|
|
On September 07 2012 04:28 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 04:18 jdsowa wrote:On September 06 2012 22:23 Infernal Knight wrote:On September 06 2012 22:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 22:06 natrus wrote:On September 06 2012 22:00 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 21:56 MinusPlus wrote:On September 06 2012 21:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 21:39 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 06 2012 11:16 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and all of you Obama fans may want to have a look at this. None other than Bob Woodward is about to come out with a book that shows how pathetic of a leader Obama is. This article is rather long, and I'll post some excerpts after the speeches. What is incredibly amusing about the details of the book leaking alongside Clinton's speech tonight is the sharp contrast on how effective Clinton was compared to how inept Obama is. What were you expecting to happen after the 2010 midterms when the House was filled with right-wing, tea party nutjobs? They took the country as hostage, in the end refusing a single cent in tax increases, and created the fiscal cliff. Hypocritically, the Republicans talk about the fiscal cliff having catastrophic effects on the economy with exactly the same Keynesian logic that they ignore when it comes to stimulus. It's not easy dealing with ideological, anti-intellectual, doublethinking nutjobs. Even assuming that you everything that you just said is accurate, what does that have to do with all of the comments, quotes, and stories from Woodward and the democrats about how inept of a leader that Obama is? Did you miss that wonderful bit towards the end where Harry Reid's staffer confronts Obama with his disappointment? Get off the Kool Aid for once. Oh no this is so damning, some guy complained about his boss. Part of Obama's charm (look it up) is that he seems like a fairly approachable guy. But of course, you've got this burning (irrational, even) desire to try your damnedest to demonize Obama as a pigheaded, egotistical, arrogant, directionless failure, so you only read the bits that make him look incompetent. You should get off the damn Kool Aid for a change. Like, damn dude. It can't be enough that he's not a good president, but you have to make sure everybody thinks he's a bad person, too? What's the hell? Where did I say that he's a bad person? I'm only arguing about his leadership abilities. As for what I think of Obama, I have no doubt that he's a narcissist and, for the purpose of political leadership, cripplingly egocentric. But these thoughts are another matter. Would you describe Romney through your eyes as you have with Obama? Just curious. My concern with Romney is that he lacks conviction. I'm hoping that he has found his conservative Jesus and is ready to govern accordingly, but I can't say that I know this will happen. I'm not concerned about his ability to lead and get things done in Washington. If anything, I'm afraid that he'll compromise too much with democrats as republicans have been prone to do. For example, my biggest criticism of Bush is that he did not govern like a conservative in terms of his domestic policy and he damn near ruined the republican party as a result. As I mentioned a few days ago, it's only by the grace of Obama's incompetence that the republicans were revived in 2010 and are in the position that they are in now. Tell me... Why is compromise bad? You realize that even if you have a Republican majority House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court, there's still about half of the country that's voted Democratic. You really think that compromising is evil? If you had the ability to govern entirely as you pleased and you went ahead and did that for two or four years and never compromised, do you really think it's a good idea to ignore the wishes of roughly half of America? If that's not your personal position, then I apologize, but I've never really understood the modern conservative's allergy to compromise. Society has been on a trajectory towards greater Social Progress (liberalism and expanding central government) for many hundreds of years. There is no indiciation that the course will be reversed any time soon. The liberals have faced occasional momentary setbacks, but have generally won the confrontation on every major issue. All of their social programs are in place. That trajectory is mirrored in any chart that shows growth of the federal government. The conversation is never about whether or not to get rid of welfare, but whether to merely place a cap on it so that spending on it grows, but at not so high a rate. Think as a liberal--how would you view the last couple hundred years? Looks like things are generally headed in your direction. Think as a conservative--it's just been one loss after another. Why would a conservative participate in a discussion that merely slows the erosion of the society they deem to be ideal? Liberals can afford to make compromises because all they have to do is get their foot in the door with a program and then it's extremely difficult to get it taken away. Not only that but the existence of the Supreme Court (which generally backs them up) and rising participation in higher education ensures that society will continue to head down their path for a long time to come. No. Then again, I'm a "liberal" so I actually look at things like the history of U.S. taxes. Our income tax hasn't been as low as it is now for over a hundred years. Our social programs are often half-way measures, whereas most first-world country's are moving forward with government programs that provide the welfare and security that government should. I guess I just don't see healthcare, social security and welfare as "government power-grabs". Part of the reason is motive -- Republicans will tell you that Democrats like these social programs because they're evil socialists who want to expand government -- but why? Why do Democrats want to expand government-provided healthcare? What is the amoral motive for them wanting to do such a vile thing? It couldn't possibly be to improve the quality of life of the sick and the poor, could it?
Since the federal income tax is pretty much exactly 100 years old, it's a little ridiculous to say "for over a hundred years". But you're right about tax rates, which have generally been on a rollercoaster ride since their inception. Their shooting to 90% coinciding with a general international fascination with socialism, which died off a bit after the start of the cold war. I'd be curious to hear what you think, in your opinion, is the ideal tax rate (90%?) for the top bracket. Most liberals are very vague with these things. All they really know is that there ought to be "more". After all, if you hold those beliefs, why not advocate for socialism? I think most contemporary Democrats haven't really thought it through, or are just following fashion. Just as most contemporary Republicans couldn't tell you precisely which year's values they wish we'd return to--only that govt expansion needs to stop.
Your point about Europe is taken. I would say that the general resistance to big govt is higher in the US simply because we were settled later on (the South not really being brought into the fold until after the Civil War, and the West being a gradual work in progress into the 20th Century).
Of course, Republicans have irrational notions about the motives of Democrats. A lot of them legitimately believe that Obama is evil and wants to ruin the country. Similarly, Democrats think Republican policies are based out of racism, which is absurd given that Herman Cain was leading the pack in their primary until scandal made him unviable.
|
On September 07 2012 05:31 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 05:26 Defacer wrote:On September 07 2012 05:16 Doublemint wrote:Hehe, don't be so hard on him! Smart move as he still seems to be a pretty solid and popular guy unlike other former Presidents. I actually really like xDaunt. I actually think he's a far smarter and funnier poster than he gets credit for. He just has the misfortune of defending a party with really clunky leadership and non-sensical policies. I think I know what you are getting at - it's like the (at least hopefully) mutual respect heavy contenders have got for each other, here in the realm of ideas and politics. Cheap shots for entertainment included from time to time - no kumbaya BS :D
There are many, many people who are inclined to stereotype those who want to discuss politics as crazies or pedants, and I think a lot of the discussion that goes on in here proves that untrue. Not all of it of course, but such is the case with any open forum. I love having the opportunity to read diverse and well-articulated positions that differ from my own, and TL is a great place to do that.
|
On September 07 2012 05:26 Zaqwert wrote:
The very notion that you have to "pay" for tax cuts shows how freaking backwards people think about the government.
You pay for spending with tax dollars.
If you cut taxes you can either spend a bigger deficit or cut spending.
Cutting spending is not "paying" for anything, it's cutting spending, in fact it's paying less, not more.
Government spending is out of control and largely waste/fraud, but don't let that stop you about demagoguing "Tax cutz for the rich!!" or whatever you need to tell yourself to feel better about advocating theft.
The problem is the track record on this rhetoric. The demagoguery of Obama is the same as it was with Clinton. So Bush gets elected on this same rhetoric...
And does he cut spending? Maybe, a little. Is it waste/fraud he's cutting? Hell freakin' no. Overall he's creating waste and creating fraud, largely within the military industry.
If Romney and Paul are so certain that they can decrease government revenue via tax cuts in a time of heavy deficits -- where is it they're finding this magic pool of trillions of dollars of wasted government money that they'll evaporate to the immense glory of our nation?
What makes their tax cut ideology so much drastically different than Bush's? What are Ryan/Romney going to cut to the tune of trillions of dollars that all our recent Presidents failed to find? And why the hell aren't they telling us now?
It is arithmetic, and the Romney's plan fails arithmetic.
Government is not inherently evil (unless, perhaps, it's run by people who think it is). It has a necessary purpose, and can provide good solutions to some of society's problems. It costs money, and we all benefit from its result. Tax cuts are not theft, under any political ideology. Even if you're anarchist -- you have to realize the government needs to exist for money to have any regulation and value to it at all. It's a paradox, isn't it?
|
On September 07 2012 05:35 jdsowa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 04:28 Leporello wrote:On September 07 2012 04:18 jdsowa wrote:On September 06 2012 22:23 Infernal Knight wrote:On September 06 2012 22:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 22:06 natrus wrote:On September 06 2012 22:00 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 21:56 MinusPlus wrote:On September 06 2012 21:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 21:39 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
What were you expecting to happen after the 2010 midterms when the House was filled with right-wing, tea party nutjobs? They took the country as hostage, in the end refusing a single cent in tax increases, and created the fiscal cliff. Hypocritically, the Republicans talk about the fiscal cliff having catastrophic effects on the economy with exactly the same Keynesian logic that they ignore when it comes to stimulus.
It's not easy dealing with ideological, anti-intellectual, doublethinking nutjobs. Even assuming that you everything that you just said is accurate, what does that have to do with all of the comments, quotes, and stories from Woodward and the democrats about how inept of a leader that Obama is? Did you miss that wonderful bit towards the end where Harry Reid's staffer confronts Obama with his disappointment? Get off the Kool Aid for once. Oh no this is so damning, some guy complained about his boss. Part of Obama's charm (look it up) is that he seems like a fairly approachable guy. But of course, you've got this burning (irrational, even) desire to try your damnedest to demonize Obama as a pigheaded, egotistical, arrogant, directionless failure, so you only read the bits that make him look incompetent. You should get off the damn Kool Aid for a change. Like, damn dude. It can't be enough that he's not a good president, but you have to make sure everybody thinks he's a bad person, too? What's the hell? Where did I say that he's a bad person? I'm only arguing about his leadership abilities. As for what I think of Obama, I have no doubt that he's a narcissist and, for the purpose of political leadership, cripplingly egocentric. But these thoughts are another matter. Would you describe Romney through your eyes as you have with Obama? Just curious. My concern with Romney is that he lacks conviction. I'm hoping that he has found his conservative Jesus and is ready to govern accordingly, but I can't say that I know this will happen. I'm not concerned about his ability to lead and get things done in Washington. If anything, I'm afraid that he'll compromise too much with democrats as republicans have been prone to do. For example, my biggest criticism of Bush is that he did not govern like a conservative in terms of his domestic policy and he damn near ruined the republican party as a result. As I mentioned a few days ago, it's only by the grace of Obama's incompetence that the republicans were revived in 2010 and are in the position that they are in now. Tell me... Why is compromise bad? You realize that even if you have a Republican majority House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court, there's still about half of the country that's voted Democratic. You really think that compromising is evil? If you had the ability to govern entirely as you pleased and you went ahead and did that for two or four years and never compromised, do you really think it's a good idea to ignore the wishes of roughly half of America? If that's not your personal position, then I apologize, but I've never really understood the modern conservative's allergy to compromise. Society has been on a trajectory towards greater Social Progress (liberalism and expanding central government) for many hundreds of years. There is no indiciation that the course will be reversed any time soon. The liberals have faced occasional momentary setbacks, but have generally won the confrontation on every major issue. All of their social programs are in place. That trajectory is mirrored in any chart that shows growth of the federal government. The conversation is never about whether or not to get rid of welfare, but whether to merely place a cap on it so that spending on it grows, but at not so high a rate. Think as a liberal--how would you view the last couple hundred years? Looks like things are generally headed in your direction. Think as a conservative--it's just been one loss after another. Why would a conservative participate in a discussion that merely slows the erosion of the society they deem to be ideal? Liberals can afford to make compromises because all they have to do is get their foot in the door with a program and then it's extremely difficult to get it taken away. Not only that but the existence of the Supreme Court (which generally backs them up) and rising participation in higher education ensures that society will continue to head down their path for a long time to come. No. Then again, I'm a "liberal" so I actually look at things like the history of U.S. taxes. Our income tax hasn't been as low as it is now for over a hundred years. Our social programs are often half-way measures, whereas most first-world country's are moving forward with government programs that provide the welfare and security that government should. I guess I just don't see healthcare, social security and welfare as "government power-grabs". Part of the reason is motive -- Republicans will tell you that Democrats like these social programs because they're evil socialists who want to expand government -- but why? Why do Democrats want to expand government-provided healthcare? What is the amoral motive for them wanting to do such a vile thing? It couldn't possibly be to improve the quality of life of the sick and the poor, could it? Of course, Republicans have irrational notions about the motives of Democrats. A lot of them legitimately believe that Obama is evil and wants to ruin the country. Similarly, Democrats think Republican policies are based out of racism, which is absurd given that Herman Cain was leading the pack in their primary until scandal made him unviable.
Mild point but - Hermin Cain's explanation for why Romney gets practically 0% of the black/latino vote as he stated on the Daily Show - to the booing of the Florida audience - was that "The black people who would vote for Romney couldn't vote because they were working."
No idea how much of that was a joke, but I'm sure it's stuff like that which make him likable to the Republicans.
|
On September 07 2012 05:30 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 04:58 Defacer wrote:
Of course, this would require you to believe that he has been lying during this entire campaign about policies and beliefs, is will to alienate the GOP establishment, and that he can control the Republican congress.
The biggest complaint the right had against Romney is he wouldn't admit what a mess Romneycare is. But we are trusting him to repeal the unpopular Obamacare mess.
Romneycare isn't free, but Massachusetts was perfectly willing and able to afford the cost and the majority of people are happy with the tradeoff.
|
On September 07 2012 05:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 05:30 dvorakftw wrote:On September 07 2012 04:58 Defacer wrote:
Of course, this would require you to believe that he has been lying during this entire campaign about policies and beliefs, is will to alienate the GOP establishment, and that he can control the Republican congress.
The biggest complaint the right had against Romney is he wouldn't admit what a mess Romneycare is. But we are trusting him to repeal the unpopular Obamacare mess. Romneycare isn't free, but Massachusetts was perfectly willing and able to afford the cost and the majority of people are happy with the tradeoff.
My understanding is that the Republicans are more annoyed at the mandate, than the healthcare itself.
|
On September 07 2012 05:13 MinusPlus wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 07 2012 05:10 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 04:55 MinusPlus wrote:
Your turn. Tell us about this voodoo to cut taxes, increase spending, and reduce the deficit. Tell me how that works. You've got it all wrong. You cut the RATES, you close loopholes to offset, and you REDUCE spending. Ok. Now the specifics, go. EDIT: Edited back out due to BM.
You're not going to get specific loopholes to be cut until the debates.
This is not because Romney does not have some idea of which loopholes he'd like to close but because of how our election system works. It won't reward him for giving specifics as within an hour of him doing so Obama for America will be trotting out surrogates and ads to demagogue whatever specifics he gives (truthfully or not).
Personally I'd go with the Simpson-Bowles model for tax reform which is to lower rates across the board and eliminate all loopholes with the exception of the child tax credit, the mortgage deduction credit, health insurance, charitable giving, and retirement savings. It also takes us from 6 brackets to 3 and lowers the corporate tax rate to 28%.
|
On September 07 2012 05:38 Leporello wrote:
...
Government is not inherently evil (unless, perhaps, it's run by people who think it is). It has a necessary purpose, and can provide good solutions to some of society's problems. It costs money, and we all benefit from its result. Tax cuts are not theft, under any political ideology. Even if you're anarchist -- you have to realize the government needs to exist for money to have any regulation and value to it at all. It's a paradox, isn't it?
Small thing, but I'd disagree with the bolded part. You need people to agree that it represents value. Still, that makes it decidedly less paradoxical, I think.
|
On September 07 2012 05:45 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 05:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 05:30 dvorakftw wrote:On September 07 2012 04:58 Defacer wrote:
Of course, this would require you to believe that he has been lying during this entire campaign about policies and beliefs, is will to alienate the GOP establishment, and that he can control the Republican congress.
The biggest complaint the right had against Romney is he wouldn't admit what a mess Romneycare is. But we are trusting him to repeal the unpopular Obamacare mess. Romneycare isn't free, but Massachusetts was perfectly willing and able to afford the cost and the majority of people are happy with the tradeoff. My understanding is that the Republicans are more annoyed at the mandate, than the healthcare itself.
And the problem is that without a mandate, insurance companies wouldn't be able to improve their coverage without raising the cost of insurance significantly.
|
On September 07 2012 05:13 MinusPlus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 05:10 dvorakftw wrote:On September 07 2012 04:55 MinusPlus wrote:
Your turn. Tell us about this voodoo to cut taxes, increase spending, and reduce the deficit. Tell me how that works. You've got it all wrong. You cut the RATES, you close loopholes to offset, and you REDUCE spending. Ok. Now the specifics, go. EDIT: Edited back out due to BM.
I imagine the specifics would largely be along the lines of Simpson Bowles along with entitlement reform.
Meanwhile the Democrat's solution is increased spending and more expensive than claimed Obamacare on top of the trillion dollar deficits Obama's had every year of his presidency paid for by... ending a tax cut that is worth $100 billion a year.
Yeah, arithmetic.
And what did you edit? I missed it! Cmon, share!
|
On September 07 2012 05:31 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 05:26 Defacer wrote:On September 07 2012 05:16 Doublemint wrote:Hehe, don't be so hard on him! Smart move as he still seems to be a pretty solid and popular guy unlike other former Presidents. I actually really like xDaunt. I actually think he's a far smarter and funnier poster than he gets credit for. He just has the misfortune of defending a party with really clunky leadership and non-sensical policies. I think I know what you are getting at - it's like the (at least hopefully) mutual respect heavy contenders have got for each other, here in the realm of ideas and politics. Cheap shots for entertainment included from time to time - no kumbaya BS :D
Let's put it this way -- if Christie was the candidate, it would be a lot easier for xDaunt to defend his positions and a lot harder for me to bust his chops.
Xdaunt is not crazy, but the field of Republican nominees this year was terrible.
|
On September 07 2012 05:48 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 05:45 JinDesu wrote:On September 07 2012 05:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 05:30 dvorakftw wrote:On September 07 2012 04:58 Defacer wrote:
Of course, this would require you to believe that he has been lying during this entire campaign about policies and beliefs, is will to alienate the GOP establishment, and that he can control the Republican congress.
The biggest complaint the right had against Romney is he wouldn't admit what a mess Romneycare is. But we are trusting him to repeal the unpopular Obamacare mess. Romneycare isn't free, but Massachusetts was perfectly willing and able to afford the cost and the majority of people are happy with the tradeoff. My understanding is that the Republicans are more annoyed at the mandate, than the healthcare itself. And the problem is that without a mandate, insurance companies wouldn't be able to improve their coverage without raising the cost of insurance significantly.
Kinda. It depends on who you are pulling into the insurance pool and if you are looking at total insurance costs or the cost of individual plans.
|
On September 07 2012 05:26 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 05:16 Doublemint wrote:Hehe, don't be so hard on him! Smart move as he still seems to be a pretty solid and popular guy unlike other former Presidents. I actually really like xDaunt. I think he's a far smarter and funnier poster than he gets credit for. He just has the misfortune of defending a party with really clunky leadership and non-sensical policies.
Interesting. Just a few pages ago people were saying about him that they normally say about me.
|
On September 07 2012 05:34 MinusPlus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 05:30 dvorakftw wrote:On September 07 2012 04:58 Defacer wrote:
Of course, this would require you to believe that he has been lying during this entire campaign about policies and beliefs, is will to alienate the GOP establishment, and that he can control the Republican congress.
The biggest complaint the right had against Romney is he wouldn't admit what a mess Romneycare is. But we are trusting him to repeal the unpopular Obamacare mess. You're also trusting him to fix the economy with magic.
To paraphrase, magic's just economics that you don't understand yet.
|
On September 07 2012 05:51 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 05:13 MinusPlus wrote:On September 07 2012 05:10 dvorakftw wrote:On September 07 2012 04:55 MinusPlus wrote:
Your turn. Tell us about this voodoo to cut taxes, increase spending, and reduce the deficit. Tell me how that works. You've got it all wrong. You cut the RATES, you close loopholes to offset, and you REDUCE spending. Ok. Now the specifics, go. EDIT: Edited back out due to BM. I imagine the specifics would largely be along the lines of Simpson Bowles along with entitlement reform. Meanwhile the Democrat's solution is increased spending and more expensive than claimed Obamacare on top of the trillion dollar deficits Obama's had every year of his presidency paid for by... ending a tax cut that is worth $100 billion a year.Yeah, arithmetic. And what did you edit? I missed it! Cmon, share!
ROFL do you even read your own arguments?
ending a tax cut that is worth $100 billion a year.
The tax break for income over 250k is costing 100 billion a year and Obama wanted to end it to reduce the deficit but the Republicans wouldnt let him. Your presenting the very arguments that refute your point.
|
|
|
As long as he keeps certain parts out of my face....
