Is that Goddamned asshole in the WH happy now...

[Novaheart]

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]

You have given no proof.

and still no proof

[CueSi]

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]

That's not what I asked, though.

~QC

Call it a prediction.

[AmPat]

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]

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? 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]

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]

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]

Call it a prediction.

But that's not an answer, lol.

~QC

[Wei Wu Wei]

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/rati...=1245316529563