXES RAISED REVENUES.

PROOF DUMBASS

THIS MAKES ME SO -


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6Sxv-sUYtM

[okie52]

HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA too funny....changed it again. stock market was BIG FACTOR, now just a factor.

So you admit, when you cut tax rates, tax revenues go down and incomes have to go up to generate the revenues at a lower rate to replace the taxes that would be collected if you kept taxes rates the same.

You are catching on. So....explain to me how exactly if markets didn't go up enough to cover the decrease from the tax cut, how more income was generated to raise taxes revenues over pre tax amounts?

You're the one that said it was only because of the market, not the tax decrease. Obviously the better investment opportunity with 1/3 less the tax consequence escapes you..but not surprising.

[okie52]

Here is it - this too ****ing funny.

OK EINSTEIN, I looked it up and you are right it didn't go up over 30% from 1997 to 1998.

It went up over 40%

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ****ING DUMBASS- typical republican is so convinced he is right didn't even bother to check it out.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA TOO ****ING FUNNY!!!

DJI DECEMBER 27, 1996 6,650.91

DJI DECEMBER 24, 1998 9,643.32

A GAIN OF 40.5% HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

STOP IT YOUR KILLING ME

TELL ME AGAIN THE ONE ABOUT CUTTIN' TAXES RAISED REVENUES.

PROOF DUMBASS

THIS MAKES ME SO -


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6Sxv-sUYtM

That's two years not 1..l.20% per year doesn't equal 30plus %. It neede to be closer to 60% just to keep even and thats not even including the surplusses generated from the lower rates. Keep trying Einstein.

[Sooner8th]

That's two years not 1..l.20% per year doesn't equal 30plus %. Keep trying Einstein.

TRYING TO CHANGING IT AGAIN - YOU JUST CANNOT ADMIT WHEN YOU ARE WRONG.

YOU SAID

did the market grow over 30% between 97-98?

Try again loser. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA TOO ****ING FUNNY!!!

[okie52]

TRYING TO CHANGING IT AGAIN - YOU JUST CANNOT ADMIT WHEN YOU ARE WRONG.

YOU SAID

did the market grow over 30% between 97-98?

Try again loser. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA TOO ****ING FUNNY!!!

And you gave 96-98...not too bright are you?

[Sooner8th]

You're the one that said it was only because of the market, not the tax decrease. Obviously the better investment opportunity with 1/3 less the tax consequence escapes you..but not surprising.

SO- when you cut taxes investment opportunitys go up? Capital gain tax cuts lead to an increase of income?

[Sooner8th]

And you gave 96-98...not too bright are you?

DECEMBER 24, 1996 DUMBASS!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

TRY AGAIN - STRIKE TWO

[okie52]

SO- when you cut taxes investment opportunitys go up? Capital gain tax cuts lead to an increase of income?

Certainly the attractiveness of the investment is increased by lower tax rates....you ever heard of tax shelters?

[okie52]

DECEMBER 24, 1996 DUMBASS!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

TRY AGAIN - STRIKE TWO are you really this stupid? Dec 27 of 96 to dec24 of 98...I'll bet that's 1 year in your world isn't it?

The beauty is Einstein you don't even realize how foolish you look.

[REDREX]

Certainly the attractiveness of the investment is increased by lower tax rates....you ever heard of tax shelters?----Anyone that believes that lower capital gains rates will not attract investment is an idiot

[Sooner8th]

are you really this stupid? Dec 27 of 96 to dec24 of 98...I'll bet that's 1 year in your world isn't it?

HEY - YOUR RULES NOT MINE.

AGAIN - did the market grow over 30% between 97-98? IS TWO YEARS PERIOD.

KEEP ON TRYING.

THIS IS SO GREAT SO FUN -

[okie52]

----Anyone that believes that lower capital gains rates will not attract investment is an idiot

I thought it was just the blinders but I was wrong....he is an idiot.

[Sooner8th]

Certainly the attractiveness of the investment is increased by lower tax rates....you ever heard of tax shelters?

OOOOHHHHHH So now you are dragging tax shelters into it - changing it yet again.

STRIKE THREE - YOUR OUT!

http://ethicsalarms.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/strike-three.jpg

[Sooner8th]

----Anyone that believes that lower capital gains rates will not attract investment is an idiot

WELCOME TO SUPPLY SIDE TRICKLE DOWN "ECONOMICS"!!

TOOK YOU ALL LONG ENOUGH TO ADMIT IT.


GOT YA

[okie52]

HEY - YOUR RULES NOT MINE.

AGAIN - did the market grow over 30% between 97-98? IS TWO YEARS PERIOD.

KEEP ON TRYING.

THIS IS SO GREAT SO FUN -

Besides being unable to read a post you still seem to have a problem with your lower case letters...is there an Obama aid program like obamaphones that can help you out.?

[REDREX]

WELCOME TO SUPPLY SIDE TRICKLE DOWN "ECONOMICS"!!

TOOK YOU ALL LONG ENOUGH TO ADMIT IT.