Fortunately, it looks like pretty much no one saw his speech last night.
|
On September 07 2012 05:53 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 05:31 Doublemint wrote:On September 07 2012 05:26 Defacer wrote:On September 07 2012 05:16 Doublemint wrote:Hehe, don't be so hard on him! Smart move as he still seems to be a pretty solid and popular guy unlike other former Presidents. I actually really like xDaunt. I actually think he's a far smarter and funnier poster than he gets credit for. He just has the misfortune of defending a party with really clunky leadership and non-sensical policies. I think I know what you are getting at - it's like the (at least hopefully) mutual respect heavy contenders have got for each other, here in the realm of ideas and politics. Cheap shots for entertainment included from time to time - no kumbaya BS :D Let's put it this way -- if Christie was the candidate, it would be a lot easier for xDaunt to defend his positions and a lot harder for me to bust his chops. Xdaunt is not crazy, but the field of Republican nominees this year was terrible.
I'm on record saying that this year's republican candidates were John McCain's sloppy seconds.
I'm also on record saying that I would vote for a plywood board over Obama.
|
On September 07 2012 06:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 05:53 Defacer wrote:On September 07 2012 05:31 Doublemint wrote:On September 07 2012 05:26 Defacer wrote:On September 07 2012 05:16 Doublemint wrote:Hehe, don't be so hard on him! Smart move as he still seems to be a pretty solid and popular guy unlike other former Presidents. I actually really like xDaunt. I actually think he's a far smarter and funnier poster than he gets credit for. He just has the misfortune of defending a party with really clunky leadership and non-sensical policies. I think I know what you are getting at - it's like the (at least hopefully) mutual respect heavy contenders have got for each other, here in the realm of ideas and politics. Cheap shots for entertainment included from time to time - no kumbaya BS :D Let's put it this way -- if Christie was the candidate, it would be a lot easier for xDaunt to defend his positions and a lot harder for me to bust his chops. Xdaunt is not crazy, but the field of Republican nominees this year was terrible. I'm on record saying that this year's republican candidates were John McCain's sloppy seconds. I'm also on record saying that I would vote for a plywood board over Obama.
I would have to see the plywood board's tax returns first.
|
On September 07 2012 06:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 05:51 dvorakftw wrote:On September 07 2012 05:13 MinusPlus wrote:On September 07 2012 05:10 dvorakftw wrote:On September 07 2012 04:55 MinusPlus wrote:
Your turn. Tell us about this voodoo to cut taxes, increase spending, and reduce the deficit. Tell me how that works. You've got it all wrong. You cut the RATES, you close loopholes to offset, and you REDUCE spending. Ok. Now the specifics, go. EDIT: Edited back out due to BM. I imagine the specifics would largely be along the lines of Simpson Bowles along with entitlement reform. Meanwhile the Democrat's solution is increased spending and more expensive than claimed Obamacare on top of the trillion dollar deficits Obama's had every year of his presidency paid for by... ending a tax cut that is worth $100 billion a year.Yeah, arithmetic. And what did you edit? I missed it! Cmon, share! ROFL do you even read your own arguments? ending a tax cut that is worth $100 billion a year.The tax break for income over 250k is costing 100 billion a year and Obama wanted to end it to reduce the deficit but the Republicans wouldnt let him. Your presenting the very arguments that refute your point.
Sometimes I even read them twice.
Pop quiz:
-$1,000,000,000,000
+ $100,000,000,000
------------------------------
If you like, you can all get some assistance on Arithmetic from Bill Clinton.
I was going to put this in another link, but I think I'd rather quote
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-10/28/010r-102899-idx.html
In 1990 the Joint Committee on Taxation projected that the 1991 revenue yield from luxury taxes would be $31 million. It was $16.6 million. Why? Because (surprise!) the taxation changed behavior: Fewer people bought the taxed products. Demand went down when prices went up. Washington was amazed. People bought yachts overseas. Who would have thought it?
According to a study done for the Joint Economic Committee, the tax destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing, 1,470 in the aircraft industry and 7,600 in the boating industry. The job losses cost the government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenues. So the net effect of the taxes was a loss of $7.6 million in fiscal 1991, which means the government projection was off by $38.6 million.
This illustrates the shortcomings of "static analysis."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
