Lookin' For That Apology...

[Trajan]

The Congress will never pass the cuts needed to pay for this tax cut,

Umm. What tax cuts? Extending the Bush tax rates changes nothing from the past 9 years after they're passed. There will be a tax INCREASE if they end.

Don't try to push that lie with me that they're a tax cut. There is no reduction in rates NOR a reason to "pay" for this unless you've already spent more money you don't have. These tax rates have been collected now for years and are a known quantity.

Don't try to tell me that when you went to go buy a Yugo, you saved money cause you didn't go across the street and buy a Mercedes Benz. You still bought the damn Yugo.

You don't get to redefine the language to cover a lie.

Then why does this bill have a 900 billion dollar price tag? Why is it being estimated to add 900 billion to the deficit?

You're claiming it will add ZERO to the deficit... So their figures are 900 billion dollars off?

lolol

uhm we left off at- post #363....

hey, did you get a chance to watch the video?

 

[Big Fitz]

that if you pass the tax cuts now, that spending cuts will certainly follow to pay for the deficit in this tax cut stimulus bill?

Where is this guaranteed? What will be cut? I'm talking REAL cuts, not reductions to the increase.

 

[cbi0090]

I don't know why people are surprised. He's a Chicago Democrat, nothing more. That's a far different person than the touchy-feely northeastern or California Democrats. Chicago politics is all about who's on the take and who owes what to whom. Heavy union involvement is expected, almost necessary, and he hasn't disappointed in the that regard.

Way back when, before the election of '08, what were those of us on the right telling you guys?

We told you that the press wasn't vetting this articulate senator...

we told you you were unaware of his politics, that you were pickin,' with due respect to the President, 'a pig in a poke'...

we even suggested the dire possibilities...

did you listen? Nooooooooooo!

Then, finally, after the election, Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw admit they don't know who he is....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzMas1bVidw


Now, the Democratic Party itself is saying the same things"

"But many other Democrats, including Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), a member of the defense appropriations subcommittee, said they didn’t even know the provision was included.

Moran’s anger with the president boiled over in a short interview Thursday with The Hill about the provision and the tax debate held shortly after the Democratic Caucus voted to reject Obama’s tax-cut deal.

“This is a lack of leadership on the part of Obama,” fumed Moran (D-Va.) “I don’t know where the f*** Obama is on this or anything else. They’re AWOL.”

Dems show signs of abandoning Obama elsewhere after frustration with tax deal - TheHill.com

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then why does this bill have a 900 billion dollar price tag?

I would love to see why that is being claimed too. I haven't. Unless they've added 900 billion in spending... oh wait! >snap< Now I remember... Obamacare. There's your overspending sherlock.

And I have not falsely called you a liar once. You are calling them tax cuts. They are not. Not at one single point is the tax rate going down for anyone. It is being MAINTAINED. Ergo, you lie.

I am calling them tax cuts because writing 'extension of the temporary Bush tax cuts due to expire' is too long.

The Bush tax cuts had a beginning and an end. They will no longer be Bush tax cuts after January 1st. They will be replaced by the Obama tax cuts.

 

[Big Fitz]

I am calling them tax cuts because writing 'extension of the temporary Bush tax cuts due to expire' is too long.

Well as long as you're being dishonest about it.

I went to go buy a car with 15k, and because I didn't buy the 50k dollar car, I saved 35k. Aren't I a smart shopper?

 

[Neotrotsky]

Then why does this bill have a 900 billion dollar price tag?

I would love to see why that is being claimed too. I haven't. Unless they've added 900 billion in spending... oh wait! >snap< Now I remember... Obamacare. There's your overspending sherlock.

And I have not falsely called you a liar once. You are calling them tax cuts. They are not. Not at one single point is the tax rate going down for anyone. It is being MAINTAINED. Ergo, you lie.

I am calling them tax cuts because writing 'extension of the temporary Bush tax cuts due to expire' is too long.

The Bush tax cuts had a beginning and an end. They will no longer be Bush tax cuts after January 1st. They will be replaced by the Obama tax cuts.

Well in that case

Long Live the new Obama tax cuts !



Of course, something tells me if they went up then you would not be calling them "Obama tax increases"

Another Bush policy Papa Obama is following
Funny how that works

 

[NYcarbineer]

To anyone claiming tax cuts increase revenue.

After the Reagan tax cuts of 1981:

1. Revenues as a % of GDP FELL in 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1986.

2. Revenues as a % of GDP were at 19.6% in 1981. They never saw that level again until 1998.

After the Bush tax cuts of 2001 (and 2003 essentially)

1. Revenues as a % of GDP FELL in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2008, 2009.

2. Revenues as a % of GDP were at 20.6% in 2000, their highest since 1945. They are now at 14.8%, the lowest since 1950.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

As taxes were lowered, despite GDP rising, those tax cuts did NOT generate increased revenue relative to our GDP, which is of course the most meaningful measure.

 

[boedicca]

Specious reasoning. A valid analysis would show the growth in absolute dollars. The goal is not to increase the size of government relative to GDP - but to grow GDP so that the proper functions of government can be funded while being less of a burden on the overall economy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Specious reasoning. A valid analysis would show the growth in absolute dollars. The goal is not to increase the size of government relative to GDP - but to grow GDP so that the proper functions of government can be funded while being less of a burden on the overall economy.

You see, Boedicca, this is the result of teaching that 'New Math'!

Imagine not understanding what happens to the resulting percentage as the denominator increases....

 

[boedicca]

Specious reasoning. A valid analysis would show the growth in absolute dollars. The goal is not to increase the size of government relative to GDP - but to grow GDP so that the proper functions of government can be funded while being less of a burden on the overall economy.

You see, Boedicca, this is the result of teaching that 'New Math'!

Imagine not understanding what happens to the resulting percentage as the denominator increases....

Indeed. And it's very telling how his orientation is on how to get a bigger piece of the pie for government, instead of making the pie bigger so that everyone has an opportunity to earn a decent sized piece.

 

[daveman]

They are temporary tax cuts that are being extended. They are temporary tax cuts that were already blowing up the deficit, and they will now continue to do so.

And the payroll tax IS being reduced.

What was blowing up the deficit was insane government spending.

Which was perpetrated by a GOP Congress that is back in power and you're guaranteeing they're going to CUT spending.

Who took control of Congress in '06?

 

[daveman]

They are temporary tax cuts that are being extended

Wow, let's try and redefine the issue again. They are current tax rates.

They are temporary tax cuts that were already blowing up the deficit, and they will now continue to do so.

Pardon me for noticing a glaring error in your logic that I must not let go un-highlighted:

Isn't it true that SPENDING causes a depletion in finances, while taxation causes an increase in finances? I mean, you are collecting money while spending... well reduces money in your account.

Therefore, is not the problem overspending and therefore to correct the problem simply a case of cutting spending to reach parity with your income? Isn't that what every citizen and business in the US must do? Why is the government immune from this immutable economic fact?

This is not a bill to cut spending. This is a bill to reduce revenue by extending temporary tax cuts. Spending has NOTHING to do with this bill.

This is a 900 billion dollar stimulus bill.

Let's go with that analogy. Unlike the first stimulus, which put a lot of money in the hands of Democrat special interest groups, and not so much in the hands of people who create jobs, this one will benefit every taxpayer directly.

Of course, the problem is most people who don't pay taxes are Democrat special interest groups, so you're pissed that there's no vote-buying going on here.

 

[daveman]

There have been four President's who have been able to get Congress to cut taxes for the benefit of growing the economy...

1. Coolidge
2. Kennedy
3. Reagan
4. Bush II

Only one has been able to follow through on reduced spending at the same time...Coolidge.

BTW, if the Obama-GOP deal goes through, that will be five.

The GOP has been given a wake-up call with this last election: Do what we sent you to DC to do, or go home.

We sent them to decrease the size of the government and get out of the way of the economy.

I sure wish I was an optimist on this one...

Have you read Angelo Codevilla's essay at American Spectator....sees the members of both parties as cookie-cutter members of the 'ruling class.'

No, but that sounds about right.

 

[Trajan]

To anyone claiming tax cuts increase revenue.

After the Reagan tax cuts of 1981:

1. Revenues as a % of GDP FELL in 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1986.

2. Revenues as a % of GDP were at 19.6% in 1981. They never saw that level again until 1998.

After the Bush tax cuts of 2001 (and 2003 essentially)

1. Revenues as a % of GDP FELL in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2008, 2009.

2. Revenues as a % of GDP were at 20.6% in 2000, their highest since 1945. They are now at 14.8%, the lowest since 1950.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

As taxes were lowered, despite GDP rising, those tax cuts did NOT generate increased revenue relative to our GDP, which is of course the most meaningful measure.

look at the chart folks,....
NYC- take a look at the receipts col.

18.0 of more is better than 18. of less...no? and you know his cuts didn't take effect immediately, they had to wait 2 years...right?

 

[daveman]

Well at least this thread will be valuable as evidence for such things as people like daveman guaranteeing us that the cost of this new stimulus bill will be paid for next year by spending cuts.

Where did I do that?

If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making.

Are you denying that? So, you're agreeing with ME, when I justified my opposition to this budget buster,

that there is absolutely no guarantee (not to mention a mountain of history evidence to the contrary)

that if you pass the tax cuts now, that spending cuts will certainly follow to pay for the deficit in this tax cut stimulus bill?

You're going to hurt yourself desperately spinning like that.

Note: This is not Opposite Day. You don't get to say something means the opposite.

 

[Trajan]

Umm. What tax cuts? Extending the Bush tax rates changes nothing from the past 9 years after they're passed. There will be a tax INCREASE if they end.

Don't try to push that lie with me that they're a tax cut. There is no reduction in rates NOR a reason to "pay" for this unless you've already spent more money you don't have. These tax rates have been collected now for years and are a known quantity.

Don't try to tell me that when you went to go buy a Yugo, you saved money cause you didn't go across the street and buy a Mercedes Benz. You still bought the damn Yugo.

You don't get to redefine the language to cover a lie.

Then why does this bill have a 900 billion dollar price tag? Why is it being estimated to add 900 billion to the deficit?

You're claiming it will add ZERO to the deficit... So their figures are 900 billion dollars off?

lolol

uhm we left off at- post #363....

hey, did you get a chance to watch the video?

so is that it?

if you have no intention addressing this just say so.....please, don't waste my time in future...deal?


Rightwinger...you pull another brave sir robin act again?

 

[daveman]

If that is the case, then why not have the system of paying voluntary fees to use the services instead of taxing everyone for things they don't use?

And how would that work? I can opt out of my share of military spending because I don't 'use' the military?

Are you a free man who enjoys the protections of the Constitution?

Looks like you use the military, then.

You missed one, Carb.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Specious reasoning. A valid analysis would show the growth in absolute dollars. The goal is not to increase the size of government relative to GDP - but to grow GDP so that the proper functions of government can be funded while being less of a burden on the overall economy.

You're looking at it all wrong.

Tax revenues as a percent of GDP shows how much the government has to produce in order to generate the funding of the government. That it became harder for the country's production - aka GDP - to generate tax revenues AFTER the tax cuts cited PROVES that the conservative theory that lowering taxes generates more revenue is baloney.

 

[Big Fitz]

Tax revenues as a percent of GDP shows how much the government has to produce in order to generate the funding of the government.

Ooh! Ooh! This is going to be good!

Ahem...

What direct action does it take to create a profit?

"The bureaucracy is expanding to provide for the needs of the expanding bureaucracy." Yes sir!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Specious reasoning. A valid analysis would show the growth in absolute dollars. The goal is not to increase the size of government relative to GDP - but to grow GDP so that the proper functions of government can be funded while being less of a burden on the overall economy.

You see, Boedicca, this is the result of teaching that 'New Math'!

Imagine not understanding what happens to the resulting percentage as the denominator increases....

Indeed. And it's very telling how his orientation is on how to get a bigger piece of the pie for government, instead of making the pie bigger so that everyone has an opportunity to earn a decent sized piece.

I'm guessing that that's because of the liberal assumption that the state will/should take care of all, so it's entitled to take as much as it wants/needs.


Thomas Sowell points out that our liberal friends never get beyond what he calls 'Stage One' thinking, i.e., how nice it would be to have someone take care of you.

But - Stage Two, Three, etc, means thinking about how much care, who pays for it, and, ultimately, what 'equality,' the reason for the policy, means.

One thing about Wingy and Carby, they honestlly believed every bit of propaganda the left put out, and that's why they are so incensed with the betrayal by President Obama...he is now admitting that the right was telling the truth when it said that tax cuts spur economic growth...

Kinda sad for them...Intervention, quick!