GOT YA----What did you get me on?-----You need professional help and you need to get a life if this is what you do for fun

[okie52]

OOOOHHHHHH So now you are dragging tax shelters into it - changing it yet again.

STRIKE THREE - YOUR OUT!

http://ethicsalarms.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/strike-three.jpg

Heh heh...you obviously have a great understanding regarding investments and tax consequences...perhaps some of your friends on the left would seek your advice regarding their finances.

[okie52]

----What did you get me on?-----You need professional help and you need to get a life if this is what you do for fun

He looks for the high tax investments...so he won't be a trickle down guy.

[Sooner8th]

----Anyone that believes that lower capital gains rates will not attract investment is an idiot

TOO ****ING FUNNY AGAIN!!!

DECEMBER 27, 1994 DJI 3,834.44

DECEMBER 27, 1996 DJI 6,560.91

AN INCREASE OF 71%

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

SO AFTER THE CAPITAL GAINS CUT THE INCREASE OF THE MARKET WENT DOWN BY OVER HALF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THE GROWTH SLOWED DOWN!!!

EXPLAIN AWAY EINSTEINS

TOO ****ING FUNNY AND YOU WHAT THAT MAKES ME -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6Sxv-sUYtM

[Sooner8th]

Heh heh...you obviously have a great understanding regarding investments and tax consequences...perhaps some of your friends on the left would seek your advice regarding their finances.

Yes as a matter of fact I do - degree in finance and economics and 25 years working, in finance, for the biggest, most successful firms on the planet - market leaders.

[REDREX]

You have no clue ----Forget about stocks ----I am talking about buying and selling business ---And if you don't think that a lower capital gains rate drives those investments you are clueless

[Sooner8th]

You have no clue ----Forget about stocks ----I am talking about buying and selling business ---And if you don't think that a lower capital gains rate drives those investments you are clueless

Changing it again - okie52 has already admitted to the stock market is a BIG part of capital gains revenues.

Trickle down supply side "economics". FAILURE AGAIN.

Keep changing it- happy.......

[REDREX]

Changing it again - okie52 has already admitted to the stock market is a BIG part of the stocks.

Keep changing it- happy.......----I didn't change a thing ---and your above sentence makes no sense

[REDREX]

You are just an idiot ----I said nothing about stocks ----- How could a lower capital gains rate on the sale of a business not drive investment?

[Sooner8th]

You are just an idiot ----I said nothing about stocks ----- How could a lower capital gains rate on the sale of a business not drive investment?

OK I'll use small words and talk slowly so you will understand - the claim is that revenues went up because the capital gains tax rate was cut.

A majority, and okie52 agrees, of the income that capital gains income come from the sale of STOCKS.

I just proved the stock market went up enough to more than cover the decrease in the tax rate, so it wasn't the tax cut that drove it.

Now you want to claim the lower rate is driving investment that would increase tax revenues even though the rate went down.

TRICKLE DOWN SUPPLY SIDE "ECONOMICS".

Tax rate dropped ~30% income would have to increase 40% to make up for the lost revenue. So you're going to tell me that one change made a permanent increase of 40% in sale of a business?

[REDREX]

So what ----If you want to create jobs you want a lower capital gains rate on the sale of a business ---My partners and I do it all the time---buy a business that is not doing well-----rehab it---which always means hiring people as it recovers and then sell or sometimes keep it. A lower capital gains rate makes it more attractive

[REDREX]

You are without a doubt the most arrogant person ever on this site----You are even worse than that old fool Gaffer

[olevetonahill]

I know there's Vet's thinking that this is matlock. What about it being LAS, but this time in full-blown liberal mode, having dispensed with the covering act that he really is a republican?

Naw Curly I simply compare him to Matlock. hes also comparable to Marfa Cowboy. Plus LAS always declaring himself WINNER. It did just dawn on me as to who it is tho. Wont say anything but will peem any who ask and give me reasonable guess. :cocksure:

[Sooner8th]

You are without a doubt the most arrogant person ever on this site----You are even worse than that old fool Gaffer


ME HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I just blew okie52 and everyone else's argument on capital gains tax cuts raise revenue completely up and no one on here will admit they are wrong and keep changing the premise.

[REDREX]

ME HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I just blew okie52 and everyone else's argument on capital gains tax cuts raise revenue completely up and no one on here will admit they are wrong and keep changing the premise.----I didn't change a thing----I will say it again----real slow for you------Lower capital gains rate encourage investment

[Sooner8th]

So what ----If you want to create jobs you want a lower capital gains rate on the sale of a business ---My partners and I do it all the time---buy a business that is not doing well-----rehab it---which always means hiring people as it recovers and then sell or sometimes keep it. A lower capital gains rate makes it more attractive

Now this is a different from the original argument of capital gains tax cuts raise revenues.

So bush cut capital gain tax cuts and lost 825,000 jobs.

I do find what you do interesting, not wanting to flame or start a fight - how much do you think the cut in the rate increase the businesses you bought?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

So 8th...

