You Taught The GOP A Lesson: You Want Higher Taxes So They Will Grant Your Wish

[LeftCoastVoter]

It still doesnt eliminate the fact that just taxing the upper brackets at the clinton era level will not do jack squat. Any meaningful increase would have to reach confiscation levels if you just tax the top 2-3% of people, and even then, after one year, all that money is gone.

For people who keep calling themselves memebers of the reality based community, progressives seem to be really bad at basic math, or worse, deliberately ignorant of reality.

For you guys 2+2 = 5,000,000 and a balanced budget.

Then why oppose it?

But, and funny as shit...

For 25 years say deficits are not a problem, so don't raise taxes.

Then once you have to admit that it's a big fucking problem, say don't raise taxes since the problem is too big to fix.

Fucking comical.

Republicans have never said deficits are not a problem, so your screed is pure horseshit, as usual.

or did they.....

Dick Cheney on Budget & Economy

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was told "deficits don't matter" when he warned of a looming fiscal crisis.
O'Neill, fired in a shakeup of Bush's economic team in December 2002, raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from "the corporate crowd," a key constituency.
O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.
The vice president's office had no immediate comment, but John Snow, who replaced O'Neill, insisted that deficits "do matter" to the administration.
Source: [X-ref O'Neill] Adam Entous, Reuters, on AOL News Jan 11, 2004

 

[bripat9643]

Republicans have never said deficits are not a problem, so your screed is pure horseshit, as usual.

or did they.....

Dick Cheney on Budget & Economy

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was told "deficits don't matter" when he warned of a looming fiscal crisis.
O'Neill, fired in a shakeup of Bush's economic team in December 2002, raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from "the corporate crowd," a key constituency.
O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.
The vice president's office had no immediate comment, but John Snow, who replaced O'Neill, insisted that deficits "do matter" to the administration.
Source: [X-ref O'Neill] Adam Entous, Reuters, on AOL News Jan 11, 2004

Hearsay from a disgruntled former employee.

that's all you got.

 

[Cammmpbell]

If the cuts have been a "clusterfuck," then why does Obama want to keep most of them?

Emphasis added. Three reasons:

1. While most brackets would remain at Bush Cuts levels, the upper brackets are where the cream is.

2. Middle class wages have gone into the shitter. And taxing them more would further reduce consumption, which is struggling already.

3. Political expediency, obviously. It's an inexorable part of our form of republican democracy.

It still doesnt eliminate the fact that just taxing the upper brackets at the clinton era level will not do jack squat. Any meaningful increase would have to reach confiscation levels if you just tax the top 2-3% of people, and even then, after one year, all that money is gone.

For people who keep calling themselves memebers of the reality based community, progressives seem to be really bad at basic math, or worse, deliberately ignorant of reality.

For you guys 2+2 = 5,000,000 and a balanced budget.

Then why do the greedy pricks keep screaming. Do this. Start paying your way or start serving in the military again. The rich in this country used to be called patriots. Now they are leeches.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Republicans have never said deficits are not a problem, so your screed is pure horseshit, as usual.

or did they.....

Dick Cheney on Budget & Economy

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was told "deficits don't matter" when he warned of a looming fiscal crisis.
O'Neill, fired in a shakeup of Bush's economic team in December 2002, raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from "the corporate crowd," a key constituency.
O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.
The vice president's office had no immediate comment, but John Snow, who replaced O'Neill, insisted that deficits "do matter" to the administration.
Source: [X-ref O'Neill] Adam Entous, Reuters, on AOL News Jan 11, 2004

Hearsay from a disgruntled former employee.

that's all you got.

and the lunacy of britpat continues....

 

[bripat9643]

Hearsay from a disgruntled former employee.

that's all you got.

and the lunacy of britpat continues....

Right. Anyone who disputes your idiocies is a lunatic?

Do you have a video of Cheney saying deficits don't matter? No?

Then just admit you're a moron and get it over with.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Hearsay from a disgruntled former employee.

that's all you got.

and the lunacy of britpat continues....

Right. Anyone who disputes your idiocies is a lunatic?

Do you have a video of Cheney saying deficits don't matter? No?

Then just admit you're a moron and get it over with.

wow youre a child if you need video evidence of everything. this has been covered multiples times by multiples sources. if you failed to accept it, then that tin foil hat is bigger than we all previously thought

 

[Cammmpbell]

Hearsay from a disgruntled former employee.

that's all you got.

and the lunacy of britpat continues....

Right. Anyone who disputes your idiocies is a lunatic?

Do you have a video of Cheney saying deficits don't matter? No?

Then just admit you're a moron and get it over with.

Whether he does or not this is some serious shit we're talking about:

Total U S Debt


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

 

[Koios]

and the lunacy of britpat continues....

Right. Anyone who disputes your idiocies is a lunatic?

Do you have a video of Cheney saying deficits don't matter? No?

Then just admit you're a moron and get it over with.

Whether he does or not this is some serious shit we're talking about:

Total U S Debt


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

Yep. Serious as a heart attack. Figure we ought pay on it? Got a plan? Last time it was about the same percent of GDP, we had a top marginal rate north of 90 percent. Figure that's about right, for now?

 

[bripat9643]

and the lunacy of britpat continues....

Right. Anyone who disputes your idiocies is a lunatic?

Do you have a video of Cheney saying deficits don't matter? No?

Then just admit you're a moron and get it over with.

wow youre a child if you need video evidence of everything. this has been covered multiples times by multiples sources. if you failed to accept it, then that tin foil hat is bigger than we all previously thought

It's hearsay. The evidence would never stand up in a court of law.

Case closed.

 

[Misty]

Be proud of what you did. You taught the GOP that you don't want low taxes. You don't care if the Democrats raise your taxes and spend it faster than they can steal it from you. So I figure they're out to give you what you wanted.

How does it feel to teach those Republicans a lesson?

Lol especially since loopholes will be used and the rich won't pay a dime more. All for show. Stupid liberals.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Right. Anyone who disputes your idiocies is a lunatic?

Do you have a video of Cheney saying deficits don't matter? No?

Then just admit you're a moron and get it over with.

wow youre a child if you need video evidence of everything. this has been covered multiples times by multiples sources. if you failed to accept it, then that tin foil hat is bigger than we all previously thought

It's hearsay. The evidence would never stand up in a court of law.

Case closed.

if he was disposed it would not be hearsay. if he was the one who heard it first hand it would be evidence. if he heard it through another individual it would be hearsay. apparently you dont understand the legal system very well either.

Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. As a legal term, "hearsay" can also have the narrower meaning of the use of such information as evidence to prove the truth of what is asserted. Such use of "hearsay evidence" in court is generally not allowed. This prohibition is called the hearsay rule.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Right. Anyone who disputes your idiocies is a lunatic?

Do you have a video of Cheney saying deficits don't matter? No?

Then just admit you're a moron and get it over with.

Whether he does or not this is some serious shit we're talking about:

Total U S Debt


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

Yep. Serious as a heart attack. Figure we ought pay on it? Got a plan? Last time it was about the same percent of GDP, we had a top marginal rate north of 90 percent. Figure that's about right, for now?

Well....if the cowboy had simply left Clinton's policies in effect and not jumped on Saddam Hussein for trying to assassinate his daddy the debt would be paid off. That's a fact.

Neither party has ever cut spending a goddamned dime but Reagan and the Bushes cut taxes for the rich every chance the got. They borrowed from foreign banks to funnel money into the pockets of the wealthy. That sucks!

Wait till the word gets around and your nominee will lose!

LOL

Obama...............332

Romulus.............206

 

[JoeB131]

If the government raised spending, it would have a positive effect. The spending would go to pay salaries and benefits. That in turn would create more consumer demand and more jobs.

If that were the case, then why didn't the stimulus end the recession? .

It did. We went from negative GDP Growth from Q3-2008 to Q-2 2009 to positive GDP Growth after that.

 

[Koios]

If the government raised spending, it would have a positive effect. The spending would go to pay salaries and benefits. That in turn would create more consumer demand and more jobs.

If that were the case, then why didn't the stimulus end the recession? .

It did. We went from negative GDP Growth from Q3-2008 to Q-2 2009 to positive GDP Growth after that.

Exactly. Heck; it's not even complicated. If the economy is shrinking, pump money in sufficient to reach a positive number.

We could have bought egg crates and done it. Companies would have sprung up everwhere to make them, hiring tons of workers. But we'd be swimming in egg crates we don't need.

So fund some green tech start ups. Maybe one or more will get traction. Give folks an extra 2 percent of their paycheck. Etc, etc. The money goes in and up goes the GDP. It's not even a mystery.

So for Righties to say it did not work, they have to be ignorant fools who lack basic math skill.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

If the government raised spending, it would have a positive effect. The spending would go to pay salaries and benefits. That in turn would create more consumer demand and more jobs.

If that were the case, then why didn't the stimulus end the recession? .

It did. We went from negative GDP Growth from Q3-2008 to Q-2 2009 to positive GDP Growth after that.

britpat doesnt realize that the definition of a recession is when there is negative GDP for 2 quarters in a row. since we have had positive GDP since the beginning of 2009 he is having problems with his basic reasoning and understanding.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You say you are a 50-year success in life.

I say you have not a clue.

Cheney said it, no one of integrity doubts it, and you run around sounding like a 14 year-old.

Heaven help us.

Right. Anyone who disputes your idiocies is a lunatic?

Do you have a video of Cheney saying deficits don't matter? No?

Then just admit you're a moron and get it over with.

wow youre a child if you need video evidence of everything. this has been covered multiples times by multiples sources. if you failed to accept it, then that tin foil hat is bigger than we all previously thought

It's hearsay. The evidence would never stand up in a court of law.

Case closed.

 

[bripat9643]

wow youre a child if you need video evidence of everything. this has been covered multiples times by multiples sources. if you failed to accept it, then that tin foil hat is bigger than we all previously thought

It's hearsay. The evidence would never stand up in a court of law.

Case closed.

if he was disposed it would not be hearsay. if he was the one who heard it first hand it would be evidence. if he heard it through another individual it would be hearsay. apparently you dont understand the legal system very well either.

You obviously don't know the definition of hearsay, moron. If you have video or a recording of someone, it's tangible evidence. If all you have is some disgrunteled former employee claiming he heard so-and-so say this-and-that, it's hearsay.

Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. As a legal term, "hearsay" can also have the narrower meaning of the use of such information as evidence to prove the truth of what is asserted. Such use of "hearsay evidence" in court is generally not allowed. This prohibition is called the hearsay rule.

Regardless, the claim isn't worth the paper it's written on. I can claim I heard Obama say he had sex with a five-year-old boy. That would be just as credible as your claim about Cheney.

 

[bripat9643]

You say you are a 50-year success in life.

I say you have not a clue.

No, I never said that, moron. I've never told my age in this forum.

Cheney said it, no one of integrity doubts it, and you run around sounding like a 14 year-old.

Heaven help us.

Plenty of people of integrity doubt it, dipstick. the only ones I ever see defending the claim are all sleaze bags and weasels of the highest order.

That includes you, Fakey.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one of integrity doubts it, yes, you have said you were fifty, so fess up, that you are 14 and living in the basement.

 

[Koios]

Be proud of what you did. You taught the GOP that you don't want low taxes. You don't care if the Democrats raise your taxes and spend it faster than they can steal it from you. So I figure they're out to give you what you wanted.

How does it feel to teach those Republicans a lesson?

If you really think the GOP is going to be stupid enough to raise taxes on the middle class because the rich will be finally paying their fair share, you're delusional.

Please give a precise definintion of "fair share" so we can all know how much people are supposed to pay in taxes. Please also tell me how in particular taxatrion is about "fairness" and not about funding the government.

Also please explain how a feel good 80 billion dollar per year increase in revenue (projected) will help erase a 1,000 billion per year decfict (pretty much a given)

Fairness is pretty subjective. But something that sustains the economy that enriches them seems pretty fair.

Meanwhile, here's how it ($80 B) works:

1. It's a bullshit low estimate by anti-tax think tanks and does not account for growth.

2. The economy grows, even when Bush fucked up revenue with his two cuts. Wait 4.5 years, and growth brought revenue back to 2000 levels, nominally.

3. It brings revenue growth above the level of spending growth, and in time we reach balance and then surplus... as it did in the 90s, after 7 years.

4. If we don't fuck up as Bush did when we reach surplus, the debt starts going down.

Simple.