PDA

View Full Version : Is that Goddamned asshole in the WH happy now...



marv
08-05-2011, 11:05 PM
S&P downgrades U.S. credit rating for first time (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/sandp-considering-first-downgrade-of-us-credit-rating/2011/08/05/gIQAqKeIxI_print.html)

AAA to AA+..........

The one promise he kept - that he would change America!

Rockntractor
08-05-2011, 11:15 PM
I can't prove it anymore than anyone can but I think he wants to destroy this country, a real daddy's boy, grandpa would be proud too.

marinejcksn
08-05-2011, 11:24 PM
Don't forget to blame every GOP member in the House, minus 22 true conservatives! Bammy pressed the issue and Boner fell for the lies. Seriously, F the GOP. Those tools will feel it in 2012. All you supposed Tea Party candidates (even you, Col. West) will see how badly you screwed up by screwing us.

Rockntractor
08-05-2011, 11:43 PM
Don't forget to blame every GOP member in the House, minus 22 true conservatives! Bammy pressed the issue and Boner fell for the lies. Seriously, F the GOP. Those tools will feel it in 2012. All you supposed Tea Party candidates (even you, Col. West) will see how badly you screwed up by screwing us.

I fully understand your frustration but let's wait until after the primaries to throw in the towel. Now is when we fight for representation, not take our dollies and go home!

ABC in Georgia
08-05-2011, 11:49 PM
I can't prove it anymore than anyone can but I think he wants to destroy this country, a real daddy's boy, grandpa would be proud too.

You are not wrong Rock!

Remember this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cqN4NIEtOY

It gave me the creeps the day he said it. Have never forgotten it!

~ ABC

Edited to add ... Emphasis on word FUNDAMENTALLY!

Nubs
08-06-2011, 01:35 AM
What financial world do these people live in???

The Dems fail to produce a budget for coming on 3 years.

The Dems promised "If we pass this debt bill, we will not be downgraded"

They promise "If we pass the stimulus, unemployment won't go above 8.5%"

The only thing they have delivered on is fundemental change.

They have fundementally changed your access to health care

They have fundementally changed the financial status of the US

They fundementally change how rating agency ratings are responded to. Treasury told S&P to pound sand thus undermining any referent or expert authority of ratings agencies. What if all other countries tell the ratings agencies to pound sand? Barry has undermined the credit of the US, now he is going head long at destroying the good faith portion.

With the debt ceiling bill, they just have to be as obstructionist as during the Debt Ceiling, and then they will, by default, fundementally change the military. They will also, by default, fundementally change Medicare, but hey you got ObamaCare to fall back on.

This is almost a Biblical level of stupidity.

lacarnut
08-06-2011, 01:54 AM
Obummer and tiny Tim are going to have one hell of a time spinning the lowering of our debt rating. This is a black mark on the Magic Negro. He can not lie his way out of this. Just wait till Moody is the next agency to downgrade our bond rating.

I give snake eyes, Geithner, a couple of months before Obummer throws him under the bus. Note, Geithner wanted to jump ship but the O convinced him to stay. Then the fur will fly in the confirmation hearings. If the House Republicans were smart, they would commence hearings on the debt crisis. Little chance of that happening cause they are too frigging stupid. The Repubs need to give the boot to Bonehead and put Cantor in his place.

megimoo
08-06-2011, 02:37 AM
S&P downgrades U.S. credit rating for first time (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/sandp-considering-first-downgrade-of-us-credit-rating/2011/08/05/gIQAqKeIxI_print.html)

AAA to AA+..........

The one promise he kept - that he would change America!
I cant stand to ever look at his ugly face again ...He has proven over and over again to be an incompetent fool who shouldn't be in the White House.....After all of the Bull Crap about the debt limit we still have a downgrade ......He and his party have hurt our country more that any enemy ever has ....He should be impeached,convicted and removed from office post haste....

CueSi
08-06-2011, 03:30 AM
Well, I'll be voting for Marco Rubio again. <shrug>

~QC

ironhorsedriver
08-06-2011, 09:42 AM
As big as this is, and the Obumbler flies away to Camp David. Probably needs the rest from all the parties. Day two, still nothing from him.

txradioguy
08-06-2011, 10:08 AM
S&P downgrades U.S. credit rating for first time (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/sandp-considering-first-downgrade-of-us-credit-rating/2011/08/05/gIQAqKeIxI_print.html)

AAA to AA+..........

The one promise he kept - that he would change America!

He won't be happy until it's in the junk status like Greece.

Wei Wu Wei
08-06-2011, 11:17 AM
It's all of this left wing socialist policies by president Obama. Now the USA's credit rating is AA+, and the only countries with AAA bond ratings are Germany, France, Finland, Sweden, Canada, Austria and the Netherlands. Those countries must be the last few bastions of true free-market conservativism.

:rolleyes:

malloc
08-06-2011, 12:05 PM
It's all of this left wing socialist policies by president Obama. Now the USA's credit rating is AA+, and the only countries with AAA bond ratings are Germany, France, Finland, Sweden, Canada, Austria and the Netherlands. Those countries must be the last few bastions of true free-market conservativism.