What are you for? What would you like to see in tax philosophy?
What would you like to see in welfare policy?
What would you like the government to do regarding...
The military?
Immigration?
Foreign policy?
Are you for or against States rights?
The Constitution? Is a strict interpretation correct?

[okie52]

Sooner8th Sooner8th is offline

OK EINSTEIN, I looked it up and you are right it didn't go up over 30% from 1997 to 1998.

It went up over 40%

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ****ING DUMBASS- typical republican is so convinced he is right didn't even bother to check it out.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA TOO ****ING FUNNY!!!

DJI DECEMBER 27, 1996 6,650.91

DJI DECEMBER 24, 1998 9,643.32

A GAIN OF 40.5% HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Well 8th...even though I was referring to one year if you want to use 2 years that's fine:

Capital Gains

1996 260,696.

1998 455,223

74.6% increase over the higher tax rate revenues with almost 30% less tax rate and only a 40% increase in the market. Heh...heh...

[okie52]

So 8th...

What are you for? What would you like to see in tax philosophy?
What would you like to see in welfare policy?
What would you like the government to do regarding...
The military?
Immigration?
Foreign policy?
Are you for or against States rights?
The Constitution? Is a strict interpretation correct?

I doubt you'll get an answer or just what the DNC tells him to say. It's all he knows.

[Sooner8th]

Well 8th...even though I was referring to one year if you want to use 2 years that's fine:

Capital Gains

1996 260,696.

1998 455,223

74.6% increase over the higher tax rate revenues with almost 30% less tax rate and only a 40% increase in the market. Heh...heh...

NO- you said 97-98 that is two years. PERIOD

link to your numbers?

[okie52]

NO- you said 97-98 that is two years. PERIOD

link to your numbers?

January 97-january 98 is how many years?....duh.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-capital-gains-tax-collections-1954-2009

[Sooner8th]

Well 8th...even though I was referring to one year if you want to use 2 years that's fine:

Capital Gains

1996 260,696.

1998 455,223

74.6% increase over the higher tax rate revenues with almost 30% less tax rate and only a 40% increase in the market. Heh...heh...

That does cover two years.

The year before the tax cut 44% increase the year of the tax cut 39% increase the year after 25% - so the increase actual went down AFTER THE TAX CUT. Short term gain rate - almost parallel for long term.

I found the chart.

Returns with Positive Net Capital Gains, 1954-2009 [1]
Total Realized Taxes Average Effective Realized Gains Maximum
Year Capital Paid on Tax Rate as a Percent Tax Rate on
Gains Capital Gains (percent) of GDP Long-Term Gains
1995 180,130 44,254 24.6 2.43 29.19
1996 260,696 66,396 25.5 3.33 29.19 44.73%
1997 364,829 79,305 21.7 4.38 29.19/21.19 39.94%
1998 455,223 89,069 19.6 5.18 21.19 24.78%
1999 552,608 111,821 20.2 5.91 21.19 21.39%
2000 644,285 127,297 19.8 6.47 21.19 16.59%
2001 349,441 65,668 18.8 3.40 21.17 -45.76%
2002 268,615 49,122 18.3 2.52 21.16 -23.13%
2003 323,306 51,340 15.9 2.90 21.05/16.05 20.36%
2004 499,154 73,213 14.7 4.21 16.05 54.39%
2005 690,152 102,174 14.8 5.47 16.05 38.26%
2006 798,214 117,793 14.8 5.97 15.70 15.66%
2007 924,164 137,141 14.8 6.59 15.70 15.78%
2008 497,841 68,791 13.8 3.48 15.35 -46.13%
2009 263,460 36,686 13.9 1.89 15.35 -47.08%
Long-Term Capital Gains, 1977-2009 [2]
Realized Taxes Paid on Average Effective Realized Gains Maximum
Year Long-Term Long-Term Tax Rate as a Percent Tax Rate on
Capital Gains Capital Gains (percent) of GDP Long-Term Gains
1995 158,955 38,368 24.1 2.14 29.19
1996 233,872 58,782 25.1 2.98 29.19 47.13%
1997 330,360 69,572 21.1 3.96 29.19/21.19 41.26%
1998 424,762 80,611 19.0 4.83 21.19 28.58%
1999 482,181 91,416 19.0 5.16 21.19 13.52%
2000 588,061 111,507 19.0 5.91 21.19 21.96%
2001 322,831 58,750 18.2 3.14 21.17 -45.10%
2002 251,301 44,984 17.9 2.36 21.16 -22.16%
2003 294,811 44,903 15.2 2.65 21.05/16.05 17.31%
2004 466,224 66,154 14.2 3.93 16.05 58.14%
2005 648,430 92,304 14.2 5.14 16.05 39.08%
2006 750,771 106,568 14.2 5.61 15.70 15.78%
2007 861,220 122,036 14.2 6.14 15.70 14.71%
2008 463,614 61,387 13.2 3.24 15.35 -46.17%
2009 [3] 225,336 28,228 12.5 1.62 15.35 -51.40%

You will notice the actual rate of growth on revenues SLOWED DOWN after the tax cut. They were going up when the tax cut happened - then the slowed after the tax cut. Now look at 2000 2001 they actual went DOWN, no tax increase. So why did they go down without a tax increase? Then the went up - then up again after the cut. could it be people were anticipating a tax cut so they held off on or could it be the market fell? Which is it?

