Osama and Reps reach tax deal

[Frank M 181]

You partisan hacks never get it. Choosing a side is blatantly ignorant, regardless of your basic beliefs. Neither side is going to accomplish what you want. You can cream all of yourself every time your party gets elected or wins a majority, but you will never see either of these parties deliver on what they promise.

 

Wow, I didn't realize that I implied all of that, Mr. Ramp On The Forehead.

 

I'm sure that you have gone into every thread blaming Obama for the state of our economy and said the same thing, though. Right?

[KSB2424 3,173]

First a spending freeze for Gov't workers. Now Obama comprimises and a decent deal gets worked out. I'm starting to warm up to this new Obama.

 

I wish this version of him was around last year during all that spending (Obamacare/Cash for Clunkers) though.

[PackYourNut 47]

Wow, I didn't realize that I implied all of that, Mr. Ramp On The Forehead.

 

I'm sure that you have gone into every thread blaming Obama for the state of our economy and said the same thing, though. Right?

 

I'm not an Obama supporter, because he wants more government. Obamacare is an obvious example. He also lacks the experience and know how to lead a nation. However, I will also come out and say Bush was one of the worst presidents of all time. See how that works? They both are/were utter failures at this point. For any person to say one side is better then the other, for the sole reason of them being in their "party" is completely moronic!

[GettnHuge 2]

First a spending freeze for Gov't workers. Now Obama comprimises and a decent deal gets worked out. I'm starting to warm up to this new Obama.

 

I wish this version of him was around last year during all that spending (Obamacare/Cash for Clunkers) though.

 

Only problem with that(besides the huge increase in gov't lackeys the last 2 years) is this would be a cost of living pay freeze.

gov't workers will still get increased pay based on longevity and satisfactory work.

Not sure exactly what you're warming up to here.

[Voltaire 5,489]

Don't get so worked up. I'm sure that once the Republicans take over, everything will be fine.

 

 

When Clinton and Newt/Dole were hashing out a budget, both sides were concerned about the budget. So a Clinton/Gingrich/Dole compromise would involve Clinton agreeding to cuts A, B, and C and Gigrich/Dole agreeing to tax hikes A and B.

 

And in the end, for their hard work we got a balanced budget fortheir hard work.

 

By contrast, the Obama/GOP negotiations features neither side giving a crap about the deficit. Thus the agreement becomes ... Dems agreeing to keep taxes unsustainably low and in exchange the GOP agreed to flush more money down the toilet.

 

Even when the economy was stable, this tax rates never came close to raising enough money to pay for things.

 

Meanwhile, six months is already way, way too generous for unemployment benefits... then it's a year, then another year now another six months. It's been two years already you lazy focks ... get off your focking asses.

 

If I get fired tomorrow, I don't expect, nor should I expect, to get paid for any day starting with Thursday until I find a new job. That's motivation. This government fishing team stuff is ridiculous.

[TimmySmith 2,783]

When Clinton and Newt/Dole were hashing out a budget, both sides were concerned about the budget. So a Clinton/Gingrich/Dole compromise would involve Clinton agreeding to cuts A, B, and C and Gigrich/Dole agreeing to tax hikes A and B.

 

And in the end, for their hard work we got a balanced budget fortheir hard work.

An agreement hashed out by 3 men with the brains to be president is remarkably different than an agreement hashed by by 0 men with the brains to president.

[Frank M 181]

I'm not an Obama supporter, because he wants more government. Obamacare is an obvious example. He also lacks the experience and know how to lead a nation. However, I will also come out and say Bush was one of the worst presidents of all time. See how that works? They both are/were utter failures at this point. For any person to say one side is better then the other, for the sole reason of them being in their "party" is completely moronic!

 

Well, you can yell at me when I say that.

[Voltaire 5,489]

Just this morning I was in a good mood. I read how Boehner was going to purge the crooks out of the Appropriations committee, the epicenter of corruption for both parties, replace them with reformers and further, relieve them of their plum office location in the capital. So I was all smiles. This was a great sign that it was possible that I was going to actually like the next two years.

 

Then this happens. Focking bullsh*t.

[drobeski 3,061]

Just this morning I was in a good mood. I read how Boehner was going to purge the crooks out of the Appropriations committee, the epicenter of corruption for both parties, replace them with reformers and further, relieve them of their plum office location in the capital. So I was all smiles. This was a great sign that it was possible that I was going to actually like the next two years.

 

Then this happens. Focking bullsh*t.

Do you still pay us taxes ?

[KSB2424 3,173]

Only problem with that(besides the huge increase in gov't lackeys the last 2 years) is this would be a cost of living pay freeze.

gov't workers will still get increased pay based on longevity and satisfactory work.

Not sure exactly what you're warming up to here.

It's baby steps.

 

The fact that a uber left wing guy like Obama seems to be moving more towards the middle (even if only a little), as opposed to further left is a good thing. It's similar to what Clinton did the second half of his presidency. Once these far left guys figure out that the vast majority of the country are either middle or right of middle they figure out it's best to come a tad more that way too.

[Voltaire 5,489]

Do you still pay us taxes ?

 

You'd be amazed at how low taxes are in China. The personal exemption is so high that most people don't pay anything. Me, yes I do pay because I make a lot of funny munny, but 80% is still below the personal exemption. Only the last 20% of my income is beyond the tax threshold and the rates are so low I hardly notice ... something like 3%.

 

You guys pay like 40% of your income to state, local, and fed taxes and I pay only like 0.6%. But then I have to get my work visa renewed every year and the fee for that is where they hit me. Like maybe $150 worth of funny munny.

[IMMensaMind 462]

The tax cuts have already contributed to the debt. Extending them will continue to reduce revenue.

 

You're an idiot. Using your addled logic, me keeping a wall safe is costing criminals money.

[IMMensaMind 462]

A compromise that focks America twice on both ends. Jeebus Fock, I can't believe nobody is actually serious about deficit reduction.

 

I kept the focking candle on for the Dems this long that maybe they were, hopefully the fiscally responsible party. No more. Blown out. Fock them too.

 

Focking great. Let's just keep the deficit exploding forever.

 

These tax cuts destroyed the budget. They need to go. Now Obama bought them and what he got in exchange is another six months of shovelling taxpayer money onto lazy focks mooching off the government tit.

 

Fock Obama. I'm fed up with him. I carried water enough for him. I tolerated the stupid wars. The stimulus I opposed but understood the logic even if I disagreed. I gave him teh benefit of the doubt. Now, it's clear, he really truly doesn't give a rats ass about the deficit.

 

Done. Focking Done.

 

Raise some focking taxes and/or cut some focking spending. Do something to look like you're serious about deficits. I can't believe this. The government cannot afford this.

 

A$$HOLES.

 

:mad: :mad:

 

This opinion doesn't benefit from supporting facts. In fact, here's why:

 

Bush Tax Cuts resulted in highest Tax receipts in history

 

How could a tax cut which resulted in HIGHER revenue ruin a budget? What ruins a budget is excessive spending in spite of the revenues.

 

Even Krugman had to begrudgingly admit that Bush's tax cuts resulted in the lowest unemployment rate ever:

 

Likewise' date=' after the 2003 tax cuts, the unemployment rate fell to the lowest level since World War II. Let me repeat that: the Bush economic program created the lowest unemployment level ever[/size'].

Too many people are misled on this stuff. I don't know if you're hearing pure propaganda somewhere or what - but look more in depth.

[heavy-set 39]

Welcome to George W. Bush's 3rd term.

[MDC 7,881]

Welcome to George W. Bush's 3rd term.

 

No sh1t. You'd think the forearm Republicans would be delighted, since we're getting all the bad policy they loved from 2000-2008.

[mobb_deep 920]

Meh..I'd rather the 'rich' keep / get the tax break.

Extending unemployment just gives fuckos like myself longer to be complacent.

 

Not everyone on UC is a 40+ year old single coors lightaholic, who plays COD and wears the same t-shirts he had in 85.

 

A good percentage are working class stiffs, trying to pay a mortgage and put food on the table.

 

I'm all for extending UC. I'd rather my taxes go to UC, than paying to stitch up some beaner who fell on a lawnmower.

[FlaHawker 24]

You're an idiot. Using your addled logic, me keeping a wall safe is costing criminals money.

Notice MDC skipped over this

[Bert 1,128]

No sh1t. You'd think the forearm Republicans would be delighted, since we're getting all the bad policy they loved from 2000-2008.

 

But revenue keeps increasing.

[DanXIII 8]

Too many people are misled on this stuff.

 

Indeed. Unfortunately, you're one of them. Your post is proof that all anyone needs to fool another is a pretty chart or graph that doesn't paint the full picture. It's a classic correlation proves causation logical fallacy: "Taxes were cut + revenues increased = The tax cuts caused revenues to increase. Don't believe me? Here's a chart!"

 

In order for that premise to be true, federal revenues would have to increase every time taxes were cut. As we saw with the $700 billion stimulus plan passed in 2009 (some 35% of which, or ~$235 billion was in the form of tax cuts) that isn't necessarily true. Federal revenues after the Bush tax cuts haven't even returned to the baseline trajectory they were on after the dot-com bubble burst and 9/11. A normal economic recovery cycle can just as easily explain the increasing federal revenues as those tax cuts.

 

Your chart conveniently doesn't go back any further than 2000. Here's one that does:

 

http://modeledbehavior.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/image9.png

 

See the trajectory that revenues were on prior to the dot-com bust? See where revenues were after the Bush tax cuts? And notice how revenue continues to fall until 2003 even after the 2001 Bush tax cuts were passed.

 

However, the issue here is that suppose the Bush tax cuts had no effect at all on long term revenue. For example, increases in tax rates were exactly balanced by increases in GDP or decreases in tax avoidance.

 

So then we might think the decline in revenues was caused by Sep 11th or the Dot-Com burst. In that case we would expect to see a drop in revenues followed by a return to trend as the economy recovers. At a minimum we should expect post dip revenue to grow faster as the economy tries to return to trend.

 

We don’t see that. We see a permanently lower trend.

 

Given that this is exactly what you would expect from reducing the percentage of the economy which taxed, I think its pretty strong evidence that this is what happened.

 

http://modeledbehavior.com/2010/07/13/ezra-klein-is-dismayed-that-some-people-think-the-bush-tax-cuts-raised-revenue/

 

but look more in depth.

 

I know right?

 

 

[MDC 7,881]

These evil tax cuts managed to increase revenue every year. Unfortuneatly, the lack of spending control has led us to where we are today.

 

You may be surprised to learn that tax revenues increase virtually every year as the workforce grows and it has nothing to do with tax policy.

 

Who needs reality when you have GOP talking points?

[KSB2424 3,173]

Letting working folks keep a little more of their own money they themselves earn is never a bad thing. Peroid. End of discussion.

[Bert 1,128]

You may be surprised to learn that tax revenues increase virtually every year as the workforce grows and it has nothing to do with tax policy.

 

Who needs reality when you have GOP talking points?

I know that but stick to your talking points because spending is not the problem it is the tax cuts.

[MDC 7,881]

I know that but stick to your talking points because spending is not the problem it is the tax cuts.

 

They are both problems, but we have one party that wants to tax and spend and another that wants to cut taxes and spend. I'd prefer significant cuts to the "big three" (military, social security and Medicare) plus tax increases but nobody is going that route.

[IMMensaMind 462]

They are both problems, but we have one party that wants to tax and spend and another that wants to cut taxes and spend. I'd prefer significant cuts to the "big three" (military, social security and Medicare) plus tax increases but nobody is going that route.

 

Newly-elected Tea Party members want to cut spending and taxes, but you didn't support them.

[MDC 7,881]

 

The argument that tax cuts "pay for themselves" comes from two different kinds of Republicans:

 

1. People who know it's bullsh1t but make the claim anyway in order to justify tax cuts in any circumstance.

2. Stupid people who are being preyed on by #1.

 

I'm not sure whether MensaClown is being craven or dumb.

 

But I am sure I don't miss reading his retarded posts.

[Bert 1,128]

I'd prefer significant cuts to the "big three" (military, social security and Medicare) plus tax increases but nobody is going that route.

 

This is the answer. Anything else is smoke and mirrors.

[IMMensaMind 462]

You may be surprised to learn that tax revenues increase virtually every year as the workforce grows and it has nothing to do with tax policy.

 

Who needs reality when you have GOP talking points?

 

It has to do with both, and the best economic indicator of that is the umemployment levels as measured historically. You can chart levels in unemployment, and then overlay that metric with tax cuts. Let's focus on this unemployment chart:

 

Unemployment Rate; 1945-Present

 

There were 4 significant tax cuts during the time frame of this chart: JFK's (1962); Reagan's (1982); Clinton's (1993) and Bush II's (2003). Now look at those time frames on that chart.

 

See any correlation?

 

[KSB2424 3,173]

They are both problems, but we have one party that wants to tax and spend and another that wants to cut taxes and spend. I'd prefer significant cuts to the "big three" (military, social security and Medicare) plus tax increases but nobody is going that route.

I've got a novel idea. Why don't we cut spending, get rid of the beuarucratic anchors bringing us down, and limit entitlements first. Then, if that doesn't help bring down the deficit we can THEN talk about tax increases (or letting cuts expire)? What a crazy idea!@#!

[IMMensaMind 462]

Indeed. Unfortunately, you're one of them. Your post is proof that all anyone needs to fool another is a pretty chart or graph that doesn't paint the full picture. It's a classic correlation proves causation logical fallacy: "Taxes were cut + revenues increased = The tax cuts caused revenues to increase. Don't believe me? Here's a chart!"

 

In order for that premise to be true, federal revenues would have to increase every time taxes were cut. As we saw with the $700 billion stimulus plan passed in 2009 (some 35% of which, or ~$235 billion was in the form of tax cuts) that isn't necessarily true. Federal revenues after the Bush tax cuts haven't even returned to the baseline trajectory they were on after the dot-com bubble burst and 9/11. A normal economic recovery cycle can just as easily explain the increasing federal revenues as those tax cuts.

 

Your chart conveniently doesn't go back any further than 2000. Here's one that does:

 

http://modeledbehavior.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/image9.png

 

See the trajectory that revenues were on prior to the dot-com bust? See where revenues were after the Bush tax cuts? And notice how revenue continues to fall until 2003 even after the 2001 Bush tax cuts were passed.

 

I know right?

 

 

 

What tax cuts took place in 2001? I'm talking about actual policy implementation now - not what a piece of paper says. What took place in 2001 was two things: Recession, and 9/11; both of which derailed any "projections" you or the chart author wanted to claim. Your chart is wrong. What your chart shows is an attempt by some clown to assert that because there is a projection of income, that said events are supposed to mirror that projection. It didn't take into account anything but what it wanted to take into account, and ignored totally what metric made the numbers bounce back in 2003 (see the squiggle start to move upwards again there?)

 

You offered a chart from someone with a political/economic agenda, and as such only portray PROJECTIONS in an attempt to make a political point. I offered charts that actually are VERIFIED NUMBERS.

 

Projections are bullsh!t. Bush's tax cut, called the Jobs and Growth Act, took place in 2003. Wanna know why that's important? Because what took place in 2001 didn't take effect quickly enough, and the 2003 action accelerated the cuts. Do you see the revenue result, even in your chart?

 

It's also not true that "something has to happen EVERY TIME" or it's not true; that's intellectually dishonest. In this case, you were data-picking: you were putting up the effect of certain cuts against drastic economic anomolies (and BTW: a "stimulus" isn't a tax cut). That is intellectually dishonest. I just posted a far more substantial metric; tax cuts and their effect on unemployment (read: when employment increases, so does revenue).

[phillybear 366]

Newly-elected Tea Party members want to cut spending and taxes, but you didn't support them.

 

Between old and new members of Congress 80+ Republicans/Independents claim to be affiliated with the Tea Party. The Tea Party is driving the Republican Party at the moment. Therefore, MDC is retarded and has a tiny peenus.

[MDC 7,881]

I've got a novel idea. Why don't we cut spending, get rid of the beuarucratic anchors bringing us down, and limit entitlements first. Then, if that doesn't help bring down the deficit we can THEN talk about tax increases (or letting cuts expire)? What a crazy idea!@#!

 

Sounds great, but I'm still waiting for either major party to start proposing cuts to Social Security, Medicare, the military, etc. Instead we get some grandstanding on piddling expenses like UC benefits plus further tax cuts.

[FlaHawker 24]

The argument that tax cuts "pay for themselves" comes from two different kinds of Republicans:

 

1. People who know it's bullsh1t but make the claim anyway in order to justify tax cuts in any circumstance.

2. Stupid people who are being preyed on by #1.

 

I'm not sure whether MensaClown is being craven or dumb.

 

But I am sure I don't miss reading his retarded posts.

"A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues."

 

– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill

[IMMensaMind 462]

"A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues."

 

– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill

 

These posters must not have been a fan of JFK either.

[PackYourNut 47]

"A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues."

 

– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill

 

Blasphemy!

[MDC 7,881]

Blasphemy!

 

Ah the old "A revered Democrat said it, therefore anyone who I think is a Democrat must agree with it!" canard.

 

Let me tell you something: F@ghawker is a fvcking moron. He really is like RP's ghey retarded kid brother. And I'm not saying that because he's a Republican. I'm saying it because he wears a crash helmet and his tongue is too big for his mouf.

 

hth.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Ah the old "A revered Democrat said it, therefore anyone who I think is a Democrat must agree with it!" canard.

 

Let me tell you something: F@ghawker is a fvcking moron. He really is like RP's ghey retarded kid brother. And I'm not saying that because he's a Republican. I'm saying it because he wears a crash helmet and his tongue is too big for his mouf.

 

hth.

 

To whom were you responding? It seems that I'm the only one who insinuated that Dems no longer agree with JFK...but you (supposedly) have me on ignore!

 

 

(we all know you don't; you cannot help reading, but you don't have the firepower to respond with anything useful )

[Frank M 181]

To whom were you responding? It seems that I'm the only one who insinuated that Dems no longer agree with JFK...but you (supposedly) have me on ignore!

 

 

(we all know you don't; you cannot help reading, but you don't have the firepower to respond with anything useful )

 

 

And the world continues to revolve around I'MFATSOMind.

[MDC 7,881]

 

And the world continues to revolve around I'MFATSOMind.

 

My post said I was responding to PackYourNut.

 

I can see MensaClown's messages when he's quoted by other posters. And I think it's hysterical that he still keeps writing to me even though I've had him on ignore for a month.

 

Obviously I got fatso's goat!

[Frank M 181]

My post said I was responding to PackYourNut.

 

I can see MensaClown's messages when he's quoted by other posters. And I think it's hysterical that he still keeps writing to me even though I've had him on ignore for a month.

 

Obviously I got fatso's goat!

 

I think it's hilarious when FlaHawker chimes in with nothing other than a "What he said" post.

 

At least he's consistent.

[MDC 7,881]

I think it's hilarious when FlaHawker chimes in with nothing other than a "What he said" post.

 

At least he's consistent.

 

I have him on ignore too.