Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[Dad2three]

Taxes should NOT be raised another dime until out-of-control criminal spending in Washington STOPS.

For Example:
$500 MILLION US Tax Dollars went to Solyndra alone (1 of 13 of Obama's 'pet' alternative energy projects funded by his bogus Stimulus Bill) WHILE they were filing for bankruptcy. The following week, after receiving the money, they fired over 1,000 workers. It is now being reported (duh) how Solyndra DEFRAUDED the government in order to get that money.

The media is reporting that the company 'mis-represented it's status and mis-filed reports. yeah, in other words, this administration with the help of the biased media is trying to make it sound like what happened was a clerical error rather than a CRIME, which is what it is.

Turns out that Solyndra was heavily invested in by big time Obama donors, and the $500 million illegally funneled to Solyndra was to ensure his donors did not lose nay money in the deal...while American tax payers lost the $500 million that went to Obama donors. (As I see it, Obama and his donors owe the US Tax Payers $500 Million!)

The entire Stimulus Bill, touted as a jobs bill, was one big Liberal Progressive Tax Payer-Funded fiscally criminal 'raping' of the US tax payer to benefit themselves and their supporters.
- The bill contained over 7,000 pieces of DNC-Only Pork, and in the end cost over $742,000 PER JOB 'created / saved'...and many of those jobs 'created / saved' numbers were padded. One company reported that the Obama administration claimed to have saved more jobs than the total number of people who worked at the company!

There is $500 Million, in this one case alone, that oculd have been used far more efficiently ...and LEGALLY. So Not one more d@mn dime in tax increases until shi'ite like THIS is eliminated! They have enough - they just need to start using it for what is best for this country and NOT what is best for themselves and their parties!

Without false premises, distortions AND LIES, what would you right wingers EVER have Bubs?

Solyndra MORE CONservative nonsense!

Bush Admin. Advanced16 Projects, Including Solyndra, Out Of 143 Submissions
Hearings and Votes | Energy & Commerce Committee

Solyndra=1% of DOE energy money


Reuters: Venture Capitalists Point To Solyndra As One Of The Top 10 Companies "Ripest" To Go Public. Reuters reported in August 2009:
Investors eye top startups as IPO market awakens - Aug. 19, 2009


Market Conditions Shifted Significantly from 2009 to 2011


"advantages that were more important in 2009 when it received a $535 million U.S. loan guarantee to build a factory" than they are now, noting that the price of the silicon-based panels with which Solyndra was competing "has fallen 46 percent since then."
Obama’s Solar Bets May Avoid Solyndra’s Fate With Low Costs

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Taxes should NOT be raised another dime until out-of-control criminal spending in Washington STOPS.

For Example:
$500 MILLION US Tax Dollars went to Solyndra alone (1 of 13 of Obama's 'pet' alternative energy projects funded by his bogus Stimulus Bill) WHILE they were filing for bankruptcy. The following week, after receiving the money, they fired over 1,000 workers. It is now being reported (duh) how Solyndra DEFRAUDED the government in order to get that money.

The media is reporting that the company 'mis-represented it's status and mis-filed reports. yeah, in other words, this administration with the help of the biased media is trying to make it sound like what happened was a clerical error rather than a CRIME, which is what it is.

Turns out that Solyndra was heavily invested in by big time Obama donors, and the $500 million illegally funneled to Solyndra was to ensure his donors did not lose nay money in the deal...while American tax payers lost the $500 million that went to Obama donors. (As I see it, Obama and his donors owe the US Tax Payers $500 Million!)

The entire Stimulus Bill, touted as a jobs bill, was one big Liberal Progressive Tax Payer-Funded fiscally criminal 'raping' of the US tax payer to benefit themselves and their supporters.
- The bill contained over 7,000 pieces of DNC-Only Pork, and in the end cost over $742,000 PER JOB 'created / saved'...and many of those jobs 'created / saved' numbers were padded. One company reported that the Obama administration claimed to have saved more jobs than the total number of people who worked at the company!

There is $500 Million, in this one case alone, that oculd have been used far more efficiently ...and LEGALLY. So Not one more d@mn dime in tax increases until shi'ite like THIS is eliminated! They have enough - they just need to start using it for what is best for this country and NOT what is best for themselves and their parties!

Without false premises, distortions AND LIES, what would you right wingers EVER have Bubs?

Solyndra MORE CONservative nonsense!

Bush Admin. Advanced16 Projects, Including Solyndra, Out Of 143 Submissions
Hearings and Votes | Energy & Commerce Committee

Solyndra=1% of DOE energy money


Reuters: Venture Capitalists Point To Solyndra As One Of The Top 10 Companies "Ripest" To Go Public. Reuters reported in August 2009:
Investors eye top startups as IPO market awakens - Aug. 19, 2009


Market Conditions Shifted Significantly from 2009 to 2011


"advantages that were more important in 2009 when it received a $535 million U.S. loan guarantee to build a factory" than they are now, noting that the price of the silicon-based panels with which Solyndra was competing "has fallen 46 percent since then."
Obama’s Solar Bets May Avoid Solyndra’s Fate With Low Costs

Solyndra=1% of DOE energy money

You're right, we should eliminate the entire Department.

 

[Dad2three]

Taxes should NOT be raised another dime until out-of-control criminal spending in Washington STOPS.

For Example:
$500 MILLION US Tax Dollars went to Solyndra alone (1 of 13 of Obama's 'pet' alternative energy projects funded by his bogus Stimulus Bill) WHILE they were filing for bankruptcy. The following week, after receiving the money, they fired over 1,000 workers. It is now being reported (duh) how Solyndra DEFRAUDED the government in order to get that money.

The media is reporting that the company 'mis-represented it's status and mis-filed reports. yeah, in other words, this administration with the help of the biased media is trying to make it sound like what happened was a clerical error rather than a CRIME, which is what it is.

Turns out that Solyndra was heavily invested in by big time Obama donors, and the $500 million illegally funneled to Solyndra was to ensure his donors did not lose nay money in the deal...while American tax payers lost the $500 million that went to Obama donors. (As I see it, Obama and his donors owe the US Tax Payers $500 Million!)

The entire Stimulus Bill, touted as a jobs bill, was one big Liberal Progressive Tax Payer-Funded fiscally criminal 'raping' of the US tax payer to benefit themselves and their supporters.
- The bill contained over 7,000 pieces of DNC-Only Pork, and in the end cost over $742,000 PER JOB 'created / saved'...and many of those jobs 'created / saved' numbers were padded. One company reported that the Obama administration claimed to have saved more jobs than the total number of people who worked at the company!

There is $500 Million, in this one case alone, that oculd have been used far more efficiently ...and LEGALLY. So Not one more d@mn dime in tax increases until shi'ite like THIS is eliminated! They have enough - they just need to start using it for what is best for this country and NOT what is best for themselves and their parties!

Dubya/GOP tax cut, which was SUPPOSED to boom the economy and create jobs, cost over $2+ trillion 2001-2009. The Dubya economy lost 1+ million in his 8 years, how much did each job cost Bubs?

 

[Dad2three]

...and at nearly $1 million a pop for vacations, like everyone else, the Obamas should have to pay for their own vacations, not force tax payers to do so. I don't know about YOU, but the company I work for doesn't pay for my vacations, especially not half a dozen a year!

loL

SIMPLE MORONS!

 

[Dad2three]

Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!

Tax rates as a percent of taxable earnings

1980 8.100%

1988-89 15.020%


FICA & SECA Tax Rates

Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion

Over what time frame? As compared to what?

which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!

Tax receipts were $599 billion in 1981, $991 billion in 1989.
What was the cost of the tax cuts for the rich?

DOESN'T FUKKNN MATTER. YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR. I proved you are full of it


IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!

YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR.

Yeah, onepercenter lies about his income and his trust and his taxes.

IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!

Not if their carryover losses made their net income zero for the year.

Weird how YOU are NEVER honest? I'm shocked.

Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!

Yep, MOST of the increased revenues were inflation. Next was increasing SS taxes, next was new employees. Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.

However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the middle class/poor which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!



Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

1. 
   
2. If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income, such as wages, up to an annual limit of $3,000, or $1,500 if you are married filing separately.
3. If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.

MILLIONAIRES? lol

Ten Important Facts About Capital Gains and Losses

Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years

I know, from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988. Awful!

to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!

Wait, are you claiming that government took the Social Security money, bought Treasury bonds with it and then spent the money? You can't be serious!

Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!

How much less? How do you know? Show all your calculations.

"It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

So you can cut taxes by $100 billion and only lose $60 billion in revenue?
Sounds like a win-win.

If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income

But we're not talking about "other income", are we?

If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.

Weird, it's almost like they're saying you could lose $300 million in 2008 and carry that loss over into 2009 to eliminate the tax liability on $200 million in 2009 income.

Social Security & Medicare Tax Rates


Tax rates as a percent of taxable earnings


Rate for employees and employers, each

1980 Total 6.130% (TOTAL12.26%)


1990 and later 7.650% (15.3%)


THAT'S AN INCREASE FROM 12.26% TO 15.3% BUBS


USE REAL NUMBERS AND MATH NEXT TIME

HE ALSO TOOK THE SELF EMPLOYED FROM 8.1% TO 15.3% BUBS


FICA & SECA Tax Rates

LIKE I SAID, RONNIE INCREASED SS TAXES BY $2.7+ TRILLION OVER THE NEXT THIRTY YEARS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF HIS TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!

1980 Total 6.130% (TOTAL12.26%)

Why would you use these numbers? Oh, right, it's because you're a moron.

Reagan didn't pass Social Security Reform until April 1983.
The rates before then were already law. 5.4% for individuals.
Which rose to 6.06 in 1988 and 6.2% in 1990.
LOL!

You LIE. Shocking Bubs, just shocking. Yes, his increasing SS taxes by $2.7+ , Which hid the TRUE costs of tax cuts for the rich, trillion WASN'T really his fault right?

 

[francoHFW]

This is true. The wealthy never became wealthier.

True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.

Really? And just how did Republicans accomplish that?

Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.

The economy under Reagan was far superior then the lack of one we have under Obama. That is just a fact. To bad you idiots are so selfish you don't want to heed the truth

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

S+L crisis and the Reagan /Boosh recession ring a bell, dupe? 200 administration pols in jail? Tripling the debt? Another fine mess as seen thru Fox etc etc etc...

All Carter's fault for helping WORTHY minorities, nothing to do with corrupt Boooshies giving mortgages to the unemployed . RW idiocy lol

 

[bedowin62]

Taxes should NOT be raised another dime until out-of-control criminal spending in Washington STOPS.

For Example:
$500 MILLION US Tax Dollars went to Solyndra alone (1 of 13 of Obama's 'pet' alternative energy projects funded by his bogus Stimulus Bill) WHILE they were filing for bankruptcy. The following week, after receiving the money, they fired over 1,000 workers. It is now being reported (duh) how Solyndra DEFRAUDED the government in order to get that money.

The media is reporting that the company 'mis-represented it's status and mis-filed reports. yeah, in other words, this administration with the help of the biased media is trying to make it sound like what happened was a clerical error rather than a CRIME, which is what it is.

Turns out that Solyndra was heavily invested in by big time Obama donors, and the $500 million illegally funneled to Solyndra was to ensure his donors did not lose nay money in the deal...while American tax payers lost the $500 million that went to Obama donors. (As I see it, Obama and his donors owe the US Tax Payers $500 Million!)

The entire Stimulus Bill, touted as a jobs bill, was one big Liberal Progressive Tax Payer-Funded fiscally criminal 'raping' of the US tax payer to benefit themselves and their supporters.
- The bill contained over 7,000 pieces of DNC-Only Pork, and in the end cost over $742,000 PER JOB 'created / saved'...and many of those jobs 'created / saved' numbers were padded. One company reported that the Obama administration claimed to have saved more jobs than the total number of people who worked at the company!

There is $500 Million, in this one case alone, that oculd have been used far more efficiently ...and LEGALLY. So Not one more d@mn dime in tax increases until shi'ite like THIS is eliminated! They have enough - they just need to start using it for what is best for this country and NOT what is best for themselves and their parties!

Dubya/GOP tax cut, which was SUPPOSED to boom the economy and create jobs, cost over $2+ trillion 2001-2009. The Dubya economy lost 1+ million in his 8 years, how much did each job cost Bubs?

you're using a number that represents tax cuts that obama made NINETY-EIGHT PERCENT OF PERMANENT

every day you embarrass yourself here dad-tard

 

[bedowin62]

This is true. The wealthy never became wealthier.

True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.

Really? And just how did Republicans accomplish that?

Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.

The economy under Reagan was far superior then the lack of one we have under Obama. That is just a fact. To bad you idiots are so selfish you don't want to heed the truth

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

S+L crisis and the Reagan /Boosh recession ring a bell, dupe? 200 administration pols in jail? Tripling the debt? Another fine mess as seen thru Fox etc etc etc...

All Carter's fault for helping WORTHY minorities, nothing to do with corrupt Boooshies giving mortgages to the unemployed . RW idiocy lol

YOU MEAN LIKE THE "KEATING 5" S&L CRISIS???

where 4 of the 5 were Democrats?
that crisis idiot?

 

[bedowin62]

left-wing losers come with talking points that dont hold up to scrutiny

 

[Dad2three]

Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.

Oh, is that why? (LOL)

Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government? Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.

You mean the nine months they had a fiberfill proof majority? AS the economy tumbled off the edge?

The Myth of Democratic Super Majority.

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-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:

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010.

Give the next Republican president 59 seats in the Senate and 257 seats in the House for 2 years and see who whines more, the Dems or the Republicans. LOL!

Glad you agree, the Dems DIDN'T have a super majority to pass the bills they wanted, EXCEPT when the US economy was teetering on the brink after 8 years of Dubya/GOP policy. Thanks

Boohoo, they only had 59 seats in the Senate.
How could we expect the smartest president ever to accomplish anything with only 59.

Here's a box of tissues for you and another for Obama, you need them.

Because ALL the GOP hate Obama more than they loved the Nation, they've proved it for nearly 7 years Bubs

 

[bedowin62]

obama even EXTENDED the TOP BRACKET of Bush tax cuts that were going to "sunset" before allowing them to expire

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[Dad2three]

Weird how YOU are NEVER honest? I'm shocked.

Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!

Yep, MOST of the increased revenues were inflation. Next was increasing SS taxes, next was new employees. Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.

However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the middle class/poor which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!



Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

1. 
   
2. If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income, such as wages, up to an annual limit of $3,000, or $1,500 if you are married filing separately.
3. If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.

MILLIONAIRES? lol

Ten Important Facts About Capital Gains and Losses

Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years

I know, from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988. Awful!

to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!

Wait, are you claiming that government took the Social Security money, bought Treasury bonds with it and then spent the money? You can't be serious!

Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!

How much less? How do you know? Show all your calculations.

"It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

So you can cut taxes by $100 billion and only lose $60 billion in revenue?
Sounds like a win-win.

If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income

But we're not talking about "other income", are we?

If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.

Weird, it's almost like they're saying you could lose $300 million in 2008 and carry that loss over into 2009 to eliminate the tax liability on $200 million in 2009 income.

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.

However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the middle class/poor which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!



Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

So taxpayers keep more of their money than government loses.
Win-win!!!

More of their money? Sure, EXCEPT Ronnie just ran up the credit card! You teach your kids to do that crap too? Moron

More of their money?

Did I stutter you stupid fuck?

Sure Bubs, didn't stop Ronnie from using the credit cards AS he ramped up spending right ? You teach your kids that dummy?

 

[bedowin62]

Oh, is that why? (LOL)

Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government? Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.

You mean the nine months they had a fiberfill proof majority? AS the economy tumbled off the edge?

The Myth of Democratic Super Majority.

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-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:

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010.

Give the next Republican president 59 seats in the Senate and 257 seats in the House for 2 years and see who whines more, the Dems or the Republicans. LOL!

Glad you agree, the Dems DIDN'T have a super majority to pass the bills they wanted, EXCEPT when the US economy was teetering on the brink after 8 years of Dubya/GOP policy. Thanks

Boohoo, they only had 59 seats in the Senate.
How could we expect the smartest president ever to accomplish anything with only 59.

Here's a box of tissues for you and another for Obama, you need them.

Because ALL the GOP hate Obama more than they loved the Nation, they've proved it for nearly 7 years Bubs

YAWN
more emotional hyperbole. are you sure you're a man??

 

[Dad2three]

True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.

Really? And just how did Republicans accomplish that?

Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.

Oh, is that why? (LOL)

Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government? Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.

For THIRTEEN DAYS, dupe, in the middle of the GOP world meltdown. I wonder, brainwashed functional moron...

For THIRTEEN DAYS

We only had 60 Senate seats for 13 days, for the rest of the 2 years we only had 59.

Unfair!!!! Waaahhhhhhh!!!!!

GOP ARE masters of obstruction Bubs. They learned well from the conservatives!

 

[bedowin62]

Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years

I know, from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988. Awful!

to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!

Wait, are you claiming that government took the Social Security money, bought Treasury bonds with it and then spent the money? You can't be serious!

Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!

How much less? How do you know? Show all your calculations.

"It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

So you can cut taxes by $100 billion and only lose $60 billion in revenue?
Sounds like a win-win.

If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income

But we're not talking about "other income", are we?

If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.

Weird, it's almost like they're saying you could lose $300 million in 2008 and carry that loss over into 2009 to eliminate the tax liability on $200 million in 2009 income.

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.

However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the middle class/poor which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!



Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

So taxpayers keep more of their money than government loses.
Win-win!!!

More of their money? Sure, EXCEPT Ronnie just ran up the credit card! You teach your kids to do that crap too? Moron

More of their money?

Did I stutter you stupid fuck?

Sure Bubs, didn't stop Ronnie from using the credit cards AS he ramped up spending right ? You teach your kids that dummy?

hundreds of Dems in congress voting FOR Reagan's policies werent going to stop him either leftard!! lol

 

[francoHFW]

True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.

Really? And just how did Republicans accomplish that?

Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.

Oh, is that why? (LOL)

Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government? Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.

For THIRTEEN DAYS, dupe, in the middle of the GOP world meltdown. I wonder, brainwashed functional moron...

For THIRTEEN DAYS

We only had 60 Senate seats for 13 days, for the rest of the 2 years we only had 59.

Unfair!!!! Waaahhhhhhh!!!!!

That's fine for Pubs, who use reconcialiation to cut taxes on the rich and corps, and lies for idiotic wars- THAT'S ALL THEY WANT-, but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess. It's tough when your opponents are bought off POSs, supported by brainwashed idiots/bigots like you lol.

 

[bedowin62]

Really? And just how did Republicans accomplish that?

Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.

Oh, is that why? (LOL)

Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government? Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.

For THIRTEEN DAYS, dupe, in the middle of the GOP world meltdown. I wonder, brainwashed functional moron...

For THIRTEEN DAYS

We only had 60 Senate seats for 13 days, for the rest of the 2 years we only had 59.

Unfair!!!! Waaahhhhhhh!!!!!

GOP ARE masters of obstruction Bubs. They learned well from the conservatives!

Reid held up over 300 bills


stop lying to yourself dummy!!

 

[bedowin62]

Really? And just how did Republicans accomplish that?

Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.

Oh, is that why? (LOL)

Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government? Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.

For THIRTEEN DAYS, dupe, in the middle of the GOP world meltdown. I wonder, brainwashed functional moron...

For THIRTEEN DAYS

We only had 60 Senate seats for 13 days, for the rest of the 2 years we only had 59.

Unfair!!!! Waaahhhhhhh!!!!!

That's fine for Pubs, who use reconcialiation to cut taxes on the rich and corps, and lies for idiotic wars- THAT'S ALL THEY WANT-, but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess. It's tough when your opponents are bought off POSs, supported by brainwashed idiots/bigots like you lol.

YAWN
the Left's open border ideology is more likely to bring us to banana republic status

keep tryin dullard

 

[bedowin62]

Really? And just how did Republicans accomplish that?

Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.

Oh, is that why? (LOL)

Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government? Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.

For THIRTEEN DAYS, dupe, in the middle of the GOP world meltdown. I wonder, brainwashed functional moron...

For THIRTEEN DAYS

We only had 60 Senate seats for 13 days, for the rest of the 2 years we only had 59.

Unfair!!!! Waaahhhhhhh!!!!!

That's fine for Pubs, who use reconcialiation to cut taxes on the rich and corps, and lies for idiotic wars- THAT'S ALL THEY WANT-, but Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess. It's tough when your opponents are bought off POSs, supported by brainwashed idiots/bigots like you lol.

"idiots/bigots"

there goes another left-wing douchebag making accusations he cant back up again

un-American

 

[francoHFW]

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.

However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the middle class/poor which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!



Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

So taxpayers keep more of their money than government loses.
Win-win!!!

More of their money? Sure, EXCEPT Ronnie just ran up the credit card! You teach your kids to do that crap too? Moron

More of their money?

Did I stutter you stupid fuck?

Sure Bubs, didn't stop Ronnie from using the credit cards AS he ramped up spending right ? You teach your kids that dummy?

hundreds of Dems in congress voting FOR Reagan's policies werent going to stop him either leftard!! lol

That's called respecting a new Pres's mandate, compromise, and good gov't. You wouldn't understand, "No compromise, un-American TP GOP" (TIME) CHUMP.