Keep on trying my friend - you will learn yet.

[Sooner8th]

January 97-january 98 is how many years?....duh.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-capital-gains-tax-collections-1954-2009

You didn't say jan 97 to jan 98 - you said 1997 1998.

WOW just admit it.

[Sooner8th]

I doubt you'll get an answer or just what the DNC tells him to say. It's all he knows.

Funny, how a guy is going to great lengths to prove a rightwing talking point is accusing me of getting my answers from the DNC.

Do you know where this cg tax cut myth came from?

[okie52]

First you are covering three years now - 1996 - 1997 - 1998. I covered two.

The year before the tax cut 44% increase the year of the tax cut 39% increase the year after 25% - so the increase actual went down AFTER THE TAX CUT. Short term gain rate - almost parallel for long term.

I found the chart.

Returns with Positive Net Capital Gains, 1954-2009 [1]
Total Realized Taxes Average Effective Realized Gains Maximum
Year Capital Paid on Tax Rate as a Percent Tax Rate on
Gains Capital Gains (percent) of GDP Long-Term Gains
1995 180,130 44,254 24.6 2.43 29.19
1996 260,696 66,396 25.5 3.33 29.19 44.73%
1997 364,829 79,305 21.7 4.38 29.19/21.19 39.94%
1998 455,223 89,069 19.6 5.18 21.19 24.78%
1999 552,608 111,821 20.2 5.91 21.19 21.39%
2000 644,285 127,297 19.8 6.47 21.19 16.59%
2001 349,441 65,668 18.8 3.40 21.17 -45.76%
2002 268,615 49,122 18.3 2.52 21.16 -23.13%
2003 323,306 51,340 15.9 2.90 21.05/16.05 20.36%
2004 499,154 73,213 14.7 4.21 16.05 54.39%
2005 690,152 102,174 14.8 5.47 16.05 38.26%
2006 798,214 117,793 14.8 5.97 15.70 15.66%
2007 924,164 137,141 14.8 6.59 15.70 15.78%
2008 497,841 68,791 13.8 3.48 15.35 -46.13%
2009 263,460 36,686 13.9 1.89 15.35 -47.08%
Long-Term Capital Gains, 1977-2009 [2]
Realized Taxes Paid on Average Effective Realized Gains Maximum
Year Long-Term Long-Term Tax Rate as a Percent Tax Rate on
Capital Gains Capital Gains (percent) of GDP Long-Term Gains
1995 158,955 38,368 24.1 2.14 29.19
1996 233,872 58,782 25.1 2.98 29.19 47.13%
1997 330,360 69,572 21.1 3.96 29.19/21.19 41.26%
1998 424,762 80,611 19.0 4.83 21.19 28.58%
1999 482,181 91,416 19.0 5.16 21.19 13.52%
2000 588,061 111,507 19.0 5.91 21.19 21.96%
2001 322,831 58,750 18.2 3.14 21.17 -45.10%
2002 251,301 44,984 17.9 2.36 21.16 -22.16%
2003 294,811 44,903 15.2 2.65 21.05/16.05 17.31%
2004 466,224 66,154 14.2 3.93 16.05 58.14%
2005 648,430 92,304 14.2 5.14 16.05 39.08%
2006 750,771 106,568 14.2 5.61 15.70 15.78%
2007 861,220 122,036 14.2 6.14 15.70 14.71%
2008 463,614 61,387 13.2 3.24 15.35 -46.17%
2009 [3] 225,336 28,228 12.5 1.62 15.35 -51.40%

You will notice the actual rate of growth on revenues SLOWED DOWN after the tax cut. They were going up when the tax cut happened - then the slowed after the tax cut. Now look at 2000 2001 they actual went DOWN, no tax increase. So why did they go down without a tax increase? Then the went up - then up again after the cut. could it be people were anticipating a tax cut so they held off on or could it be the market fell? Which is it?

Keep on trying my friend - you will learn yet.

Sorry Einstein...even a kindergarten kid knows how many years is from 96-98...even you did when you thought it helped your cause (I'll help you-98-96=2) . 96 was the last year for CG rates at 28%. 98 was two years later with the reduced tax...but keep trying...I'll give you credit, even black and white doesn't deter you.

Of course people hold off for a tax cut once it has been announced, well, except for you, which evidently doesn't think tax rates affect market investments. Guess what happened in 2001...911 and a market crash. So naturally revenues went down as did the market.

But I'll try to narrow it down to the real premise...the one you have avoided answering for most of this thread. If the tax revenues were exactly the same would you support a higher tax rate or a lower one on CG? We know your fearless leader's answer to that (even if the revenues were lower) but you are supposed to be a "whatever works" guy so would you want the higher rate?

[okie52]

You didn't say jan 97 to jan 98 - you said 1997 1998.

WOW just admit it.

I do admit it...meaning 1 year 98-97=1...comprende?

[okie52]

Funny, how a guy is going to great lengths to prove a rightwing talking point is accusing me of getting my answers from the DNC.

Do you know where this cg tax cut myth came from?

Still can't provide a list of things you disagree with dems on, can ya 8th. Really pains you to say it doesn't it? Just about everyone else on this board could whip out a number of things on their chosen party (if they have one) but you can't. I'm sure you have convinced everyone (including yourself) you are a free thinker.

[Sooner8th]

I do admit it...meaning 1 year 98-97=1...comprende?

You statement was - did the market grow over 30% between 97-98? You see you said between 97-98 - if you wanted one year then it would have been did the market grow 30% in 98? Tossing in 97 takes the data point back to January 97, when you have data points during the whole year then asking between 97-98 spans two years. If you have one data point for the year - like revenues then you say between 97-98.

It's a finance thing. You have to be clear because I am use to being very specif when talking about data points and comparing.

-

[TAFBSooner]

THATS why asked Why do you still refer to it as "Fossil Fuel"

Because I was disputing the framing of oil, gas, coal, and uranium as "the energy industry." "Energy" includes oil, gas, coal, uranium, wind, solar, hydro, fusion (which will be here by (today + 30 years)), etc.

[Sooner8th]

Still can't provide a list of things you disagree with dems on, can ya 8th. Really pains you to say it doesn't it? Just about everyone else on this board could whip out a number of things on their chosen party (if they have one) but you can't. I'm sure you have convinced everyone (including yourself) you are a free thinker.

I told you before - I have listed them before on another thread. If you really want to know go find it. I don't repeated ask what you disagree with republicans on - mainly because you regurgitate every rightwing talking point you run across, so I know where you stand.

I PROVED to you that not only cutting cg taxes did not cause tax revenues to raise I also PROVED you believe in supply side trickle down "economics" and all you can do is bark at me about what i disagree with obama on?

That's all you got.

[Sooner8th]

Sorry Einstein...even a kindergarten kid knows how many years is from 96-98...even you did when you thought it helped your cause (I'll help you-98-96=2) . 96 was the last year for CG rates at 28%. 98 was two years later with the reduced tax...but keep trying...I'll give you credit, even black and white doesn't deter you.

Of course people hold off for a tax cut once it has been announced, well, except for you, which evidently doesn't think tax rates affect market investments. Guess what happened in 2001...911 and a market crash. So naturally revenues went down as did the market.

But I'll try to narrow it down to the real premise...the one you have avoided answering for most of this thread. If the tax revenues were exactly the same would you support a higher tax rate or a lower one on CG? We know your fearless leader's answer to that (even if the revenues were lower) but you are supposed to be a "whatever works" guy so would you want the higher rate?

And you are holding on to the premise that raising tax rates would lower revenue, which you base on tax cuts driving greater revenue which i proved was false. Raising taxes raises revenue. PERIOD.

ANY time you say anything different you are regurgitating the key rightwing talking point of supply side trickle down supply side "economics" - raising tax rates makes people not want to make more money.

[okie52]

I told you before - I have listed them before on another thread. If you really want to know go find it. I don't repeated ask what you disagree with republicans on - mainly because you regurgitate every rightwing talking point you run across, so I know where you stand.

I PROVED to you that not only cutting cg taxes did not cause tax revenues to raise I also PROVED you believe in supply side trickle down "economics" and all you can do is bark at me about what i disagree with obama on?

That's all you got.

Oh, you didn't have to ask where I disagreed with the pubs because I provided them to you without you asking...really not a big deal except for someone like you... you have been asked numerous times by me (and, apparently other board members) about your views and you can only point to some phantom post....it's just too hard for you to ever say it. Are you afraid the party will kick you out? Maybe lose your membership in the Obama fan club? It's supposed to be a big tent...you're probably safe.

[okie52]

And you are holding on to the premise that raising tax rates would lower revenue, which you base on tax cuts driving greater revenue which i proved was false. Raising taxes raises revenue. PERIOD.

ANY time you say anything different you are regurgitating the key rightwing talking point of supply side trickle down supply side "economics" - raising tax rates makes people not want to make more money.

Raising tax rates raises revenue period? No point of balance just raise them and we'll get more tax revenues regardless of how high the rate? To believe different makes anyone a supply sider?

Heh,dam, it took a while but I think that pretty much sums up our discussion and your position. (Lookout Kennedy and Clinton...you dam supply siders).

[Sooner8th]

Raising tax rates raises revenue period? No point of balance just raise them and we'll get more tax revenues regardless of how high the rate? To believe different makes anyone a supply sider?

Heh,dam, it took a while but I think that pretty much sums up our discussion and your position. (Lookout Kennedy and Clinton...you dam supply siders).

