Barack Obama

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

No one likes higher taxes but whats your answer?

Don't spend money you don't have. Rudimentary stuff like that.

Originally Posted by transjen

Keep cutting taxes on the rich?

Do you pay 35% income tax? No? The rich do.

Originally Posted by transjen

Well King George did that and started two wars of which only one was called for , You can't fight two wars and cut taxes wake up and smell the coffee and face facts the party is over and now it's time to pay the piper Jennifer

The higher taxes we're about to pay are not because of the wars. It's because of BO's out of control spending, and the wallstreet bailout.

[transjen]

The wall street bailout was a gift from King George not Obama, And the rich don't pay anywhere near 35% with all thier taxcuts and tax loopholes and shelters , Next you'll tell me that King Georges taxcuts really helped the poor and hurt the rich. Like i said the King's party is over and it's time to pay the piper and i know Reagan and Bush always promised the rich that they'll never have to pay for the party and that the ones not invited will foot the bills, Hence your real fear of Obama Jennifer

[The Conquistador]

I don't like Barack, but I just can't help but wonder what Michelle would look like with a fat dong between her legs

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I don't like Barack, but I just can't help but wonder what Michelle would look like with a fat dong between her legs

Well she does look very manly so you never know Jennifer

[randolph]

She is a fine powerful women. That's why BO has to stay in shape.

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by randolph

She is a fine powerful women. That's why BO has to stay in shape.

and, indeed, in power... :D

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

The wall street bailout was a gift from King George not Obama,

Obama endorsed it, and spent half of it. The necessity of the wall street bailout is because of CRA. I have yet to see you refute this, or explain exactly how Bush caused the financial mess. And sorry, blaming it on the war doesn't cut it. We've been at war before.

Originally Posted by transjen

And the rich don't pay anywhere near 35% with all thier taxcuts and tax loopholes and shelters,

So what percentage do they end up paying? I think you're just mindlessly passing on an old lefty myth.

See this: http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm2420.cfm

According to a report issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the tax cuts significantly increased the share of federal income taxes paid by the highest-earning 20 percent of households compared to their levels in 2000, President Clinton's final year in office.

In 2006, the latest available year from CBO, the top 20 percent of income earners paid 86.3 percent of all federal income taxes, an all-time high.[1] This is an increase of over 6 percent from 2000, when the top 20 percent paid 81.2 percent. During the same period, the bottom four quintiles all saw their share of the federal income tax burden fall sharply:

* The bottom 20 percent of income earners' share of federal income taxes fell from -1.6 percent in 2000 to -2.8 percent in 2006;
* The next 20 percent's share declined from 1.1 percent to -0.8 percent;
* The middle quintile's share dropped from 5.7 percent to 4.4 percent; and
* The fourth quintile's share decreased from 13.5 percent to 12.9 percent.

Originally Posted by transjen

Next you'll tell me that King Georges taxcuts really helped the poor and hurt the rich.

Like Reagan says, Here we go again. Who owns the businesses? The rich. Who employs the poor? The rich. If the rich pay less taxes they can afford to pay more workers. And if you'll actually read what I quoted above you'll see the poor are paying less taxes too. Is it that hard to understand?

Originally Posted by transjen

Like i said the King's party is over and it's time to pay the piper

But we're not paying the piper. And you know what a party is? Shoving 1,000 page trillion dollar spending bills through congress without giving anyone a chance to read it. That's a party. BO and his lefties have come up with a mountain of new programs that dwarfs by 2.5 times anything Bush has done during his 8 years, including Bush's wall street bailout. That is FACT. That is the problem with it. We're going to have to pay the piper for this for generations.

[randolph]

Ah yes Tracy, I have been wondering where you get your statistics. Here is a brief analysis of the right wing Heritage Foundation, the experts on spin doctoring statistics.

From "Democratic Underground".
Back in college we had to read a book called "How to Lie With
Statistics". It was one of the best books I've read and incredibly
valuable in cutting though the fog of bullshit the politicians and
corporations use.

In this case I want to bring up examples of how the Right distorts the Reagan record. Here's a prime example on the issue tax cuts from
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1443es.cfm
I've edited out references to other tax cuts.

That propaganda house known as the Heritage Foundation shows some of the most creative misuse of statistics and distortions as can be imagined... all to paint a false picture of the Reagan record... then try to seal the deal with this conclusion:

"High rates of taxation and a tax code that punishes working, saving,
and investing do not add up to a recipe for long-term prosperity.
History shows clearly that lower tax rates are an integral part of a
reform package that maximizes freedom and prosperity. Reducing all
income tax rates is a responsible way to promote long-term economic
growth."

Let's look at their claims

CLAIM: "Lesson #1: Lower tax rates mean faster growth.
The Reagan tax cuts: The economic effects of the Reagan tax cuts were
dramatic. The tax cuts helped to pull the economy out of a severe
downturn and ushered in a period of record peacetime economic growth.
During the seven-year Reagan boom, yearly economic growth averaged 4
percent."

This is the classic one variable analysis. It pretends NOTHING else
was going on in the economy that led to the recovery. In reality businesses had learned to become more energy efficient after repeated oil shocks. Oil prices had dropped from record highs... nearly $75 a barrel constant 2000 dollars. Interest rates also dropped as a result of the Fed's tight money policy. Then there was pent-up consumer demand. Last was Reagan's own deficit spending for his defense buildup. Do they get any credit? Nah.... just tax cuts. Why is that?

Heritages claims also do not prove any causal relationship between tax cuts and economic growth. They only claim one. In reality there have been economic recoveries without tax cuts.... and even with tax HIKES... as we've seen in 93.

The Right lauds JFK's tax cuts for producing an economic boom yet the
top rate was 70%? How can that be when Heritage also claim "History shows clearly that lower tax rates are an integral part of a reform package that maximizes freedom and prosperity." OK... bring back the JFK tax levels!!!!

CLAIM: "Lesson #2: Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue.
The Reagan tax cuts: Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during
the 1980s. The results are even more impressive, however, when one
looks at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the
economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, personal
income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54
percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation)."

There are four kinds of distortions used here.

The first is bait and switch. What do they mean by "during the 1980s"?
Doesn't that include both Carter and Bush1's terms? While their
statement is technically true.... revenues were 517 Billion in 1980
and 1032 billion in 1990... which I assume are the years they used...
the Heritage Foundation fails to mention that Reagan's own first FY82
budget bought in a mere 617 billion... going up to 991.2 billion in FY89... Reagan's last budget. Where Heritage implies a 515 Billion dollar increase there was but 374 billion.... 72% of their number. In reality revenue growth was predictably anemic after Reagan's tax cuts.

The second distortion is not to include Reagan's own tax HIKES in
those revenue numbers. How could they have omitted that?

There is more on the site.

[TracyCoxx]

And your source is democratic underground. Do I really need to point out the bias here?

[randolph]

I think the bankruptcy of GM signals the end of the US as the dominant world power. The myopia of Greenspan and the worship of Milton Friedman's faulty economic theories allowed a runaway housing boom to turn into a gigantic Ponzi scam. We now risk rampant inflation in order to pay for the misdeeds. If Obama and his advisers can get us out of this mess he would deserve more than the Nobel prize. I am not holding my breath.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by randolph

I think the bankruptcy of GM signals the end of the US as the dominant world power. The myopia of Greenspan and the worship of Milton Friedman's faulty economic theories allowed a runaway housing boom to turn into a gigantic Ponzi scam. We now risk rampant inflation in order to pay for the misdeeds. If Obama and his advisers can get us out of this mess he would deserve more than the Nobel prize. I am not holding my breath.

During WWII we pumped out more jeeps, planes, tanks, guns, bullets you name it and that was a big reason we won now every thing is made over seas if another wolrd war breaks out we are screwed because we can no longer make anything anymore, And Greenspan was only following orders from King George oh yes Regan nomics baby the biggest ever invented Jennifer