climate change report

[Sooner in Tampa]

Here is it - trickle down supply side "economics". You really should read up on who came up with that political policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Who do I think creates the jobs and employs the middle class? I don't think, I know. Henry Ford knew. Consumer spending is 2/3's of the economy. Middle class make up a majority of consumer spending. Why do you think the middle class is so important to countries throughout history?

As for the hint-----either way by your definition or mine, I'm doing it and you're only doing one way. :triumphant:

You really are a boob, aren't you?

Taking this from your own link:

[QUOTE][Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroeconomics) that argues that economic growth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_growth) can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services as well as invest in capital. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices; furthermore, the investment and expansion of businesses will increase the demand for employees. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economists are lower marginal tax rates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_tax_rates) and less regulation/QUOTE]

As per my original question...who do you think does this Einstein?

Here is a small hint,THE RICH PEOPLE!!!![/b]

And lets not let that last part get lost in the discussion [B]LESS REGULATION

[okie52]

You are a joke. The link to a story to "prove" your point making it "official" is NOT a CNN story and was written - By cher | Posted September 8, 2008. Too ****ing funny.

The point of the article was to show you an explanation and a timeline of events about how the economy was tanking under Clinton...but keep drinking your koolaid and wearing the blinders.

[OU68]

The EPA announcements are due out soon...maybe even today or tomorrow. I'm really surprised Obama would do this before the midterms but I'm sure most of the impacts of his EPA anti energy crusade will be after the midterms so that average voter will remain ignorant...as usual.

He/she can't & won't. I'm served by REC (that's Rural Electric Cooperative for Einstein8th) - they use a combination of resources to generate electricity, but are primarily dependent on coal as it is abundant, cheap and not subject to wild price fluctuations/shortages like NG. If the coops have to spend millions/billions switching from coal to NG/hydro/solar/wind - guess who is going to take it in the shorts? Yeah, all us rich billionaires living out here in rural OK.

[champions77]

But the left care for the poor....or is it their vote they really care for?

[REDREX]

But the left care for the poor....or is it their vote they really care for?----VOTE

[okie52]

He hasn't handed anything to me. All of his posts and links are rightwing circle jerk talking points. Trying to move the conversation to energy taxes when I am talking about income taxes. Bottom line - republicans are still pushing trickle down supply side "economics" which have been proven not to work, there was no recession inherited from from clinton because the economy never went into recession regardless of what "cher" says, economy better under dems than conservatives. Republicans didn't "save" clintons presidency. Get a ****ing clue or stop voting.

Discussion of "Cap and Trade" policy and taxes passed by Obama and the democrat house in 2009 on a "Climate" thread is moving the conversation? Do you even know what cap and trade is?


You still haven't answered how bush tax cuts for "everyone" were supply side economics.

You still haven't answered why Clinton gave a capital gains tax cut.

You still haven't answered on how you support Obama's raising taxes even if it decreases tax revenues.

You still haven't answered about raising taxes only on US industries and US consumers (during the height of the recession) is a good thing.

You do have tax the rich motto going for you though...impressive.

[okie52]

He/she can't & won't. I'm served by REC (that's Rural Electric Cooperative for Einstein8th) - they use a combination of resources to generate electricity, but are primarily dependent on coal as it is abundant, cheap and not subject to wild price fluctuations/shortages like NG. If the coops have to spend millions/billions switching from coal to NG/hydro/solar/wind - guess who is going to take it in the shorts? Yeah, all us rich billionaires living out here in rural OK.

Heh heh...good luck to you billionaires. But, yeah, that's why the impacts/enforcement will probably begin when he is about to leave office or even after that.

[Sooner8th]

Discussion of "Cap and Trade" policy and taxes passed by Obama and the democrat house in 2009 on a "Climate" thread is moving the conversation? Do you even know what cap and trade is?


You still haven't answered how bush tax cuts for "everyone" were supply side economics.

You still haven't answered why Clinton gave a capital gains tax cut.

You still haven't answered on how you support Obama's raising taxes even if it decreases tax revenues.

You still haven't answered about raising taxes only on US industries and US consumers (during the height of the recession) is a good thing.

You do have tax the rich motto going for you though...impressive.

