...yet so hard for some to grasp. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=S6ZsXrzF8Cc)
Guess who Henry and "ME" was rooting for. Why it was the Rich. :yes:
If it was not for rich people, YOU, Mr. Troll, would not enjoy the retirement you now enjoy.
It is so foolish to demonize rich people.....
Troll, please tell me how, it is going to fix our economy by adding MORE taxes to the rich.....Do you honestly believe that raising taxes will fix everything? Are YOU that gullible?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 11, 2012, 12:10:41 PM
If it was not for rich people, YOU, Mr. Troll, would not enjoy the retirement you now enjoy.
Bullshit.
QuoteIt is so foolish to demonize rich people.....
Troll, please tell me how, it is going to fix our economy by adding MORE taxes to the rich.....Do you honestly believe that raising taxes will fix everything? Are YOU that gullible?
I'm sure they appreciate you being their useful idiot...as long as you stay on your own side of the tracks.
Well there was a reasonable answer... :rolleyes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 11, 2012, 12:33:33 PM
Well there was a reasonable answer... :rolleyes:
No sense trying to teach the pig to dance.
So you believe that raising taxes will fix our economy? Is that what you honestly believe? Simple yes or no answer.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 11, 2012, 12:46:09 PM
So you believe that raising taxes will fix our economy? Is that what you honestly believe? Simple yes or no answer.
Reduction of tax rates on the rich put us where we are today. . .so I for one say yes.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 11, 2012, 12:46:09 PM
So you believe that raising taxes will fix our economy? Is that what you honestly believe? Simple yes or no answer.
I believe that raising taxes on the wealthiest of Americans back to the levels they were in the 90's when we enjoyed amazing prosperity will help raise revenue essential to reducing the current deficit and that it will not harm job creation or anything else at all. History absolutely supports my position.
And by the way, taxes will be increasing on the wealthiest so you'll be able to see that I am right...and have some more of that crow that you seem to love so well.
Quote from: Exterminator on December 11, 2012, 12:56:43 PM
And by the way, taxes will be increasing on the wealthiest so you'll be able to see that I am right...and have some more of that crow that you seem to love so well.
the bottom line is that business will merely pass those tax rates onto our backs, and WE, will pay the difference.....
Quote from: Palehorse on December 11, 2012, 12:52:30 PM
Reduction of tax rates on the rich put us where we are today. . .so I for one say yes.
and our over-spending had NOTHING to do with it? c'mon
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 11, 2012, 01:12:54 PM
the bottom line is that business will merely pass those tax rates onto our backs, and WE, will pay the difference.....
I thought we were talking about personal income taxes? How did WE pay the difference in the 90's? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 11, 2012, 01:18:12 PM
and our over-spending had NOTHING to do with it? c'mon
It absolutely did...spending on things like tax cuts for the wealthy, corporate welfare, unnecessary wars, etc...not spending on things that enrich the lives of the citizens.
Interestingly, this over-spending and raising the debt ceiling every year was never an issue for any of you before Obama became the president.
Quote from: Exterminator on December 11, 2012, 01:39:50 PM
It absolutely did...spending on things like tax cuts for the wealthy, corporate welfare, unnecessary wars, etc...not spending on things that enrich the lives of the citizens.
Interestingly, this over-spending and raising the debt ceiling every year was never an issue for any of you before Obama became the president.
Bullshit, conservatives was bitching at Bush and the rino's when that was going on.........Obama and the dems has taken it to a new level.....and it has GOT to stop...it is not the governments role to "enrich" the lives of its citizens...
and taxes are being raised on those who own business'....the amount of money that the federal gov will generate by these taxes is NOT going to stimulate the economy...
raising taxes will NOT increase the federal revenue.........history has already proved this...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 11, 2012, 01:54:24 PM
Bullshit, conservatives was bitching at Bush and the rino's when that was going on...
That's an outright lie.
Quoteit is not the governments role to "enrich" the lives of its citizens...
Actually, that is any government's only role.
Quoteand taxes are being raised on those who own business'....the amount of money that the federal gov will generate by these taxes is NOT going to stimulate the economy...
As has already been pointed out to you previously, the federal government will spend that money and yes, government spending stimulates the economy every bit as much as your or my spending and a whole lot more than that money does any good sitting in rich people's bank accounts doing nothing.
Quoteraising taxes will NOT increase the federal revenue.........history has already proved this...
I wish I had a dollar for every time I or someone else on this forum has used actual data to prove to you that this is a fallacy yet still, despite being buried in real facts and numbers over and over again, you continue to repeat it as though it is true.
(http://rricketts.ba.ttu.edu/Do%20Tax%20Cuts%20Increase%20Revenues.jpg)
Amazing! :rolleyes:
This is why it is pointless to debate on here......... :no:
When are you going to realize, that I am right! :yes: and YOU are wrong.. :yes:
I told NO lie
It is NOT the governments role to spend money they don't have and drive us into bankruptsy..they don't have it, yet they still want to spend it.
and I have, time and time again, refuted your lame arguements, with incredible sources.....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/07/16/the-dangerous-myth-about-the-bill-clinton-tax-increase/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/07/16/the-dangerous-myth-about-the-bill-clinton-tax-increase/)
yet you and the other libbies on here are bind to accept the truth... :razz:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 11, 2012, 02:29:08 PM
This is why it is pointless to debate on here......... :no:
When are you going to realize, that I am right! :yes: and YOU are wrong.. :yes:
I told NO lie
It is NOT the governments role to spend money they don't have and drive us into bankruptsy..they don't have it, yet they still want to spend it.
and I have, time and time again, refuted your lame arguements, with incredible sources.....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/07/16/the-dangerous-myth-about-the-bill-clinton-tax-increase/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/07/16/the-dangerous-myth-about-the-bill-clinton-tax-increase/)
yet you and the other libbies on here are bind to accept the truth... :razz:
The truth is in the numbers, not is an opinion piece in a magazine published by the people who benefit from the tax cuts that you support for them...to your own detriment. I guess the part about them brainwashing you with their media outlets was a little more than you could understand; huh?
Quote from: Exterminator on December 11, 2012, 02:40:28 PM
The truth is in the numbers, not is an opinion piece in a magazine published by the people who benefit from the tax cuts that you support for them...to your own detriment. I guess the part about them brainwashing you with their media outlets was a little more than you could understand; huh?
CBO is supposed to be a "nonpartisan" agency, but the party in power appoints the director, so it still has a political connection to whichever party controls Congress....and it is always biased towards the party in power....and you know it.
So you're saying that when Obama got into office the new director of the CBO went back and changed the data back to 1965? Ridiculous... :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on December 11, 2012, 04:05:05 PM
So you're saying that when Obama got into office the new director of the CBO went back and changed the data back to 1965? Ridiculous... :rolleyes:
I'm just saying they can be as creative as they want to be, to make things "seem" they way the need it to.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 11, 2012, 04:17:50 PM
I'm just saying they can be as creative as they want to be, to make things "seem" they way the need it to.
There is no "seem" to it; the numbers are what they are.
Ya know HH I hope the conservatives back off and give Obama his way. I realize it would hurt things but then and only then will some people begin to see the light, maybe. Of course the blame game will continue because it will be the conservatives fault Obama's way didn't work since liberals are experts at twisting things.
Quote from: me on December 11, 2012, 04:41:36 PM
Ya know HH I hope the conservatives back off and give Obama his way. I realize it would hurt things but then and only then will some people begin to see the light, maybe.
And when it hurts nothing, will you come back here, apologize and admit that you don't have a clue about...well...pretty much anything? My guess is that no, you'll continue to delude yourself about how wise and insightful you are. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on December 11, 2012, 04:52:21 PM
And when it hurts nothing, will you come back here, apologize and admit that you don't have a clue about...well...pretty much anything? My guess is that no, you'll continue to delude yourself about how wise and insightful you are. :rolleyes:
Probably do the same thing you would if it doesn't work, keep saying, "well, it takes time you know". :razz:
Quote from: Exterminator on December 11, 2012, 04:52:21 PM
And when it hurts nothing, will you come back here, apologize and admit that you don't have a clue about...well...pretty much anything? My guess is that no, you'll continue to delude yourself about how wise and insightful you are. :rolleyes:
The way Scab Hawk and SCAB "ME" talks you would think they live under a rock in a deep, deep cave. :yes: :doh:
We know the Republicans tried for 4 years to kill Obama and this country with "Our main job is to see that Obama is a one term president". :biggrin: Well that didn't work. :haha:
Then they bring out this ***** Millionaire who said that 47% of American people want to live off of everybody else and were lazy and shiftless. Going to give vouchers for Medicare, put Social Security in the Stock Market and do away with Medicade and give the upper 2% another tax break, Well that didn't work. :haha: :haha:
The Republicans are going to drive us over the cliff trying to save the Super Rich from a tax raise, :haha: :haha: That isn't going to work. :haha: :haha:
We got them by the balls. :haha: :haha: :zoners:
Quote from: me on December 11, 2012, 05:32:35 PM
Probably do the same thing you would if it doesn't work, keep saying, "well, it takes time you know".
I don't think we're the ones who've been saying that it takes time. The tax cuts we're discussing have been in place for more than 10 years and the associated increase in jobs and/or federal revenues was never realized. When, exactly, are we supposed to see these wonderous results?
Quote from: Exterminator on December 12, 2012, 08:49:31 AM
I don't think we're the ones who've been saying that it takes time. The tax cuts we're discussing have been in place for more than 10 years and the associated increase in jobs and/or federal revenues was never realized. When, exactly, are we supposed to see these wonderous results?
My GOD! Unemploymente was at 4.5% after the Bush Tax cuts were put into place!
According to official IRS data, the top 1% of income earners paid $84 billion more in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000 before the Bush tax cuts were passed, 23% more. The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.
In contrast, the bottom half of income earners paid $6 billion less in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000, a decline of 16%. The share of federal income taxes paid by the bottom 50% declined from 3.9% in 2000 to 2.9% in 2007.
The Bush tax cuts also included a doubling of the child tax credit from $500 per child to $1,000 per child. Because of that, and the 33% cut in the bottom tax rate, nearly 8 million more people dropped off the federal income tax rolls entirely, paying zero federal income taxes. Indeed, under the Bush tax cuts, the bottom 40% of all income earners not only paid no federal income taxes, as a group on net. By 2009, they were being paid cash by the IRS equal to 10% of all federal income taxes.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 12, 2012, 09:15:08 AM
My GOD! Unemploymente was at 4.5% after the Bush Tax cuts were put into place!
You have the robust economy of the 90's and a budget surplus from the previous administration to thank for that. Bush quickly changed all of that and the economy was on a downward spiral for pretty much the entirety of both of his terms.
QuoteAccording to official IRS data, the top 1% of income earners paid $84 billion more in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000 before the Bush tax cuts were passed, 23% more. The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.
During that same period, their holding of the country's wealth increased to over 70%. Why shouldn't people who reap the benefits pay the taxes on those benefits at the same level as people who actually work for their money.
How did you fare personally in the wonderful Bush economy? Not so well; huh? Why is that? If these tax cuts are so great for everyone, why didn't you see those benefits?
Quote from: Exterminator on December 12, 2012, 10:13:35 AM
You have the robust economy of the 90's and a budget surplus from the previous administration to thank for that. Bush quickly changed all of that and the economy was on a downward spiral for pretty much the entirety of both of his terms.
We lost the robust economy due to the Dot Com bubble bursting!...The fact is pretty simple, regardless of the smoke and mirrors used in the budget the national debt increased every year....The Bush tax cuts helped to stimulate the economy and maintain employment. Throw in 9/11, Katrina, and two wars.....the tax cuts managed to keep our economy very stable.
Quote from: Exterminator on December 12, 2012, 10:13:35 AM
During that same period, their holding of the country's wealth increased to over 70%. Why shouldn't people who reap the benefits pay the taxes on those benefits at the same level as people who actually work for their money.
Those people you are talking about already pay for nearly 40% of all the federal revenue....the bottom 50% pay NONE!
Listen, I want a robust economy, I beleive THAT is the only way we all get a fair shot at making an honest living....The rich paying an additional few percentages of their wealth is NOT going to fix anything other than pet the ego's of liberals, exclaiming a victory. Most of these rich folks are already paying about half of their income into federal, state and local taxes....
Taxing them is NOT going to stimulate positive growth in our economy....THAT is exactly why Obama extened the Bush tax cuts before.....He is merely wanting a feather in his hat for political reasons....he is not thinking or wanting to do what is really best for this nation!
Quote from: Exterminator on December 12, 2012, 10:13:35 AM
How did you fare personally in the wonderful Bush economy? Not so well; huh? Why is that? If these tax cuts are so great for everyone, why didn't you see those benefits?
I have managed to hang on to my job, despite some hardships. I overcame them, like many others......The democrats allowing fannie and freddie to give away loans that they KNEW was not sound business, it contributed very much to the housing market to collapse. Bush was public about reining in F&F...but barney frank and chris dodd convinced everyone that the housing industry and F&F were doing just fine........which we KNOW now is FALSE.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 11, 2012, 02:29:08 PM
yet you and the other libbies on here are bind to accept the truth... :razz:
Would you rather be a libbie or a con man?
Quote from: Olias on December 12, 2012, 12:41:12 PM
Would you rather be a libbie or a con man?
what's the difference?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 12, 2012, 12:43:10 PM
what's the difference?
Whew! Right over your head!
Con man - short for conservative
Quote from: Olias on December 12, 2012, 12:45:42 PM
Whew! Right over your head!
Con man - short for conservative
No, when I see a libbie politician I see a "con" man as in the traditional term...as in convict. Or should be convicted anyway...
With all of SCAB Hawk talk about conservatism and all the cutting of the social net for people and all the tax cutting for the rich. How has it worked for him. :haha: Everyday the American people are catching on to these crooked bastards. :biggrin:
Just wait until 2014 when we kick the Republicans out of congress and send these carpetbaggers back home. :devil29:
Then we elect in 2016 the first Democratic Woman for president, Hilary Clinton. Watch him :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
Why? Because we have the Republican Party by the ball. :haha: :haha: :rotfl: :thumbsup: