Republican Party, Teabag Party and the Libertarian Party absolutely SUCK!

[Henry Hawk]

  Lying Ryan said last week that he could cut taxes for everyone 20% by doing away with tax breaks exemptions.  Huh?  What the man smoking, Magic Mushrooms.  What a dick. 

The only LIE is that obama is telling everyone that the middle class that Romney  is going to have their taxes raised by $2,000.....THAT is a lie, and he will be called out on it on National TV this week.

The only thing Romny/Ryan are saying that they will cut ALL "taxpayers" rate one-fifth across the board. So the top rate would be reduced from 35 percent to the 28 percent originally established in the Reagan tax reform. The bottom tax rates, paid by working people and the middle class, would be reduced to 8 percent and 12 percent...

Only common sense and history tells you that THIS would and will stimulate our economy.

[Exterminator]

Only common sense and history tells you that THIS would and will stimulate our economy.

Which history is that?

[The Troll]

Which history is that?

  Henry really knows his history.  Mitt himself last week said to his middle class audience not to expect a immediate tax cut.  He was going to give a tax cuts to the job producers and small business to create jobs.    More tax cuts for the super rich.   

  We know, anyone who has been around and has common sense and a little history of business.  Would know that has to be a need to start a business, for there is no one to buy or want your products or you don't have a business.  If you have a 20 table restaurant adding 20 more tables isn't going to increase your business 100%  and your need for twice as many employees.   

  I have seen one thing come out of the mouth of Mitten or Lying Ryan about the math they have on the economy.  Neither one of them as any math on how to run a country.  They are dipshits. 

[Locutus]

Which history is that?

Going to try and have that conversation again? 

[Henry Hawk]

Which history is that?

From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/3/bush-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/

After Bush Tax Cuts, Payments By Wealthy Actually Increased

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/02/22/after-bush-tax-cuts-payments-by-wealthy-actually-increased/


Tax Cuts Increase Federal Revenues
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2002/12/tax-cuts-increase-federal-revenues

[Henry Hawk]

Going to try and have that conversation again? 

No conversations is necessary.  What I stated is a fact.  Nothing more needs to be said. 

[Bo D]

Pressed to explain Mitt Romney's tax plan, Paul Ryan ducks

Fox News' Chris Wallace pressed GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan on Sunday morning to try to explain how Mitt Romney's tax plan would add up. The conundrum is that Romney is proposing to lower all individual rates by 20 percent by targeting deductions for high-income earners, without putting the burden on the middle class or adding to the deficit—a plan the Tax Policy Center has shown to be "mathematically impossible."

The problem is, even one of the studies that Romney has cited to justify his plan—which Ryan refers to in passing above—shows that his tax plan won't work unless taxes go up for those making over $100,000, which Romney still counts as middle-class. Another study that the Romney camp cites, by Princeton's Harvey Rosen, uses implausibly optimistic assumptions about economic growth

[Bo D]

Every single Republican today talks about being a Reagan conservative. This is a conservative that believes in small government, reducing federal spending and ultimately runs a lean and mean government. They talk about this stuff in campaigns, but in practice they failed miserably.

In fact HISTORICALLY, it is has been Democratic presidents who have reduced the size of the federal government. The Republicans have lied to the people so much that I believe the current crop somehow BELIEVES the history as they have been told, rather than researching the facts for themselves. This may be a stretch, but I am trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.

According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which tracks the number of employees per year, the data shows that the "conservatives" for small government are really just big government conservatives. I know that is an oxymoron, but numbers don't lie.

Let's start with President Carter.

On December 31st 1976 (Not Carter's term yet), total nonmilitary personnel was 2,883,000. By December 31st 1980 the end of his term (minus a month), the total in nonmilitary personnel was 2,875,000.

Federal government nonmilitary employees shrunk by 8,000 employees under Carter.

On January 21st, 1981, President Reagan started with 2,875,000 nonmilitary federal employees.

By the end of Reagan's terms the total number of nonmilitary federal employees was 3,113,000. That is an INCREASE of 238,000

Let's move on to President George H.W. Bush.

On January 20th, 1989, total federal nonmilitary employment was 3,113,000
by the end of his only term, President George H.W. Bush had 3,083,000 federal nonmilitary employees on the books. That is a REDUCTION of 30,000 employees.

President Bill Clinton came into office with 3,083,000 and by the END of his TWO TERMS he reduced the number of Federal employees to 2,703,000. That is a reduction of 380,000 federal employees.
Now finally, President George W. Bush came into office with 2,703,000 nonmilitary employees and by the time his terms were through, the total nonmilitary federal employees on the books were 2,756,000, which is an INCREASE of 53,000 employees.

The small government, lean and mean political party, seems to be the Democratic Party. President Clinton reduced the size of the federal government's nonmilitary employees by OVER 10%.

The "so called" small government President Reagan INCREASED the nonmilitary size of government by almost 10%.

In fact, Democratic president Bill Clinton reduced the size of the federal government employee size to PRE- REAGAN levels.

Clinton left office with 2,703,000 and Reagan started his term in 1981 with 2,875,000

The Reagan conservatives, in fact the entire GOP TODAY are trying to frame President Obama as a big government liberal but again, the numbers don't lie.

By the end of 2010, the United States STILL has less employees on the books than we did back in 1980 even though the population has grown from 226,545,805 to approximately 330,000,000 in 2010.

TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 1980 — 2,875,000
TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 2010 — 2,840,000

We have 35,000 less nonmilitary employees under President Obama than we had 30 years ago.

[Henry Hawk]

My response to that would be simple.........  spending bills start in the House.  who controlled the house?

[Bo D]

My response to that would be simple.........  spending bills start in the House.  who controlled the house?

But yet, here....

http://theunknownzone.dailynuisanceproductions.com/index.php?topic=18191.15

You said ...

The number of federal employees grew by 123,000, or 6.2%, under President Obama, according to the White House's Office of Management and Budget.

So it isn't President Obama's fault after all? You can't have it both ways, Dude.

[Bo D]

Really, I'm more interested in your answer to this .....

Pressed to explain Mitt Romney's tax plan, Paul Ryan ducks

Fox News' Chris Wallace pressed GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan on Sunday morning to try to explain how Mitt Romney's tax plan would add up. The conundrum is that Romney is proposing to lower all individual rates by 20 percent by targeting deductions for high-income earners, without putting the burden on the middle class or adding to the deficit—a plan the Tax Policy Center has shown to be "mathematically impossible."

The problem is, even one of the studies that Romney has cited to justify his plan—which Ryan refers to in passing above—shows that his tax plan won't work unless taxes go up for those making over $100,000, which Romney still counts as middle-class. Another study that the Romney camp cites, by Princeton's Harvey Rosen, uses implausibly optimistic assumptions about economic growth

[Henry Hawk]

But yet, here....

http://theunknownzone.dailynuisanceproductions.com/index.php?topic=18191.15

You said ...

So it isn't President Obama's fault after all? You can't have it both ways, Dude.

I should have said congress and not house. 

[Exterminator]

Going to try and have that conversation again? 

No; we've had that conversation many times and he learned nothing from any of them.  He still continues to cling to his erroneous beliefs even while the fallacy of their persentation has been proven to him over and over and over again.

More importantly, as we move through this election cycle and I read the thoughts of a variety of people on various different forums, it has become glaringly obvious to me that the people who seem to think that they understand economics the best and are so absolutely convinced that they know what it takes to drive the country's economy forward are more often than not the same people who have proven themselves abject failures at manging their own personal finances.  What is it about these people that makes them think that the country's finances are such an easy puzzle to solve when they couldn't even manage their own checkbook?  Completely delusional...

[Henry Hawk]

I'm doing very well with my check book btw.  I 100% understand you cannot spend more than you make.  I 100% understand that rrom 2004 to 2007, (The Bush Tax Cuts being put into place) the federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history.

I also 100% understand that Obama's first major legislative initiative was the so-called stimulus, which increased future federal spending by nearly a trillion dollars, the most expensive legislation in history up till that point.

This election, to those of us who understand simple math and common sense clearly understand these things, and know that consumer confidence is KEY to restoring this nations economy....and it is not bouncing back as it should, and this Novemeber will be a indicator if this is a true statement.  I say if Romney wins, our economy will instantly begin to turn positive....If Obama wins, we will continue down the same path as we have the last four years, and that is not positive.

[Locutus]

You're still not looking at that polling data.