The $2.5 Trillion Tragedy: What America Has Given Up For 10 Years Of Bush Tax Cuts

[abso]

The $2.5 Trillion Tragedy: What America Has Given Up For 10 Years Of Bush Tax Cuts


Today marks the 10th anniversary of former President George W. Bush signing into law (http://articles.cnn.com/2001-06-07/politics/bush.taxes_1_child-tax-credit-trillion-tax-tax-relief?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS) his 2001 tax cuts (he passed a second round (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/21/politics/main554935.shtml) in 2003). While doing so, Bush promised prosperity and growth, but the nation got neither (http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/public_investment_far_better_than_tax_cuts/). The cost of these budget-busting 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was, as estimated by Citizens for Tax Justice, roughly $2.5 trillion (http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushtaxcutsvshealthcare.pdf) through 2010. But America didn’t have to go down this route of cutting taxes and hoping for growth to miraculously appear. There were other policy options available to policymakers.


ThinkProgress, using data on various social spending projects from the National Priorities Project — which does these calculations (http://costofwar.com/en/tradeoffs/) for the cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars — has estimated ten other possible policies we could’ve paid for at the same $2.5 trillion price of the Bush tax cuts. While not all of these policies are currently performed by the federal government, they do represent an accurate calculation of the monetary tradeoffs, and each one individually would cost the same as the Bush tax cuts. Here are ten alternatives we could’ve pursued instead:

- Give 122.7 Million Children Low-Income Health Care Every Year For Ten Years
- Give 49.2 Million People Access To Low-Income Healthcare Every Year For Ten Years
- Provide 43.1 Million Students With Pell Grants Worth $5,500 Every Year For Ten Years
- Provide 31.5 Million Head Start Slots For Children Every Year For Ten Years
- Provide VA Care For 30.7 Million Military Veterans Every Year For Ten Years
- Provide 30.4 Million Scholarships For University Students Every Year For Ten Years
- Hire 4.19 Million Firefighters Every Year For Ten Years
- Hire 3.67 Million Elementary School Teachers Every Year For Ten Years
- Hire 3.6 Million Police Officers Every Year For Ten Years
- Retrofit 144.6 Million Households For Wind Power Every Year For Ten Years
- Retrofit 54.2 Million Households For Solar Photovoltaic Energy Every Year For Ten Years



The tradeoffs paint a stark picture. For the same price as the Bush tax cuts, which did little to help the economy, we could’ve sent tens of millions of students to college, retrofitted every household in America with the capacity to generate alternative energy, hired millions of firefighters and police officers, effectively ended our national shame (http://www.childrenshealthcampaign.org/) of having kids who lack health care coverage, or put millions of more teachers into classrooms. But instead, Congress passed budget-breaking tax cuts, and then went on to pass even more in 2003. In 2010, Congress then went on to renew the Bush tax cuts for an additional two years, and the political will for the sort of public investments listed above appears to have dried up (http://robertreich.org/post/6188608377).


Source:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/07/237560/10-years-bush-tax-cuts/

[ConHog]

The $2.5 Trillion Tragedy: What America Has Given Up For 10 Years Of Bush Tax Cuts


Today marks the 10th anniversary of former President George W. Bush signing into law (http://articles.cnn.com/2001-06-07/politics/bush.taxes_1_child-tax-credit-trillion-tax-tax-relief?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS) his 2001 tax cuts (he passed a second round (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/21/politics/main554935.shtml) in 2003). While doing so, Bush promised prosperity and growth, but the nation got neither (http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/public_investment_far_better_than_tax_cuts/). The cost of these budget-busting 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was, as estimated by Citizens for Tax Justice, roughly $2.5 trillion (http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushtaxcutsvshealthcare.pdf) through 2010. But America didn’t have to go down this route of cutting taxes and hoping for growth to miraculously appear. There were other policy options available to policymakers.


ThinkProgress, using data on various social spending projects from the National Priorities Project — which does these calculations (http://costofwar.com/en/tradeoffs/) for the cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars — has estimated ten other possible policies we could’ve paid for at the same $2.5 trillion price of the Bush tax cuts. While not all of these policies are currently performed by the federal government, they do represent an accurate calculation of the monetary tradeoffs, and each one individually would cost the same as the Bush tax cuts. Here are ten alternatives we could’ve pursued instead:

- Give 122.7 Million Children Low-Income Health Care Every Year For Ten Years
- Give 49.2 Million People Access To Low-Income Healthcare Every Year For Ten Years
- Provide 43.1 Million Students With Pell Grants Worth $5,500 Every Year For Ten Years
- Provide 31.5 Million Head Start Slots For Children Every Year For Ten Years
- Provide VA Care For 30.7 Million Military Veterans Every Year For Ten Years
- Provide 30.4 Million Scholarships For University Students Every Year For Ten Years
- Hire 4.19 Million Firefighters Every Year For Ten Years
- Hire 3.67 Million Elementary School Teachers Every Year For Ten Years
- Hire 3.6 Million Police Officers Every Year For Ten Years
- Retrofit 144.6 Million Households For Wind Power Every Year For Ten Years
- Retrofit 54.2 Million Households For Solar Photovoltaic Energy Every Year For Ten Years



The tradeoffs paint a stark picture. For the same price as the Bush tax cuts, which did little to help the economy, we could’ve sent tens of millions of students to college, retrofitted every household in America with the capacity to generate alternative energy, hired millions of firefighters and police officers, effectively ended our national shame (http://www.childrenshealthcampaign.org/) of having kids who lack health care coverage, or put millions of more teachers into classrooms. But instead, Congress passed budget-breaking tax cuts, and then went on to pass even more in 2003. In 2010, Congress then went on to renew the Bush tax cuts for an additional two years, and the political will for the sort of public investments listed above appears to have dried up (http://robertreich.org/post/6188608377).


Source:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/07/237560/10-years-bush-tax-cuts/


Yep, let's vote Bush out of office... Hey wait a minute..............

[Missileman]

The $2.5 Trillion Tragedy: What America Has Given Up For 10 Years Of Bush Tax Cuts


Today marks the 10th anniversary of former President George W. Bush signing into law (http://articles.cnn.com/2001-06-07/politics/bush.taxes_1_child-tax-credit-trillion-tax-tax-relief?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS) his 2001 tax cuts (he passed a second round (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/21/politics/main554935.shtml) in 2003). While doing so, Bush promised prosperity and growth, but the nation got neither (http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/public_investment_far_better_than_tax_cuts/). The cost of these budget-busting 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was, as estimated by Citizens for Tax Justice, roughly $2.5 trillion (http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushtaxcutsvshealthcare.pdf) through 2010. But America didn’t have to go down this route of cutting taxes and hoping for growth to miraculously appear. There were other policy options available to policymakers.


ThinkProgress, using data on various social spending projects from the National Priorities Project — which does these calculations (http://costofwar.com/en/tradeoffs/) for the cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars — has estimated ten other possible policies we could’ve paid for at the same $2.5 trillion price of the Bush tax cuts. While not all of these policies are currently performed by the federal government, they do represent an accurate calculation of the monetary tradeoffs, and each one individually would cost the same as the Bush tax cuts. Here are ten alternatives we could’ve pursued instead:

- Give 122.7 Million Children Low-Income Health Care Every Year For Ten Years
- Give 49.2 Million People Access To Low-Income Healthcare Every Year For Ten Years
- Provide 43.1 Million Students With Pell Grants Worth $5,500 Every Year For Ten Years
- Provide 31.5 Million Head Start Slots For Children Every Year For Ten Years
- Provide VA Care For 30.7 Million Military Veterans Every Year For Ten Years
- Provide 30.4 Million Scholarships For University Students Every Year For Ten Years
- Hire 4.19 Million Firefighters Every Year For Ten Years
- Hire 3.67 Million Elementary School Teachers Every Year For Ten Years
- Hire 3.6 Million Police Officers Every Year For Ten Years
- Retrofit 144.6 Million Households For Wind Power Every Year For Ten Years
- Retrofit 54.2 Million Households For Solar Photovoltaic Energy Every Year For Ten Years



The tradeoffs paint a stark picture. For the same price as the Bush tax cuts, which did little to help the economy, we could’ve sent tens of millions of students to college, retrofitted every household in America with the capacity to generate alternative energy, hired millions of firefighters and police officers, effectively ended our national shame (http://www.childrenshealthcampaign.org/) of having kids who lack health care coverage, or put millions of more teachers into classrooms. But instead, Congress passed budget-breaking tax cuts, and then went on to pass even more in 2003. In 2010, Congress then went on to renew the Bush tax cuts for an additional two years, and the political will for the sort of public investments listed above appears to have dried up (http://robertreich.org/post/6188608377).


Source:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/07/237560/10-years-bush-tax-cuts/

The tax cuts didn't bust the budget. It's always the same story with lefties, they are some fiscally confused individuals. If I have $100 in my checking account and write a check for $200 I've busted my budget. I don't blame the checking account for only having $100 in it. The federal government didn't restrict their spending to the funds available...it was spending that busted the budget. That is THE biggest problem we have in DC right now. The clowns can't seem to figure out how to reduce spending on anything (except military benefits) and insist everything will work out if we just let them spend more.

[J.T]

Aren't the the Bush-Obama tax cuts now, since Barrack signed off on the extension?

[gabosaurus]

The tax cuts merely retarded the growth of the country. Why anyone would institute huge tax cuts while also starting a war and believe the country can be better for it is beyond me. But what do you expect from a mentally challenged brain fart attempting to run a country.

[ConHog]

The tax cuts didn't bust the budget. It's always the same story with lefties, they are some fiscally confused individuals. If I have $100 in my checking account and write a check for $200 I've busted my budget. I don't blame the checking account for only having $100 in it. The federal government didn't restrict their spending to the funds available...it was spending that busted the budget. That is THE biggest problem we have in DC right now. The clowns can't seem to figure out how to reduce spending on anything (except military benefits) and insist everything will work out if we just let them spend more.

Amazing that the idiots in DC can't seem to grasp that concept isn't it? I mean we would all love to set up a dream budget at the beginning of the year and then insist that revenues are brought in to fund that budget, but that's exactly 100% the opposite of reality where we budget our spending around our revenue.

[abso]

The tax cuts didn't bust the budget. It's always the same story with lefties, they are some fiscally confused individuals. If I have $100 in my checking account and write a check for $200 I've busted my budget. I don't blame the checking account for only having $100 in it. The federal government didn't restrict their spending to the funds available...it was spending that busted the budget. That is THE biggest problem we have in DC right now. The clowns can't seem to figure out how to reduce spending on anything (except military benefits) and insist everything will work out if we just let them spend more.

i agree that over spending is the main cause specially on military, but don't you think that reducing your income will also make you unable to fulfill all your commitments someday ?

[fj1200]

The $2.5 Trillion Tragedy: What America Has Given Up For 10 Years Of Bush Tax Cuts

Source:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/07/237560/10-years-bush-tax-cuts/

You've bought into a false premise.

The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2010/07/The-Bush-Tax-Cuts-and-the-Deficit-Myth)

[fj1200]

The tax cuts merely retarded the growth of the country.

Really? Who told you that?

[ConHog]

Really? Who told you that?

She read it on Huffy.

[fj1200]

She read it on Huffy.

She was huffing? Well, that does explain much.

[Missileman]

i agree that over spending is the main cause specially on military, but don't you think that reducing your income will also make you unable to fulfill all your commitments someday ?

The money that government takes is not theirs, it's ours. We are the ones who should unltimately decide what their income is and they then should live within it. As has been already posted, their thinking in DC is the opposite. They think it's all their money, they're doing us a favor letting us keep some of it, and they'll think of a myriad of ways to spend more money and think we have an obligation to fund whatever shit they come up with.

[gabosaurus]

The money that government takes is not theirs, it's ours. We are the ones who should unltimately decide what their income is and they then should live within it. As has been already posted, their thinking in DC is the opposite. They think it's all their money, they're doing us a favor letting us keep some of it, and they'll think of a myriad of ways to spend more money and think we have an obligation to fund whatever shit they come up with.

Muy estupido. Why do you think we have an elected legislative body?
Too many stupid people think the government runs on thin air. If everyone kept all their income and tried to make their own decisions about everything, the U.S. would turn into Somalia.
But then, ConReps would enjoy that because they could own all the guns they wanted and could shoot anyone that displeased them.

[red states rule]

Muy estupido. Why do you think we have an elected legislative body?
Too many stupid people think the government runs on thin air. If everyone kept all their income and tried to make their own decisions about everything, the U.S. would turn into Somalia.
But then, ConReps would enjoy that because they could own all the guns they wanted and could shoot anyone that displeased them.

and we see how well the "smart" people are running things. Not only have the "smart" people added $4 trillion to the debt in 2 1/2 years; the "smartest man when he walks into any room" wants to add another $450 billion to the debt to fix the problems he was spent trillions on to fix since taking office

and lets not forget the "smart" people on CA. If your beliefs that high taxes were the answer your state of CA would be an economic paradise

[red states rule]

The tax cuts merely retarded the growth of the country. Why anyone would institute huge tax cuts while also starting a war and believe the country can be better for it is beyond me. But what do you expect from a mentally challenged brain fart attempting to run a country.

Retarded growth? Oh well Gabby hit the dirt - incoming facts headed your way!

http://www.heritage.org/Multimedia/InfoGraphic/2011/09/2003-Bush-Tax-Cuts-Prompted-Surge-in-Employment

[J.T]

http://www.heritage.org/%7E/media/InfoGraphics/2011/09/bbusherataxcutschart2_590.ashx

Looking at that graph, I notice 3 things:
1)The first round of cuts failed to halt or even slow the decline, raising questions about your claim that the cuts have anything to do with what happens in that graph

2)The decline pretty much stops and the line levels out before the cuts go into effect

3)NFE remains roughly flat for some time after the the cuts pass before beginning to climb about 2 years after the official end of the recession and some time after the decline stops and things level out prior to the passage of the cuts

[red states rule]

From the link JT:

From 2001 through early 2003, the U.S. was losing an average of 103,000 jobs per month. A full year after the end of the 2001 recession, job growth was still declining. Then in May 2003, the second Bush tax cuts were passed, lowering income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. By the end of 2007, employment had risen by 8.1 million—an average of 148,000 new jobs each month.

The Bush tax cuts worked just as the JFK and Reagan tax cuts worked

Tax cuts work everytime

[J.T]

From the link JT:

From 2001 through early 2003, the U.S. was losing an average of 103,000 jobs per month. A full year after the end of the 2001 recession, job growth was still declining. Then in May 2003, the second Bush tax cuts were passed, lowering income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. By the end of 2007, employment had risen by 8.1 million—an average of 148,000 new jobs each month.

The Bush tax cuts worked just as the JFK and Reagan tax cuts worked

Tax cuts work everytime

Why didn't the cuts work the first time? Why did the decline continue? Why does the graph level before the cuts, remain level after, and only begin to grow 2 years after the recession ends and after remaining level? In both cases, the trends continue and the graph proceeds as though the cuts never happened.

[red states rule]

Why didn't the cuts work the first time? Why did the decline continue? Why does the graph level before the cuts, remain level after, and only begin to grow 2 years after the recession ends and after remaining level? In both cases, the trends continue and the graph proceeds as though the cuts never happened.

It takes about 6 months for the tax cuts to work thru the economy. Bottom line is more and more people are accepting the fact the Bush recession was much better then the Obama recovery we are told we are in right now

[red states rule]

Source:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/07/237560/10-years-bush-tax-cuts/

BTW, the Bush tax cuts brought in MORE revenue to the US government - like most tax cuts do

Raising taxes causing a drop in revenue and put people out of work




Taxpayers responded to President Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 by generating greater taxable income, according to a new paper to be published this fall in the National Tax Journal. In fact, taxpayers reported so much more income than was anticipated, it likely offset as much as 40% of the revenue that was lost by lowering the top two tax brackets, the paper, authored by a vice president for economic policy at the Tax Foundation, Robert Carroll, and economists Gerald Auten and Geoffrey Gee of the Department of the Treasury, found.

"This research illustrates that, while the lower tax rates have not paid for themselves, they do provide important economic benefits and can expand the tax base to such an extent that they cost the federal government substantially less revenue than the casual observer might think," Mr. Carroll, who was previously the deputy assistant secretary for tax analysis in the Office of Tax Policy at the Treasury, wrote.

As the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to sunset at the end of 2010, and the presidential candidates are busy finalizing their tax plans, understanding the effects of Bush's tax policy is critical. This paper, "The 2001 and 2003 Tax Rate Reductions: An Overview and Estimate of the Taxable Income Response," contends that lower taxes create a behavioral response in taxpayers, including working longer hours or taking higher-paying jobs, that generate greater taxable income.

This behavioral response, however, also means that when taxes are raised, there is a shift in behavior, and the tax increases often generate less revenue than anticipated.


http://www.nysun.com/business/bush-tax-cuts-increased-tax-base-study-says/84823/

[J.T]

It takes about 6 months for the tax cuts to work thru the economy.

However long it takes before the economy turns around, that's how long it takes for your idea to take effect? How convenient.


Bottom line is more and more people are accepting the fact the Bush recession was much better then the Obama recovery we are told we are in right now
Why do you feel the need for a diversion if your case is so strong?

[red states rule]

However long it takes before the economy turns around, that's how long it takes for your idea to take effect? How convenient.

Why do you feel the need for a diversion if your case is so strong?

No diversion, it points out Obama polices are not working and if Obama really wanted to turn the economy around he would call for across the board tax cuts, admit Obamacare was a mistake and call for its repeal, and stop treating the private sector like the enemy

How will tax increases grow the economy? It never has in the past so why will it work this time?

[J.T]

No diversion, it points out Obama polices are not working
That's because the 'Obama policies' are nothing but the Bush policies on steroids. We're still in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're meddling in Libya and sending drones into Yemen and Pakistan, he decided to top Bush's unfunded Medicare Part D with an even bigger package, we have more bailouts and ill-advised 'stimulus' (he had to outdo Bush's TARP), we still have Guantanamo, indefinite detention, and rendition (now we hold people on navy ships in international waters), he extended the Bush tax cuts and the USA PATRIOT act, he's taken a sudden liking to Petreaus and chosen him to head the CIA, he's adopted Bush's timeline for Iraq, he did a 180 on military tribunals for those accused of terrorism, we've seen even more domestic surveillance of the American populace, he's pushing the same amnesty (comprehension immigration reform', in Newspeak) as Bush II, and he (like Bush (http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2007/09/18/bush-backs-universal-health-care/)) has been pushing universal healthcare, I seem to recall him continuing Bush's policies of bailouts and he stole Bush's crown as the biggest spender since LBJ (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2007/10/24/20767/bush-is-the-biggest-spender-since.html). He's pretty much continued every Bush policy (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/government/obama-continues-bushs-secrecy-policy-on-mysterious-ip-trade-deal/4460) there was and dialed it up to eleven.

But go ahead and repeat the laffable curve fallacy if you want as though tax cuts were some magic bullet, even though laffer himself has said it's bullshit. You just end up looking stupid.

[fj1200]

Looking at that graph, I notice 3 things:
1)The first round of cuts failed to halt or even slow the decline, raising questions about your claim that the cuts have anything to do with what happens in that graph

2)The decline pretty much stops and the line levels out before the cuts go into effect

3)NFE remains roughly flat for some time after the the cuts pass before beginning to climb about 2 years after the official end of the recession and some time after the decline stops and things level out prior to the passage of the cuts

1) The '01 cuts were scheduled to phase in over time; delay the benefits of tax cuts and you'll delay the job growth.
2) The '03 "cuts" merely eliminated the phase in of the '01 tax deal; no new cuts as I recall; so there would be no more delay until lower rates kicked in.
3) Employment growth usually lags out of a recession.

It's all a moot point however because Federal revenues as % of GDP rebounded to the historical norm after the end of the recession.

[J.T]

It's all a moot point however because Federal revenues as % of GDP rebounded to the historical norm after the end of the recession.

So lowering taxes didn't boost the revenues above the norm?

You realize that what you say is heresy, right? ;)

[fj1200]

So lowering taxes didn't boost the revenues above the norm?

You realize that what you say is heresy, right? ;)

You understand not what you say.

[red states rule]

For some unknown reason, libe think the US has a revenue problem and not a spending problem






Appearing on Monday's "Today" to discuss the debate over reducing the nation's debt, CNBC host Erin Burnett declared to co-host Matt Lauer: "The problem is our revenue, what the government takes in, in taxes. What you pay every month out of your paycheck is way smaller, in fact, it's only somewhere around $2 trillion a year."

After Lauer asked about the relationship between government spending and the debt, Burnett acknowledged: "They are related, but really, to tackle this issue, we do have to tackle entitlements. When you look at Medicare and Social Security, it's 40% of our budget." However, she quickly denounced Republican attempts to use a raise in the debt ceiling to cut such spending: "Those are the questions we have to answer, but not through playing chicken on the debt ceiling."

Near the end of the segment, Burnett remarked that the United States is "...a very wealthy country. If you look at our assets, we could pay down the debt tomorrow. We choose to borrow because we can borrow at incredibly low interest rates." By "assets," Burnett seemed to be referring to the income of all Americans (unless she plans to auction off the Statue of Liberty to pay our bills)


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2011/04/11/cnbcs-erin-burnett-national-debt-problem-our-revenue#ixzz1XmXhVzQk

[beanerboy]

For some unknown reason, libe think the US has a revenue problem and not a spending problem


for some reason, teabaggers think that the only way to approach the problem is with spending cuts and forgoing all taxes on the uber-wealthy, who will not feel the bite of a 3% tax increase one bit.

[red states rule]

for some reason, teabaggers think that the only way to approach the problem is with spending cuts and forgoing all taxes on the uber-wealthy, who will not feel the bite of a 3% tax increase one bit.

Considering the "uber-wealthy" currently earn about 21% of the income and pay 41% of all federal income taxes - they are already paying more then their fair share

Who are you say what someone can or cannot afford?

Why not have the 50% of taxpayer who pay ZERO income tax pay some taxes instead of stinking it to the small minority who pay the majority of income taxes?

[ConHog]

for some reason, teabaggers think that the only way to approach the problem is with spending cuts and forgoing all taxes on the uber-wealthy, who will not feel the bite of a 3% tax increase one bit.

First of all, I doubt you'd miss $20 one bit if I came and took it out of your wallet (or more to the point if I took $20 worth of your food stamps) but it is YOUR $20 , so I have no right to take it just because you don't NEED it.

Second of all, do you not understand that if the US government took 100% of the income earned by the top 5% of earners (the uber rich) that that would still only be about half of what the government spends every year?

[red states rule]

Second of all, do you not understand that if the US government took 100% of the income earned by the top 5% of earners (the uber rich) that that would still only be about half of what the government spends every year?

Or pay for one year of Obamacare

[beanerboy]

Considering the "uber-wealthy" currently earn about 21% of the income and pay 41% of all federal income taxes - they are already paying more then their fair share

Who are you say what someone can or cannot afford?

Why not have the 50% of taxpayer who pay ZERO income tax pay some taxes instead of stinking it to the small minority who pay the majority of income taxes?

Not that you would know, but trust me, the uber-wealthy won't mind a bit paying a little more in taxes - especially if it improves the economy. They didn't bitch a bit when they were paying those rates under Clinton. Hell... the uber-wealthy didn't really mind the tax rates uder Ike.... they were still rolling in dough, just like they are now.

[beanerboy]

First of all, I doubt you'd miss $20 one bit if I came and took it out of your wallet (or more to the point if I took $20 worth of your food stamps) but it is YOUR $20 , so I have no right to take it just because you don't NEED it.

Second of all, do you not understand that if the US government took 100% of the income earned by the top 5% of earners (the uber rich) that that would still only be about half of what the government spends every year?

come and try to take a dime from me and I'll cut you, asshole.

and no one is talking about 100%.... we're talking about 3% increase. I know that I won't mind it one bit.

[beanerboy]

Or pay for one year of Obamacare

did you miss the GAO report which shows that Obamacare reduces the deficit? I guess so.

[red states rule]

Not that you would know, but trust me, the uber-wealthy won't mind a bit paying a little more in taxes - especially if it improves the economy. They didn't bitch a bit when they were paying those rates under Clinton. Hell... the uber-wealthy didn't really mind the tax rates uder Ike.... they were still rolling in dough, just like they are now.

The point is when you add up all the taxes the "uber wealthy" pay - they are already handing over half their income to the government

We have seen how the current administration has WASTED our tax dollars on pork and worthless projects

Why give them more money when they can't manage what they have now? Raising taxes on rich will NOT solve the spending problem or close the deficit

Here is what the IRS reported on who pays taxes. Again, where is the demand for those who pay NOTHING to pay SOMETHING

http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/toptaxes.jpg

[ConHog]

come and try to take a dime from me and I'll cut you, asshole.

and no one is talking about 100%.... we're talking about 3% increase. I know that I won't mind it one bit.

Maybe the uber rich should tell that to Obama.


And what a wonderful display of civility from the liberals, yet again.

[beanerboy]

nobody pays "nothing". Everybody is taxed by the man. Just because the poor do not pay "income" taxes does not mean that they are not taxed. They are. and again... the rich did really well under Clinton and, under Ike, for that matter, and will continue to have more money than they can spend if their taxes are marginally increased. WHy is it that the foiks who AREN'T rich are so against the marginal increase of rich folks taxes? I'm rich and I am perfectly willing to pay a few more percent.

[red states rule]

Maybe the uber rich should tell that to Obama.


And what a wonderful display of civility from the liberals, yet again.


Look at the polls. Most of the voters are. They want spending cuts (real spending cuts)_ and not tax increases

From what I have seen, most libs want OTHER people to pay higher taxes - not them

Charlie Rangle, John Kerry, and others come to mine=d

[beanerboy]

Maybe the uber rich should tell that to Obama.


And what a wonderful display of civility from the liberals, yet again.you think Buffett hasn't?

and again...threaten to take my money by force and I respond in kind. Play nice and I'll play nice. capice?

[ConHog]

The point is when you add up all the taxes the "uber wealthy" pay - they are already handing over half their income to the government

We have seen how the current administration has WASTED our tax dollars on pork and worthless projects

Why give them more money when they can't manage what they have now? Raising taxes on rich will NOT solve the spending problem or close the deficit

Here is what the IRS reported on who pays taxes. Again, where is the demand for those who pay NOTHING to pay SOMETHING

http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/toptaxes.jpg



You're wasting your time. They really don't understand, or care I'm honestly not sure which is the case, that the 47% of earners who pay NO income tax are in fact using the same government resources as the guy who is giving 25 cents of every dollar to Uncle Sam. In fact I suspect that in MOST cases that the bottom earners are using MORE government resources than the people who are paying most of the bills.

They WANT a free ride, that's the only explanation.

[red states rule]

nobody pays "nothing". Everybody is taxed by the man. Just because the poor do not pay "income" taxes does not mean that they are not taxed. They are. and again... the rich did really well under Clinton and, under Ike, for that matter, and will continue to have more money than they can spend if their taxes are marginally increased. WHy is it that the foiks who AREN'T rich are so against the marginal increase of rich folks taxes? I'm rich and I am perfectly willing to pay a few more percent.

Bottom line is if you want to raise taxes - raise taxes on those who are NOT paying taxes




WASHINGTON (AP) -- Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it's simply somebody else's problem.

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.

Most people still are required to file returns by the April 15 deadline. The penalty for skipping it is limited to the amount of taxes owed, but it's still almost always better to file: That's the only way to get a refund of all the income taxes withheld by employers.

In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0

[ConHog]

you think Buffett hasn't?

and again...threaten to take my money by force and I respond in kind. Play nice and I'll play nice. capice?

I didn't threaten to take your money you illiterate buffoon.

[beanerboy]

Look at the polls. Most of the voters are. They want spending cuts (real spending cuts)_ and not tax increases

From what I have seen, most libs want OTHER people to pay higher taxes - not them

Charlie Rangle, John Kerry, and others come to mine=d

liar

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148472/deficit-americans-prefer-spending-cuts-open-tax-hikes.aspx


"Americans' preferences for deficit reduction clearly favor spending cuts to tax increases, but most Americans favor a mix of the two approaches"

[red states rule]

you think Buffett hasn't?

and again...threaten to take my money by force and I respond in kind. Play nice and I'll play nice. capice?

BTW Buffett owes BILLIONS in back taxes. Perhaps he should settle up before demanding others pay more in taxes

[ConHog]

BTW Buffett owes BILLIONS in back taxes. Perhaps he should settle up before demanding others pay more in taxes

Well sure, that's why it's so easy to say "Sure I should be paying more in taxes" , I mean when you actually are not paying anything that is easy to say. Only the bottom 47% of earners never say THAT.

[beanerboy]

I didn't threaten to take your money you illiterate buffoon.

so taking $20 out of my wallet was an illusion, knuckle dragging moron? ;)

[red states rule]

Well sure, that's why it's so easy to say "Sure I should be paying more in taxes" , I mean when you actually are not paying anything that is easy to say. Only the bottom 47% of earners never say THAT.

With libs like Buffett, Kerry, and Rangle they have no problem demanding higher taxes - they have no intention of paying them until they are caught not paying them
Then it was an "oversight" on their part

[beanerboy]

liar

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148472/deficit-americans-prefer-spending-cuts-open-tax-hikes.aspx


"Americans' preferences for deficit reduction clearly favor spending cuts to tax increases, but most Americans favor a mix of the two approaches"

in case you missed it.

liar

[ConHog]

so taking $20 out of my wallet was an illusion, knuckle dragging moron? ;)

Holy Jesus you are a fucking idiot. I in fact said that I don't have a right to take $20 out of your wallet, and some how you turn THAT into me threatening to steal your money?


Go back to watching cartoons kid and leave the discussions to the adults.

[red states rule]

liar

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148472/deficit-americans-prefer-spending-cuts-open-tax-hikes.aspx


"Americans' preferences for deficit reduction clearly favor spending cuts to tax increases, but most Americans favor a mix of the two approaches"\




Sorry again

Most voters continue to feel that tax cuts and decreases in government spending help the U.S. economy.

The latest national telephone survey finds that 54% of Likely U.S. Voters think, generally speaking, tax cuts help the nation’s economy. That finding has ranged from a low of 50% to a high of 63% since early July 2008. Only 21% believe tax cuts hurt the economy, while 13% say they have no impact

Just over half (51%) also believe decreases in government spending help the economy. Twenty-four percent (24%) think decreases in government spending hurt economic conditions in the country. Thirteen percent (13%) say these decreases have no impact. These results have changed little for the past two years.

But while voters strongly believe cutting both taxes and government spending are good for the economy, they don’t see it happening any time soon. In fact, 56% believe government spending will go up under the Obama administration. Eleven percent (11%) feel government spending will go down, and another 25% say it will stay about the same. Belief that spending will go up under Obama has run from 58% to 74% since he took office in January 2009.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/taxes/june_2011/most_voters_still_think_tax_cuts_spending_decrease s_benefit_economy

[beanerboy]

Holy Jesus you are a fucking idiot. I in fact said that I don't have a right to take $20 out of your wallet, and some how you turn THAT into me threatening to steal your money?


Go back to watching cartoons kid and leave the discussions to the adults.

my guess is, I had a decade of blue water under the keel before you were shitting yellow, small stuff.... but enough of showing each other our e-epeens. the point is: the wealthy enjoy a lot of intrinsic perks just for being wealthy, and they really don't mind if their taxes are marginally increased... especially when they believe that such an increase will lead to an overall improving economic picture. I know. I grew up wealthy and I am wealthy now.

[red states rule]

my guess is, I had a decade of blue water under the keel before you were shitting yellow, small stuff.... but enough of showing each other our e-epeens. the point is: the wealthy enjoy a lot of intrinsic perks just for being wealthy, and they really don't mind if their taxes are marginally increased... especially when they believe that such an increase will lead to an overall improving economic picture. I know. I grew up wealthy and I am wealthy now.

How do tax increases improve the economy?

[ConHog]

my guess is, I had a decade of blue water under the keel before you were shitting yellow, small stuff.... but enough of showing each other our e-epeens. the point is: the wealthy enjoy a lot of intrinsic perks just for being wealthy, and they really don't mind if their taxes are marginally increased... especially when they believe that such an increase will lead to an overall improving economic picture. I know. I grew up wealthy and I am wealthy now.

No, the point is your an idiot who claimed I threatened to rob you and responded by threatening to cut me and has no realized that he made an idiotic claim but doesn't have the personal integrity to apologize.


Further, I in NOWAY believe you're wealthy. I do admit there is a possibility that your mommy and daddy are wealthy, but living in their basement doesn't mean you are also wealthy.


Your contention that wealthy people don't mind having another 3% of their income taken while 47% of earners pay nothing is laughable. Wealthy people are generally wealthy for a reason, that reason being that they don't just throw their money out the window no matter how much they have. Anyone who is smart enough to have figured out how to become wealthy is also smart enough to realize that giving money to the USG is tantamount to throwing money away.

[beanerboy]

\

I guess Gallup was lying.

[red states rule]

I guess Gallup was lying.

They were highlight the 32% who wanted both cuts and taxes. There is NOT a majority who want tax increases

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/srxuqqm8qkax643rbt9k-w.gif

[beanerboy]

No, the point is your an idiot who claimed I threatened to rob you and responded by threatening to cut me and has no realized that he made an idiotic claim but doesn't have the personal integrity to apologize.


Further, I in NOWAY believe you're wealthy. I do admit there is a possibility that your mommy and daddy are wealthy, but living in their basement doesn't mean you are also wealthy.


Your contention that wealthy people don't mind having another 3% of their income taken while 47% of earners pay nothing is laughable. Wealthy people are generally wealthy for a reason, that reason being that they don't just throw their money out the window no matter how much they have. Anyone who is smart enough to have figured out how to become wealthy is also smart enough to realize that giving money to the USG is tantamount to throwing money away.

lol

I've been retired for several years.

so I guess maybe you should speak your own truth and I should speak mine.

[beanerboy]

They were highlight the 32% who wanted both cuts and taxes. There is NOT a majority who want tax increases

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/srxuqqm8qkax643rbt9k-w.gif

if you add up all those who prefer some form of tax increases, it is clearly a majority.

[red states rule]

if you add up all those who prefer some form of tax increases, it is clearly a majority.

Please look at the last 2 numbers

You lose 50 - 11

You have stepped in it big time

[Missileman]

Muy estupido. Why do you think we have an elected legislative body?
Too many stupid people think the government runs on thin air. If everyone kept all their income and tried to make their own decisions about everything, the U.S. would turn into Somalia.
But then, ConReps would enjoy that because they could own all the guns they wanted and could shoot anyone that displeased them.

Before you start throwing "stupid" around, let me remind you that you had no problem criticizing the spending of our "elected legislative body" as they see fit when it comes to DoD.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?30372-quot-Don-t-raise-Fed-debt-ceiling-quot-means-quot-Balance-the-Fed-budget-INSTANTLY-quot&p=459718#post459718

I'd say that makes you a hypocrite. You're dismissed!

[Missileman]

did you miss the GAO report which shows that Obamacare reduces the deficit? I guess so.

Sure it does...if you use the imaginary money they claim they'll have, e.g. 500 billion in eliminated fraud, waste, and abuse. Might I remind you however, that the federal government has shown nothing other than a propensity for creating fraud, waste, and abuse.

[beanerboy]

Please look at the last 2 numbers

You lose 50 - 11

You have stepped in it big time

clearly math is not your strong suit... maybe meth,

30 +32 +7 +4 =72

3 trillion in spending cuts coupled with 1 trillion in tax increases is a classic definition of "mostly with spending cuts" moron.

[Missileman]

Retarded growth? Oh well Gabby hit the dirt - incoming facts headed your way!

http://www.heritage.org/Multimedia/InfoGraphic/2011/09/2003-Bush-Tax-Cuts-Prompted-Surge-in-Employment

Retarded growth? I assumed we were talking about the lump betweeen Gabby's shoulders.

[ConHog]

Sure it does...if you use the imaginary money they claim they'll have, e.g. 500 billion in eliminated fraud, waste, and abuse. Might I remind you however, that the federal government has shown nothing other than a propensity for creating fraud, waste, and abuse.

The GAO even admitted that their figures were based off PROJECTIONS provided by the White House. IOW a best case scenario. What kind of idiotic piss poor ran organization bases their fiscal plans off BEST case scenarios. But hey BeanerBasementBoy is wealthy so he knows more than us.

[red states rule]

clearly math is not your strong suit... maybe meth,

30 +32 +7 +4 =72

3 trillion in spending cuts coupled with 1 trillion in tax increases is a classic definition of "mostly with spending cuts" moron.

Please go back and read you own poll

You must be using the same math Obama used when he said he would cut the budget deficit in half by the end of 2012

[ConHog]

clearly math is not your strong suit... maybe meth,

30 +32 +7 +4 =72

3 trillion in spending cuts coupled with 1 trillion in tax increases is a classic definition of "mostly with spending cuts" moron.

First of all please point out where Obama has suggested even $3.00 in spending cuts, let alone where Congress has approved. Secondly, how is $1T in tax increases going to happen if the only people who see a raise in taxes are the "uber wealthy?" Unless of course you intend to rob them of EVERYTHING.

[Missileman]

clearly math is not your strong suit... maybe meth,

30 +32 +7 +4 =72

3 trillion in spending cuts coupled with 1 trillion in tax increases is a classic definition of "mostly with spending cuts" moron.

3 trillion in promised future spending cuts and 1 trillion in tax increases that go into effect immediately. Do you really buy that pile of horseshit?

[ConHog]

Please go back and read you own poll

You must be using the same math Obama used when he said he would cut the budget deficit in half by the end of 2012

It's liberal math, if the numbers don't say what you want them to, just change the numbers.

[beanerboy]

the numbers are from your own poll... 32+30+7+4

can you add those up?

[red states rule]

the numbers are from your own poll... 32+30+7+4

can you add those up?

No it is your poll and you are ignoring the final tally

With tax increases only 11%

With spending cuts only 50%

Again, you blew it and you lose

[red states rule]

It's liberal math, if the numbers don't say what you want them to, just change the numbers.

Or do another poll and include more libs so you get the results you are seeking

[beanerboy]

No it is your poll and you are ignoring the final tally

With tax increases only 11%

With spending cuts only 50%

Again, you blew it and you lose

and only idiots, like you would suggest that we do it with ONLY spending cuts... clearly, 73% of the people are willing to accept SOME increase in taxes along with spending cuts... FROM YOUR POST, NOT MINE.

idiot.

[ConHog]

3 trillion in promised future spending cuts and 1 trillion in tax increases that go into effect immediately. Do you really buy that pile of horseshit?

Isn't that how you regulate your children's allowance when they are spending too much? "Okay look, I'm going to give you a raise now, IF you promise to stop spending so much starting next year."

[beanerboy]

They were highlight the 32% who wanted both cuts and taxes. There is NOT a majority who want tax increases

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/srxuqqm8qkax643rbt9k-w.gif

your post, not mine... 32+30+7+4

read em and weep, suckah.

[ConHog]

and only idiots, like you would suggest that we do it with ONLY spending cuts... clearly, 73% of the people are willing to accept SOME increase in taxes along with spending cuts... FROM YOUR POST, NOT MINE.

idiot.

Wait a minute. So YOU made a claim , RSR proves you're wrong, THEN you try to change your claim and call RSR an idiot?

Good grief.

Oh by the way, how many of those 73% who favor a raise in taxes fall in the group who pay NO income tax now and wouldn't if these raises went through? On I'm guessing 100%.

[red states rule]

your post, not mine... 32+30+7+4

read me and weep, suckah.

and the last 2 numbers are?

It is sad to see libs like you ignore what is fornt of their face

Hey, if you want libs to run on higher taxes I say go for it. Lets see Obama on TV telling folks they are undertaxed

I would love to see a repeat of the 1984 election

[beanerboy]

Wait a minute. So YOU made a claim , RSR proves you're wrong, THEN you try to change your claim and call RSR an idiot?

Good grief.

Oh by the way, how many of those 73% who favor a raise in taxes fall in the group who pay NO income tax now and wouldn't if these raises went through? On I'm guessing 100%.

duh... RSR proved me right. moron.

a majority of Americans are willing to see an approach that includes both taxes and spending cuts. I happen to be in the bracket that would see an increase in taxes and I could give a shit. I'll still make money on my investments regardless of a marginal tax increase... and if the economy ends up being better, I'll make more than the tax increase will take... and if it doesn't, I still got more than enough.

[beanerboy]

and the last 2 numbers are?

It is sad to see libs like you ignore what is fornt of their face

Hey, if you want libs to run on higher taxes I say go for it. Lets see Obama on TV telling folks they are undertaxed

I would love to see a repeat of the 1984 election


the last two numbers are wacko liberals who don't want any spending cuts. they are irrelevant.... kinda like you and your teabagger buddies are.

[red states rule]

duh... RSR proved me right. moron.

a majority of Americans are willing to see an approach that includes both taxes and spending cuts. I happen to be in the bracket that would see an increase in taxes and I could give a shit. I'll still make money on my investments regardless of a marginal tax increase... and if the economy ends up being better, I'll make more than the tax increase will take... and if it doesn't, I still got more than enough.

As I said I want Obama to run on higher taxes as Walter Mondale did in 1984

and I would love to see the same results

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/elections/maps/1984.jpg

[ConHog]

duh... RSR proved me right. moron.

a majority of Americans are willing to see an approach that includes both taxes and spending cuts. I happen to be in the bracket that would see an increase in taxes and I could give a shit. I'll still make money on my investments regardless of a marginal tax increase... and if the economy ends up being better, I'll make more than the tax increase will take... and if it doesn't, I still got more than enough.

Sorry, I still don't believe that you are wealthy. Wealthy people are not posting on message boards, THE END. I mean I'm comfortable enough, but you're claiming to be wealthy. I claim you're a liar.

Actually you've already claimed the title of liar your own self when you declare that RSR has somehow proven you are right.

[beanerboy]

run away from the fact that your own post showed that 73% of Americans are willing to accept some form of tax increases as part of a deficit reduction solution.

maybe you should take the time to actually read and total up the numbers in polling data that you post.

[beanerboy]

Sorry, I still don't believe that you are wealthy. Wealthy people are not posting on message boards, THE END. I mean I'm comfortable enough, but you're claiming to be wealthy. I claim you're a liar.

Actually you've already claimed the title of liar your own self when you declare that RSR has somehow proven you are right.

I am retired... and I just had a bunch of Mexicans in my house fixing the screens on my veranda... I had some time.

do you really think I give a flying fuck what you do or do not believe about me? LOLOLOLOLOL

RSR's own post shows that a majority - 73% - of Americans are willing to have some form of tax increases in the deficit reduction solution. He DID prove me right. now go and play with your trans am up on blocks in the front yard.

[red states rule]

the last two numbers are wacko liberals who don't want any spending cuts. they are irrelevant.... kinda like you and your teabagger buddies are.

Those same wackos voted in huge numbers in 2010 and do so again in 2012

Much to your dismay

[ConHog]

run away from the fact that your own post showed that 73% of Americans are willing to accept some form of tax increases as part of a deficit reduction solution.

maybe you should take the time to actually read and total up the numbers in polling data that you post.

Actually all that poll shows is that 73 % of those polled want some form of tax increase along with spending cuts. We don't know that they were all Americans, and we certainly don't know that they represent America as a whole.


If I polled 10 conservatives and asked them if you were retarded, I'm sure 10 of them would say yes. I couldn't then get on here and say that my poll proves that 100% of Americans think you're a retard. It wouldn't be true. I know truth is a concept you are not familiar with, but it IS important.

[ConHog]

I am retired... and I just had a bunch of Mexicans in my house fixing the screens on my veranda... I had some time.

do you really think I give a flying fuck what you do or do not believe about me? LOLOLOLOLOL

RSR's own post shows that a majority - 73% - of Americans are willing to have some form of tax increases in the deficit reduction solution. He DID prove me right. now go and play with your trans am up on blocks in the front yard.



No he didn't prove you right, because your ORIGINAL claim was that more Americans favored tax increases then favored spending cuts. The poll you posted showed that this is NOT the case , at which point you attempted to change your argument to fit the poll.

You're dishonest, and apparently a racist, for I see no other reason for you to have mentioned Mexicans in your last post.

[red states rule]

Actually all that poll shows is that 73 % of those polled want some form of tax increase. We don't know that they were all Americans, and we certainly don't know that they represent America as a whole.


If I polled 10 conservatives and asked them if you were retarded, I'm sure 10 of them would say yes. I couldn't then get on here and say that my poll proves that 100% of Americans think you're a retard. It wouldn't be true. I know truth is a concept you are not familiar with, but it IS important.

Considering 50% of people pay ZERO federal income taxes - they do not care if taxes are raised

Now if they were paying taxes, I am damn sure many would oppose any tax increase. That is why taxes on the "poor" need to increased before anyone elses taxes are raised

[beanerboy]

Actually all that poll shows is that 73 % of those polled want some form of tax increase. We don't know that they were all Americans, and we certainly don't know that they represent America as a whole.


If I polled 10 conservatives and asked them if you were retarded, I'm sure 10 of them would say yes. I couldn't then get on here and say that my poll proves that 100% of Americans think you're a retard. It wouldn't be true. I know truth is a concept you are not familiar with, but it IS important.

so all polls that don't jibe with your way of thinking are skewed weirdly?

Ok

got it.

what do you say about polls that DO jibe with your way of thinking, btw?

and if you think they're full of shit also...here's a suggestion: stay the fuck out of discussions where people are posting polling data

[red states rule]

so all polls that don't jibe with your way of thinking are skewed weirdly?

Ok

got it.

what do you say about polls that DO jibe with your way of thinking, btw?

and if you think they're full of shit also...here's a suggestion: stay the fuck out of discussions where people are posting polling data

When are you going to post a poll that supports your pro tax increase stance?

[ConHog]

so all polls that don't jibe with your way of thinking are skewed weirdly?

Ok

got it.

what do you say about polls that DO jibe with your way of thinking, btw?

and if you think they're full of shit also...here's a suggestion: stay the fuck out of discussions where people are posting polling data

I say the same thing I say about this one. All they do is give a sampling. They are useful, but ONLY if you know who was polled. For instance, if people were asked, are you a taxpayer before they answered the other questions, then the data would be more valuable.

A poll can be construed to give you exactly the results you want, and I find all of them about as valuable as a poopy flavored lollipop.

[ConHog]

Considering 50% of people pay ZERO federal income taxes - they do not care if taxes are raised

Now if they were paying taxes, I am damn sure many would oppose any tax increase. That is why taxes on the "poor" need to increased before anyone elses taxes are raised

That's what I asked Beaner. How many of those 73% fell in the group of 47% who currently pay zero income tax. Hell, what do they care how much taxes go up?

[red states rule]

That's what I asked Beaner. How many of those 73% fell in the group of 47% who currently pay zero income tax. Hell, what do they care how much taxes go up?

They are like Kerry and Rangle - they don't pay the tax so they don't care if they go up

[beanerboy]

When are you going to post a poll that supports your pro tax increase stance?

RSR already did for me..... 73%

can you fucking read???????/

[beanerboy]

They are like Kerry and Rangle - they don't pay the tax so they don't care if they go up

you posted the polling data.... 73% of respondents favor some form of tax increase as a part of the deficit reduction solution. again... you need to read and digest what you post before you just spam the board with bullshit.

[red states rule]

RSR already did for me..... 73%

can you fucking read???????/

Is that the same poll where 50% of the total said solve the deficit with mostly spending cuts only? :laugh2:

[beanerboy]

Is that the same poll where 50% of the total said solve the deficit with mostly spending cuts only? :laugh2:

it's the very same poll where 73% stated that they would be willing to see tax increases as part of the solution. Just like I think.

NOT how you think.

[beanerboy]

They were highlight the 32% who wanted both cuts and taxes. There is NOT a majority who want tax increases

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/srxuqqm8qkax643rbt9k-w.gif


again.... your post, not mine. 73% do NOT want a solution that does NOT include some form of tax increases

[Nukeman]

Here's a novel idea!!!!!! How about you see how much money you bring in than make a budget on that.. You know live within your means.. Gee only about 350 million of us have to do that every freaking day. Why doesn't the govt??

[Nukeman]

again.... your post, not mine. 73% do NOT want a solution that does NOT include some form of tax increasesUmm I come up with 43% the other 30% makes NO mention of tax increases! Unless you're some kind of clairvoyant. Your reading between the lines and that is all...

[beanerboy]

Umm I come up with 43% the other 30% makes NO mention of tax increases! Unless you're some kind of clairvoyant. Your reading between the lines and that is all...

"MOSTLY with spending cuts" what did you think the OTHER part was? a lottery? LOL

really...read the fucking poll question, for god sakes.

[Nukeman]

"MOSTLY with spending cuts" what did you think the OTHER part was? a lottery? LOL

really...read the fucking poll question, for god sakes.Really fucktard.... the poll doesn't say now does it. YOU are ASSUMING.. That is what is implied but the poll is not clear on that.. learn to read what is there and not between the lines FUCKHEAD!!!!

[J.T]

For some unknown reason, libe think the US has a revenue problem and not a spending problem
You got any proposals, or do you just wanna bitch and cry?

Let's talk cuts (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?32555-Let-s-talk-cuts)


Why not have the 50% of taxpayer who pay ZERO income tax pay some taxes instead of stinking it to the small minority who pay the majority of income taxes?
blah, blah, blah...

They control 2.5% of the wealth. What is it with you and the class warfare against working Americans?

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2011/08/jon-stewart-has-had-it-how-fox-talks-about-class-warfare/41474/


the top 5% of earners (the uber rich)

Try the top 1%- or better yet the top .1%


Until recently, most studies just broke out the top 1% as a group. Data on net worth distributions within the top 1% indicate that one enters the top 0.5% with about $1.8M, the top 0.25% with $3.1M, the top 0.10% with $5.5M and the top 0.01% with $24.4M. Wealth distribution is highly skewed towards the top 0.01%, increasing the overall average for this group. The net worth for those in the lower half of the top 1% is usually achieved after decades of education, hard work, saving and investing as a professional or small business person. While an after-tax income of $175k to $250k and net worth in the $1.2M to $1.8M range may seem like a lot of money to most Americans, it doesn’t really buy freedom from financial worry or access to the true corridors of power and money. That doesn’t become frequent until we reach the top 0.1%.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25759



How do tax increases improve the economy?

raising taxes on the wealthy taxes serve two primary functions:
-raising revenue to fund the government
-serving as part of a broader economic policy designed to limits the wealth/income gap, increase meaningful social mobility, and put more buying power in the hands of the working class, thereby increasing demand and fueling economic growth as the supply-side responds to the increase in demand. Demand drives the economy. That's why the economy boomed after WWII as people finally began buying up all the things they had to do without during the war and began to purchase luxury goods they had not purchased prior to the war (Bernays' ilk was partially responsible for this).

It is the last of these, increasing demand and the buying power of the working class, that serves to aid in building a strong economy.

[Nukeman]

You got any proposals, or do you just wanna bitch and cry?

Let's talk cuts (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?32555-Let-s-talk-cuts)

blah, blah, blah...

They control 2.5% of the wealth. What is it with you and the class warfare against working Americans?

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2011/08/jon-stewart-has-had-it-how-fox-talks-about-class-warfare/41474/



Try the top 1%- or better yet the top .1%

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25759




raising taxes on the wealthy taxes serve two primary functions:
-raising revenue to fund the government
-serving as part of a broader economic policy designed to limits the wealth/income gap, increase meaningful social mobility, and put more buying power in the hands of the working class, thereby increasing demand and fueling economic growth as the supply-side responds to the increase in demand. Demand drives the economy. That's why the economy boomed after WWII as people finally began buying up all the things they had to do without during the war and began to purchase luxury goods they had not purchased prior to the war (Bernays' ilk was partially responsible for this).

It is the last of these, increasing demand and the buying power of the working class, that serves to aid in building a strong economy.you know your right on a lot of points however I thin the big thing for a lot of us when we talk about the 50% that don't pay taxes, they SHOULDN'T be getting a refund on something the DIDN'T PAY.

The people in the bottom 50% earners catagory who don't pay taxes are not ENTITLED to a refund.

In fact lets look at that word shall we REFUND....


refundvb [rɪˈfʌnd] (tr)1. (Business / Commerce) to give back (money), as when an article purchased is unsatisfactory
2. (Business / Commerce) to reimburse (a person)

n [ˈriːˌfʌnd] (Business / Commerce) return of money to a purchaser or the amount so returned[from Latin refundere to pour back, from re- + fundere to pour]
refundable adj
refunder n

[beanerboy]

Really fucktard.... the poll doesn't say now does it. YOU are ASSUMING.. That is what is implied but the poll is not clear on that.. learn to read what is there and not between the lines FUCKHEAD!!!!

but actually, fucktard...the poll DOES say. Like I said... read the fucking poll question.

[ConHog]

but actually, fucktard...the poll DOES say. Like I said... read the fucking poll question.

If you're angling to set some sort of record for calling people names in a single thread, you have a LONG way to go.

[DragonStryk72]

The $2.5 Trillion Tragedy: What America Has Given Up For 10 Years Of Bush Tax Cuts


Today marks the 10th anniversary of former President George W. Bush signing into law (http://articles.cnn.com/2001-06-07/politics/bush.taxes_1_child-tax-credit-trillion-tax-tax-relief?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS) his 2001 tax cuts (he passed a second round (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/21/politics/main554935.shtml) in 2003). While doing so, Bush promised prosperity and growth, but the nation got neither (http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/public_investment_far_better_than_tax_cuts/). The cost of these budget-busting 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was, as estimated by Citizens for Tax Justice, roughly $2.5 trillion (http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushtaxcutsvshealthcare.pdf) through 2010. But America didn’t have to go down this route of cutting taxes and hoping for growth to miraculously appear. There were other policy options available to policymakers.


ThinkProgress, using data on various social spending projects from the National Priorities Project — which does these calculations (http://costofwar.com/en/tradeoffs/) for the cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars — has estimated ten other possible policies we could’ve paid for at the same $2.5 trillion price of the Bush tax cuts. While not all of these policies are currently performed by the federal government, they do represent an accurate calculation of the monetary tradeoffs, and each one individually would cost the same as the Bush tax cuts. Here are ten alternatives we could’ve pursued instead:

- Give 122.7 Million Children Low-Income Health Care Every Year For Ten Years
- Give 49.2 Million People Access To Low-Income Healthcare Every Year For Ten Years
- Provide 43.1 Million Students With Pell Grants Worth $5,500 Every Year For Ten Years
- Provide 31.5 Million Head Start Slots For Children Every Year For Ten Years
- Provide VA Care For 30.7 Million Military Veterans Every Year For Ten Years
- Provide 30.4 Million Scholarships For University Students Every Year For Ten Years
- Hire 4.19 Million Firefighters Every Year For Ten Years
- Hire 3.67 Million Elementary School Teachers Every Year For Ten Years
- Hire 3.6 Million Police Officers Every Year For Ten Years
- Retrofit 144.6 Million Households For Wind Power Every Year For Ten Years
- Retrofit 54.2 Million Households For Solar Photovoltaic Energy Every Year For Ten Years



The tradeoffs paint a stark picture. For the same price as the Bush tax cuts, which did little to help the economy, we could’ve sent tens of millions of students to college, retrofitted every household in America with the capacity to generate alternative energy, hired millions of firefighters and police officers, effectively ended our national shame (http://www.childrenshealthcampaign.org/) of having kids who lack health care coverage, or put millions of more teachers into classrooms. But instead, Congress passed budget-breaking tax cuts, and then went on to pass even more in 2003. In 2010, Congress then went on to renew the Bush tax cuts for an additional two years, and the political will for the sort of public investments listed above appears to have dried up (http://robertreich.org/post/6188608377).


Source:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/07/237560/10-years-bush-tax-cuts/

Okay, here we go: 9/11 happened and took out two of the world trade centers. Most stocks dropped likes rocks, to say nothing of the loss of life and property. A lot of businesses at Ground Zero survived 9/11 only to be slowly beaten to death by the lack of business cause by the absence of the trade centers. Almost all the businesses in the area owed their living to the WTC, with so many people coming and going to it. then of course, there was the housing bubble burst, because people kept taking out loans on homes they simply couldn't afford, buying "starter castles" that they never even intending to keep, "knowing" that they could flip the house for money. It was horrible business strategy, and many small businesses held on only because of the tax cuts. We went to war in Afghanistan to find the people who did struck us, and then another war in Iraq.

Now fast forward: We are pretty much bankrupt as a nation. We hit our debt ceiling and had to ease it just to keep the government operating. Where in your mind would more spending have changed anything on that count? We just drop more than a trillion dollars into a "stimulus". None of the items you listed could have helped us dig out of debt, or fix our economy, so yeah, I guess we hold off on those things till later when we become more stable.

[ConHog]

Here's a novel idea!!!!!! How about you see how much money you bring in than make a budget on that.. You know live within your means.. Gee only about 350 million of us have to do that every freaking day. Why doesn't the govt??

No shit, wouldn't you love to have a bank that you could go to and say " Look, I'm WAY in debt, I have NO intention of sticking to a budget, AND I have absolutely NO idea how I can ever repay what I already owe you, let alone what I am asking for today, but can a brotha get a loan?"

LOL

[DragonStryk72]

However long it takes before the economy turns around, that's how long it takes for your idea to take effect? How convenient.

So you're now saying that unless the failing economy instantly, it couldn't have had anything to do with with the improvement? By that theory, we really lost the Revolutionary War, and are currently all proper English citizens, because clearly the Declaration of Independence was a critical failure
Why do you feel the need for a diversion if your case is so strong?

You mean like taking a dig that because there weren't instantaneous results from a single government action, that means the actions had no effect at all?

[Nukeman]

but actually, fucktard...the poll DOES say. Like I said... read the fucking poll question.

Uhh no it doesn't!!!!!!! I quote "mostly with spending cuts" see NO mention of taxes. You will however note that in the other questions the use of the word TAXES is in them or are you going to dispute that FUCKTARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So if they wanted to include taxes in the question then it would have been in there!!!!! Moron!!!!!

[beanerboy]

Uhh no it doesn't!!!!!!! I quote "mostly with spending cuts" see NO mention of taxes. You will however note that in the other questions the use of the word TAXES is in them or are you going to dispute that FUCKTARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So if they wanted to include taxes in the question then it would have been in there!!!!! Moron!!!!!

like I said, read the poll question. what were their options?

[Nukeman]

like I said, read the poll question. what were their options?I did, did you?? no where does the option come up of mostly spending cuts and tax increases. Show me that if you can!?!?!?!?!?

[beanerboy]

I did, did you?? no where does the option come up of mostly spending cuts and tax increases. Show me that if you can!?!?!?!?!?

it's inherent in the question itself. they did not give any other options. they said spending increases or tax increases or a combination of the two.

[fj1200]

For some unknown reason, libe think the US has a revenue problem and not a spending problem

In some respects we do because the deep recession and incumbent unemployment decimated tax revenues far below normal and the lack of a real recovery has not allowed revenues to bounce back to the norm.


for some reason, teabaggers think that the only way to approach the problem is with spending cuts and forgoing all taxes on the uber-wealthy, who will not feel the bite of a 3% tax increase one bit.

But it's not a tax rate problem; a 3% increase will not raise the revenues that you/they think. "... forgoing all taxes on the uber-wealthy"? You're funny.

[fj1200]

my guess is, I had a decade of blue water under the keel before you were shitting yellow, small stuff.... but enough of showing each other our e-epeens. the point is: the wealthy enjoy a lot of intrinsic perks just for being wealthy, and they really don't mind if their taxes are marginally increased... especially when they believe that such an increase will lead to an overall improving economic picture. I know. I grew up wealthy and I am wealthy now.

There's your false premise right there. They may "believe it" but that doesn't make it true. I'm sure that was the thought process behind the Bush I Luxury Tax that destroyed the luxury boat industry throwing thousands out of work. That didn't help the blue collar workers that build the boats because of course the wealthy didn't mind the tax; they just didn't bother buying yachts anymore... or at least not US based ones. It's those who grow up wealthy that don't mind paying higher income taxes because their wealth is not taxed as income. It's the best way to make sure new money doesn't mix with the old money right bb?

[ConHog]

There's your false premise right there. They may "believe it" but that doesn't make it true. I'm sure that was the thought process behind the Bush I Luxury Tax that destroyed the luxury boat industry throwing thousands out of work. That didn't help the blue collar workers that build the boats because of course the wealthy didn't mind the tax; they just didn't bother buying yachts anymore... or at least not US based ones. It's those who grow up wealthy that don't mind paying higher income taxes because their wealth is not taxed as income. It's the best way to make sure new money doesn't mix with the old money right bb?

bb knows nothing about wealth, guarantee that.

[fj1200]

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/srxuqqm8qkax643rbt9k-w.gif


if you add up all those who prefer some form of tax increases, it is clearly a majority.

How is 32+7+4 "clearly a majority"? 43% for those who claim to be wealthy.
Whereas 32+30+20 is 82% which, for those who claim to be wealthy, far outweighs 43%.

[fj1200]

First of all please point out where Obama has suggested even $3.00 in spending cuts, let alone where Congress has approved. Secondly, how is $1T in tax increases going to happen if the only people who see a raise in taxes are the "uber wealthy?" Unless of course you intend to rob them of EVERYTHING.

Watch out there. bb will have Jeeves cut you. :laugh:

[ConHog]

Watch out there. bb will have Jeeves cut you. :laugh:

I'm skeered.

[fj1200]

raising taxes on the wealthy taxes serve two primary functions:
-raising revenue to fund the government
-serving as part of a broader economic policy designed to limits the wealth/income gap, increase meaningful social mobility, and put more buying power in the hands of the working class, thereby increasing demand and fueling economic growth as the supply-side responds to the increase in demand. Demand drives the economy. That's why the economy boomed after WWII as people finally began buying up all the things they had to do without during the war and began to purchase luxury goods they had not purchased prior to the war (Bernays' ilk was partially responsible for this).

It is the last of these, increasing demand and the buying power of the working class, that serves to aid in building a strong economy.

It does no such thing. Raising taxes on the wealthy does nothing to put money into the hands of the working class and if you think that Congress designed a broad economic policy of taxation then you are more deluded than previously thought. The economy boomed for many reasons, WE WERE THE ONLY NATION WITH ANY PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY LEFT chief among them but it's fortunate that we had a huge manufacturing base just ready to SUPPLY ;) the goods necessary.

[ConHog]

It does no such thing. Raising taxes on the wealthy does nothing to put money into the hands of the working class and if you think that Congress designed a broad economic policy of taxation then you are more deluded than previously thought. The economy boomed for many reasons, WE WERE THE ONLY NATION WITH ANY PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY LEFT chief among them but it's fortunate that we had a huge manufacturing base just ready to SUPPLY ;) the goods necessary.

Waste of your breath.

[fj1200]

Waste of your breath.

I know, he ignores what he doesn't understand. Besides, I was breathing anyway. :cool:

[ConHog]

I know, he ignores what he doesn't understand. Besides, I was breathing anyway. :cool:

Oh, I think he understands perfectly, he just CHOOSES to be a total douche who has to argue every little thing.

[fj1200]

Oh, I think he understands perfectly, he just CHOOSES to be a total douche who has to argue every little thing.

No... he doesn't. He can't even respond to my posts but just pops them up again later in another thread.

[Missileman]

No... he doesn't. He can't even respond to my posts but just pops them up again later in another thread.

Likewise, he hasn't responded to mine either.

[J.T]

you know your right on a lot of points however I thin the big thing for a lot of us when we talk about the 50% that don't pay taxes, they SHOULDN'T be getting a refund on something the DIDN'T PAY.

The people in the bottom 50% earners catagory who don't pay taxes are not ENTITLED to a refund.

In fact lets look at that word shall we REFUND....

You do realize that in many cases they do pay taxes (they're taken out of their paycheck) and they simply get back what they paid at the end of the year, right?

If you want to argue against the EIC and the handful of other refundable credits with similar effect, make that argument. But to say they should get no refund is to say they shouldn't receive back what they already had taken out before failing to meet the minimum income where they are required to pay income taxes- and therefore to demand their monies be illegal confiscated.


Okay, here we go: 9/11 happened and took out two of the world trade centers.

First, there's only one WTC. Secondly, if you meant two buildings... well, then you simply don't know what you're talking about. Or does pretending Building 7 never existed make it easier for you to swallow the official story?


Uhh no it doesn't!!!!!!! I quote "mostly with spending cuts" see NO mention of taxes. You will however note that in the other questions the use of the word TAXES is in them or are you going to dispute that FUCKTARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So if they wanted to include taxes in the question then it would have been in there!!!!! Moron!!!!!

taken in context, what else would the rest be, if not taxes?



I did, did you?? no where does the option come up of mostly spending cuts and tax increases. Show me that if you can!?!?!?!?!?

That's because the only two options are cuts and tax increases. It's can't be 'mostly cuts and tax increases' because there's no third option. The options are only one or the other, mostly one or the other, or equal amounts of both.

(the poll in question (http://www.gallup.com/poll/148472/deficit-americans-prefer-spending-cuts-open-tax-hikes.aspx) for anyone joining the thread late)



if you think that Congress designed a broad economic policy of taxation
I never said congress sat down and designed anything. I think we can all agree they've been making it up as they go some time.


it's fortunate that we had a huge manufacturing base just ready to SUPPLY ;) the goods necessary.
And it you want to restore that, you have to disincentive outsourcing and crack down on offshore accounts and tax evasion in order to bring production back into the states and keep the wealth generated from that economic activity in America.

He can't even respond to my posts
Then how are you responding to my responses? :rolleyes:

[red states rule]

In his article this morning Thomas Sowell summed up the Obama plan perfectly





snip


If government spending were the answer, we would by now have a booming economy with plenty of jobs, after all the record trillions of dollars that have been poured down a bottomless pit. Are we to keep on doing the same things, just because those things have been repackaged in different words?

Or just because Obama now assures us that "everything in this bill will be paid for"? This is the same man who told us that he could provide health insurance to millions more people without increasing the cost.

When it comes to specific proposals, President Obama repeats the same kinds of things that have marked his past policies -- more government spending for the benefit of his political allies, the construction unions and the teachers' unions, and "thousands of transportation projects."

The fundamental fallacy in all of this is the notion that politicians can "grow the economy" by taking money out of the private sector and spending it wherever it is politically expedient to spend it -- so long as they call spending "investment."

Has Obama ever grown even a potted plant, much less a business, a bank, a hospital or any of the numerous other institutions whose decisions he wants to control and override? But he can talk glibly about growing the economy.

Arrogance is no substitute for experience. That is why the country is in the mess it is in now.

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/09/13/back_to_the_future

[Missileman]

You do realize that in many cases they do pay taxes (they're taken out of their paycheck) and they simply get back what they paid at the end of the year, right?
:rolleyes:

Is that how the rent works with your mom? You pay her but then she gives you the money back?

[fj1200]

I never said congress sat down and designed anything. I think we can all agree they've been making it up as they go some time.

Sure you did.

raising taxes on the wealthy taxes serve two primary functions:
...
-serving as part of a broader economic policy designed to limits the wealth/income gap, increase meaningful social mobility, and put more buying power in the hands of the working class...
Why do you lie? Or are you suggesting that Congress does in fact NOT pass laws that determine tax rates?


And it you want to restore that, you have to disincentive outsourcing and crack down on offshore accounts and tax evasion in order to bring production back into the states and keep the wealth generated from that economic activity in America.

In fact; No. You need to "crack down" on policies that hamper business' ability to compete on a global scale.


Then how are you responding to my responses? :rolleyes:

Wow, you finally got around to addressing some criticisms rather than raising your talking points analysis over and over.

[beanerboy]

How is 32+7+4 "clearly a majority"? 43% for those who claim to be wealthy.
Whereas 32+30+20 is 82% which, for those who claim to be wealthy, far outweighs 43%.

It seems that you are being intentionally obtuse. 30% claim that they want the deficit attacked with MOSTLY spending cuts. Hell, I fall into THAT category. I would have loved to see $3 of spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. 3 of 4 certainly qualifies as "mostly" to most people for whom english is their native tongue. Those 30% are perfectly willing to see SOME taxes raised as long as a much greater majority of the solution comes from spending cuts. Add that to 32+7+4 and you get 73% who support having SOME sort of tax increases as part of the deficit reduction solution. ¿usted entiende?

[fj1200]

It seems that you are being intentionally obtuse.

Maybe. ;) They of course lay out a false premise to begin with as increasing tax rates don't really lead to increasing tax revenues on top of the lie that promised spending cuts ever actually happen.

[beanerboy]

Maybe. ;) They of course lay out a false premise to begin with as increasing tax rates don't really lead to increasing tax revenues on top of the lie that promised spending cuts ever actually happen.

hmmm. Have you abandoned your argument that my math was incorrect and now agree with me that the Gallup poll shows that a clear majority of Americans polled are willing to see taxes increased as a part of deficit reduction and now have retreated to a position where you are attacking the premise of the poll itself?

[Nukeman]

You do realize that in many cases they do pay taxes (they're taken out of their paycheck) and they simply get back what they paid at the end of the year, right?

If you want to argue against the EIC and the handful of other refundable credits with similar effect, make that argument. But to say they should get no refund is to say they shouldn't receive back what they already had taken out before failing to meet the minimum income where they are required to pay income taxes- and therefore to demand their monies be illegal confiscated. the point is they receive MORE than they pay in, what with the child tax credit the EIC, and any number of other deductions. How is it that thye can pay say 1,000 dollars yet get a refund for 5,000 dollars. That money came from somewhere right......???






taken in context, what else would the rest be, if not taxes?

Once again.... It was not stated in the question.. it was however stated in OTHER questions so tell me why it was stated clearly in some yet left ambiguous in this one???



That's because the only two options are cuts and tax increases. It's can't be 'mostly cuts and tax increases' because there's no third option. The options are only one or the other, mostly one or the other, or equal amounts of both.

(the poll in question (http://www.gallup.com/poll/148472/deficit-americans-prefer-spending-cuts-open-tax-hikes.aspx) for anyone joining the thread late)

I didn't see that as the ONLY two options in fact question 2 leaves that open and doesn't state that!!!!!

[Nukeman]

hmmm. Have you abandoned your argument that my math was incorrect and now agree with me that the Gallup poll shows that a clear majority of Americans polled are willing to see taxes increased as a part of deficit reduction and now have retreated to a position where you are attacking the premise of the poll itself?You have yet to show where in question 2 the term TAXES is mentioned... Can you find it???

[beanerboy]

You have yet to show where in question 2 the term TAXES is mentioned... Can you find it???

the Gallup link originally posted by RSR has only ONE question. The numbers listed are the results of THAT question. THOSE results clearly show that 73% of respondents were willing to see some degree of tax increases as part of the solution to deficit reduction. That's a fact.

If you want to post OTHER polling data, go for it. I have been discussing the clear results from THIS ONE question. ¿puede usted entender eso?

[beanerboy]

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/srxuqqm8qkax643rbt9k-w.gif


to refresh your memory. Only ONE question mark.

[J.T]

Sure you did.
:lame2:

Saying the primary function of the military is to defend against foreign agressors doesn't mean that's how it's been used as of late. Saying a progressive tax, as part of a broader economic policy specifically designed to do so, helps to combat gross wealth inequality doesn't mean such a system is currently in effect.


In fact; No. You need to "crack down" on policies that hamper business' ability to compete on a global scale.

You mean policies like not having flaming rivers anymore, not sending children into mines anymore, not allowing de facto slavery, and being able to breathe or drink some water without getting cancer?

http://www.chinahush.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/20091020luguang02.jpg


http://www.chinahush.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/20091020luguang05.jpg


http://www.chinahush.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/20091020luguang06.jpg


http://www.chinahush.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/20091020luguang08.jpg


http://www.chinahush.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/20091020luguang14.jpg


http://www.chinahush.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/20091020luguang16.jpg


“In Some areas of China people’s lives were threatened because of the environmental pollution. Residents suffering from all kinds of obscured diseases, the cancer villages, increase of deformed babies, these were the results of sacrificing environment and blindly seeking economical gain.”
- Lu Guang
http://www.chinahush.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/20091020luguang21.jpg


http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/

[J.T]

Once again.... It was not stated in the question.. it was however stated in OTHER questions so tell me why it was stated clearly in some yet left ambiguous in this one???


Because they assume you're (A) literate, (B) not a disingenuous person, and (C) not retarded and can recall the options from the previous question?


I didn't see that as the ONLY two options in fact question 2 leaves that open and doesn't state that!!!!!

Only two options are mentioned presented for consideration during the course of the survey: tax increases and spending cuts

Are you illiterate or just disingenuous?

[fj1200]

hmmm. Have you abandoned your argument that my math was incorrect and now agree with me that the Gallup poll shows that a clear majority of Americans polled are willing to see taxes increased as a part of deficit reduction and now have retreated to a position where you are attacking the premise of the poll itself?

No, the preference for tax increases is far below that of spending cuts. I see you've abandoned your other arguments though.

[fj1200]

:lame2:

I apologize for pointing out to you and others how empty your claims are.


Saying the primary function of the military is to defend against foreign agressors doesn't mean that's how it's been used as of late. Saying a progressive tax, as part of a broader economic policy specifically designed to do so, helps to combat gross wealth inequality doesn't mean such a system is currently in effect.

You are completely incapable it would seem of understanding the global environment that led to the 50's and the global realities that came after the 50's just as you are completely incapable of understanding what you are arguing for. Are you aware of the loopholes in the tax code back then and how we still had wage controls left over from the 40's? Do you know how business got around those loopholes so they could offer more to their employees? Government action causes actions that are not recognized until far down the line. You should do a little more research so you'll understand that your lilly-white picture of the 50's could not survive in today's world.


You mean policies like not having flaming rivers anymore, not sending children into mines anymore, not allowing de facto slavery, and being able to breathe or drink some water without getting cancer?

“In Some areas of China people’s lives were threatened because of the environmental pollution. Residents suffering from all kinds of obscured diseases, the cancer villages, increase of deformed babies, these were the results of sacrificing environment and blindly seeking economical gain.”
- Lu Guang

http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/

I find it interesting that you use examples from Communist China to decry the "evils" of Capitalism; disingenuous, but interesting. We have had environmental issues, no question, but we have also cleaned them up while much of the rest of the world where freedom is suppressed and oppressive regimes are the norm have become cesspools of pollution and the lack of human compassion. We have a prosperous populace that will demand a clean environment and will take the necessary steps.

That of course ignores what a lying sack you are because you take words out of context and try to make points that are not there. If you would like to have an honest debate I'm happy to have it but you have shown zero capacity to do so. So the first time that I actually state that we should roll back environmental regulations then you can pull out your ridiculous post. Until then save your idiocy for your "friends."

[beanerboy]

No, the preference for tax increases is far below that of spending cuts. I see you've abandoned your other arguments though.

I have never disputed that. I have only disputed the statement that a majority of Americans were against raising taxes as a part of the deficit reduction solution. Clearly, according to the link that was posted by RSR himself, my assertion, and not his, is correct.

Nobody of any national prominence within the democratic leadership has EVER advocated solving the deficit problem with tax increases alone. Republicans, on the other hand, DID advocate trying to solve the deficit problem by spending cuts alone... and that is an approach that, according to RSR's link, the majority of Americans disagree with.

[beanerboy]

No he didn't prove you right, because your ORIGINAL claim was that more Americans favored tax increases then favored spending cuts. The poll you posted showed that this is NOT the case , at which point you attempted to change your argument to fit the poll.


Oh...Corndog.... I just noticed this one. I would ask you to provide a post from me that said that more Americans favored tax increases than favored spending cuts.

If not, a retraction would be nice.

[J.T]

Communist China
:lol:

That's funny


We have had environmental issues, no question, but we have also cleaned them up
Through the same regulation you now say we need to get rid of to 'compete with China'

[beanerboy]

Oh...Corndog.... I just noticed this one. I would ask you to provide a post from me that said that more Americans favored tax increases than favored spending cuts.

If not, a retraction would be nice.

crickets chirping:::::::

[red states rule]

I have never disputed that. I have only disputed the statement that a majority of Americans were against raising taxes as a part of the deficit reduction solution. Clearly, according to the link that was posted by RSR himself, my assertion, and not his, is correct.

Nobody of any national prominence within the democratic leadership has EVER advocated solving the deficit problem with tax increases alone. Republicans, on the other hand, DID advocate trying to solve the deficit problem by spending cuts alone... and that is an approach that, according to RSR's link, the majority of Americans disagree with.



http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/Foden20110914-BMI-Fertilize20110913044539.jpg

[fj1200]

:lol:

That's funny


Through the same regulation you now say we need to get rid of to 'compete with China'

Idiot. Just have to make stuff up don't you? Why do you lie?

[beanerboy]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/Foden20110914-BMI-Fertilize20110913044539.jpg

your own link proves that 73% of Americans polled would support some degree of tax increases as part of a deficit reduction solution. The fact that you are deficient in math skills is not my fault. My assertion is certainly accurate.

[Missileman]

your own link proves that 73% of Americans polled would support some degree of tax increases as part of a deficit reduction solution. The fact that you are deficient in math skills is not my fault. My assertion is certainly accurate.

I don't imagine there's too many among those who want to see spending cuts who are willing to let them raise taxes and promise to cut spending. I'll go so far as to propose that the majority of Americans would be willing to take a fairly large tax increase if the budget were pared down to bare bones, with cuts across the board, and every cent of additional tax were used to pay down the debt AND the taxes would go back down when the debt is gone.

As things stand now, DC has not proven themselves capable of stewardship as it pertains to the money they take out of my pocket and at this time I have absolutely no interest in giving them more to piss away.

[beanerboy]

I don't imagine there's too many among those who want to see spending cuts who are willing to let them raise taxes and promise to cut spending. I'll go so far as to propose that the majority of Americans would be willing to take a fairly large tax increase if the budget were pared down to bare bones, with cuts across the board, and every cent of additional tax were used to pay down the debt AND the taxes would go back down when the debt is gone.

As things stand now, DC has not proven themselves capable of stewardship as it pertains to the money they take out of my pocket and at this time I have absolutely no interest in giving them more to piss away.

I find little to dispute in what you say.

[red states rule]

interesting that you run away from the math that you yourself posted.... which clearly shows that 73% of respondents were willing to have some form of tax increase as part of the deficit reduction solution.

math is hard for you, ain't it?

...The TOTALS show 50% want mostly CUTS and NOT tax increases

But by all means keep pushing the tax and spend agenda. If you thought last night at the ballot box was bad - you will be in a rubber room after the 2012 election

So much for that "safe" Dem seat eh? :laugh2:

[beanerboy]

Virgil, please use some of mommy's money to get a new pair of glasses. The TOTALS show 50% want mostly CUTS and NOT tax increases

But by all means keep pushing the tax and spend agenda. If you thought last night at the ballot box was bad - you will be in a rubber room after the 2012 election

So much for that "safe" Dem seat eh? :laugh2:

again. math must be hard for you. 32+30+7+4 from your own post. those are the totals of people who would be willing to see some form of tax increases as part of the deficit reduction solution. I don't want to see it all done with taxes. I personally fall into that category that would prefer to see a majority from spending cuts and some from taxes. Bottom line: your own post proves you wrong.

[red states rule]

again. math must be hard for you. 32+30+7+4 from your own post. those are the totals of people who would be willing to see some form of tax increases as part of the deficit reduction solution. I don't want to see it all done with taxes. I personally fall into that category that would prefer to see a majority from spending cuts and some from taxes. Bottom line: your own post proves you wrong.

No, the bottom line is Virgil you are not man enough to admit you were had by your own poll

Different name - same ol' Virgil

[ConHog]

again. math must be hard for you. 32+30+7+4 from your own post. those are the totals of people who would be willing to see some form of tax increases as part of the deficit reduction solution. I don't want to see it all done with taxes. I personally fall into that category that would prefer to see a majority from spending cuts and some from taxes. Bottom line: your own post proves you wrong.

That's really nice and all, but those numbers do NOT support your initial claim in this thread. You later (attempted to) change your argument to fit the poll. It isn't flying here .

[J.T]

Wow, you guys... that's one of the dumbest arguments I've seen here yet.

RSR is screaming about how many people prefer mostly tax increases versus cuts and bb is shrieking about how many said they opt for a plan that includes tax increases versus cuts.

:slap:

[beanerboy]

Wow, you guys... that's one of the dumbest arguments I've seen here yet.

RSR is screaming about how many people prefer mostly tax increases versus cuts and bb is shrieking about how many said they opt for a plan that includes tax increases versus cuts.

:slap:

it all started when RSR stated that the majority of Americans do not want any tax increases as part of a deficit reduction plan. THen he posted a gallup poll which totally disproves that assertion.

[beanerboy]

this WAS your post, wasn't it?


They were highlight the 32% who wanted both cuts and taxes. There is NOT a majority who want tax increases

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/srxuqqm8qkax643rbt9k-w.gif

[beanerboy]

It is clear you are devoted to spreading your ignorance Virgil

it is clear that you cannot stand behind the numbers in your own post.

32+30+7+4

only 20% want to do it completely without tax increases.... as per YOUR OWN POST:laugh:

[beanerboy]

Do you ever have a clear thought travel thru your head Virgil?

It you do it is such a long, and lonely journey

can you do the math? It is a very clear thought to add up four numbers that represent the percentages of poll respondents that would be willing to have tax increases be a part of the deficit reduction solution and see that they total 73%

They were, after all, numbers that YOU YOURSELF posted. WHy can't you be a man and admit that your own poll disproves you?

[ConHog]

can you do the math? It is a very clear thought to add up four numbers that represent the percentages of poll respondents that would be willing to have tax increases be a part of the deficit reduction solution and see that they total 73%

They were, after all, numbers that YOU YOURSELF posted. WHy can't you be a man and admit that your own poll disproves you?

Fool, stop trying to change your position, your position was that MORE people favored using tax increases than favored using spending cuts. You originally said NOTHING about those willing to do some of both. Not until you seen the data then changed your argument to fit.

Sheesh RSR just stop arguing with this dolt, he's simply not worth it.

[beanerboy]

Fool, stop trying to change your position, your position was that MORE people favored using tax increases than favored using spending cuts. You originally said NOTHING about those willing to do some of both. Not until you seen the data then changed your argument to fit.

Sheesh RSR just stop arguing with this dolt, he's simply not worth it.

as I asked you before... if you could find a post from me that said MORE people favored taxes OVER spending cuts, you should post it.... if not... you should retract it corndog. you ran away from retracting that lie before... my guess is you will do so again.

[ConHog]

as I asked you before... if you could find a post from me that said MORE people favored taxes OVER spending cuts, you should post it.... if not... you should retract it corndog. you ran away from retracting that lie before... my guess is you will do so again.

I didn't run away from anything. The post is right where you put it, me linking to it later in the thread will prove nothing. Everyone here already KNOWS what you were originally claiming.

It appears that everyone here already knows ALL about you.

[red states rule]

It appears that everyone here already knows ALL about you.

Do we ever

I will shoot you a PM with some of Virgil's Greatest Hits

[beanerboy]

I didn't run away from anything. The post is right where you put it, me linking to it later in the thread will prove nothing. Everyone here already KNOWS what you were originally claiming.

It appears that everyone here already knows ALL about you.

bullshit. I NEVER claimed that. It would be very easy for you to quote a post from me in this thread that said that. you can't corndog...and you don't have the integrity to admit it.

[ConHog]

bullshit. I NEVER claimed that. It would be very easy for you to quote a post from me in this thread that said that. you can't corndog...and you don't have the integrity to admit it.

CornDog. LOL you just gave away a few things with that stupid moniker.


It's okay I smell a short stay here in your future, so insult away while you can.

[beanerboy]

CornDog. LOL you just gave away a few things with that stupid moniker.


It's okay I smell a short stay here in your future, so insult away while you can.

still looking for that post of mine? I'll wait.:laugh:

[jimnyc]

still looking for that post of mine? I'll wait.:laugh:

If the board will let you, CH, look up the short phrase above. This dingleberry has like 102 user names in here over the years and that's his favorite phrase. Well, that and using the "C" at the ladies he disagrees with!

[ConHog]

If the board will let you, CH, look up the short phrase above. This dingleberry has like 102 user names in here over the years and that's his favorite phrase. Well, that and using the "C" at the ladies he disagrees with!

It's all good Jim, I just realized who Maineman here is, and am fully aware of his stupidity. Also of his nastiness.

[sundaydriver]

When I have a costly home project or or want another toy I need to do two things. Save by cutting or redirect spending and raise more cash. It appears most Americans live the same way and feel the government should also!



23-polls-say-people-support-higher-taxes-reduce-deficit (http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2341/23-polls-say-people-support-higher-taxes-reduce-deficit)

[beanerboy]

It's all good Jim, I just realized who Maineman here is, and am fully aware of his stupidity. Also of his nastiness.

and, I am STILL waiting. if you say stuff about someone, you should have the stones to back it up.

[ConHog]

and, I am STILL waiting. if you say stuff about someone, you should have the stones to back it up.

You present plenty of evidence of your stupidity, no reason for me to pile on.

[beanerboy]

You present plenty of evidence of your stupidity, no reason for me to pile on.

so... you admit that you were lyin' your ass off about what I said?

why not just say so?

I NEVER said what you claimed I said. NEVER.

I personally am one who would be one who would want way more spending cuts than tax increases and I NEVER would have said otherwise. YOU are a worm for not being willing to admit you fucked up.

[beanerboy]

really, conhog... I am a reasonable guy, despite what folks here might say to the contrary. If I ever try to pin some position on you that I think you have espoused, and you say, hey, what are you talking about? I never said that.... I will either find the post where you said it or I'll say, OK... you're right... I'm wrong. I thought that is what you had said but I was mistaken. I am only suggesting that, if you want to debate issues with me, that you show that same sort of fairness and integrity. In this thread, I have only tried to argue that, contrary to RSR's contention, Americans are not totally against raising some level of taxes as part of an overall approach to reducing the deficit. I consider myself someone who, if polled by Gallup, would have said that I would want the reduction to be mostly by spending cuts. I know that government is too big, but I don't think that be being smaller, we need to be less compassionate. I would love to see spending cuts in many areas, but I would also love to see the elimination of tax breaks for oil and gas industry producers, for example. I would love to see the elimination of tax loopholes that allowed companies to make money by shipping jobs overseas. I am not some hardcore iconoclastic liberal who wants to balance the budget on the backs of the wealthy while ignoring the excesses of government spending. I would ask you to rethink your categorical condemnation of me based upon the rather narrow, and partisan views of the other conservatives on this board, and, instead, converse with me as an intelligent liberal who has viable opinions that should not be dismissed out of hand. Having said all that, I am going to bed and look forward to reading your reasoned reply tomorrow.

[ConHog]

really, conhog... I am a reasonable guy, despite what folks here might say to the contrary. If I ever try to pin some position on you that I think you have espoused, and you say, hey, what are you talking about? I never said that.... I will either find the post where you said it or I'll say, OK... you're right... I'm wrong. I thought that is what you had said but I was mistaken. I am only suggesting that, if you want to debate issues with me, that you show that same sort of fairness and integrity. In this thread, I have only tried to argue that, contrary to RSR's contention, Americans are not totally against raising some level of taxes as part of an overall approach to reducing the deficit. I consider myself someone who, if polled by Gallup, would have said that I would want the reduction to be mostly by spending cuts. I know that government is too big, but I don't think that be being smaller, we need to be less compassionate. I would love to see spending cuts in many areas, but I would also love to see the elimination of tax breaks for oil and gas industry producers, for example. I would love to see the elimination of tax loopholes that allowed companies to make money by shipping jobs overseas. I am not some hardcore iconoclastic liberal who wants to balance the budget on the backs of the wealthy while ignoring the excesses of government spending. I would ask you to rethink your categorical condemnation of me based upon the rather narrow, and partisan views of the other conservatives on this board, and, instead, converse with me as an intelligent liberal who has viable opinions that should not be dismissed out of hand. Having said all that, I am going to bed and look forward to reading your reasoned reply tomorrow.

You ever hear of paragraphs?

[Missileman]

really, conhog... I am a reasonable guy, despite what folks here might say to the contrary. If I ever try to pin some position on you that I think you have espoused, and you say, hey, what are you talking about? I never said that.... I will either find the post where you said it or I'll say, OK... you're right... I'm wrong. I thought that is what you had said but I was mistaken. I am only suggesting that, if you want to debate issues with me, that you show that same sort of fairness and integrity. In this thread, I have only tried to argue that, contrary to RSR's contention, Americans are not totally against raising some level of taxes as part of an overall approach to reducing the deficit. I consider myself someone who, if polled by Gallup, would have said that I would want the reduction to be mostly by spending cuts. I know that government is too big, but I don't think that be being smaller, we need to be less compassionate. I would love to see spending cuts in many areas, but I would also love to see the elimination of tax breaks for oil and gas industry producers, for example. I would love to see the elimination of tax loopholes that allowed companies to make money by shipping jobs overseas. I am not some hardcore iconoclastic liberal who wants to balance the budget on the backs of the wealthy while ignoring the excesses of government spending. I would ask you to rethink your categorical condemnation of me based upon the rather narrow, and partisan views of the other conservatives on this board, and, instead, converse with me as an intelligent liberal who has viable opinions that should not be dismissed out of hand. Having said all that, I am going to bed and look forward to reading your reasoned reply tomorrow.

The tax code could definitely use reform for sure. Why the idiots can't just make a bill to fix the problems with it and then see what effect there is on revenue and the economy is beyond me. I don't consider eliminating loopholes as increasing taxes.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/aria110913_cmyk20110914015920.jpg

[beanerboy]

You ever hear of paragraphs?

wow.

that was

worth

the wait!

[SassyLady]

Not that you would know, but trust me, the uber-wealthy won't mind a bit paying a little more in taxes - especially if it improves the economy. They didn't bitch a bit when they were paying those rates under Clinton. Hell... the uber-wealthy didn't really mind the tax rates uder Ike.... they were still rolling in dough, just like they are now.

:link:

[SassyLady]

for some reason, teabaggers think that the only way to approach the problem is with spending cuts and forgoing all taxes on the uber-wealthy, who will not feel the bite of a 3% tax increase one bit.

:lame2:

:link:

[SassyLady]

come and try to take a dime from me and I'll cut you, asshole.

and no one is talking about 100%.... we're talking about 3% increase. I know that I won't mind it one bit.

If 3% would not affect you one way or another, why don't you donate 3% to the Board right now?

[SassyLady]

I'm rich and I am perfectly willing to pay a few more percent.

I'm rich and I'm not willing to pay a higher percentage to idiots who are not spending it effectively. That would be like giving dope to an addict.

[red states rule]

:link:

SL, you have to remember Virgil KEPT his Bush tax Cut and did NOT want to pay a pay a few more percent in taxes

As a typical hypercritical liberal asshole, it is always OTHERS who must pay higher taxes while he pays a little as possible

No he has fled the country for lower taxes while bitching that others are not paying enough

The only good thing about Virgil leaving the country is that property values in his neighborhood on Summer Lane have gone up, and the children there are much safer as they walk to school and play in the parks