More Of The Same & Raising Taxes: Winning Platform For Dems? Yea Or Nay?

[topspin]

The scummy libtards could promise the moon right now, and it still wouldn't help them. Because that's what all the dough heads that voted for obama thought he was going to do in the first place, and all they got was lied to and kicked in the face. No... I don't think there's a damn thing in the world the libshits could spin up right now that would help them. People want them gone, period.

and you wisconsin country rednecks will still be crying when he whips your ass again in 12.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Highest poverty level in the 50yrs. of poverty record-keeping really does say it all. The Democrats can't spin their way out of that one. Hopey Changey has failed. It is what it is.

 

[The Rabbi]

Highest poverty level in the 50yrs. of poverty record-keeping really does say it all. The Democrats can't spin their way out of that one. Hopey Changey has failed. It is what it is.

It was Bush's fault.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Highest poverty level in the 50yrs. of poverty record-keeping really does say it all. The Democrats can't spin their way out of that one. Hopey Changey has failed. It is what it is.

It was Bush's fault.

Yea i know. It's always DA BOOOOOOOOOOSH. Oh and those RAAAACEEEEEEESTS too. Not much of a platform. The Dems are in trouble.

 

[Care4all]

i suppose you both are clueless on what a 'trend'' is or how statistics are ''trending'' for any given category, like poverty?

 

[The Rabbi]

i suppose you both are clueless on what a 'trend'' is or how statistics are ''trending'' for any given category, like poverty?

I know what the trend for Obama and the Democrats is. And it aint pretty.
Maybe you'd like to elaborate on your post. This will be good.

 

[amrchaos]

What is different in anyones platform?

Same theories lead to same actions and same mistakes.

At least this time, the Democrats went socialist on us!!

 

[Care4all]

i suppose you both are clueless on what a 'trend'' is or how statistics are ''trending'' for any given category, like poverty?

I know what the trend for Obama and the Democrats is. And it aint pretty.
Maybe you'd like to elaborate on your post. This will be good.

poverty rates trend was rising, throughout president bush's term, even before the 2007 recession, and stock market/wall street crash of 2008.

The 2000s have all but erased any gains to reducing poverty in the 1990s. This recession has only exacerbated the damaging trends over the last decade, leaving some of the most vulnerable populations with large shares living below the poverty line. Figure F shows changes over time in poverty rates for particularly vulnerable populations—children, racial and ethnic minority children, and single mother families. From 2000 to 2009, black children experienced a 4.5 percentage-point increase in poverty to 35.7%. Hispanic children experienced an increase of 4.7 percentage points over the same period to 33.1%.

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/a_lost_decade_poverty_and_income_trends/

 

[The Rabbi]

i suppose you both are clueless on what a 'trend'' is or how statistics are ''trending'' for any given category, like poverty?

I know what the trend for Obama and the Democrats is. And it aint pretty.
Maybe you'd like to elaborate on your post. This will be good.

poverty rates trend was rising, throughout president bush's term, even before the 2007 recession, and stock market/wall street crash of 2008.

The 2000s have all but erased any gains to reducing poverty in the 1990s. This recession has only exacerbated the damaging trends over the last decade, leaving some of the most vulnerable populations with large shares living below the poverty line. Figure F shows changes over time in poverty rates for particularly vulnerable populations—children, racial and ethnic minority children, and single mother families. From 2000 to 2009, black children experienced a 4.5 percentage-point increase in poverty to 35.7%. Hispanic children experienced an increase of 4.7 percentage points over the same period to 33.1%.

A lost decade: Poverty and income trends paint a bleak picture for working families

TaDA! There we go. It really was Bush's fault! Trends started with him so he's responsible. They continued and got worse under Obama so he's not responsible.
Brilliant. Just fucking brilliant.

 

[Urkie]

IF you think trickle down economics never worked.

Wait 'till you see how well trickle down taxes do.

Any tax on the rich is passed on to the consumer by increased cost of goods and services.

It's basic math.

So explain again why the economy grew when Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy back in the 90's? It's not the end of the world to raise taxes. Sometimes its necessary to...oh I don't know...actually balance the budget.

 

[The Rabbi]

IF you think trickle down economics never worked.

Wait 'till you see how well trickle down taxes do.

Any tax on the rich is passed on to the consumer by increased cost of goods and services.

It's basic math.

So explain again why the economy grew when Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy back in the 90's? It's not the end of the world to raise taxes. Sometimes its necessary to...oh I don't know...actually balance the budget.

Dot com bubble combined with fall of Soviet Union and "peace dividend" mean anything to you?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

IF you think trickle down economics never worked.

Wait 'till you see how well trickle down taxes do.

Any tax on the rich is passed on to the consumer by increased cost of goods and services.

It's basic math.

So explain again why the economy grew when Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy back in the 90's? It's not the end of the world to raise taxes. Sometimes its necessary to...oh I don't know...actually balance the budget.

Dot com bubble combined with fall of Soviet Union and "peace dividend" mean anything to you?

Isn't his argument basically that the rich are footing the bill?

 

[The Rabbi]

So explain again why the economy grew when Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy back in the 90's? It's not the end of the world to raise taxes. Sometimes its necessary to...oh I don't know...actually balance the budget.

Dot com bubble combined with fall of Soviet Union and "peace dividend" mean anything to you?

Isn't his argument basically that the rich are footing the bill?

I think it's more that the wealthy (actually high income earners, but they can't tell the difference) don't change their behavior in response to tax changes.
That's of course not merely absurd but has been debunked time and time again.

 

[Political Junky]

Taxes will return to the former level for the top 3%, as agreed to by the republicans ten years ago.

 

[The Rabbi]

Taxes will return to the former level for the top 3%, as agreed to by the republicans ten years ago.

You mean taxes will go up on those who create jobs and fuel the economy, as promulgated by the Democrats.
Actually at this point everyone's taxes are going up, thanks to the Democrats. Nice job one month ahead of a major election!

 

[Political Junky]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opinion/23krugman.html?_r=1

"Some background: Back in 2001, when the first set of Bush tax cuts was rammed through Congress, the legislation was written with a peculiar provision — namely, that the whole thing would expire, with tax rates reverting to 2000 levels, on the last day of 2010.

Why the cutoff date? In part, it was used to disguise the fiscal irresponsibility of the tax cuts: lopping off that last year reduced the headline cost of the cuts, because such costs are normally calculated over a 10-year period. It also allowed the Bush administration to pass the tax cuts using reconciliation — yes, the same procedure that Republicans denounced when it was used to enact health reform — while sidestepping rules designed to prevent the use of that procedure to increase long-run budget deficits."

 

[Urkie]

Isn't his argument basically that the rich are footing the bill?

My argument is that if you increase the taxes on the top 3% then it makes the market more competitive and it gives smaller businesses and middle class people more of an opportunity. That was one of the biggest reasons why the economy boomed in the 90's.

 

[Charles_Main]

Taxes will return to the former level for the top 3%, as agreed to by the republicans ten years ago.

They only agreed to it, because their Majority was to slim to pass it with out doing so.

 

[Political Junky]

I repeat from my former post:

It also allowed the Bush administration to pass the tax cuts using reconciliation — yes, the same procedure that Republicans denounced when it was used to enact health reform — while sidestepping rules designed to prevent the use of that procedure to increase long-run budget deficits."

 

[The Rabbi]

I repeat from my former post:

It also allowed the Bush administration to pass the tax cuts using reconciliation — yes, the same procedure that Republicans denounced when it was used to enact health reform — while sidestepping rules designed to prevent the use of that procedure to increase long-run budget deficits."

BOOSHH!!! IT WAS BOOOSSSHHHHH!!

More nonsense from the Left.
In fact reconciliation was for budget items. The tax cuts were a budget item. I don't recall Dems making a stink over it. Probably because many of them voted for it.
How many Republicans voted for the health care bill?

And how is health care part of the budget process that makes it appropriate for reconciliation?
FAIL.