It's what Reaganism does...wrecks the middle class and the country...

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is that why corporations (which include the rich and wealthy) only pay 12% of the total collected by the IRS?

You've discovered that corporate taxes aren't a very good way to collect revenue.

You've discovered that corporate taxes aren't a very good way to collect revenue.

I've addressed the illusion that corporations and the rich are over-taxed.

Yes, your confusion between revenue and profit is well known

Yes, your confusion between revenue and profit is well known

No confusion here, just combating deception on your part.

I've never lied about your idiocy. Ask anyone.

I've never lied about your idiocy. Ask anyone

My yearly income is more than your lifetime income, I pay zero in personal federal income taxes, and I'm the idiot?

Revenue for business is THE SAME as a paycheck for a worker. Revenue is called revenue by the IRS because it has an added deduction, and differentiates it from income.

I pay zero in personal federal income taxes, and I'm the idiot?

Yes, paying a 35% corporate rate and 39.6% on your trust is proof you're smart.

Revenue for business is THE SAME as a paycheck for a worker.

What's the COGS for the worker?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Defended to the death by the bought off, big money, greedy idiot billionaire, brainwashing New BS GOP.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 10, 2016
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Interesting- but why not list the other presidents who have served After Reagan. Since Reagan, we have had over 23 years of democrat presidents and 12 years of Republicans. What did Reagan do that the great Bill Clinton and BO were unable to undo? Were they that ineffective?

 

[Indeependent]

Defended to the death by the bought off, big money, greedy idiot billionaire, brainwashing New BS GOP.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 10, 2016
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Interesting- but why not list the other presidents who have served After Reagan. Since Reagan, we have had over 23 years of democrat presidents and 12 years of Republicans. What did Reagan do that the great Bill Clinton and BO were unable to undo? Were they that ineffective?

Black Monday proved that continuing Supply Side Economics doesn't work as theorized but Wall Street didn't want to surrender the utilization of cheap labor.
The DOT COM would have worked if people weren't paranoid about putting their Card Numbers on the Internet.
GW sucked America dry and it will take harsh methods to bring the money back to the US.

 

[francoHFW]

Defended to the death by the bought off, big money, greedy idiot billionaire, brainwashing New BS GOP.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 10, 2016
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Interesting- but why not list the other presidents who have served After Reagan. Since Reagan, we have had over 23 years of democrat presidents and 12 years of Republicans. What did Reagan do that the great Bill Clinton and BO were unable to undo? Were they that ineffective?

16 years of Dems duh.
At changing tax rates etc, yes. Only takes 50% to cut taxes on the rich and giant corps, but 60% of Senate etc to raise them or REFORM arrrgh....What news do you watch lol...the usual GOP ignoramus.

 

[francoHFW]

Defended to the death by the bought off, big money, greedy idiot billionaire, brainwashing New BS GOP.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 10, 2016
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Interesting- but why not list the other presidents who have served After Reagan. Since Reagan, we have had over 23 years of democrat presidents and 12 years of Republicans. What did Reagan do that the great Bill Clinton and BO were unable to undo? Were they that ineffective?

Black Monday proved that continuing Supply Side Economics doesn't work as theorized but Wall Street didn't want to surrender the utilization of cheap labor.
The DOT COM would have worked if people weren't paranoid about putting their Card Numbers on the Internet.
GW sucked America dry and it will take harsh methods to bring the money back to the US.

Or training for good tech jobs, what GOP refuses to invest in, like infrastructure. Protect the rich!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Defended to the death by the bought off, big money, greedy idiot billionaire, brainwashing New BS GOP.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 10, 2016
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Interesting- but why not list the other presidents who have served After Reagan. Since Reagan, we have had over 23 years of democrat presidents and 12 years of Republicans. What did Reagan do that the great Bill Clinton and BO were unable to undo? Were they that ineffective?

Black Monday proved that continuing Supply Side Economics doesn't work as theorized but Wall Street didn't want to surrender the utilization of cheap labor.
The DOT COM would have worked if people weren't paranoid about putting their Card Numbers on the Internet.
GW sucked America dry and it will take harsh methods to bring the money back to the US.

Black Monday proved that continuing Supply Side Economics doesn't work as theorized

LOL!

 

[francoHFW]

You've discovered that corporate taxes aren't a very good way to collect revenue.

I've addressed the illusion that corporations and the rich are over-taxed.

Yes, your confusion between revenue and profit is well known

Yes, your confusion between revenue and profit is well known

No confusion here, just combating deception on your part.

I've never lied about your idiocy. Ask anyone.

I've never lied about your idiocy. Ask anyone

My yearly income is more than your lifetime income, I pay zero in personal federal income taxes, and I'm the idiot?

Revenue for business is THE SAME as a paycheck for a worker. Revenue is called revenue by the IRS because it has an added deduction, and differentiates it from income.

I pay zero in personal federal income taxes, and I'm the idiot?

Yes, paying a 35% corporate rate and 39.6% on your trust is proof you're smart.

Revenue for business is THE SAME as a paycheck for a worker.

What's the COGS for the worker?

Effective rate is 12% and around 20%. Great job, GOP.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Why does your graph stop at 2007 ? Is it because the Obama years have seen the worst decline of the middle class ?

Obama hasn't been able to get the rich and giant corps to pay their fair share duh. When Reagan cut their taxes, state and local taxes on the middle class and poor rose to make up. Count ALL taxes and fees and EVERYONE is paying 20-30%, and almost all wealth goes to the richest. Great job, dupes.

Obama had 2 years with the democrats in control of the house and the senate. He chose to ram Obamacare through. So apparently he thought adding trillions to the unfunded entitlements debt was more important than raising taxes on corporations and billionaires.

How high should those corporate tax rates go? We are already at the top among all industrialized countries in corporate tax rates. Why do you suspect all these corporations do inversions?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/08/economist-explains-9

Raise the taxes on corporations and watch more leave the US for countries more friendly to corporations.

 

[francoHFW]

Why does your graph stop at 2007 ? Is it because the Obama years have seen the worst decline of the middle class ?

Obama hasn't been able to get the rich and giant corps to pay their fair share duh. When Reagan cut their taxes, state and local taxes on the middle class and poor rose to make up. Count ALL taxes and fees and EVERYONE is paying 20-30%, and almost all wealth goes to the richest. Great job, dupes.

Obama had 2 years with the democrats in control of the house and the senate. He chose to ram Obamacare through. So apparently he thought adding trillions to the unfunded entitlements debt was more important than raising taxes on corporations and billionaires.

How high should those corporate tax rates go? We are already at the top among all industrialized countries in corporate tax rates. Why do you suspect all these corporations do inversions?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/08/economist-explains-9

Raise the taxes on corporations and watch more leave the US for countries more friendly to corporations.

No, he had 24 days of control, dupe. you can't raise taxes on ANYONE in the middle of a GOP world meltdown duh.

Our actual rate is 12% on corporations. Mainly small ones without lobbyists and batteries of accountants.

Change the channel, dupe.

 

[francoHFW]

D'OH! Duped AGAIN.

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had afilibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.

It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.

The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period, insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during six years of Republican control. Here are the details:

To define terms, a Filibuster-Proof Majority or Super Majority is the number of votes required to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. According to current Senate rules, 60 votes are required to overcome a filibuster.

Here is a time-line of the events after the 2008 election:

1. BALANCE BEFORE THE ELECTION. In 2007 – 2008 the balance in the Senate was 51-49 in favor of the Democrats. On top of that, there was a Republican president who would likely veto any legislation the Republicans didn’t like. Not exactly a super majority.

2. BIG GAIN IN 2008, BUT STILL NO SUPER MAJORITY. Coming out the 2008 election, the Democrats made big gains, but they didn’t immediately get a Super Majority. The Minnesota Senate race required a recount and was not undecided for more than six months. During that time, Norm Coleman was still sitting in the Senate and the Balance 59-41, still not a Super Majority.

3. KENNEDY GRAVELY ILL. Teddy Kennedy casthis last vote in April and left Washington for good around the first of May. Technically he could come back to Washington vote on a pressing issue, but in actual fact, he never returned, even to vote on the Sotomayor confirmation. That left the balance in the Senate 58-41,two votes away from a super majority.

4. STILL NO SUPER MAJORITY. In July, Al Frankin was finally declared the winner and was sworn in on July 7th, 2009, so the Democrats finally had a Super Majority of 60-40 six and one-half months into the year. However, by this point, Kennedy was unable to return to Washington even to participate in the Health Care debate, so it was only a technical super majority because Kennedy could no longer vote and the Senate does not allow proxies. Now the actual actual balance of voting members was 59-40 not enough to overcome a Republican filibuster.

5. SENATE IS IN RECESS. Even if Kennedy were able to vote, the Senate went into summer recess three weeks later, from August 7th to September 8th.

6. KENNEDY DIES. Six weeks later, on Aug 26, 2009 Teddy Kennedy died, putting the balance at 59-40. Now the Democrats don’t even have technical super majority.

7. FINALLY, A SUPER MAJORITY! Kennedy’s replacement was sworn in on September 25, 2009, finally making the majority 60-40, just enough for a super majority.

8. SENATE ADJOURNS. However the Senate adjourned for the year on October 9th, only providing 11 working days of super majority, from September 25th to October 9th.

9. SPECIAL SESSIONS. During October, November and December, the Senate had several special sessions to deal with final passage of ACA and Budget appropriations.

October = 13th – 15th, 20th – 22nd, 27th, 29th = 8 days
November = 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th 16th, 17th, 19th, 21st = 8 days
December = 1st, 3rd - 8th, 10th – 13th, 15th – 18th, 19th, 21st – 24th = 20 days

Total Special Session Days = 36.

8. SCOTT BROWN ELECTED. Scott Brown was elected on January 19th 2010. The Senate was in session for 10 days in January, but Scott Brown wasn’t sworn into office on February 4th, so the Democrats only had 13 days of super majority in 2010.
Summary:

Regular Session: 11 working days
Special Session: 36 working days
Lame Duck Session: 13 working days

The Democrats only had 60 days of Super Majority between 2008 and 2010.

Discussion: One of the central themes of the Republican argument is that the Democrats had a super majority for two full years and so they had plenty of time pass new legislation or undo any problems that were caused by six years of Republican control of all three branches of government. This is argument is used by the Republicans immunize themselves against any responsibility for ongoing problems that might have been caused by their policies.

However, the fact is that the Democrats had a super majority for a total of 60 days, which is no where near the two years that Republicans are always claiming. On top of that, the period of Super Majority was split into short sessions, none of which was longer than five days. In addition, the special session time was entirely devoted to budget issues and Republican amendments to the ACA.

Given the glacial pace that business takes place in the Senate, this was way too little time for the Democrats pass any meaningful legislation, let alone get bills through committees and past all the obstructionistic tactics the Republicans were using to block legislation. No one can seriously expect that the Democrats could undo in 60 days all the damage that Republicans created in six years.

Further, these Super Majorities count Joe Lieberman as a Democrat even though he was by this time an Independent. Even though he was Liberal on some legislation, he was very conservative on other issues and opposed many of the key pieces of legislation the Democrats and Obama wanted to pass. For example, he was adamantly opposed to “Single Payer” health care and vowed to support a Republican Filibuster if it ever came to the floor. He even threatened to caucus with the Republicans if legislation came to the floor that he didn’t like.

Summary:

1. 1/07 – 12/08 – 51-49 – Ordinary Majority.
2. 1/09 – 7/14/09 – 59-41 – Ordinary Majority. (Coleman/Franklin Recount.)
3. 7/09 – 8/09 - 60-40 – Technical Super Majority, but since Kennedy is unable to vote, the Democrats can’t overcome a filibuster
4. 8/09 – 9/09 - 59-40 – Ordinary Majority. (Kennedy dies)
5. 9/09 – 12/24- 60-40 – Super Majority for 47 working days.
6. 1/10 – 2/10 – 60-40 – Super Majority for 13 working days

Total Time of the Democratic Super Majority: 60 Working days.

U.S. Senate: Roll Call Votes 111th Congress-1st session (2009)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/resources/pdf/2009_calendar.pdf
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/resources/pdf/2010_calendar.pdf
United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
111th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[francoHFW]

EFFECTIVE corporate and top rates are among the lowest. So, Todd, are you a liar or a dupe? Always the question with you GOPers...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why does your graph stop at 2007 ? Is it because the Obama years have seen the worst decline of the middle class ?

Obama hasn't been able to get the rich and giant corps to pay their fair share duh. When Reagan cut their taxes, state and local taxes on the middle class and poor rose to make up. Count ALL taxes and fees and EVERYONE is paying 20-30%, and almost all wealth goes to the richest. Great job, dupes.

Obama had 2 years with the democrats in control of the house and the senate. He chose to ram Obamacare through. So apparently he thought adding trillions to the unfunded entitlements debt was more important than raising taxes on corporations and billionaires.

How high should those corporate tax rates go? We are already at the top among all industrialized countries in corporate tax rates. Why do you suspect all these corporations do inversions?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/08/economist-explains-9

Raise the taxes on corporations and watch more leave the US for countries more friendly to corporations.

No, he had 24 days of control, dupe. you can't raise taxes on ANYONE in the middle of a GOP world meltdown duh.

Our actual rate is 12% on corporations. Mainly small ones without lobbyists and batteries of accountants.

Change the channel, dupe.

No, he had 24 days of control, dupe.

59/100 senators, 257/435 congressmen.
Give that to a Republican President and he wouldn't be whining like a little bitch like you are.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Defended to the death by the bought off, big money, greedy idiot billionaire, brainwashing New BS GOP.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 10, 2016
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Interesting- but why not list the other presidents who have served After Reagan. Since Reagan, we have had over 23 years of democrat presidents and 12 years of Republicans. What did Reagan do that the great Bill Clinton and BO were unable to undo? Were they that ineffective?

16 years of Dems duh.
At changing tax rates etc, yes. Only takes 50% to cut taxes on the rich and giant corps, but 60% of Senate etc to raise them or REFORM arrrgh....What news do you watch lol...the usual GOP ignoramus.

Impotent leaders

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Why does your graph stop at 2007 ? Is it because the Obama years have seen the worst decline of the middle class ?

Obama hasn't been able to get the rich and giant corps to pay their fair share duh. When Reagan cut their taxes, state and local taxes on the middle class and poor rose to make up. Count ALL taxes and fees and EVERYONE is paying 20-30%, and almost all wealth goes to the richest. Great job, dupes.

Obama had 2 years with the democrats in control of the house and the senate. He chose to ram Obamacare through. So apparently he thought adding trillions to the unfunded entitlements debt was more important than raising taxes on corporations and billionaires.

How high should those corporate tax rates go? We are already at the top among all industrialized countries in corporate tax rates. Why do you suspect all these corporations do inversions?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/08/economist-explains-9

Raise the taxes on corporations and watch more leave the US for countries more friendly to corporations.

No, he had 24 days of control, dupe. you can't raise taxes on ANYONE in the middle of a GOP world meltdown duh.

Our actual rate is 12% on corporations. Mainly small ones without lobbyists and batteries of accountants.

Change the channel, dupe.

Why all the company inversions if the tax rate is only 12%? Pesky facts!

 

[francoHFW]

Defended to the death by the bought off, big money, greedy idiot billionaire, brainwashing New BS GOP.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 10, 2016
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Interesting- but why not list the other presidents who have served After Reagan. Since Reagan, we have had over 23 years of democrat presidents and 12 years of Republicans. What did Reagan do that the great Bill Clinton and BO were unable to undo? Were they that ineffective?

16 years of Dems duh.
At changing tax rates etc, yes. Only takes 50% to cut taxes on the rich and giant corps, but 60% of Senate etc to raise them or REFORM arrrgh....What news do you watch lol...the usual GOP ignoramus.

Impotent leaders

Ob struction is easy if you're pure a-holes. Great way to get a strong man and fascism..."wrapped in the bible and a flag"...

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Why does your graph stop at 2007 ? Is it because the Obama years have seen the worst decline of the middle class ?

Obama hasn't been able to get the rich and giant corps to pay their fair share duh. When Reagan cut their taxes, state and local taxes on the middle class and poor rose to make up. Count ALL taxes and fees and EVERYONE is paying 20-30%, and almost all wealth goes to the richest. Great job, dupes.

Obama had 2 years with the democrats in control of the house and the senate. He chose to ram Obamacare through. So apparently he thought adding trillions to the unfunded entitlements debt was more important than raising taxes on corporations and billionaires.

How high should those corporate tax rates go? We are already at the top among all industrialized countries in corporate tax rates. Why do you suspect all these corporations do inversions?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/08/economist-explains-9

Raise the taxes on corporations and watch more leave the US for countries more friendly to corporations.

No, he had 24 days of control, dupe. you can't raise taxes on ANYONE in the middle of a GOP world meltdown duh.

Our actual rate is 12% on corporations. Mainly small ones without lobbyists and batteries of accountants.

Change the channel, dupe.

No, he had 24 days of control, dupe.

59/100 senators, 257/435 congressmen.
Give that to a Republican President and he wouldn't be whining like a little bitch like you are.

Everyone is a tough guy sitting at a keyboard.

 

[francoHFW]

Why does your graph stop at 2007 ? Is it because the Obama years have seen the worst decline of the middle class ?

Obama hasn't been able to get the rich and giant corps to pay their fair share duh. When Reagan cut their taxes, state and local taxes on the middle class and poor rose to make up. Count ALL taxes and fees and EVERYONE is paying 20-30%, and almost all wealth goes to the richest. Great job, dupes.

Obama had 2 years with the democrats in control of the house and the senate. He chose to ram Obamacare through. So apparently he thought adding trillions to the unfunded entitlements debt was more important than raising taxes on corporations and billionaires.

