Obama is a supply sider?

[okie52]

Obama: Offshore 'Tax Inversions' Are Unpatriotic
Saturday, 26 Jul 2014 07:10 AM

President Barack Obama says a loophole that lets companies dodge U.S. taxes by moving their headquarters overseas is unpatriotic.

Obama is denouncing "tax inversions" in his weekly radio and Internet address. He says companies are essentially renouncing their citizenship to avoid paying their fair share.

Obama says the best way to address the problem is through tax reform that lowers the corporate tax rate. But he says the problem can't wait. He's urging lawmakers to join the effort to close the loophole.

Obama says Americans don't get to pick which rules they follow and neither should companies.

In the Republican address, congressman Steve Daines of Montana says Obama is waging a war on the middle class. He's calling for the Senate to pass House-approved jobs bills.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/obama-weekly-adddress-tax/2014/07/26/id/585049#ixzz38hhOBKDN
.

[Sooner8th]

Obama: Offshore 'Tax Inversions' Are Unpatriotic
Saturday, 26 Jul 2014 07:10 AM

President Barack Obama says a loophole that lets companies dodge U.S. taxes by moving their headquarters overseas is unpatriotic.

Obama is denouncing "tax inversions" in his weekly radio and Internet address. He says companies are essentially renouncing their citizenship to avoid paying their fair share.

Obama says the best way to address the problem is through tax reform that lowers the corporate tax rate. But he says the problem can't wait. He's urging lawmakers to join the effort to close the loophole.

Obama says Americans don't get to pick which rules they follow and neither should companies.

In the Republican address, congressman Steve Daines of Montana says Obama is waging a war on the middle class. He's calling for the Senate to pass House-approved jobs bills.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/obam...#ixzz38hhOBKDN.

You mean the part where he wants tax reform to close the loopholes that allow companies not to pay taxes which would RAISE their taxes? Did you even read it? Or did you just not understand it?

You really need to check up on these things don't you? Here is what he ACTUALLY said -

The best way to level the playing field is through tax reform that lowers the corporate tax rate, closes wasteful loopholes, and simplifies the tax code for everybody. But stopping companies from renouncing their citizenship just to get out of paying their fair share of taxes is something that cannot wait. That’s why, in my budget earlier this year, I proposed closing this unpatriotic tax loophole for good. Democrats in Congress have advanced proposals that would do the same thing. A couple Republicans have indicated they want to address this too, and I hope more join us.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/26/obama-tax-inversions_n_5623222.html

That didn't work out for you, did it? There is just nothing you won't COMPLETELY buy into from your lying rightwing websites is there?

[FaninAma]

You have to be a troll. There is no way a real person can be as obtuse and unapproachable on a basis of logic as you are. You repost the segment of the article with the section highlighted by okie52 and then rocket down a rabbit hole of leftist talking points. Quit deflecting and address the pont okie made.

Obama thinks corporate tax rates should be lowered.

[Sooner8th]

You have to be a troll. There is no way a real person can be as obtuse and unapproachable on a basis of logic as you are. You repost the segment of the article with the section highlighted by okie52 and then rocket down a rabbit hole of leftist talking points. Quit deflecting and address the pont okie made.

Obama thinks corporate tax rates should be lowered.

WHAT PART OF THE ****ING SENTENCE DOES YOUR DUMBASS NOT UNDERSTAND? SAY I'M GOING DOWN A LIBERAL RABBIT HOLE WHEN ALL YOU AND YOURS SEE IS TAX CUTS, TAX CUTS, TAX CUTS. READ THE WHOLE SENTENCE!

The best way to level the playing field is through tax reform that lowers the corporate tax rate, closes wasteful loopholes, and simplifies the tax code for everybody.

[yermom]

math is hard

[Sooner8th]

math is hard

It seems reading is harder.

[Curly Bill]

How cute! I'm glad you two finally hooked up. We've all been expecting it.

[okie52]

You mean the part where he wants tax reform to close the loopholes that allow companies not to pay taxes which would RAISE their taxes? Did you even read it? Or did you just not understand it?

You really need to check up on these things don't you? Here is what he ACTUALLY said -

The best way to level the playing field is through tax reform that lowers the corporate tax rate, closes wasteful loopholes, and simplifies the tax code for everybody. But stopping companies from renouncing their citizenship just to get out of paying their fair share of taxes is something that cannot wait. That’s why, in my budget earlier this year, I proposed closing this unpatriotic tax loophole for good. Democrats in Congress have advanced proposals that would do the same thing. A couple Republicans have indicated they want to address this too, and I hope more join us.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/26/obama-tax-inversions_n_5623222.html

That didn't work out for you, did it? There is just nothing you won't COMPLETELY buy into from your lying rightwing websites is there?

As much as you want to ignore it, obama wants to lower the corporate tax rate which is one of he highest in the world. That, in your world if he was a pub, makes him a supply sider..now cry yourself to sleep little boy.

[Sooner8th]

As much as you want to ignore it, obama wants to lower the corporate tax rate which is one of he highest in the world. That, in your world if he was a pub, makes him a supply sider..now cry yourself to sleep little boy.

That is half the story. Reread what he said. A person who refuses to acknowledge that cutting lowering the corporate tax rate is only part of what he wants to do is calling ME a little boy?

DUMBASS

The best way to level the playing field is through tax reform that lowers the corporate tax rate, closes wasteful loopholes, and simplifies the tax code for everybody.

[Sooner in Tampa]

Good Lawd...I wish someone would make this little ****ing turd go away...why anyone gives this schmuck two seconds of their time is beyond me...

[Sooner8th]

Good Lawd...I wish someone would make this little ****ing turd go away...why anyone gives this schmuck two seconds of their time is beyond me...

http://www.troll.me/images/leave-jimmy-alone/leave-us-alone-so-we-can-circle-jerk-in-peace.jpg

[Sooner in Tampa]

I have been a member of SoonerFans for long damn time and I never had to put anyone on ignore...until now. I don't have the time or the energy for the biggest delusional douchbag ever to grace the Internet.

Life just got better!!

[okie52]

That is half the story. Reread what he said. A person who refuses to acknowledge that cutting lowering the corporate tax rate is only part of what he wants to do is calling ME a little boy?

DUMBASS

The best way to level the playing field is through tax reform that lowers the corporate tax rate, closes wasteful loopholes, and simplifies the tax code for everybody.

Supply sider!!!

[FaninAma]

Good Lawd...I wish someone would make this little ****ing turd go away...why anyone gives this schmuck two seconds of their time is beyond me...
I thought about doing that but then I realized he is so damn entertaining. Also it's obvious he's a troll. It's just a matter of time until he reveals himself. I have a couple of ideas who it is. Think of somebody who likes to post stupid internet pictures with sophomoric insults as a substitute for a reply.

Yermom, the question is simple. Does Obama favor lowering the corporate tax rate or not? I favor closing loop holes after rates are lowered. Reagan did that with personal income tax rates. Is Obama a supply sider like Reagan?

[Sooner8th]

I thought about doing that but then I realized he is so damn entertaining. Also it's obvious
he's a troll. It's just a matter of time until he reveals himself. I have a couple of ideas who it is. Think of somebody who likes to post stupid internet pictures with sophomoric insults as a substitute for a reply.

Yermom, the question is simple. Does Obama favor lowering the corporate tax rate or not? I favor closing loop holes after rates are lowered. Reagan did that with personal
income tax rates. Is Obama a supply sided like Reagan?

Finally the right question - what he favors is lowering tax rates WHILE closing loop holes. The president also proposes using one-time revenue-raisers to support new “investments such
as modernizing our infrastructure; creating new manufacturing hubs; and training our workers. In the long-term, the plan is revenue-neutral. Which, of course does not make him a supply sider.
http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/files/ATF-Analysis-of-Obamas-Corporate-Tax-Reform-Plan.pdf

[FaninAma]

So Reagan wasn't a supply-sider, either? Good to know. Tax revenues
have gone up in almost every single year except for the peak of cyclical
recessions in the economy. (I.e. 1990 and 2009). Spending increases by
the government always out pace tax revenue increases except for the last half
of Clinton's second term.

[Sooner8th]

So Reagan wasn't a supply-sider, either? Good to know. Tax revenues
have gone up in almost every single year except for the peak of cyclical
recessions in the economy. (I.e. 1990 and 2009). Spending increases by
the government always out pace tax revenue increases except for the last half
of Clinton's second term.

You just don't have a clue as what you are talking about. When regean cut taxes rates which resulted in lower taxes revenues - not revenue neutral changes. Here is a little help from one of your favorite sites the daily caller.

Make no mistake, these were real tax increases — in some cases, “regressive” taxation — but they pale in comparison to the scale of the income tax cuts that defined the Reagan era. Again, it’s important to put things in context. When inaugurated, Reagan inherited a nation with 16 tax brackets — ranging from marginal rates of 14 percent to 70 percent. By 1989, that was down to two brackets — with marginal rates of 15 percent and 28 percent. (Those rates — and brackets — were short lived. By the time Clinton left office, the top marginal rate was back up to 39.6 percent. But you can’t blame Reagan for tax increases that came after his tenure. That’d be like President Obama blaming George W. Bush for tax cuts passed in 2011…)

Again, my argument is that some taxes are more important than others. Do massive cuts to income taxes — perhaps the most confiscatory and arbitrary form of taxation (which disencentivize the very act of working) — carry the same weight as a temporary consumption tax increase which raised just over 3 billion in revenue a year? I would argue that the two clearly aren’t the same thing — and yet that distinction is seldom made.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/06/ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-11-times-the-real-story/#ixzz38op00bxR

You see in supply side trickle down "economics" cuttin' taxes to the wealth TRICKLES DOWN to middle class and poor people. You see how he CUT the top rate from 70% to 28%. Did you also notice how the bottom rate went UP from 14% to 15%.

[yermom]

I thought about doing that but then I realized he is so damn entertaining. Also it's obvious he's a troll. It's just a matter of time until he reveals himself. I have a couple of ideas who it is. Think of somebody who likes to post stupid internet pictures with sophomoric insults as a substitute for a reply.

Yermom, the question is simple. Does Obama favor lowering the corporate tax rate or not? I favor closing loop holes after rates are lowered. Reagan did that with personal income tax rates. Is Obama a supply sider like Reagan?

closing loopholes means that corporations could be paying the same or more taxes if the rate was lowered.

you can argue semantics all you want, but you just look dumb here

[Sooner8th]

closing loopholes means that corporations could be paying the same or more taxes if the rate was lowered.

you can argue semantics all you want, but you just look dumb here

Yep - thank you for backing my point.

[FaninAma]

closing loopholes means that corporations could be paying the same or more taxes if the rate was lowered.

you can argue semantics all you want, but you just look dumb here

You are very naive if you think that will happen. Also, apparently my point went over your head.

Let me put it into an algebraic format:


A = Reagan
B = lowering tax rates and closing loop holes (i.e. supply-side economic theory)
C = Obama

1. Reagan was called a supply-sider because he lowered personal income tax rates and closed loopholes. (A = B)
2. Obama proposes lowering corporate income tax rates and closing loopholes. (B = C)
3. Therefore Reagan=supply-sider=Obama because they proposed doing the exact same thing. (: A = B = C)

You and Sooner8th must absolutely love what Reagan did since when Obama proposes doing the same thing you both think it is da bomb!

BTW yermom, I know you. You are a nice guy. Don't stoop to Sooner8th's gutter level of discussing opinions.

[Sooner8th]

You are very naive if you think that will happen. Also, apparently my point went over your head.

Let me put it into an algebraic format:

1. Reagan was called a supply-sider because he lowered personal income tax rates and closed loopholes.
2. Obama proposes lowering corporate income tax rates and closing loopholes.
3. Therefore Reagan=supply-sider=Obama because they proposed doing the exact same thing.

You and Sooner8th must absolutely love what Reagan did since when Obama proposes doing the same thing you both think it is da bomb!

BTW yermom, I know you. You are a nice guy. Don't stoop to Sooner8th's gutter level of discussing opinions.

Funny how you decide to ignore the most important part of his plan so you can claim obama is a supply sider. Typical for rightwingnuts. If they are the same, exactly how reagan's tax cuts were revenue neutral?

As told in the righwingnut column, reagan cut tax rates and closed loopholes that ended up CUTTING TAXES - NOT REVENUE NEUTRAL OR RAISING TAXES like yemon said, obama's plan would do.

What reagan and obama are doing are two totally and completely different things -

reagan was cutting TAX REVENUES, lowering taxes on PEOPLE. Get it?

Obama wants to keep the REVENUES NEUTRAL but shifting tax burden among CORPORATIONS. By closing loopholes that allow some corporations to not pay any taxes and AT THE SAME TIME cutting the rates - it would level out what is paid in taxes.

Do you see the difference, pumpkin? I'll bet you can if you try!

[REDREX]

Obama is not going to do anything except try to get more money sent to Washington for the Gov't to spend

[Sooner8th]

Obama is not going to do anything except try to get more money sent to Washington for the Gov't to spend

So you agree with yermon and me that he will not cut taxes.

So................that would make him not a supply sider.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[REDREX]

I don't what Obama is----I do know he is clueless on what makes an economy grow

[Sooner8th]

I don't what Obama is----I do know he is clueless on what makes an economy grow

Let me ask you this - do debit ceiling fights grow the economy?

Does cutting government spending grow the economy?

Does cuttin' taxes to the wealthy grow the economy?

So much better than the guy you voted for TWICE. I'd go with us next time.

[REDREX]

So much better than the guy you voted for TWICE. I'd go with us next time.---I was never happy with Bush-----But I would never vote for anyone that thinks raising taxes and more regulation will help the economy of any country-----Obama is a complete failure when it comes to leadership and the Dems know it

[Sooner8th]

---I was never happy with Bush-----But I would never vote for anyone that thinks raising taxes and more regulation will help the economy of any country-----Obama is a complete failure when it comes to leadership and the Dems know it

I see you didn't deny voting for him. If you were so unhappy with bush why did you vote for him the second time?


Let me ask you this - do debit ceiling fights grow the economy?

Does cutting government spending grow the economy?

Does cuttin' taxes to the wealthy grow the economy?

[REDREX]

Show me an economy of any country that has been helped by higher taxes and more regulation------Just show one example

[yermom]

is this where we argue about FDR?

i'd like to see the counter example... i'm still waiting to hear about this conservative utopia with a lassez faire economy and no poors, or civil unrest

[Sooner8th]

Show me an economy of any country that has been helped by higher taxes and more regulation------Just show one example

In 1987 the top rate was 38.5 then it dropped to 28% in 1988 and George H.W. Bush had a gdp of 2.1%.

31% in 1991, up to 39.6% in 1993. Bill Clinton, 3.8% gdp.

dubya LOWERED the top rate to 35% and his gdp was 1.6%

Try again.

[REDREX]

In 1987 the top rate was 38.5 then it dropped to 28% in 1988 and George H.W. Bush had a gdp of 2.1%.

31% in 1991, up to 39.6% in 1993. Bill Clinton, 3.8% gdp.

dubya LOWERED the top rate to 35% and his gdp was 1.6%
Try again.----Nice deflection----Show me an economy that has done well with high taxes and excessive regulation-------you won't find one-------try again

[Sooner8th]

----Nice deflection----Show me an economy that has done well with high taxes and excessive regulation-------you won't find one-------try again

I just showed you - are you too ****ing stupid to see the economy did better when taxes were raised?

Don't argue with me unless you can see the facts that are in front of your face.

[olevetonahill]

I just showed you - are you too ****ing stupid to see the economy did better when taxes were raised?

Don't argue with me unless you can see the facts that are in front of your face.

Heres yer Card

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTWDIei_TabqojupvMRHBMiFZ9Mt-nYEP9ndgNuxddKNUWD1IdG4g

[Sooner8th]

Heres yer Card

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTWDIei_TabqojupvMRHBMiFZ9Mt-nYEP9ndgNuxddKNUWD1IdG4g

what part of this is wrong?

In 1987 the top rate was 38.5 then it dropped to 28% in 1988 and George H.W. Bush had a gdp of 2.1%.

31% in 1991, up to 39.6% in 1993. Bill Clinton, 3.8% gdp.

dubya LOWERED the top rate to 35% and his gdp was 1.6%

Try again.

[olevetonahill]

what part of this is wrong?

In 1987 the top rate was 38.5 then it dropped to 28% in 1988 and George H.W. Bush had a gdp of 2.1%.

31% in 1991, up to 39.6% in 1993. Bill Clinton, 3.8% gdp.

dubya LOWERED the top rate to 35% and his gdp was 1.6%

Try again.

Dont be so defensive, Im just making fun of you and you "Always being RIGHT"

[Sooner8th]

Dont be so defensive, Im just making fun of you and you "Always being RIGHT"

Mock people for being right, celebrate people for being wrong, yep sounds like a conservative.

[olevetonahill]

Mock people for being right, celebrate people for being wrong, yep sounds like a conservative.

Naw, I mock you for being such a self-righteous, Smug acting condescending arsehole.

[Sooner8th]

Naw, I mock you for being such a self-righteous, Smug acting condescending arsehole.

And i mock you for being a dumbass. I wouldn't have to be condescending if people on this board wouldn't stick to their rightwingnut talking points when I prove they are wrong.

[dwarthog]

what part of this is wrong?

In 1987 the top rate was 38.5 then it dropped to 28% in 1988 and George H.W. Bush had a gdp of 2.1%.

31% in 1991, up to 39.6% in 1993. Bill Clinton, 3.8% gdp.

dubya LOWERED the top rate to 35% and his gdp was 1.6%

Try again.

Please provide the graphs or charts etc. that show specifically how the change of 8.6% on the top bracket in our progressive tax system directly resulted in a GDP of 3.6%.

Also, show how the Fed raising raising the rate to 9.75% to combat inflation prior to H.W. taking office didn't affect his GDP.

Additionally, please show how the Fed lowering the rate after Clinton was in office to 4% then 3% didn't affect the GDP rates.

Thanks.

[REDREX]

I just showed you - are you too ****ing stupid to see the economy did better when taxes were raised?

Don't argue with me unless you can see the facts that are in front of your face.----You are such an ***

[Sooner8th]

Please provide the graphs or charts etc. that show specifically how the change of 8.6% on the top bracket in our progressive tax system directly resulted in a GDP of 3.6%.

Also, show how the Fed raising raising the rate to 9.75% to combat inflation prior to H.W. taking office didn't affect his GDP.

Additionally, please show how the Fed lowering the rate after Clinton was in office to 4% then 3% didn't affect the GDP rates.

Thanks.

Funny how you ask for proof when we disagree but you don't feel the need to prove anything.

The question was Show me an economy of any country that has been helped by higher taxes and more regulation------Just show one example

I showed that raising taxes don't kill the economy. Get it?

[olevetonahill]

----You are such an ***

But he enjoys it so much.

[Sooner8th]

----You are such an ***

And you are a dumbass.

[Sooner8th]

----You are such an ***

You never answered these questions.

Let me ask you this - do debit ceiling fights grow the economy?

Does cutting government spending grow the economy?

Does cuttin' taxes to the wealthy grow the economy?

So much better than the guy you voted for TWICE. I'd go with us next time.

[dwarthog]

Funny how you ask for proof when we disagree but you don't feel the need to prove anything.

The question was Show me an economy of any country that has been helped by higher taxes and more regulation------Just show one example

I showed that raising taxes don't kill the economy. Get it?

Ah, I get it now.

A tax increase that impacts <1% of tax payers and generated minimal revenue has no impact.

Well played!

[Sooner8th]

Ah, I get it now.

A tax increase that impacts <1% of tax payers and generated minimal revenue has no impact.

Well played!

WOW TOO ****ING FUNNY - I just tied you up in a knot to where you just admitted raisin' taxes on "job creators" has no impact! If you believe that why are you voting republican? That was your party's economic "plan" the last election.

[dwarthog]

WOW TOO ****ING FUNNY - I just tied you up in a knot to where you just admitted raisin' taxes on "job creators" has no impact! If you believe that why are you voting republican? That was your party's economic "plan" the last election.

Dude, put down the vaseline and stop the self flagellation.

You just proved that taking an action which does nothing, has neither a positive or negative impact.

Now go back and answer the question re high taxes across the board, on all tax brackets, instead of picking out a symbolic action as proof.

[Sooner8th]

Dude, put down the vaseline and stop the self flagellation.

You just proved that taking an action which does nothing, has neither a positive or negative impact.

Now go back and answer the question re high taxes across the board, on all tax brackets, instead of picking out a symbolic action as proof.

So NOW your party's primary "economic" policy raisin' taxes on job creators" is symbolic?

Now you want to change the question. I just proved raising tax rates on the "job creators" does not hurt the economy.

Now show me where raising taxes hurts.

Facts and data with links.

[dwarthog]

So NOW your party's primary "economic" policy raisin' taxes on job creators" is symbolic?

Now you want to change the question. I just proved raising tax rates on the "job creators" does not hurt the economy.

Now show me where raising taxes hurts.

Facts and data with links.

Dude the first mention of job creator was you, not me.

You need to back off on the self flagellation, you're damn near blind.

[pphilfran]

Finally the right question - what he favors is lowering tax rates WHILE closing loop holes. The president also proposes using one-time revenue-raisers to support new “investments such
as modernizing our infrastructure; creating new manufacturing hubs; and training our workers. In the long-term, the plan is revenue-neutral. Which, of course does not make him a supply sider.
http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/files/ATF-Analysis-of-Obamas-Corporate-Tax-Reform-Plan.pdf

He should have used nearly unlimited stimulus money to modernize our infrastructure, create new manufacturing hubs, and train our workers....

[Sooner8th]

He should have used nearly unlimited stimulus money to modernize our infrastructure, create new manufacturing hubs, and train our workers....

I agree, but he was trying to work with republicans and get them to vote on it so he made 36% of it tax cuts and still got only 3 votes in both houses - all 3 in the senate.

[pphilfran]

I agree, but he was trying to work with republicans and get them to vote on it so he made 36% of it tax cuts and still got only 3 votes in both houses - all 3 in the senate.

He had 3 trillion dollars....three trillion...and that doesn't include the bond buybacks of several more trillion...

About a quarter went to TARP
Almost half in tax cuts
Almost a quarter in actual stimulus...9% of total went to infrastructure...
Fannie and Freddie ate up the rest...

All of this happened early on when Congress was in panic mode...they were throwing more money around than me in a strip club...

[dwarthog]

I agree, but he was trying to work with republicans and get them to vote on it so he made 36% of it tax cuts and still got only 3 votes in both houses - all 3 in the senate.

Interesting.

I can't recall for sure, which party was the majority in both chambers during that time?

Wasn't there a super majority in one of those chambers for a while too?

[Sooner8th]

Interesting.

I can't recall for sure, which party was the majority in both chambers during that time?

Wasn't there a super majority in one of those chambers for a while too?

We were trying to work with republicans. if you will remeber correctly - we had the majority for less than 60 days. You guys fought frankin for months even though you knew he was going to win just too keep us from having 60. And one of those was Lieberman who spoke at the republican convention.

[Sooner8th]

He had 3 trillion dollars....three trillion...and that doesn't include the bond buybacks of several more trillion...

About a quarter went to TARP
Almost half in tax cuts
Almost a quarter in actual stimulus...9% of total went to infrastructure...
Fannie and Freddie ate up the rest...

All of this happened early on when Congress was in panic mode...they were throwing more money around than me in a strip club...

You are laughable. The $787 billion economic stimulus package was approved by Congress in February, 2009. You read the daily caller and regurgitated the "real" stimulus. Tarp was started under BUSH. Bond buyback stated under BUSH.

No tarp funds in stimulus.

Tax incentives Total: $288 billion

Total health care spending: $155.1 billion

Education Total: $100 billion

Aid to low income workers, unemployed and retirees (including job training) Total: $82.2 billion

Infrastructure Investment Total: $105.3 billion

Water, sewage, environment, and public lands Total: $18 billion

Government buildings and facilities Total: $7.2 billion

Communications, information, and security technologies Total: $10.5 billion

Energy Infrastructure Total: $21.5 billion

Energy efficiency and renewable energy research and investment Total: $27.2 billion

Housing Total: $14.7 billion

Scientific research Total: $7.6 billion

Other Total: $10.6 billion

Tax cuts should have went to infrastructure.

[dwarthog]

We were trying to work with republicans. if you will remeber correctly - we had the majority for less than 60 days. You guys fought frankin for months even though you knew he was going to win just too keep us from having 60. And one of those was Lieberman who spoke at the republican convention.

And Spector changed parties, so what.

As usual, the point escapes you. You bemoan only getting "3" votes when it really didn't matter since the Dem's held majorities in both chambers for two years and a supermajority from July 8th 2009 when Stuart Smalley was sworn in until Feb 4th 2010 when Scott Brown was sworn in. Longer than 2 months.

Here is exactly what the Dem's operational plan is.

When in the majority, do nothing and blame the Republican's for being obstructionist for not doing every thing the Dem's want.

When confronted with tough votes, continue to do nothing and blame inaction on inability to appease Republican's.

When not in the majority, continue to do nothing but blame the Republican's for not being willing to work with them on their wonderful ideas. Find crying women and children to showcase Republican's evil behavior for the evening news cycles.

When election cycle comes around, fire up the base by having all left wing outlets run stories on the evil Koch brothers to excite the faithful. Throw in Tea Party references to keep things at a fever pitch, but pace the flow as you don't want them burnt out when time to vote.



Tiresome really...

[Sooner8th]

And Spector changed parties, so what.

As usual, the point escapes you. You bemoan only getting "3" votes when it really didn't matter since the Dem's held majorities in both chambers for two years and a supermajority from July 8th 2009 when Stuart Smalley was sworn in until Feb 4th 2010 when Scott Brown was sworn in. Longer than 2 months.

Here is exactly what the Dem's operational plan is.

When in the majority, do nothing and blame the Republican's for being obstructionist for not doing every thing the Dem's want.

When confronted with tough votes, continue to do nothing and blame inaction on inability to appease Republican's.

When not in the majority, continue to do nothing but blame the Republican's for not being willing to work with them on their wonderful ideas. Find crying women and children to showcase Republican's evil behavior for the evening news cycles.

When election cycle comes around, fire up the base by having all left wing outlets run stories on the evil Koch brothers to excite the faithful. Throw in Tea Party references to keep things at a fever pitch, but pace the flow as you don't want them burnt out when time to vote.



Tiresome really...

You are right, i forgot about the interim guy, but you will remember byrd was sick the whole time, anyway that is all beside the point.

You are right this is very tiresome. You and your complain bitterly that democrats wont work with you, when I show you that we tried you tell me we shouldnt have. When we do try to work with you by offering your parties own ideas you run from them like they are on fire - obamacare and cap and trade to name just two.

Here is exactly what the pub's operational plan is.

1. do exactly what limbaugh told you to do - use every legislative tactic available to thwart the presidents agenda.

2. hope america fails

3. do everything you can to make sure america fails

4. blame democrats for not working with you on your own ideas

5. call anything dems want socialism, fund raise off it and talk about freedom, guns and jesus in the next election.

6. wait for the kochs to tell you want to do next

[REDREX]

Like I said----Never try and argue with a Fool

[Sooner8th]

Like I said----Never try and argue with a Fool

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining to you why I'm right.

If you want to have a real conversation about things, don't regurgitate talking points.

[dwarthog]

You are right, i forgot about the interim guy, but you will remember byrd was sick the whole time, anyway that is all beside the point.

You are right this is very tiresome. You and your complain bitterly that democrats wont work with you, when I show you that we tried you tell me we shouldnt have. When we do try to work with you by offering your parties own ideas you run from them like they are on fire - obamacare and cap and trade to name just two.

Here is exactly what the pub's operational plan is.

1. do exactly what limbaugh told you to do - use every legislative tactic available to thwart the presidents agenda.

2. hope america fails

3. do everything you can to make sure america fails

4. blame democrats for not working with you on your own ideas

5. call anything dems want socialism, fund raise off it and talk about freedom, guns and jesus in the next election.

6. wait for the kochs to tell you want to do next

Yawn....

[pphilfran]

You are laughable. The $787 billion economic stimulus package was approved by Congress in February, 2009. You read the daily caller and regurgitated the "real" stimulus. Tarp was started under BUSH. Bond buyback stated under BUSH.

No tarp funds in stimulus.

Tax incentives Total: $288 billion

Total health care spending: $155.1 billion

Education Total: $100 billion

Aid to low income workers, unemployed and retirees (including job training) Total: $82.2 billion

Infrastructure Investment Total: $105.3 billion

Water, sewage, environment, and public lands Total: $18 billion

Government buildings and facilities Total: $7.2 billion

Communications, information, and security technologies Total: $10.5 billion

Energy Infrastructure Total: $21.5 billion

Energy efficiency and renewable energy research and investment Total: $27.2 billion

Housing Total: $14.7 billion

Scientific research Total: $7.6 billion

Other Total: $10.6 billion

Tax cuts should have went to infrastructure.
If you can't be civil then we have no need to continue in our debate....

1st...TARP was signed on Bush's watch...but the benefits of TARP didn't show up until Obama was in office...Obama knew of TARP and used TARP as part of his stimulus plan....he had 3 trillion at his disposal and all 3 trillion was used during his term as prez...TARP is considered part of the 2008 stimulus...you can read about it here... http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/20/news/economy/total_stimulus_cost/

Now, let's talk about tax cuts or tax increases and the reduction of corp taxes...

Somewhere between 0% tax rates and 100% tax rates is the sweet spot...too much tax and you will slow growth (less money to spend) while too little tax might spur growth but you could end up with less revenue...kinda depends on the economic situation of the time...good economy you can raise taxes....slow economy you don't raise taxes...I have no idea where the sweet spot should be in our current economic climate...I feel we should err to the lower tax side in our current mediocre economy with high unemployment...

Sometime in recent history I heard about lowering the corp tax rate and eliminating loopholes.....when was that? I am racking my brain...Oh...
Romney!

He got the crap beat out of him because he never listed the loopholes he wanted to eliminate....


Obama is now wanting to do the same thing...what loopholes does Obama wish to eliminate? Should be a damn long list....but I am 100% sure you can pop each and every one off the top of your head and list each for me..

Tax cuts can raise revenue...or bring forward money by raising rates so people move earnings as early as possible to avoid the hike or they can defer as much as possible to take advantage of lower future rates...

Let's look at Clintons term and LTCG rates in particular...

Yearly LTCG tax rates and federal revenue can be found here... http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161

Look closely...

Rates were cut in 1997 and 1998...

Prior to the cut the LTCG rate was at 29.19% -Realized gains as a % of GDP was in the 2-2.5% range

After the cut the LTCG rate was at 21.19% - Realized gains as a % of GDP was in the 4-5% range

Rate was lowered by 30%...realized gains doubled...simple to see that we had increased revenue....

The same thing happened again when rates were cut further after 9/11

Even with a crashed market in 2008 we had realized gains at 2%

Mind boggling....huh....

Over the long term we pull in revenue in the 17.5% - 18% of GDP range...crappy economy will produce less while a booming economy will produce more...

Table 1.2 has annual revenue as a % of GDP http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Last year was the Obama administrations best year...a whopping 16.7%...after spending trillions on stimulus and more trillions in the various QE's...

Obama is not alone in failure....the Dems in Congress are just as guilty...Pubs in Congress merrily joined in on the three ring circus...

This entire mess has been decades in the making...Pubs and Dems are both the cooks in the toxic brew we are being fed....
Hell, the 2008 recession can be directly traced back to Clinton....see LTCM...see Brooksley Born....watch The Warning on PBS online

[pphilfran]

BTW, over the long term I am for increased tax rates...we must get the debt under control...but I wouldn't increase taxes in our current economy....we should be laser focused on improving the economy....which would increase revenue...

[okie52]

If you can't be civil then we have no need to continue in our debate....

1st...TARP was signed on Bush's watch...but the benefits of TARP didn't show up until Obama was in office...Obama knew of TARP and used TARP as part of his stimulus plan....he had 3 trillion at his disposal and all 3 trillion was used during his term as prez...TARP is considered part of the 2008 stimulus...you can read about it here... http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/20/news/economy/total_stimulus_cost/

Now, let's talk about tax cuts or tax increases and the reduction of corp taxes...

Somewhere between 0% tax rates and 100% tax rates is the sweet spot...too much tax and you will slow growth (less money to spend) while too little tax might spur growth but you could end up with less revenue...kinda depends on the economic situation of the time...good economy you can raise taxes....slow economy you don't raise taxes...I have no idea where the sweet spot should be in our current economic climate...I feel we should err to the lower tax side in our current mediocre economy with high unemployment...

Sometime in recent history I heard about lowering the corp tax rate and eliminating loopholes.....when was that? I am racking my brain...Oh...
Romney!

He got the crap beat out of him because he never listed the loopholes he wanted to eliminate....


Obama is now wanting to do the same thing...what loopholes does Obama wish to eliminate? Should be a damn long list....but I am 100% sure you can pop each and every one off the top of your head and list each for me..

Tax cuts can raise revenue...or bring forward money by raising rates so people move earnings as early as possible to avoid the hike or they can defer as much as possible to take advantage of lower future rates...

Let's look at Clintons term and LTCG rates in particular...

Yearly LTCG tax rates and federal revenue can be found here... http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161

Look closely...

Rates were cut in 1997 and 1998...

Prior to the cut the LTCG rate was at 29.19% -Realized gains as a % of GDP was in the 2-2.5% range

After the cut the LTCG rate was at 21.19% - Realized gains as a % of GDP was in the 4-5% range

Rate was lowered by 30%...realized gains doubled...simple to see that we had increased revenue....

The same thing happened again when rates were cut further after 9/11

Even with a crashed market in 2008 we had realized gains at 2%

Mind boggling....huh....

Over the long term we pull in revenue in the 17.5% - 18% of GDP range...crappy economy will produce less while a booming economy will produce more...

Table 1.2 has annual revenue as a % of GDP http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Last year was the Obama administrations best year...a whopping 16.7%...after spending trillions on stimulus and more trillions in the various QE's...

Obama is not alone in failure....the Dems in Congress are just as guilty...Pubs in Congress merrily joined in on the three ring circus...

This entire mess has been decades in the making...Pubs and Dems are both the cooks in the toxic brew we are being fed....
Hell, the 2008 recession can be directly traced back to Clinton....see LTCM...see Brooksley Born....watch The Warning on PBS online

http://i.imgur.com/Bh54SIa.jpg

[Sooner8th]

If you can't be civil then we have no need to continue in our debate....

1st...TARP was signed on Bush's watch...but the benefits of TARP didn't show up until Obama was in office...Obama knew of TARP and used TARP as part of his stimulus plan....he had 3 trillion at his disposal and all 3 trillion was used during his term as prez...TARP is considered part of the 2008 stimulus...you can read about it here... http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/20/news/economy/total_stimulus_cost/

Now, let's talk about tax cuts or tax increases and the reduction of corp taxes...

Somewhere between 0% tax rates and 100% tax rates is the sweet spot...too much tax and you will slow growth (less money to spend) while too little tax might spur growth but you could end up with less revenue...kinda depends on the economic situation of the time...good economy you can raise taxes....slow economy you don't raise taxes...I have no idea where the sweet spot should be in our current economic climate...I feel we should err to the lower tax side in our current mediocre economy with high unemployment...

Sometime in recent history I heard about lowering the corp tax rate and eliminating loopholes.....when was that? I am racking my brain...Oh...
Romney!

He got the crap beat out of him because he never listed the loopholes he wanted to eliminate....


Obama is now wanting to do the same thing...what loopholes does Obama wish to eliminate? Should be a damn long list....but I am 100% sure you can pop each and every one off the top of your head and list each for me..

Tax cuts can raise revenue...or bring forward money by raising rates so people move earnings as early as possible to avoid the hike or they can defer as much as possible to take advantage of lower future rates...

Let's look at Clintons term and LTCG rates in particular...

Yearly LTCG tax rates and federal revenue can be found here... http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161

Look closely...

Rates were cut in 1997 and 1998...

Prior to the cut the LTCG rate was at 29.19% -Realized gains as a % of GDP was in the 2-2.5% range

After the cut the LTCG rate was at 21.19% - Realized gains as a % of GDP was in the 4-5% range

Rate was lowered by 30%...realized gains doubled...simple to see that we had increased revenue....

The same thing happened again when rates were cut further after 9/11

Even with a crashed market in 2008 we had realized gains at 2%

Mind boggling....huh....

Over the long term we pull in revenue in the 17.5% - 18% of GDP range...crappy economy will produce less while a booming economy will produce more...

Table 1.2 has annual revenue as a % of GDP http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Last year was the Obama administrations best year...a whopping 16.7%...after spending trillions on stimulus and more trillions in the various QE's...

Obama is not alone in failure....the Dems in Congress are just as guilty...Pubs in Congress merrily joined in on the three ring circus...

This entire mess has been decades in the making...Pubs and Dems are both the cooks in the toxic brew we are being fed....
Hell, the 2008 recession can be directly traced back to Clinton....see LTCM...see Brooksley Born....watch The Warning on PBS online

I'll be civil if you'll be civil.

1. tarp was started under BUSH October 3, 2008.

2. tarp and stimulus package are two different things.

From you own link:
The rest came from a combination of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, the $787 billion stimulus bill passed in the early days of the Obama administration, and various smaller stimulus programs.

3. You looked only at long term and comparing to income - not tax revenue - to gdp. You said simple to see gained revenue - simple to see the stock market was soaring. Look at the average effective tax rate and how it went DOWN. Now you are trying to tell me the stock market was soaring because of the cp tax cut? Is that your position?

Dow Jones industrial average

December 31, 1996 6448.27
December 31, 1998 9181.43

The market went up in those two years by 42%. You are telling me the market went up because of the cg tax cuts.

Even with a crashed market in 2008 we had realized gains at 2% - did not see that, i saw HUGE drops in revenues and cg tax revenues.

I don't have office on my this laptop so i can't see the 1.2 table.

Blaming clinton for bush's recession? laughable - remember it was yet another republican idea.

You are right there is a balance in taxes, but every time taxes are brought up the right screams too high!!

[pphilfran]

I'll be civil if you'll be civil.

1. tarp was started under BUSH October 3, 2008.

2. tarp and stimulus package are two different things.

From you own link:
The rest came from a combination of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, the $787 billion stimulus bill passed in the early days of the Obama administration, and various smaller stimulus programs.

3. You looked only at long term and comparing to income - not tax revenue - to gdp. You said simple to see gained revenue - simple to see the stock market was soaring. Look at the average effective tax rate and how it went DOWN. Now you are trying to tell me the stock market was soaring because of the cp tax cut? Is that your position?

Dow Jones industrial average

December 31, 1996 6448.27
December 31, 1998 9181.43

The market went up in those two years by 42%. You are telling me the market went up because of the cg tax cuts.

Even with a crashed market in 2008 we had realized gains at 2% - did not see that, i saw HUGE drops in revenues and cg tax revenues.

I don't have office on my this laptop so i can't see the 1.2 table.

Blaming clinton for bush's recession? laughable - remember it was yet another republican idea.

You are right there is a balance in taxes, but every time taxes are brought up the right screams too high!!

First, show me where I have not been civil?

I never said that lower cap gains caused the market to go higher...I stated that lower cap gains rates did not lower cap gains revenue...

Of course the stock market had a lot to do with cap gains...and the economy had a lot to do with the stock market....

The key is to grow the economy...good economy creates good profits....good profits create higher stock market...higher stock market produced more cap gains....more cap gains creates higher revenue...

But we want to start at the *** end...revenues...and tend to ignore the fact a growing economy trumps tax rates....which can be plainly seen in the LTCG rate...

Total blame for the 2008 goes to everyone involved...including the Clinton administration...

You need to watch this...exceptionally well done...

The Warning from the far right PBS http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

In The Warning, veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk unearths the hidden history of the nation's worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. At the center of it all he finds Brooksley Born, who speaks for the first time on television about her failed campaign to regulate the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market whose crash helped trigger the financial collapse in the fall of 2008.

"I didn't know Brooksley Born," says former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, a member of President Clinton's powerful Working Group on Financial Markets. "I was told that she was irascible, difficult, stubborn, unreasonable." Levitt explains how the other principals of the Working Group -- former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin -- convinced him that Born's attempt to regulate the risky derivatives market could lead to financial turmoil, a conclusion he now believes was "clearly a mistake."

Born's battle behind closed doors was epic, Kirk finds. The members of the President's Working Group vehemently opposed regulation -- especially when proposed by a Washington outsider like Born.

"I walk into Brooksley's office one day; the blood has drained from her face," says Michael Greenberger, a former top official at the CFTC who worked closely with Born. "She's hanging up the telephone; she says to me: 'That was [former Assistant Treasury Secretary] Larry Summers. He says, "You're going to cause the worst financial crisis since the end of World War II."... [He says he has] 13 bankers in his office who informed him of this. Stop, right away. No more.'"

[Curly Bill]

BTW, over the long term I am for increased tax rates...we must get the debt under control...but I wouldn't increase taxes in our current economy....we should be laser focused on improving the economy....which would increase revenue...

Do you have any proof that even if taxes were raised that would help the debt, as opposed to leading to more spending? You of course don't, and neither does anyone else, which is why anyone but those who think the government has more right to our money than we do, is opposed to such an idea.

[Sooner8th]

First, show me where I have not been civil?

I never said that lower cap gains caused the market to go higher...I stated that lower cap gains rates did not lower cap gains revenue...

Of course the stock market had a lot to do with cap gains...and the economy had a lot to do with the stock market....

The key is to grow the economy...good economy creates good profits....good profits create higher stock market...higher stock market produced more cap gains....more cap gains creates higher revenue...

But we want to start at the *** end...revenues...and tend to ignore the fact a growing economy trumps tax rates....which can be plainly seen in the LTCG rate...

Total blame for the 2008 goes to everyone involved...including the Clinton administration...

You need to watch this...exceptionally well done...

The Warning from the far right PBS http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

In The Warning, veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk unearths the hidden history of the nation's worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. At the center of it all he finds Brooksley Born, who speaks for the first time on television about her failed campaign to regulate the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market whose crash helped trigger the financial collapse in the fall of 2008.

"I didn't know Brooksley Born," says former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, a member of President Clinton's powerful Working Group on Financial Markets. "I was told that she was irascible, difficult, stubborn, unreasonable." Levitt explains how the other principals of the Working Group -- former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin -- convinced him that Born's attempt to regulate the risky derivatives market could lead to financial turmoil, a conclusion he now believes was "clearly a mistake."

Born's battle behind closed doors was epic, Kirk finds. The members of the President's Working Group vehemently opposed regulation -- especially when proposed by a Washington outsider like Born.

"I walk into Brooksley's office one day; the blood has drained from her face," says Michael Greenberger, a former top official at the CFTC who worked closely with Born. "She's hanging up the telephone; she says to me: 'That was [former Assistant Treasury Secretary] Larry Summers. He says, "You're going to cause the worst financial crisis since the end of World War II."... [He says he has] 13 bankers in his office who informed him of this. Stop, right away. No more.'"

What I said was it was a republican idea - phil and wendy gramm pushed it hard the last days clinton was in office. Bush had total control over the goverment for six years why didn't he do anything about if the right knew so much.

[pphilfran]

Do you have any proof that even if taxes were raised that would help the debt, as opposed to leading to more spending? You of course don't, and neither does anyone else, which is why anyone but those who think the government has more right to our money than we do, is opposed to such an idea.

I have that concern..."Look! We have money burning a hole in our pocket!"

I agree with Diverdog....freeze spending at current levels and let inflation slowly lower the deficit and debt...hell, you could even grow spending as long as you keep it below the inflation rate....we would do well with slow and steady debt improvement (debt as a % of GDP)

I would like to see slightly higher rates to get revenue to 19-19.5% of GDP....but it doesn't really matter when we have all the deductions and loopholes that are in common use...I'd start with limiting dependent deductions to 2...a significant other and one rug rat....that should tell you how far I would go.....

[okie52]

I have that concern..."Look! We have money burning a hole in our pocket!"

I agree with Diverdog....freeze spending at current levels and let inflation slowly lower the deficit and debt...hell, you could even grow spending as long as you keep it below the inflation rate....we would do well with slow and steady debt improvement (debt as a % of GDP)

I would like to see slightly higher rates to get revenue to 19-19.5% of GDP....but it doesn't really matter when we have all the deductions and loopholes that are in common use...I'd start with limiting dependent deductions to 2...a significant other and one rug rat....that should tell you how far I would go.....

Hear! Hear! And free birth control for everyone!!!

[pphilfran]

What I said was it was a republican idea - phil and wendy gramm pushed it hard the last days clinton was in office. Bush had total control over the goverment for six years why didn't he do anything about if the right knew so much.

I am not trying to paint a pretty picture of the right....I have said it numerous times...they are all to blame...watch The Warning and you will have a better understanding of my stance....

Brooksley Born was the only one that got it right....Clintons hand picked Economic Working group railroaded her out of her position because she wanted to put the clamps down on derivative trading...

LTCM went down the tubes due to derivative during the Clinton administration...about 4 billion to buy up the worthless assets....but Clintons had picked Economic Working Team said it was just a fluke....couldn't happen again...the markets will regulate themselves....

[pphilfran]

Hear! Hear! And free birth control for everyone!!!

I would like to take the deduction down to 0...but I know that wouldn't fly....