Cap and trade is yet another republican idea that you now oppose.

the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) has concluded that the tax cuts have conferred the "largest benefits, by far on the highest income households." CBPP cites data from the Tax Policy Center, stating that 24.2% of tax savings went to households in the top one percent of income compared to the share of 8.9% that went to the middle 20 percent.

Republican held both houses and it would have probably been over ridden if vetoed.

Show me how raising taxes lowers revenues.

who wants to raise taxes on anyone under $450k and capital gains?

There, you are off the point - again.

Republicans follow supply side trickle down "economics". Look at romneys platform.

[Sooner8th]

Discussion of "Cap and Trade" policy and taxes passed by Obama and the democrat house in 2009 on a "Climate" thread is moving the conversation? Do you even know what cap and trade is?


You still haven't answered how bush tax cuts for "everyone" were supply side economics.

You still haven't answered why Clinton gave a capital gains tax cut.

You still haven't answered on how you support Obama's raising taxes even if it decreases tax revenues.

You still haven't answered about raising taxes only on US industries and US consumers (during the height of the recession) is a good thing.

You do have tax the rich motto going for you though...impressive.

Supply side trickle down "economics". That has been disproven repeatedly. Not even conservative economists believe that.

[champions77]

Supply side trickle down "economics". That has been disproven repeatedly. Not even conservative economists believe that.

So that means that the Obama economic model has been "proven". If so, what criteria do you use to come to that conclusion? A first quarter GNP of .5 %, or the lowest labor participation since the late 1970's.

What we have learned is that promising higher taxes, more regulations, government run Health Care, and Cap and Trade are all impediments to business, large and small. That creating uncertainty in the business arena is not conducive to businesses making capital expenditures nor hiring additional labor. Who's hurt the most? Middle class, the ones BHO professes to care so much about.

[Sooner8th]

So that means that the Obama economic model has been "proven". If so, what criteria do you use to come to that conclusion? A first quarter GNP of .5 %, or the lowest labor participation since the late 1970's.

What we have learned is that promising higher taxes, more regulations, government run Health Care, and Cap and Trade are all impediments to business, large and small. That creating uncertainty in the business arena is not conducive to businesses making capital expenditures nor hiring additional labor. Who's hurt the most? Middle class, the ones BHO professes to care so much about.

Took over the worst economy since the republican depression, already more jobs than dumbass dubya did in eight years, all while having a party do everything they can to hurt the economy. debt ceilings ect.

cap and trade and obama care are REPUBLICAN IDEAS! How many times do i have to remind you of that?

[okie52]

Cap and trade is yet another republican idea that you now oppose.

the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) has concluded that the tax cuts have conferred the "largest benefits, by far on the highest income households." CBPP cites data from the Tax Policy Center, stating that 24.2% of tax savings went to households in the top one percent of income compared to the share of 8.9% that went to the middle 20 percent.

Republican held both houses and it would have probably been over ridden if vetoed.

Show me how raising taxes lowers revenues.

who wants to raise taxes on anyone under $450k and capital gains?

There, you are off the point - again.

Republicans follow supply side trickle down "economics". Look at romneys platform.

Cap and trade-A republican idea? That's the best you've got? How many republicans voted for it? It was a dem controlled congress and couldn't pass the dem senate. So for the record you support the Obama's 2009 bill? Another pub idea I oppose?...oh, I'm sure I oppose many pub policies rather than blindly following some illogical party line....how about you? Any dem policies that you aren't goosestepping to?

So Clinton signed it because he was afraid of being overridden? Heh heh...now that's great logic. Clinton had 37 vetoes while he was in office and only two were overridden. Just can't man up and say he did it to stimulate the economy, can you?

From your same source on the Bush tax cuts:


The Wall Street Journal editorial page states that taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled from $136 billion in 2003 to $274 billion in 2006 because of the JGTRRA.[2]

The Heritage Foundation concludes that the Bush tax cuts led to the rich shouldering more of the income tax burden and the poor shouldering less

Gibson (again) cited how historically raising capital gain taxes had lowered tax revenues and vice versa...but, just to make sure I follow your thinking...you don't believe tax increases affect investment? Is that what you believe?

Clinton tax rates taxed citizens more that were under $450k. Cap and trade would have raised costs on virtually everyone...many well under $450k a year. But that wasn't the real idiocy of the legislation....it would have raised costs to most of US businesses and ONLY impacted US businesses so that they were in a less competitive position during the height of the recession in 2009.

So any tax cut for the rich is "supply side" economics=bad? You can tax yourself into prosperity? Why not go back to the 90% tax rates? Is that good with you and the anti supply siders?

[okie52]

Supply side trickle down "economics". That has been disproven repeatedly. Not even conservative economists believe that.

Obviously you have suffered some memory loss as you can't remember from one post to the next. Obama said he would raise taxes "even if tax revenues dropped" in his interview with Gibson as a matter of "fairness". Take some memory courses...I'm sure they are available online although I don't know if they are capable of overcoming brainwashing.

[Sooner8th]

Cap and trade-A republican idea? That's the best you've got? How many republicans voted for it? It was a dem controlled congress and couldn't pass the dem senate. So for the record you support the Obama's 2009 bill? Another pub idea I oppose?...oh, I'm sure I oppose many pub policies rather than blindly following some illogical party line....how about you? Any dem policies that you aren't goosestepping to?

So Clinton signed it because he was afraid of being overridden? Heh heh...now that's great logic. Clinton had 37 vetoes while he was in office and only two were overridden. Just can't man up and say he did it to stimulate the economy, can you?

From your same source on the Bush tax cuts:



Gibson (again) cited how historically raising capital gain taxes had lowered tax revenues and vice versa...but, just to make sure I follow your thinking...you don't believe tax increases affect investment? Is that what you believe?

Clinton tax rates taxed citizens more that were under $450k. Cap and trade would have raised costs on virtually everyone...many well under $450k a year. But that wasn't the real idiocy of the legislation....it would have raised costs to most of US businesses and ONLY impacted US businesses so that they were in a less competitive position during the height of the recession in 2009.

So any tax cut for the rich is "supply side" economics=bad? You can tax yourself into prosperity? Why not go back to the 90% tax rates? Is that good with you and the anti supply siders?


AGAIN - it is a republican idea so if it sucks - its your idea.

Look at both capital gain tax cuts timing and what was the stock market doing? In the middle of going up when they happened.

Just admit you back supply side trickle down "economics".

You won't cause bush gave us proof they don't work.

done

[Sooner in Tampa]

WOW...this is a pretty good *** whoppin the young libtard is taking

:pop::pop::pop:

[okie52]

AGAIN - it is a republican idea so if it sucks - its your idea.

Look at both capital gain tax cuts timing and what was the stock market doing? In the middle of going up when they happened.

Just admit you back supply side trickle down "economics".

You won't cause bush gave us proof they don't work.

done

Ahhh, the party with a vague "idea" is responsible rather than the party that enacts poor legislation....brilliant!!!

Again you can't answer the question...Obama would raise taxes even if it reduced tax revenues...it didn't matter to him what happened to tax revenues...HIS OWN WORDS...you just can't deal with that, can you?

I've already told you there aren't any sacred cows for me with regard to taxing any particular income segment so if raising taxes on the rich or on everybody is warranted then that's fine....something that you obviously can't say for yourself.

[sappstuf]

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/popcorn_futures.png

[champions77]

Ahhh, the party with a vague "idea" is responsible rather than the party that enacts poor legislation....brilliant!!!

Again you can't answer the question...Obama would raise taxes even if it reduced tax revenues...it didn't matter to him what happened to tax revenues...HIS OWN WORDS...you just can't deal with that, can you?

I've already told you there aren't any sacred cows for me with regard to taxing any particular income segment so if raising taxes on the rich or on everybody is warranted then that's fine....something that you obviously can't say for yourself.

It was a Republican idea....that none of them voted for?

Right out of Saul Alinski's "Rules for Radicals" is a portion devoted to "Class Warfare" of the wealthy, otherwise known as the 1 percent. The last time I checked, the dastardly 1%, the ones that have been guilty of all societal ills outside of the Holocaust, pay in 35% of all income taxes paid. The Top 10%...pay 70% of all federal income taxes. The ole tired mantra that the rich don't pay taxes is a lie that has been perpetuated by the Dems for decades. Amazing how it still gets some traction.