Is anyone talking about the point of balance there that happens? This is 2014 we don't have rates at 90% anymore. The only people on this board or anywhere else saying rates should go up over what we have now are conservatives. The old where are you happy with rates? 40-50-60%? No one but conservatives are talking about that.

You still go back to kennedy and clinton. The economy soared after he raised rates in 1993. Top rate during kennedy was 91%.

You and yours keep talking about kennedy and clinton the great tax cutters (what happened to tax and spend democrats?) but never talk about how regean RAISED taxes 11 times. You all LOVE to talk about the soaring economy under regean - so tax increases don't hurt huh?

To believe that cutting taxes at ANY rate leads to higher incomes and tax revenues. Supply side trickle down "economics". Believing cuttin' taxes from 20% to 15% and from 8% and 10% to 5% drives up incomes makes you a SUPPLY SIDE TRICKLE DOWNER.

[Sooner8th]

Oh, you didn't have to ask where I disagreed with the pubs because I provided them to you without you asking...really not a big deal except for someone like you... you have been asked numerous times by me (and, apparently other board members) about your views and you can only point to some phantom post....it's just too hard for you to ever say it. Are you afraid the party will kick you out? Maybe lose your membership in the Obama fan club? It's supposed to be a big tent...you're probably safe.

You confuse my party with yours, YOUR party kicks people out for not toeing the rightwingnut tea bagger driven party line. We see it here in Kansas all the time and across the country. RINO ring a bell? Eric Cantor is a rino because he wanted to compromise on the debt ceiling among other things, 'nough said.

For phantom post - it's out there, I don't feel the need to state my positions, if I did you would just disregard them anyway - having already posted them and you keep asking me about them is proof.

[okie52]

Is anyone talking about the point of balance there that happens? This is 2014 we don't have rates at 90% anymore. The only people on this board or anywhere else saying rates should go up over what we have now are conservatives. The old where are you happy with rates? 40-50-60%? No one but conservatives are talking about that.

You still go back to kennedy and clinton. The economy soared after he raised rates in 1993. Top rate during kennedy was 91%.

You and yours keep talking about kennedy and clinton the great tax cutters (what happened to tax and spend democrats?) but never talk about how regean RAISED taxes 11 times. You all LOVE to talk about the soaring economy under regean - so tax increases don't hurt huh?

To believe that cutting taxes at ANY rate leads to higher incomes and tax revenues. Supply side trickle down "economics". Believing cuttin' taxes from 20% to 15% and from 8% and 10% to 5% drives up incomes makes you a SUPPLY SIDE TRICKLE DOWNER.

Gosh, 8th, you almost sounded like you thought the old days of 40-45-60% rates were too high...well, except Obama did just kick it up to 39.6% so really 40% isn't that absurd now is it? You do know that it is at 39.6% now, don't you?

I'm glad you brought up supply sider Reagan...you're anti-Christ. Reagan did cut the marginal rates and increased taxes...so do you have him down as a supply sider? And Reagan did have to deal with those 70% rates when he initially dropped them to 50%. I;m sure you thought that was heresy back then.

See that's where you absolutism betrays you 8th. I really am for what works...even its 50% tax rates or 5% tax rates...but I do recognize there is a balance point on taxation, investments and the economy. You are the one that believes any tax cut is an abomination and embraces any tax hike as though it was an act of God...the old "tax yourself into prosperity" dem...

[okie52]

You confuse my party with yours, YOUR party kicks people out for not toeing the rightwingnut tea bagger driven party line. We see it here in Kansas all the time and across the country. RINO ring a bell? Eric Cantor is a rino because he wanted to compromise on the debt ceiling among other things, 'nough said.

For phantom post - it's out there, I don't feel the need to state my positions, if I did you would just disregard them anyway - having already posted them and you keep asking me about them is proof.

I laughed when cantor lost...but he did more than just compromise on the debt ceiling (which didn't really bother me)...His push for amnesty for children hurt him and lo and behold...we have a youth illegal immigration epidimic going on right now. Adios Eric.

How can I disregard what you are unwilling to reveal? I may disagree with your views...there may even be others on this board that disagree with them, but that's okay, isn't it 8th? After all, you're used to dealing with the big tent and disagreements are a way of life there, aren't they? Besides, be proud of your free thinking...if that's what it is. This message board "usually" is about debating, exchanging ideas and "occasionally" learning something in the process that might (dare I say) alter your views.

[Sooner8th]

Gosh, 8th, you almost sounded like you thought the old days of 40-45-60% rates were too high...well, except Obama did just kick it up to 39.6% so really 40% isn't that absurd now is it? You do know that it is at 39.6% now, don't you?

I'm glad you brought up supply sider Reagan...you're anti-Christ. Reagan did cut the marginal rates and increased taxes...so do you have him down as a supply sider? And Reagan did have to deal with those 70% rates when he initially dropped them to 50%. I;m sure you thought that was heresy back then.

See that's where you absolutism betrays you 8th. I really am for what works...even its 50% tax rates or 5% tax rates...but I do recognize there is a balance point on taxation, investments and the economy. You are the one that believes any tax cut is an abomination and embraces any tax hike as though it was an act of God...the old "tax yourself into prosperity" dem...