How high should those corporate tax rates go? We are already at the top among all industrialized countries in corporate tax rates. Why do you suspect all these corporations do inversions?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/08/economist-explains-9

Raise the taxes on corporations and watch more leave the US for countries more friendly to corporations.

No, he had 24 days of control, dupe. you can't raise taxes on ANYONE in the middle of a GOP world meltdown duh.

Our actual rate is 12% on corporations. Mainly small ones without lobbyists and batteries of accountants.

Change the channel, dupe.

Why all the company inversions if the tax rate is only 12%? Pesky facts!

That's about pay scale, duh. And stupid GOP CEOs and stockholders, dupe.

 

[francoHFW]

Why does your graph stop at 2007 ? Is it because the Obama years have seen the worst decline of the middle class ?

Obama hasn't been able to get the rich and giant corps to pay their fair share duh. When Reagan cut their taxes, state and local taxes on the middle class and poor rose to make up. Count ALL taxes and fees and EVERYONE is paying 20-30%, and almost all wealth goes to the richest. Great job, dupes.

Obama had 2 years with the democrats in control of the house and the senate. He chose to ram Obamacare through. So apparently he thought adding trillions to the unfunded entitlements debt was more important than raising taxes on corporations and billionaires.

How high should those corporate tax rates go? We are already at the top among all industrialized countries in corporate tax rates. Why do you suspect all these corporations do inversions?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/08/economist-explains-9

Raise the taxes on corporations and watch more leave the US for countries more friendly to corporations.

No, he had 24 days of control, dupe. you can't raise taxes on ANYONE in the middle of a GOP world meltdown duh.

Our actual rate is 12% on corporations. Mainly small ones without lobbyists and batteries of accountants.

Change the channel, dupe.

No, he had 24 days of control, dupe.

59/100 senators, 257/435 congressmen.
Give that to a Republican President and he wouldn't be whining like a little bitch like you are.

Everyone is a tough guy sitting at a keyboard.

Why does your graph stop at 2007 ? Is it because the Obama years have seen the worst decline of the middle class ?

Obama hasn't been able to get the rich and giant corps to pay their fair share duh. When Reagan cut their taxes, state and local taxes on the middle class and poor rose to make up. Count ALL taxes and fees and EVERYONE is paying 20-30%, and almost all wealth goes to the richest. Great job, dupes.

Obama had 2 years with the democrats in control of the house and the senate. He chose to ram Obamacare through. So apparently he thought adding trillions to the unfunded entitlements debt was more important than raising taxes on corporations and billionaires.

How high should those corporate tax rates go? We are already at the top among all industrialized countries in corporate tax rates. Why do you suspect all these corporations do inversions?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/08/economist-explains-9

Raise the taxes on corporations and watch more leave the US for countries more friendly to corporations.

No, he had 24 days of control, dupe. you can't raise taxes on ANYONE in the middle of a GOP world meltdown duh.

Our actual rate is 12% on corporations. Mainly small ones without lobbyists and batteries of accountants.

Change the channel, dupe.

No, he had 24 days of control, dupe.

59/100 senators, 257/435 congressmen.
Give that to a Republican President and he wouldn't be whining like a little bitch like you are.

Because Dems aren't bought off by big money hypocrites, believe in elections and good gov't....

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I'm all about destroying the middle class.

 

[OnePercenter]

You've discovered that corporate taxes aren't a very good way to collect revenue.

I've addressed the illusion that corporations and the rich are over-taxed.

Yes, your confusion between revenue and profit is well known

Yes, your confusion between revenue and profit is well known

No confusion here, just combating deception on your part.

I've never lied about your idiocy. Ask anyone.

I've never lied about your idiocy. Ask anyone

My yearly income is more than your lifetime income, I pay zero in personal federal income taxes, and I'm the idiot?

Revenue for business is THE SAME as a paycheck for a worker. Revenue is called revenue by the IRS because it has an added deduction, and differentiates it from income.

I pay zero in personal federal income taxes, and I'm the idiot?

Yes, paying a 35% corporate rate and 39.6% on your trust is proof you're smart.

Revenue for business is THE SAME as a paycheck for a worker.

What's the COGS for the worker?

Yes, paying a 35% corporate rate and 39.6% on your trust is proof you're smart.

You should educate yourself on Nevada corporations.

I paid $180K on $4.5M. Do the math.

What's the COGS for the worker?

Workers have 'revenue?', thus why the IRS uses the term, to differentiate a corporation which has more and better deductions.