:rolleyes:

I'll give you a few hours while I go work on the 'vette to go over everything you've learned in your discussions with us, and come up with a better nit to pick. Your statement is sorely lacking in matters of the obvious. Quite frankly, to anyone with an ounce of sense, your post sounds absolutely ridiculous. Ridiculous to such a degree that if I just flat out debunked it now, I'd feel like the mean kid busting the special ed kid's chops between classes. Your "logic", if that's what you call it, is missing something so fundamental to economics, it's actually fundamental to mathematics. Take a few hours, read your statement, and revise. Good luck getting over your socialist slant long enough to obey the laws economics during your postulations.

lacarnut
08-06-2011, 02:10 PM
As big as this is, and the Obumbler flies away to Camp David. Probably needs the rest from all the parties. Day two, still nothing from him.

The stupid SOB along with his whole economic team need to go into hiding for a couple of months, and let the Tea Party Repubs in the House right the ship.

Rockntractor
08-06-2011, 02:22 PM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/obama-golf.jpg

noworries
08-06-2011, 02:34 PM
As big as this is, and the Obumbler flies away to Camp David. Probably needs the rest from all the parties. Day two, still nothing from him.

Do you expect him to man up and to be honest about anything

lacarnut
08-06-2011, 02:47 PM
It's all of this left wing socialist policies by president Obama. Now the USA's credit rating is AA+, and the only countries with AAA bond ratings are Germany, France, Finland, Sweden, Canada, Austria and the Netherlands. Those countries must be the last few bastions of true free-market conservativism.

:rolleyes:

Wrong:

Those countries economic polices are vastly different. They do not spend like drunken sailors. They spend peanuts on their military and depend on us to protect their cowardly ass. Conservatism has nothing to do with it..... "It Is Economics and Spending Stupid"

Nubs
08-06-2011, 03:19 PM
Wrong:

Those countries economic polices are vastly different. They do not spend like drunken sailors. They spend peanuts on their military and depend on us to protect their cowardly ass. Conservatism has nothing to do with it..... "It Is Economics and Spending Stupid"

Or even simpler yet. It is understanding a Balance Sheet and being able to infer said sheets ramifications on the future.

marv
08-06-2011, 06:15 PM
hussein is doing exactly what he said he would do. His mentor said that you have to tear a country down in order to rebuild it in your image!

Wei Wu Wei
08-06-2011, 06:20 PM
If they just let the country default, none of this would have happened.

djones520
08-06-2011, 06:23 PM
If they just let the country default, none of this would have happened.

If they had done their jobs in the first place, none of this would have happened.

Stop playing the fool Wei, I know your smarter then that.

Rockntractor
08-06-2011, 06:25 PM
If they just let the country default, none of this would have happened.

How would they have let the country default?
Our creditors get paid off the top.

Wei Wu Wei
08-06-2011, 06:50 PM
So, let's be honest for a moment, given all of this debt ceiling insanity and credit rating stuff and all this hoopla, would it really be the worst idea in the world to raise taxes on the very very top wealthy people?

I'm not talking about small business owners, forget all that rhetoric for a moment, for the sake of discussion, let's just say the top 1-5%, would raising taxes on these people end the world?

I'm not going to claim that raising taxes alone would solve all of our problems or anything like that, but come on, it would help bring in a little more revenue.

Can anyone here see any leeway or must you march lock-step with the republican line?

djones520
08-06-2011, 06:57 PM
So, let's be honest for a moment, given all of this debt ceiling insanity and credit rating stuff and all this hoopla, would it really be the worst idea in the world to raise taxes on the very very top wealthy people?

I'm not talking about small business owners, forget all that rhetoric for a moment, for the sake of discussion, let's just say the top 1-5%, would raising taxes on these people end the world?

I'm not going to claim that raising taxes alone would solve all of our problems or anything like that, but come on, it would help bring in a little more revenue.

Can anyone here see any leeway or must you march lock-step with the republican line?

Let me offer you a counter question.

Would it really be the worst idea in the world to cut wasteful spending like the story I just linked?

Why not cut out our own fat before trying to attack private citizens?

Wei Wu Wei
08-06-2011, 07:00 PM
Let me offer you a counter question.

Would it really be the worst idea in the world to cut wasteful spending like the story I just linked?

Why not cut out our own fat before trying to attack private citizens?

I've never claimed cutting wasteful spending was a bad idea. Some spending cuts are harder than others, but I agree that spending cuts are absolutely needed. I have my preferences, but I can be reasonable without being a walking talking party-bot.

Now, can anyone say that raising taxes on the wealthy elites is possible?

Taxes have been as high as 90% for the very wealthy, during the same period that the US saw the largest increase in the middle class EVER. Today, we're at near-historic low tax rates.

djones520
08-06-2011, 07:02 PM
I've never claimed cutting wasteful spending was a bad idea. Some spending cuts are harder than others, but I agree that spending cuts are absolutely needed. I have my preferences, but I can be reasonable without being a walking talking party-bot.

Now, can anyone say that raising taxes on the wealthy elites is possible?

Taxes have been as high as 90% for the very wealthy, during the same period that the US saw the largest increase in the middle class EVER. Today, we're at near-historic low tax rates.

But why should the immediate response be tax tax tax?

Why not go for the wasteful spending first, and then see where we stand? I'd like to see you present that for a change.

Wei Wu Wei
08-06-2011, 07:14 PM
But why should the immediate response be tax tax tax?

Why not go for the wasteful spending first, and then see where we stand? I'd like to see you present that for a change.

You're dancing all over it.

Why not both?

I agree spending should be cut but we're only looking at the spending side and not the revenue side. I understand that working class people and small business owners need low tax rates during a slow economy, but the super wealthy are doing better than they have in many decades.

djones520
08-06-2011, 07:16 PM
You're dancing all over it.

Why not both?

I agree spending should be cut but we're only looking at the spending side and not the revenue side. I understand that working class people and small business owners need low tax rates during a slow economy, but the super wealthy are doing better than they have in many decades.

Why not both? Because the government owes it to the citizens to ensure that they can keep tax rates as low as possible. If it's possible to get a balanced budget without raising taxes, then that should be the plan.

Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Wei Wu Wei
08-06-2011, 07:17 PM
It's impossible, it's like a vampire walking into the sunlight. People who just swallow what the republicans put out there, day after day, month after month, become trained. It's a pavolian response at this point. It seems many people are simply incapable of wrapping their minds around something if the right-wing media machine has drilled it into them so consistently.

djones520
08-06-2011, 07:19 PM
It's impossible, it's like a vampire walking into the sunlight. People who just swallow what the republicans put out there, day after day, month after month, become trained. It's a pavolian response at this point. It seems many people are simply incapable of wrapping their minds around something if the right-wing media machine has drilled it into them so consistently.

Bullshit it's impossible.

The same time your pointing at the greatest expansion of the middle class ever, the government wasn't giving out half the shit it does today.

It's because people have gotten spoon fed on free candy for so long they can't picture life without it anymore. Your talking about becoming trained, that is the whole damn problem. It's people being trained their whole lives to believe the government is responsible for their lives.

Wei Wu Wei
08-06-2011, 07:22 PM
Why not both? Because the government owes it to the citizens to ensure that they can keep tax rates as low as possible.

Why? The greatest expansion of the middle class in American history happened when top tax rates were near 90%. Who, other than your party leaders, said that low tax rates for the wealthy are gospel?


If it's possible to get a balanced budget without raising taxes, then that should be the plan.

What if it's not possible?


Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

It's not hard for me to grasp you're talking to someone who listens to right-wing talk radio every single day and who watches fox news just as often. I'm very familiar with these 'arguments'.

I'm just asking, for the sake of discussion, why would it be so horrible to raise taxes on the wealthiest elites? Why is that the ultimate taboo?

Rockntractor
08-06-2011, 07:25 PM
Why? The greatest expansion of the middle class in American history happened when top tax rates were near 90%. Who, other than your party leaders, said that low tax rates for the wealthy are gospel?





Not buying it commie boy!

Wei Wu Wei
08-06-2011, 07:26 PM
I've never claimed cutting wasteful spending was a bad idea. Some spending cuts are harder than others, but I agree that spending cuts are absolutely needed. I have my preferences, but I can be reasonable without being a walking talking party-bot.

Now, can anyone say that raising taxes on the wealthy elites is possible?

You guys could have saved several posts by just saying "no, I can't say that, it isn't possible"

Wei Wu Wei
08-06-2011, 07:26 PM
Not buying it commie boy!

Care to explain why? Or is it just gonna be "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"

Rockntractor
08-06-2011, 08:02 PM
Care to explain why? Or is it just gonna be "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"

You have given no proof.

Rockntractor
08-06-2011, 08:03 PM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/obama-vampire.jpg

lacarnut
08-06-2011, 08:13 PM
You're dancing all over it.

Why not both?

I agree spending should be cut but we're only looking at the spending side and not the revenue side. I understand that working class people and small business owners need low tax rates during a slow economy, but the super wealthy are doing better than they have in many decades.

Low taxes did not get us into the mess we are in. A slowdown in the economy, unemployment and wrong headed spending policies created it.

I will try to explain why raising taxes on anyone is a bad idea during a recession. The economy will stay in a slump. In order to get more revenues, hiring more employees make more sense than raising taxes, does it not? This administration has done everything to kill private job creation. The health care bill will raise taxes on employers. More regulations is a job killer. There are trillions of dollars sitting on the sidelines but this administration has created so much uncertainty most are afraid because they do not know when the community organizer is going to kick them in the ass next. Taxing every rich person at 90% would only put a dent in the money this government spends. We don't have a tax problem; we have a spending problem. Putting more people back to work who in turn will contribute to the treasury is a much better alternative than raising taxes.

AmPat
08-06-2011, 09:24 PM
As big as this is, and the Obumbler flies away to Camp David. Probably needs the rest from all the parties. Day two, still nothing from him.

He's waiting for his talking points from his handlers. He's also letting his media minions float some trial balloons to see what tactic to take.

Empty suit O Blah Blah has no original thoughts.

Novaheart
08-06-2011, 09:50 PM
Well, I'll be voting for Marco Rubio again. <shrug>

~QC

Me too, because most Spanish speaking countries have Single Payer healthcare.

Rockntractor
08-06-2011, 09:53 PM
Me too, because most Spanish speaking countries have Single Payer healthcare.

There is more in this for you than you have admitted, I hope you recover.

Novaheart
08-06-2011, 09:56 PM
There is more in this for you than you have admitted, I hope you recover.

No entiendo

AmPat
08-06-2011, 11:02 PM
Me too, because most Spanish speaking countries have Single Payer healthcare.

Sounds great. Every single person should have to pay for the health care they want and get.

I should not have to pay for yours. Commie liberals are the ones wanting to change the law of THIS land. Why don't you and your comrads move to a country that already has communist policies and leave ours alone?

Apache
08-06-2011, 11:14 PM
Taxes have been as high as 90% for the very wealthy, during the same period that the US saw the largest increase in the middle class EVER. Today, we're at near-historic low tax rates.

YOU LYING PIECE_O_SHIT! They NEVER been that high and collected on. YOu either start telling the truth or get the fuck out!:mad:

Apache
08-06-2011, 11:16 PM
Why not both? Because the government owes it to the citizens to ensure that they can keep tax rates as low as possible. If it's possible to get a balanced budget without raising taxes, then that should be the plan.

Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Because he wants what he did not earn....:rolleyes:

CueSi
08-07-2011, 12:38 AM
Me too, because most Spanish speaking countries have Single Payer healthcare.

But he wasn't for that at any point, Nova. Come on, be truly honest here.

~QC

lacarnut
08-07-2011, 01:59 AM
No entiendo

You understand all right, Whitebread.

malloc
08-07-2011, 03:33 AM
Why? The greatest expansion of the middle class in American history happened when top tax rates were near 90%. Who, other than your party leaders, said that low tax rates for the wealthy are gospel?

Again you bring this up? Really? You've already been thoroughly schooled on how the country was able to prosper with tax rates like this in the early 50's. Twice before now. I think it's hilarious how you do the liberal thing, and either conveniently forget earlier lessons and conversations, or just outright lie by continuing to imply that these tax rates caused the prosperity merely because the tax rates and prosperity correlate, as if that were the same as causation.



I'm just asking, for the sake of discussion, why would it be so horrible to raise taxes on the wealthiest elites? Why is that the ultimate taboo?

Again, you've already been taught this as well, more than once, and you still pretend like those conversations didn't take place. You know the answer to this question, but the economic reality of the answer doesn't fit into your worldview, so pretend like you've never heard it before.

1.) The U.S. government and liberals like you could steal 100% of every penny the "rich" has, and it still wouldn't cover the U.S. budget for a single year, but even doing so wouldn't make much of a difference in the debt in the long run. Also, there would be no one left for you to demonize or steal from the next year. And action such as that would cause massive layoffs as investments plummet, and that would shrink the tax base even further, causing even more of an imbalance in debt to income. Therefore stealing only 10% more of their wealth, would be 90% less effective in terms of impact on the debt, and 10% more effective in creating unemployment and shrinking the tax base.

2.) 51% of workers in this country pay nothing in taxes. That's why the tax base is so small. If taxes must be raised, then a tax hike which applies evenly to rich & poor alike would be more effective because it would expand the tax base into this 51%. It would be more effective and much less toxic to the economy as a whole to have everyone tighten their belts just a little bit, than have a few tighten their belts to the point of constriction, just so others can loosen theirs.

3.) The most effective solution to fix the revenues side of this equation would be deregulation. That's another word that grinds against your ideology, which is why you choose to ignore it. Businesses have capital stashed away, and they aren't spending it because Washington has "their boot on the throat" of business. No one even understands the Obamacare regulations, the tax codes, the environmental regulations, so how is a business supposed to calculate costs and returns? Regulation creates economic turmoil and uncertainty. Which is why these businesses are sitting on their money instead of spending it on new employees, which would expand the tax base, and increase revenues.

Washington has a revenue and spending problems, not a tax rate problem. Well, it has a tax problem in terms of complexity and absolute ridiculousness of the tax codes, but the point is that taxes are high enough. The problem is that there aren't enough taxpayers to carry the weight of an out of control government and all the free-lunch moochers out there. If they raise taxes on those who pay them further, the response will be a rise in the already insanely high unemployment which will lead to lower revenues.

This is all really common sense stuff Wee Wee. It's extremely hypocritical of you to claim that the only reason we are against raising taxes is because of talk-radio or the party line, while the only reason you are for raising taxes is because it tows along with your commie ideology. The conservative position of not raising taxes is based in the laws of economics, while your position on sticking it to the wealthy is based solely on your Marxist ideology of class warfare.

Zathras
08-07-2011, 10:30 AM
This is all really common sense stuff Wee Wee.

In the words of Adam Savage "Well, there's your problem". Wee Wee has no common sense. At all. None.

Wei Wu Wei
08-07-2011, 12:41 PM
Again you bring this up? Really? You've already been thoroughly schooled on how the country was able to prosper with tax rates like this in the early 50's. Twice before now. I think it's hilarious how you do the liberal thing, and either conveniently forget earlier lessons and conversations, or just outright lie by continuing to imply that these tax rates caused the prosperity merely because the tax rates and prosperity correlate, as if that were the same as causation.

It demonstrates that the assertion that raising taxes necessarily destroys the economy is simply not true.

I said that raising taxes was not a magic bullet.





1.) The U.S. government and liberals like you could steal 100% of every penny the "rich" has, and it still wouldn't cover the U.S. budget for a single year, but even doing so wouldn't make much of a difference in the debt in the long run. Also, there would be no one left for you to demonize or steal from the next year. And action such as that would cause massive layoffs as investments plummet, and that would shrink the tax base even further, causing even more of an imbalance in debt to income. Therefore stealing only 10% more of their wealth, would be 90% less effective in terms of impact on the debt, and 10% more effective in creating unemployment and shrinking the tax base.

1.) I'm very familiar with this talking point. This is in regards to income, not total wealth. If you look at net worth, there is plenty of it. Income is not the only indicator of wealth, it's just one that is conveniently used by people who want to misrepresent the wealth gap in this country.

2.) the "Tax 100%" argument is stupid as well, because no one is claiming we should do that.

3.)
And action such as that would cause massive layoffs as investments plummet,

You are demonstrating your misunderstanding here. The stat you are referencing only applies to income taxes, but if you raise income taxes, that wouldn't negatively effect investment because investment returns are under the umbrella of capital gains taxes. While many places lump the two together, they are usually taxed at different rates (with capital gains having preferential treatment).

4.) in your own point #3, you claim that big businesses and wealthy leaders are holding onto large sums of wealth because they are afraid of regulations, but here you claim that a small increase in taxes would decrease hiring. They already aren't hiring. They are holding huge sums of wealth that they are not using to hire right now. How can taxes on money they aren't using for employees decrease hiring?



2.) 51% of workers in this country pay nothing in taxes. That's why the tax base is so small. If taxes must be raised, then a tax hike which applies evenly to rich & poor alike would be more effective because it would expand the tax base into this 51%. It would be more effective and much less toxic to the economy as a whole to have everyone tighten their belts just a little bit, than have a few tighten their belts to the point of constriction, just so others can loosen theirs.

"51% of workers in this country pay nothing in taxes" - that is a lie. I know it's parroted all the time in the right wing media but it is a flat out lie.

Many of the people you are referring to are unemployed or disabled. They are not workers. Unemployed people and poor people generally don't pay income tax, that is true. It doesn't even make sense, to fix it according to your argument. How are you going to raise taxes on people who don't have jobs?

However, your assertion that they pay "nothing in taxes" is a lie based on the lie that income tax is the only tax that exists. This is another example of zooming in so close on one single stat that you forget everything else, this is a propaganda tool, don't fall for it.

Studies have shown that poor and middle class people pay higher percentages of their incomes on social security taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, ect.

When you look at all real taxes together, the tax rate appears to be either flat or regressive in nature.




3.) The most effective solution to fix the revenues side of this equation would be deregulation. That's another word that grinds against your ideology, which is why you choose to ignore it. Businesses have capital stashed away, and they aren't spending it because Washington has "their boot on the throat" of business. No one even understands the Obamacare regulations, the tax codes, the environmental regulations, so how is a business supposed to calculate costs and returns? Regulation creates economic turmoil and uncertainty. Which is why these businesses are sitting on their money instead of spending it on new employees, which would expand the tax base, and increase revenues.

You really believe this "no one understands the regulations" line? Corporations have teams of people who are paid TOP DOLLAR to study these regulations and know how to argue in court to get around them. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean they are not understandable.

This is a joke, and the weakest of the Fox News line of talking points.


Washington has a revenue and spending problems, not a tax rate problem. Well, it has a tax problem in terms of complexity and absolute ridiculousness of the tax codes, but the point is that taxes are high enough. The problem is that there aren't enough taxpayers to carry the weight of an out of control government and all the free-lunch moochers out there. If they raise taxes on those who pay them further, the response will be a rise in the already insanely high unemployment which will lead to lower revenues.

This is all really common sense stuff Wee Wee. It's extremely hypocritical of you to claim that the only reason we are against raising taxes is because of talk-radio or the party line, while the only reason you are for raising taxes is because it tows along with your commie ideology. The conservative position of not raising taxes is based in the laws of economics, while your position on sticking it to the wealthy is based solely on your Marxist ideology of class warfare.

lol alright I wasn't even really asking for a middle school essay on the topic of economics I was really just asking if it would be the end of the world to raise taxes on the wealthy elites a little bit along with spending cuts to help the budget situation.

A simple "no we can't ever do that" would have sufficed.

Wei Wu Wei
08-07-2011, 12:46 PM
When government spends money, where does that money go? When you spend money, it doesn't just vanish into thin air, where does it go?

It has to go to people, right? The millions of government employees get paid, poor people and sick people and unemployment people get money, the people involved in running government programs get paid, and so on and so on.

Are these people not consumers? Do they not spend those dollars here in America?

If the government stopped spending 80% of what it spends, wouldn't that mean that a HUGE sum of money would suddenly be taken out of the economy? People who go to small businesses and buy clothes and food and toys and all that suddenly would not be able to.

Wouldn't that also derail the economy? If billions of consumer cash dries up, so does demand for goods and services.

Novaheart
08-07-2011, 01:09 PM
But he wasn't for that at any point, Nova. Come on, be truly honest here.

~QC


What is his position on illegal aliens and states' efforts to control their border and economic integrity?

Wait.

Rockntractor
08-07-2011, 01:30 PM
You have given no proof.

and still no proof

CueSi
08-07-2011, 03:17 PM
What is his position on illegal aliens and states' efforts to control their border and economic integrity?

Wait.

That's not what I asked, though.

~QC

Novaheart
08-07-2011, 04:39 PM
That's not what I asked, though.

~QC

Call it a prediction.

AmPat
08-07-2011, 05:17 PM
Again you bring this up? Really? You've already been thoroughly schooled on how the country was able to prosper with tax rates like this in the early 50's. Twice before now. I think it's hilarious how you do the liberal thing, and either conveniently forget earlier lessons and conversations, or just outright lie by continuing to imply that these tax rates caused the prosperity merely because the tax rates and prosperity correlate, as if that were the same as causation.
.

Liberals never grasp facts. They would rather feel, endlessly emote and despair. Feelings trump facts. Emotions overide logic. Liberals cannot live as liberals in the real world. Facts and logic would make them extinct in a day.

No, Liberals live at our expense like children in the sweet by and by. The hard work of the nasty now and now belongs to the Conservative adults.

malloc
08-08-2011, 12:30 AM
It demonstrates that the assertion that raising taxes necessarily destroys the economy is simply not true.


It demonstrates that under tightly defined conditions, such as the economic situation of the United States in the aftermath of WWII, relative to the rest of the world, that raising taxes would not lead economic destruction. It says nothing at all of the here and now, as conditions within the U.S. are not even remotely comparable.



1.) I'm very familiar with this talking point. This is in regards to income, not total wealth. If you look at net worth, there is plenty of it. Income is not the only indicator of wealth, it's just one that is conveniently used by people who want to misrepresent the wealth gap in this country.


There's no need to misrepresent the wealth gap in this country, unless one is a Marxist boot licker trying desperately to convince the masses the "rich" are living the good life on the backs of those who have less, in order to convince someone, anyone who will listen, why there is a need for such drivel. The wealth gap, as you are speaking of, ensures that even our poorest still have top notch medical care, automobiles, food, housing, clothing. Things the poor in other countries of would go without. Only in the United States, has the capitalist system of America created economic conditions of such excess that our poor are fat, and are prone to health problems caused by too much eating and too little working. Your little "wealth gap" argument is just plain silly. Of course we are speaking about income. We were talking about an "income tax" were we not? Or are you now advocating that you wish the government would steal what they've already collected taxes upon?



2.) the "Tax 100%" argument is stupid as well, because no one is claiming we should do that.


What is stupid is making a joke of an argument before even looking at taking your argument and it's effects to their theoretical maximum.



You are demonstrating your misunderstanding here. The stat you are referencing only applies to income taxes, but if you raise income taxes, that wouldn't negatively effect investment because investment returns are under the umbrella of capital gains taxes. While many places lump the two together, they are usually taxed at different rates (with capital gains having preferential treatment).

I'm misunderstanding, that's hilarious in light of your answer. Just hilarious. Turn on that mushy libtard brain and engage the obvious. How could raising income taxes on those who invest the most, lower investment? It's really a simple step of logic for anyone with an IQ in the normal range.



4.) in your own point #3, you claim that big businesses and wealthy leaders are holding onto large sums of wealth because they are afraid of regulations, but here you claim that a small increase in taxes would decrease hiring. They already aren't hiring. They are holding huge sums of wealth that they are not using to hire right now. How can taxes on money they aren't using for employees decrease hiring?


Because when adults retake the Senate and White House, these regulations which are currently keeping these businesses from hiring, are going to go away. Wouldn't you want these business to hold on to the capital it's going to require to expand once the adults are back in charge?



"51% of workers in this country pay nothing in taxes" - that is a lie. I know it's parroted all the time in the right wing media but it is a flat out lie.

Many of the people you are referring to are unemployed or disabled. They are not workers. Unemployed people and poor people generally don't pay income tax, that is true. It doesn't even make sense, to fix it according to your argument. How are you going to raise taxes on people who don't have jobs?


Well, that's very desperate of you, but the truth is the truth, and a Marxist calling the truth a lie is no new thing. 47-51% of all households in the United States, after credits and deductions, have zero Federal Income tax liability. Period. There's about 114 million households in the United States. Are you seriously trying to tell me that there are 57 million disabled people heading a household in the United States? Why isn't every other person in a wheelchair or something at the supermarket? Of course, it's not true, just more dribble from someone who dreams of Marxist utopia while knowing full well he's never going to get one.





However, your assertion that they pay "nothing in taxes" is a lie based on the lie that income tax is the only tax that exists. This is another example of zooming in so close on one single stat that you forget everything else, this is a propaganda tool, don't fall for it.

Studies have shown that poor and middle class people pay higher percentages of their incomes on social security taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, ect.

When you look at all real taxes together, the tax rate appears to be either flat or regressive in nature.


"Studies have shown" <-- That's the liberal equivalent of, "I'm going to lie my ass off now, but don't call me out on it, ok? Whatever.

In any event, we were discussing the Federal budget crisis, and your idea that more "rich" should pay more Federal Income taxes. If we discussing the sales tax on buckets of bait snails, then in your next paragraph, when you said the word "tax", I would assume that you were still talking about the same tax, so of course we were still fucking talking about federal income tax you idiot.







You really believe this "no one understands the regulations" line? Corporations have teams of people who are paid TOP DOLLAR to study these regulations and know how to argue in court to get around them. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean they are not understandable.

This is a joke, and the weakest of the Fox News line of talking points.


The government employs tens of thousands of IRS workers, who don't understand the tax code. So the number of top dollar professionals doesn't necessarily equate to understanding does it? No. I didn't think so.

Next time you are in a restaurant, ask the owner or manager if they have a team of people working on Obama care. Or how about a hardware store, convenience store, bar, auto part shop, bike shop, or wherever liberal trolls like you conglomerate. I'm sure your neighborhood bar owner has just teams of top dollar professionals pouring over Obamacare day and night, and even guessing at the huge parts of the regulations that haven't even been written yet.

Small businesses like these are the major employers in the United States, and they are the businesses stashing away their cash, and not hiring. Way to completely fail out of the argument.

An no, even big corporations can't figure out the regulations yet, as massive parts of the regulations have yet to be written. You can't really be so stupid as to believe that these huge teams of people, making millions of dollars who are working for the barkeep of the local saloon can actually read regulations that haven't yet been written and finalized do you? :rolleyes: God it must be embarrassing to be so stupid. Tell me, after all the time you've been on this board being shown your own abject stupidity, do you still think you are some sort of smart, independent, free thinker? If you do, you are bigger dumb ass than anyone else I've come across in my 31 years of existence.

AmPat
08-08-2011, 01:21 AM
Malloc,

You need to tie one arm behind your brain. You are killing the liberal. Next thing is he will slither off or fall back on the liberal argument techniques:
Lie
Quibble
shift the goal
red herring
strawman
race card
ad hominem,,,etc, etc...

txradioguy
08-08-2011, 04:21 AM
Malloc,

You need to tie one arm behind your brain. You are killing the liberal. Next thing is he will slither off or fall back on the liberal argument techniques:
Lie
Quibble
shift the goal
red herring
strawman
race card
ad hominem,,,etc, etc...

That's because Liberals base all their discussion points around feelings emotions and situations that work only in a vaacum or a class room.

Nothing they try ever succeeds in the real world.

Which is why they have to revert to what you listed above when what passes as "logic" for a Lib is shattered by reality.

CueSi
08-08-2011, 12:28 PM
Call it a prediction.

But that's not an answer, lol.

~QC

Wei Wu Wei
08-08-2011, 02:15 PM
I love how this thread blames Obama for this downgrade, and continues to insists that all tax increases are the devil, when the S&P report specifically cites Republican's absolute refusal to raise revenues:


Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now
assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012,
remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority
of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise
revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. Key
macroeconomic assumptions in the base case scenario include trend real GDP
growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near 2% annually over the decade.
Our revised upside scenario--which, other things being equal, we view as
consistent with the outlook on the 'AA+' long-term rating being revised to
stable--retains these same macroeconomic assumptions. In addition, it
incorporates $950 billion of new revenues on the assumption that the 2001 and
2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administration
is advocating.

http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563

Wei Wu Wei
08-08-2011, 02:18 PM
S&P agrees that revenue increases are necessary to put our fiscal house in order, and specifically cites the Republican's refusal to do so as part of their calculations which led to the rating downgrade, and somehow people blame Obama for this downgrade?

Yes I too like listening to Rush Limbaugh :rolleyes:

Molon Labe
08-08-2011, 02:21 PM
I love how this thread blames Obama for this downgrade, and continues to insists that all tax increases are the devil, when the S&P report specifically cites Republican's absolute refusal to raise revenues:



http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563

Sure...it's a bigger problem that goes well beyond Obama....however, that being said

He wanted the job.....he put in his application to fix it.....he continued pushing the same policies the previous administration pushed....he did nothing to reverse the key areas needing reform.

Overall Spending, Corporatism, Interventionism.

He's in charge.....he can own it as much as anyone else.

Nubs
08-08-2011, 02:22 PM
S&P agrees that revenue increases are necessary to put our fiscal house in order, and specifically cites the Republican's refusal to do so as part of their calculations which led to the rating downgrade, and somehow people blame Obama for this downgrade?

Yes I too like listening to Rush Limbaugh :rolleyes:

The question is how revenues are increased. Republicans were not against revenue increases, they were against increasing the marginal tax rate. IIRC, there was a proposal on the table that would eliminate existing loopholes and reducing the marginal tax rate. Thereby, increasing revenue.

Wei Wu Wei
08-08-2011, 02:24 PM
Sure...it's a bigger problem that goes well beyond Obama....however, that being said

true


He wanted the job.....he put in his application to fix it.....he continued pushing the same policies the previous administration pushed....he did nothing to reverse the key areas needing reform.

I agree


Overall Spending, Corporatism, Interventionism.

He's in charge.....he can own it as much as anyone else.

fair enough. I think this can make sense to anyone who can dislodge themselves from the red-blue party lines. Even if we still disagree on some things, only partybots can't see these common realities

noworries
08-08-2011, 02:33 PM
It just seems like to me that since he has been in office things have changed but only in a bad way not a good way

lacarnut
08-08-2011, 02:35 PM
I love how this thread blames Obama for this downgrade, and continues to insists that all tax increases are the devil, when the S&P report specifically cites Republican's absolute refusal to raise revenues:



http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563

Hey dummie. Putting more people back to work equals an increase in revenues. You know like those 10,000 oil field workers that lost their job because Obama is disobeying a Fed. Court Order to allow drilling to continue in the Gulf of Mexico. There is more than one way to raise revenues. Jobs, jobs, jobs is the answer not higher taxes like fools on the left want. Furthermore, raising taxes will only put a dent in our excessive spending. It's the spending that has gotten us in this mess not taxes.

malloc
08-08-2011, 03:29 PM
I love how this thread blames Obama for this downgrade, and continues to insists that all tax increases are the devil, when the S&P report specifically cites Republican's absolute refusal to raise revenues:
http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563


S&P agrees that revenue increases are necessary to put our fiscal house in order, and specifically cites the Republican's refusal to do so as part of their calculations which led to the rating downgrade, and somehow people blame Obama for this downgrade?

More, stupid liberal tricks. They never get old. Take one tiny portion out of the entire report, and build your drum circle around it, because it appears to support your position.

Did you even bother to read the entirety of the report which puts your select little snippet into context?



We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and
will remain a contentious and fitful process.

Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue
measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate
for putting the U.S.'s finances on a sustainable footing.


The purpose of Standard & Poor is not to tell this country, or any investment source, how to run their business. The purpose of Standard & Poor is rate how that business is run. Standard & Poor doesn't care if the U.S. Government taxes itself into oblivion, cuts off all social programs, or sells off California to the highest bidder. All of those things would lower the debt to GDP ratio, and thus make us more likely to pay back our debt. All of those things would also be detrimental to America.

To break it down Barney style, for a Barney style mind: S&P doesn't know if it's better for the American economy and American people to raise taxes or cut spending on medicare or food stamps or defense. S&P doesn't care to know. All S&P knows is that the debt to GDP is too high in the short term, and congress doesn't seem too keen on fixing it one way one or the other. It's the job of the Congress to devise the best plan to satisfy our GDP ratio. Increasing revenues is another way. One way to increase revenues in the short term is to raise taxes, but that would hurt revenues in the long term. The best way to raise revenues is to raise GDP. When the governments gets the hell out of the way, and let's those evil, evil corporations start corporationing again, GDP will increase, unemployment will decrease, and revenues will increase. If we can stop the spending on handouts as well, our debt to GDP ratio will start looking just lovely again, won't it?

Odysseus
08-08-2011, 04:30 PM
I've never claimed cutting wasteful spending was a bad idea. Some spending cuts are harder than others, but I agree that spending cuts are absolutely needed. I have my preferences, but I can be reasonable without being a walking talking party-bot.
Actually, we have yet to see you be reasonable.


Now, can anyone say that raising taxes on the wealthy elites is possible?

Taxes have been as high as 90% for the very wealthy, during the same period that the US saw the largest increase in the middle class EVER. Today, we're at near-historic low tax rates.

It's possible. All that we would have to do is recreate the global economic conditions under which that happened. Do you want to personally oversee the destruction of Europe or Japan, or delegate it to the jihadis and China, respectively?

And, BTW, you are ignoring the fact that, once the economies of Europe began to rebuild, our economy fell into a steep recession which was cured by the JFK tax cuts. But since you ignore all kinds of facts, don't let this one stop you.

Arroyo_Doble
08-08-2011, 04:42 PM
And, BTW, you are ignoring the fact that, once the economies of Europe began to rebuild, our economy fell into a steep recession which was cured by the JFK tax cuts. But since you ignore all kinds of facts, don't let this one stop you.

The closest recession to occur prior to the Revenue Act of 1964 ended in February of 1961.

malloc
08-08-2011, 08:26 PM
The closest recession to occur prior to the Revenue Act of 1964 ended in February of 1961.

IIRC the recession crawled out into slow to nil growth until 1963 or so, then took off in a long period of growth and prosperity, witch could be contributed to the anticipation and later enactment of tax breaks. Furthermore, the unemployment of this recession didn't peak until mid-1961, and tapered off as growth set in.