WOW - to show I'm not making stuff up I put what the poster put. Just saying what was said.

You don't think regean was a supply sider? He cut 70% to 50% while cut the bottom from 13.85 to 12. So the top got a 40% tax cut AND the 15.4% tax that the bottom got.

You don't think I don't realize that?

No - I don't. It is obvious think that raising taxes from 5% is abomination. You just spent the last 4 or 5 pages defending it.

We prove that cutting taxes does not spur on the economy.

George W. Bush, 1.6%
George H.W. Bush, 2.1%
Gerald Ford, 2.2%
Dwight Eisenhower, 2.5%
Richard Nixon, 3.0%
Jimmy Carter, 3.2%
Ronald Reagan, 3.5%
Bill Clinton, 3.8%
Lyndon B. Johnson, 5.0%
John F. Kennedy, 5.4%

top tax rate until 1963 91%
1964 77%

See how gpd DROPPED when kennedy cut taxes?

[Sooner8th]

I laughed when cantor lost...but he did more than just compromise on the debt ceiling (which didn't really bother me)...His push for amnesty for children hurt him and lo and behold...we have a youth illegal immigration epidimic going on right now. Adios Eric.

How can I disregard what you are unwilling to reveal? I may disagree with your views...there may even be others on this board that disagree with them, but that's okay, isn't it 8th? After all, you're used to dealing with the big tent and disagreements are a way of life there, aren't they? Besides, be proud of your free thinking...if that's what it is. This message board "usually" is about debating, exchanging ideas and "occasionally" learning something in the process that might (dare I say) alter your views.

Let me say it again - I all ready have posted them. If you want to know go find them. Why should I re-post them, when you will only try to do what all conservatives lemmings do scream SOCIALIST LIBERAL and assume I believe or agree with everything ANY lib or dem says or does.

[Soonerjeepman]

8th...

I live in Ks as well...have my whole life, a young 50 yrs. Where exactly have you seen the Pubs cut ya loose if you are not a tea party line person?

[Sooner8th]

8th...

I live in Ks as well...have my whole life, a young 50 yrs. Where exactly have you seen the Pubs cut ya loose if you are not a tea party line person?

Are you ****ing kidding me? It is all over the papers - moderates being kicked out by primaries funded by the kochs, backed by brownback. Do you not pay attention?

PLEASE DO NOT VOTE YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON IN YOUR OWN STATE!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Are you ****ing kidding me? It is all over the papers - moderates being kicked out by primaries funded by the kochs, backed by brownback. Do you not pay attention?

PLEASE DO NOT VOTE YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON IN YOUR OWN STATE!Do you, 8th, vote in republican primaries? If so, why?

[Sooner8th]

Do you, 8th, vote in republican primaries? If so, why?

dumbass

[olevetonahill]

dumbass

Oh most knowledgeable and Kind sir, Couldn't you have just answered Yes or No? Did you really have to call him an awful name?

[Curly Bill]

Oh most knowledgeable and Kind sir, Couldn't you have just answered Yes or No? Did you really have to call him an awful name?

I get the sense he's someone that's been picked on and ridiculed most of his life - now he gets to hide out behind a keyboard, pretend to be some intellectual that he's assuredly not, and call people the names that's been flung at him most of his life. Kinda sad, but funny as hell when you know that's really what's up!

[rock on sooner]

Aw, let's just go back and look and Sarah and her sparkly shirt...
if nuthin' else she's easy on the eyes....:tongue:

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Aw, let's just go back and look and Sarah and her sparkly shirt...
if nuthin' else she's easy on the eyes....:tongue:Sure, the Media has destroyed her enough to where she can't help the country restore lawful behavior and reason. She's still a good lookin yainch.

[Sooner8th]

Sure, the Media has destroyed her enough to where she can't help the country restore lawful behavior and reason. She's still a good lookin yainch.

Yet another ignorant conservative talking point.

Didn't know if Africa was a country or continent off fox news no less - how is that the medias fault? Are you ever going to get tired of letting her play the victim?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFJr3XRedYU

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Originally Posted by RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
Do you, 8th, vote in republican primaries? If so, why?

dumbass
Are you old enough to vote?...

true, age might not mean much nowadays.

[Sooner8th]

Originally Posted by RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
Do you, 8th, vote in republican primaries? If so, why?

Are you old enough to vote?...

true, age might not mean much nowadays.

The question to ask is - do you have open primaries. He knows I'm a democrat.

[Sooner in Tampa]

I get the sense he's someone that's been picked on and ridiculed most of his life - now he gets to hide out behind a keyboard, pretend to be some intellectual that he's assuredly not, and call people the names that's been flung at him most of his life. Kinda sad, but funny as hell when you know that's really what's up!
2817

[Sooner8th]

I get the sense he's someone that's been picked on and ridiculed most of his life - now he gets to hide out behind a keyboard, pretend to be some intellectual that he's assuredly not, and call people the names that's been flung at him most of his life. Kinda sad, but funny as hell when you know that's really what's up!

I'm a hell of a lot smarter than anyone on this board - I PROVED beyond a shadow of a doubt that cutting CG taxes does not raise revenues. You people can't seem to to learn and let go of you conservative heritage foundation talking points.

[REDREX]

I'm a hell of a lot smarter than anyone on this board - I PROVED beyond a shadow of a doubt that cutting CG taxes does not raise revenues. You people can't seem to to learn and let go of you conservative heritage foundation talking points.

----That's funny

[olevetonahill]

I'm a hell of a lot smarter than anyone on this board - I PROVED beyond a shadow of a doubt that cutting CG taxes does not raise revenues. You people can't seem to to learn and let go of you conservative heritage foundation talking points.

Now you done it. You wouldnt say that kinda Crap if Dolemite was still around.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The question to ask is - do you have open primaries. He knows I'm a democrat.Yes, there are states with open primaries. Do you vote in closed repub primaries?

[Sooner8th]

Yes, there are states with open primaries. Do you vote in closed repub primaries?

How could I? I'd have to registrar as a republican and that will never happen.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Originally Posted by RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
Yes, there are states with open primaries. Do you vote in closed repub primaries?

How could I? I'd have to registrar as a republican and that will never happen.Good. A modicum of integrity is better than none.

[okie52]

Will somebody please listen to 8th? Too many dam lemmings on this board!!!

[olevetonahill]

Will somebody please listen to 8th? Too many dam lemmings on this board!!!

Check out my new Sig LMFAO

[okie52]

Check out my new Sig LMFAO

BWaahahahahahahahhahahah!!!!

[FaninAma]

Check out my new Sig LMFAO
Vet, Sooner8th is just a prototypical psuedo-intellectual progressive. He is just more honest than most. The namecalling starts when the rest of us hicks aren't appropriately impressed by his self-proclaimed intellectual superiority.

He is harmless for the most part. The most damage he can do is helping to elect self-minded psuedo-intellectual progressives who use the massive power of the federal government to force the rest of us to live under their insane policies and ideas.

I am amazed at his perserserverance as he has spent 23 pages on a message board trying to convince us that higher tax rates and more of our money being under the control of the geniuses in DC is the best thing we could ever hope to do for economic prosperity.

Delusional? Yes. Sad? Yes. Scarey? Oh hell yes!

[Sooner8th]

Vet, Sooner8th is just a prototypical psuedo-intellectual progressive. He is just more honest than most. The namecalling starts when the rest of us hicks aren't appropriately impressed by his self-proclaimed intellectual superiority.

He is harmless for the most part. The most damage he can do is helping to elect self-minded psuedo-intellectual progressives who use the massive power of the federal government to force the rest of us to live under their insane policies and ideas.

I am amazed at his perserserverance as he has spent 23 pages on a message board trying to convince us that higher tax rates and more of our money being under the control of the geniuses in DC is the best thing we could ever hope to do for economic prosperity.

Delusional? Yes. Sad? Yes. Scarey? Oh hell yes!

Thank you for making my point for me. Yet again.

First you ****ers are the kings of name calling - you started this crap first - libtart ect - so **** off if you don't like being called what you are, a bunch of dumbasses.

As for the "use the massive power of the federal government to force the rest of us to live under their insane policies and ideas" you all didn't have problem with it when you were making the insane policies and ideas, like the EXECUTIVE ORDERS bush issued to send my tax dollars to faith based organizations, which or course violates the constitution. You people sure as hell didn't sue him for those orders - which or course obama has issued fewer orders than bush or any other president since WWII.

As for the 23 pages - let's start with getting your facts straight, which conservatives just cant seem to do. It was the last 6 or 7 pages we discussed the cg tax - DUMBASS.

Now you notice I called you a name - of course I did, you said something stupid that can be easily checked, so LEARN.

You say I "spent 23 pages on a message board trying to convince us that higher tax rates and more of our money being under the control of the geniuses in DC is the best thing we could ever hope to do for economic prosperity" when you and your have spent the same amount of pages trying to convince yourselves that tax cuts raise tax revenues. The facts and data are clearly on my side. Tell me how cuttin' taxes worked for the dumbass you voted for TWICE!!!

This is the learning portion of the post so pay attention - why do you think conservatives pimp a heritage foundation report so hard? Could it be the only thing they can closely claim cutting taxes raise revenues? Why do you think it has become a part of conservative orthodoxy?

Too bad you are not as cynical with conservatives are you are with dems.

This is why we call you lemmings.

[olevetonahill]

I Love you Long time !

[Curly Bill]

I'm a hell of a lot smarter than anyone on this board - I PROVED beyond a shadow of a doubt that cutting CG taxes does not raise revenues. You people can't seem to to learn and let go of you conservative heritage foundation talking points.

Bahahahahahaha!!!

[rock on sooner]

I Love you Long time !

Izzat before er after discoverin' the virgin part?:cupcake: