The Moonbat: "It's not raising taxes, it's ending tax cuts"

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Amazing how this clown can say this stuff with a straight face............I guess two dozen face lifts has advantages.

 

 

 

"It's not about raising taxes," Pelosi said. "It's about ending a tax cut."

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19369.html

[posty 2,867]

It still amazes me that people willingly vote Democrat...

[GettnHuge 2]

it amazes me that people actually vote and cheer for higher taxes and bigger gov't.

[Greedo 13]

This from the same poster that says reduced fed withholding on their paychecks isn't a tax cut. Consistency, please?

 

 

Clearly it's raising taxes by removing a tax cut. Tell you what, why don't you all move to CA and see if you can vote her out?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

This from the same poster that says reduced fed withholding on their paychecks isn't a tax cut.

 

 

Um, it isn't.

 

I can change how much is withheld from my check. Does that mean I can give myself a tax cut? No, it means I will owe more at the end of the year.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

Um, it isn't.

 

I can change how much is withheld from my check. Does that mean I can give myself a tax cut? No, it means I will owe more at the end of the year.

As much as I disagree with you on things (probably 99% of what you post here), I agree with you on this. From what Obama has stated, he only authorized the reduction in withholding for people. As such, you are technically correct.

 

Now, I believe that when the budget is passed, the tax cut that corresponds to the withholding should be in place. If it is not, then you can definitely say it is smoke and mirrors.

[edjr 7,097]

The Great Ping Pong Ball Experiment

 

By Phil Shapiro

 

*

The Nile river is the longest river in the world. It starts out in Lake Victoria, in the middle of Africa, and flows nearly four thousand (4,000) miles north to the Mediterranean Sea.

Lake Victoria, where the Nile starts, is the second largest fresh-water lake in the world. The only lake that is larger is Lake Superior, in between Canada and the United States.

 

Now nobody knows for sure who first suggested the great ping pong ball experiment. It might have been dreamed up by some absent-minded, daydreaming inventor. Or, it could have been thought up by some great scientist. Or, it might have been thought up by a little kindergartener in Kalamazoo, Michigan.

 

But the important thing is that somebody thought of it. And before long, people all over the world were talking about it. The newspapers printed stories about it. Television stations did special feature stories on it. And, everyone, just everyone, expected that the great ping pong ball experiment would happen right on time.

 

What exactly was the great ping pong ball experiment anyway? How was the experiment to be performed, and what was it supposed to show?

 

The great ping pong ball experiment took place to show just one thing. The purpose of the experiment was to show that a small, frail ping pong ball could travel four thousand miles down the longest river in the world.

 

The experiment would end when the ping pong ball reached the capital city of Egypt, Cairo. At that time, a kindergarten student from one of the schools in Cairo would reach down into the Nile, and pick up the ping pong ball that had been thrown into the river way back at Lake Victoria.

 

Two months. That's how long the ping pong ball would have to travel from Lake Victoria to Cairo. To add some zest and excitement to the experiment, the ping pong ball was to be thown into the top of the Nile River on November 1, 1999. The entire world would then watch to see if the ball could travel the length of the Nile before midnight, December 31, 1999.

 

But the journey would be a dangerous one for a small, frail ping pong ball to travel. The ball would have to survive at least nine large waterfalls. It would have to survive being thrown against rocks and boulders. It would have to survive getting stuck in the papyrus reeds by the side of the river. And most importantly, it would have to survive getting swallowed by any hungry fish along the way.

 

People would follow it all along its long journey. Scientists would follow it by driving along roads that travelled parallel to the Nile river. They would keep careful track of how far the ball had travelled each day. Sometimes they would even circle over the ping pong ball in a helicopter, making sure that the ball was safely travelling downstream.

 

Once a week people all over the globe would turn on their televisions to see how far the ping pong ball had travelled in the past week. The television studios would have a large map of Africa on the wall, with an arrow pointing to where the ping ball was on that particular day.

 

It would be an elegantly simple experiment for the people of planet Earth to perform. For two months, the attention of the world would be focussed on what was happening to a ping pong ball travelling down the Nile river.

 

The outcome of the great ping pong ball experiment would not change the lives of many persons living on this planet. But perhaps, just perhaps, the experiment itself would help people realize that in some ways the planet Earth is just a small, frail ping pong ball traveling through space.

[GettnHuge 2]

The Great Ping Pong Ball Experiment

 

By Phil Shapiro

 

*

The Nile river is the longest river in the world. It starts out in Lake Victoria, in the middle of Africa, and flows nearly four thousand (4,000) miles north to the Mediterranean Sea.

Lake Victoria, where the Nile starts, is the second largest fresh-water lake in the world. The only lake that is larger is Lake Superior, in between Canada and the United States.

 

Now nobody knows for sure who first suggested the great ping pong ball experiment. It might have been dreamed up by some absent-minded, daydreaming inventor. Or, it could have been thought up by some great scientist. Or, it might have been thought up by a little kindergartener in Kalamazoo, Michigan.

 

But the important thing is that somebody thought of it. And before long, people all over the world were talking about it. The newspapers printed stories about it. Television stations did special feature stories on it. And, everyone, just everyone, expected that the great ping pong ball experiment would happen right on time.

 

What exactly was the great ping pong ball experiment anyway? How was the experiment to be performed, and what was it supposed to show?

 

The great ping pong ball experiment took place to show just one thing. The purpose of the experiment was to show that a small, frail ping pong ball could travel four thousand miles down the longest river in the world.

 

The experiment would end when the ping pong ball reached the capital city of Egypt, Cairo. At that time, a kindergarten student from one of the schools in Cairo would reach down into the Nile, and pick up the ping pong ball that had been thrown into the river way back at Lake Victoria.

 

Two months. That's how long the ping pong ball would have to travel from Lake Victoria to Cairo. To add some zest and excitement to the experiment, the ping pong ball was to be thown into the top of the Nile River on November 1, 1999. The entire world would then watch to see if the ball could travel the length of the Nile before midnight, December 31, 1999.

 

But the journey would be a dangerous one for a small, frail ping pong ball to travel. The ball would have to survive at least nine large waterfalls. It would have to survive being thrown against rocks and boulders. It would have to survive getting stuck in the papyrus reeds by the side of the river. And most importantly, it would have to survive getting swallowed by any hungry fish along the way.

 

People would follow it all along its long journey. Scientists would follow it by driving along roads that travelled parallel to the Nile river. They would keep careful track of how far the ball had travelled each day. Sometimes they would even circle over the ping pong ball in a helicopter, making sure that the ball was safely travelling downstream.

 

Once a week people all over the globe would turn on their televisions to see how far the ping pong ball had travelled in the past week. The television studios would have a large map of Africa on the wall, with an arrow pointing to where the ping ball was on that particular day.

 

It would be an elegantly simple experiment for the people of planet Earth to perform. For two months, the attention of the world would be focussed on what was happening to a ping pong ball travelling down the Nile river.

 

The outcome of the great ping pong ball experiment would not change the lives of many persons living on this planet. But perhaps, just perhaps, the experiment itself would help people realize that in some ways the planet Earth is just a small, frail ping pong ball traveling through space.

 

I wonder how many animals consumed said balls and died

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Didn't Mike B!tchslap d!ckweeds like Ed last week for posts such as the one above?

[edjr 7,097]

 

I have as much right as you to post complete drivel.

 

HTH

[gocolts 300]

Didn't Mike B!tchslap d!ckweeds like Ed last week for posts such as the one above?

 

Yep. Ed's account is likely going to be deleted. Mike made it crystal clear.

[NewbieJr 541]

[Brad GLuckman 519]

It still amazes me that people taxpayers willingly vote Democrat...

 

 

it amazes me that people taxpayers actually vote and cheer for higher taxes and bigger gov't.

 

Fixed

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Yep. Ed's account is likely going to be deleted. Mike made it crystal clear.

 

I guess we can give the Moron one freebie. It must be a hard life having The Moonbat as one of your standard bearers.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

Ruh Roh!

 

104 User(s) are browsing this forum (71 Guests and 5 Anonymous Users)

28 Members: Patriotsfatboy1, footballpowers, IAMWood, kutulu, Vikings4ever, parrot, titans&bucs&bearsohmy!, Brad GLuckman, Mungwater, FeelingMN, edjr, BearcatRob, cbfalcon, Lionsjunkie, Snuff, Reality, peenie, Bishop82, swirvenirvin, Mike FF Today, IronToe Nedney, dain11279, corky, frank, BLS, porkbutt, piget, zmanzzzz

[NewbieJr 541]

Ruh Roh!

 

104 User(s) are browsing this forum (71 Guests and 5 Anonymous Users)

28 Members: Patriotsfatboy1, footballpowers, IAMWood, kutulu, Vikings4ever, parrot, titans&bucs&bearsohmy!, Brad GLuckman, Mungwater, FeelingMN, edjr, BearcatRob, cbfalcon, Lionsjunkie, Snuff, Reality, peenie, Bishop82, swirvenirvin, Mike FF Today, IronToe Nedney, dain11279, corky, frank, BLS, porkbutt, piget, zmanzzzz

Good. Maybe he's coming to finally ban that mental-midget, recliner pilot.

[edjr 7,097]

Good. Maybe he's coming to finally ban that mental-midget, recliner pilot.

 

I told a good story, I even wrote it myself. No cut and paste with this guy

[NewbieJr 541]

 

I told a good story, I even wrote it myself. No cut and paste with this guy

To be honest, it was the most interesting thing in this thread.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

As much as I disagree with you on things (probably 99% of what you post here),

 

How does it feel to be wrong 99% of the time?

 

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

How does it feel to be wrong 99% of the time?

 

 

Even you must consider yourself to be a complete and total joke. I consider you to be the preverbial broken clock that is right only twice a day. However, the rest of the day, you are a total ass.

[Voltaire 5,538]

 

I told a good story, I even wrote it myself. No cut and paste with this guy

 

Why did you write the By: Phil Shapiro line?

[Voltaire 5,538]

The tax cut is temporary. It was sunsetinsted of being made permanent because it destroys the budget.

 

If the debate was still between big government and small government, I would choose small government. Unfortunatrly the debate now is between big government and foolish government. Tax cuts that aren't paired with spending cuts are really just tax increases forced onto future generations in order for irresponsible politicians today to win cheap political points with people who don't mind/don't care about passing debt along to future generations.

[GettnHuge 2]

Why not un-raise taxes back to the kennedy days? If some un-raises are good, more are better.

[Voltaire 5,538]

Why not un-raise taxes back to the kennedy days? If some un-raises are good, more are better.

 

We've established a bunch of Great Society programs since the Kennedy days and have to pay for them. If we were to to cut taxes to that level, we'd have to get rid of those obligations as well, which is the biggest FAILURE of the Republican Party because althugh they love scoring cheap political points by cutting taxes, they can never do the hard part of identifying spending cuts. The end result of this is they just do the irresposnible thing of passing the tax burden of today onto future generations of taxpayers.

 

Say what you will about the Democrats, but they've always been willing to tax through the nose to pay for what they want. Until now that is- and now is an economic crisis. The Republicans are cowardly for forcing future taxpayers to foot the bill for everything they refuse to have today's taxpayers pay for. Tax cuts without acompanying spending cuts is complete bullsh*t and don't fool yourself, Republicans aren't doing anybody any favors.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Wow...so completely idiotic that you must mention me in your titles now?

And have the nerve to whine about edjr's posting.

 

Oh...and Pelosi is an idiot.

Funny thing during Obama's speech the other night. I always used to think she and Hillary just had those disgusting looks on their faces because Bush was speaking...but watching them with Obama, it turns out they are just that freaking butt ugly.

[GettnHuge 2]

We've established a bunch of Great Society programs since the Kennedy days and have to pay for them. If we were to to cut taxes to that level, we'd have to get rid of those obligations as well, which is the biggest FAILURE of the Republican Party because althugh they love scoring cheap political points by cutting taxes, they can never do the hard part of identifying spending cuts. The end result of this is they just do the irresposnible thing of passing the tax burden of today onto future generations of taxpayers.

 

Say what you will about the Democrats, but they've always been willing to tax through the nose to pay for what they want. Until now that is- and now is an economic crisis. The Republicans are cowardly for forcing future taxpayers to foot the bill for everything they refuse to have today's taxpayers pay for. Tax cuts without acompanying spending cuts is complete bullsh*t and don't fool yourself, Republicans aren't doing anybody any favors.

 

What do you consider to be worse?

 

1. lower taxes, more money in the ppls hands, but deficit spending the future generation will pay for

 

2. higher taxes, less money in ppls hands, insane spending that future generations will never be able to pay for

 

 

at least with Repubs at 1, you've got a pretty good chance of reverting to option 0 again where they cut taxes and spending.

the Dems at 2 are eternal, they will always spend far too much, they will never change.

[Voltaire 5,538]

What do you consider to be worse?

 

1. lower taxes, more money in the ppls hands, but deficit spending the future generation will pay for

 

2. higher taxes, less money in ppls hands, insane spending that future generations will never be able to pay for

 

 

at least with Repubs at 1, you've got a pretty good chance of reverting to option 0 again where they cut taxes and spending.

the Dems at 2 are eternal, they will always spend far too much, they will never change.

 

When the Democrats want to spend money, the natural question is how will you pay for it? And they usually have an answer, or are willing to do the unpopular and raise taxes to do so. When the Republicans want to cut taxes, the question is where will they cut and the answer is they wont, they'll run deficits forcing future taxpayers pay extra. Because future taxpayers are going to have to pay intest and compound interest for everything they refused to pay for.

 

What the Republicans do is all bullsh*t. Republican tax cuts are false, they're an illusion. What you want to keep your eyes on with the Republicans is spending. They love spending and dnever rein in any program. Their tax cuts are reallly just transfered pain in the form of borrow and spend. These are tax increases delayed onto future generations for short term political gain. It's despicable. If you thnk taxes are too high and want the Republicans to do the country a favor, to do the right thing, tell them to grow a pair and cut spending. If not, tell them to go fock themselves.

[GettnHuge 2]

When the Democrats want to spend money, the natural question is how will you pay for it? And they usually have an answer, or are willing to do the unpopular and raise taxes to do so. When the Republicans want to cut taxes, the question is where will they cut and the answer is they wont, they'll run deficits forcing future taxpayers pay extra. Because future taxpayers are going to have to pay intest and compound interest for everything they refused to pay for.

 

What the Republicans do is all bullsh*t. Republican tax cuts are false, they're an illusion. What you want to keep your eyes on with the Republicans is spending. They love spending and dnever rein in any program. Their tax cuts are reallly just transfered pain in the form of borrow and spend. These are tax increases delayed onto future generations for short term political gain. It's despicable. If you thnk taxes are too high and want the Republicans to do the country a favor, to do the right thing, tell them to grow a pair and cut spending. If not, tell them to go fock themselves.

 

let me put it this way

 

1.would you rather take in $100 in taxes and spend $200?

2.or would you rather take in $150 and spend $500?

 

Repubs in the 90s are the only party to ever give any indication that they are in any way capable of taking in $100 and spending $100.

Dems will always have a much larger 2nd number.

 

I'm primarily referring to congress where the taxing and spending mostly goes on. Which option is worse to you in the

long run, option 1 or 2?

[Voltaire 5,538]

let me put it this way

 

1.would you rather take in $100 in taxes and spend $200?

2.or would you rather take in $150 and spend $500?

 

Repubs in the 90s are the only party to ever give any indication that they are in any way capable of taking in $100 and spending $100.

Dems will always have a much larger 2nd number.

 

I'm primarily referring to congress where the taxing and spending mostly goes on. Which option is worse to you in the

long run, option 1 or 2?

 

The first number is preferable since it's less outrageous. I just don't think that's the choice we'll have.

[GettnHuge 2]

The first number is preferable since it's less outrageous. I just don't think that's the choice we'll have.

 

I agree. my point is during much of the Bush admin we were outraged at all the spending they did, but

compared to what's now going to happen, it's actually not so bad. I still have ppl telling me to give Osama

a chance...problem is there is no going back from this, leap of faith right off a cliff. You're putting your

faith in a party to fix this mortgage disaster that they were at the root of...and they've given no indication

of changing. They wanted these companies to run themselves like the gov't giving away things for free and

it crashed. Their answer to that is: more gov't influence and money.

[Voltaire 5,538]

I agree. my point is during much of the Bush admin we were outraged at all the spending they did, but

compared to what's now going to happen, it's actually not so bad. I still have ppl telling me to give Osama

a chance...problem is there is no going back from this, leap of faith right off a cliff. You're putting your

faith in a party to fix this mortgage disaster that they were at the root of...and they've given no indication

of changing. They wanted these companies to run themselves like the gov't giving away things for free and

it crashed. Their answer to that is: more gov't influence and money.

 

I don't know what Obama will do when the economy rights itself, I'm not convinced his stimulus bill is particularly helpful and I'm really not enthused with much of any new spending proposals he'll have. But I really have no choice but to hope for his success. Raising taxes to me is actaully a good sign since it shows he's willing to do unpopular things to pay for what he wants.

 

It's not just massive deficits where Bush screwed up. His foreign policy is awful and he infested the federal government with incompetent religion luntatics everywhere like cancer. The Republicans Party is addicted to ignoring problems and refusing to make any difficult/unpopular decisions: deficts, enivronment, energy they just pass things on to future generations. They're cowards and they play dirty politics much worse than the Dems. Small-minded petty nitwits.

 

Like I said, the choice isn't big government vs small government anymore. It's now big government vs. mismanaged foolish government.

[GettnHuge 2]

I don't know what Obama will do when the economy rights itself, I'm not convinced his stimulus bill is particularly helpful and I'm really not enthused with much of any new spending proposals he'll have. But I really have no choice but to hope for his success. Raising taxes to me is actaully a good sign since it shows he's willing to do unpopular things to pay for what he wants.

 

It's not just massive deficits where Bush screwed up. His foreign policy is awful and he infested the federal government with incompetent religion luntatics everywhere like cancer. The Republicans Party is addicted to ignoring problems and refusing to make any difficult/unpopular decisions: deficts, enivronment, energy they just pass things on to future generations. They're cowards and they play dirty politics much worse than the Dems. Small-minded petty nitwits.

 

Like I said, the choice isn't big government vs small government anymore. It's now big government vs. mismanaged foolish government.

 

I'd actually agree with you when it comes to stocking the gov't with idiots... but after seeing Osama's nominees being the same

old corrupt group of washington insiders, well to me nothing has changed there. It's on thing to have a stimulus bill to try to help

out immediately, but the problem is the social program obligations that go along with it. This is no one time deal, many details

will have to be funded over and over by either the feds or the states. and those governors who are turning down part of it that

include such obligations are smart to do so...of course the states that fall short again in 2 years because of this stimulus obligation

burden will beg the fed again and the people in states that turned it down will still have to pay for other states' mistakes.

I agree it is big gov't vs bigger gov't. It would take another 1994 style revolution and a new president to change that.

[Voltaire 5,538]

I'd actually agree with you when it comes to stocking the gov't with idiots... but after seeing Osama's nominees being the same

old corrupt group of washington insiders, well to me nothing has changed there. It's on thing to have a stimulus bill to try to help

out immediately, but the problem is the social program obligations that go along with it. This is no one time deal, many details

will have to be funded over and over by either the feds or the states. and those governors who are turning down part of it that

include such obligations are smart to do so...of course the states that fall short again in 2 years because of this stimulus obligation

burden will beg the fed again and the people in states that turned it down will still have to pay for other states' mistakes.

I agree it is big gov't vs bigger gov't. It would take another 1994 style revolution and a new president to change that.

 

I've seen it often enough that I'm not surprise anymore but I think we're in tune. I believe we agree more often than is readily apparent.

[GettnHuge 2]

I've seen it often enough that I'm not surprise anymore but I think we're in tune. I believe we agree more often than is readily apparent.

 

I'll try and remember that next ghey friday.

[Voltaire 5,538]

I'll try and remember that next ghey friday.

 

I'm not into ghey Fridays.

 

It's a bad time to bring it up though. Gheyness has been on my mind lately since I just got into a big argument with a liberal on another board over the usefulness/purpose of Queer Theory as an 'legitimate' academic field.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

We've established a bunch of Great Society programs since the Kennedy days and have to pay for them. If we were to to cut taxes to that level,

 

It seems you are unaware that the top marginal rate when Kennedy took office was around 90%.

[Voltaire 5,538]

It seems you are unaware that the top marginal rate when Kennedy took office was around 90%.

 

I'm not aware of about income tax rates in the 1950s or the whole Eisenhowser/LBJ/Rayburn deal but I do know those numbers seem unbelievable especially considering the '50s were booming economic times.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I'm not aware of about income tax rates in the 1950s or the whole Eisenhowser/LBJ/Rayburn deal but I do know those numbers seem unbelievable especially considering the '50s were booming economic times.

 

 

Top marginal rate when Kennedy took office: 91%

 

Kennedy lowered it to 70%. More revenue came in from the top earners after he lowered it.

 

 

So do you still want to go back to the rates Kennedy had?

 

 

lINK:

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/1...x_revenues.html