Page 78 of 136 FirstFirst ... 2868767778798088128 ... LastLast
Results 771 to 780 of 1355

Thread: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

  1. #771
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    That's funny, because I know exactly what it will take to get through to you, the majority of the country reelecting Obama for president next November!

    Will you take a vacation from the forum then, or what?
    If the people are that stupid then the country deserves what they get. I live in TX and won't have to worry about it. He will lose this state by 3 million votes or more. People here understand personal responsibility, apparently many don't. His approval rating is going to have to get higher than 43%. I will be voting for the Republican candidate because I cannot support anyone with this kind of record. why do you?

  2. #772
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    If the people are that stupid then the country deserves what they get. I live in TX and won't have to worry about it. He will lose this state by 3 million votes or more. People here understand personal responsibility, apparently many don't. His approval rating is going to have to get higher than 43%. I will be voting for the Republican candidate because I cannot support anyone with this kind of record. why do you?
    I'll most likely be voting for him for the same reason I did last time, he is better then the alternatives. As centrist as he may be, he is by far the most progressive of the bunch.

    Every single one of the GOP candidates, except Ron Paul, want to continue the same failed trickle down economics of the last 30 years that brought us to where we are today.

    The middle class has been bitten too many times by that particular dog to fall for it again.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  3. #773
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I'll most likely be voting for him for the same reason I did last time, he is better then the alternatives. As centrist as he may be, he is by far the most progressive of the bunch.

    Every single one of the GOP candidates, except Ron Paul, want to continue the same failed trickle down economics of the last 30 years that brought us to where we are today.

    The middle class has been bitten too many times by that particular dog to fall for it again.
    You deserve the mess this empty suit has created and will continue. You don't seem to understand leadership at all nor do you understand how to do research. Still waiting for the math that shows 6 trillion less revenue due to the Tax cuts over the past 30 years especially since Clinton raised taxes as did GHW Bush but give it your best shot. I would love to see exactly how much you really know because I am sure not seeing much here, just rants and raving that makes no sense and isn't backed by data.

  4. #774
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    You deserve the mess this empty suit has created and will continue. You don't seem to understand leadership at all nor do you understand how to do research. Still waiting for the math that shows 6 trillion less revenue due to the Tax cuts over the past 30 years especially since Clinton raised taxes as did GHW Bush but give it your best shot. I would love to see exactly how much you really know because I am sure not seeing much here, just rants and raving that makes no sense and isn't backed by data.
    You forgot already that Obama inherited the recession? Try to get some rest.


    Let's do some fact checking:

    The Fact Checker

    "Strictly speaking, the two big tax cuts during the Bush years are estimated to total about $1.5 trillion, But many continued into the early years of the Obama presidency, and in December he cut a deal with Republicans to extend them even more, which brings us to $2.8 trillion".

    Revisiting the cost of the Bush tax cuts - The Fact Checker - The Washington Post

    $2 trillion a decade for 3 decades (if we were dumb enough to extend another 3 decades) would be $6 trillion dollars.
    Last edited by Catawba; 12-01-11 at 09:21 PM.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  5. #775
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    You forgot already that Obama inherited the recession? Try to get some rest.


    Let's do some fact checking:

    The Fact Checker

    "Strictly speaking, the two big tax cuts during the Bush years are estimated to total about $1.5 trillion, But many continued into the early years of the Obama presidency, and in December he cut a deal with Republicans to extend them even more, which brings us to $2.8 trillion".

    Revisiting the cost of the Bush tax cuts - The Fact Checker - The Washington Post

    $2 trillion a decade for 3 decades (if we were dumb enough to extend another 3 decades) would be $6 trillion dollars.
    All projections and predictions aren't facts and that seems to be a problem for you. You have nothing other than speculation as nothing takes into account economic activity as well as employment changes. You want to believe that you keeping more of what you earn is a problem and I don't understand that.

    Further the Bush tax cuts were for every taxpayer not just the rich. your 6 trillion dollar number although a speculation is an estimate on ALL tax cuts not just the rich so repealing them on the rich won't make a hill of beans different and in fact probably will hurt economic activity. You think that raising taxes and taking more money out of the pockets of the taxpayers is going to put 25 million unemployed/under employed Americans back to work full time? You really aren't that naive, are you?

  6. #776
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    I don't know what it is going to take to get through to you. "your" choice for President is a disaster, his results show it, his actions show it, the lack of respect we have in the world shows it and yet you support him. Absolutely amazing. What is it going to take, a depression, default on the debt, a world war to make you wake up and see the failure that you are supporting?
    What makes you think that any of the clowns running for the GOP nomination can do any better?

  7. #777
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    All projections and predictions aren't facts and that seems to be a problem for you. You have nothing other than speculation as nothing takes into account economic activity as well as employment changes. You want to believe that you keeping more of what you earn is a problem and I don't understand that.

    Further the Bush tax cuts were for every taxpayer not just the rich. your 6 trillion dollar number although a speculation is an estimate on ALL tax cuts not just the rich so repealing them on the rich won't make a hill of beans different and in fact probably will hurt economic activity. You think that raising taxes and taking more money out of the pockets of the taxpayers is going to put 25 million unemployed/under employed Americans back to work full time? You really aren't that naive, are you?
    They are estimates based on:

    The Facts

    "President Bush instituted two big tax cuts, one in 2001 and another in 2003. The first was implemented amid rosy predictions of a 10-year, $5.6 trillion surplus; the second was enacted after the economy appeared to stumble after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

    When the tax cuts were passed, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimated how much they might reduce revenue: the 2001 tax cuts was pegged at $1.35 trillion over 10 years; the 2003 tax cut was set at $350 billion over 10 years.

    Those estimates have never been updated, even as the economy and the budget have moved on.

    Here are two ways to look at how the 2001 numbers might be different today.

    First, although the JCT has not gone back and rescored the 2001 tax cuts, the committee recently estimated the revenue impact of virtually the same tax cut — the two-year extension negotiated by President Obama and the Congress. For simplicity, and because some elements were changed in other parts of the tax cut, we will focus just on the reductions in individual taxes.

    In 2001, the JCT estimated that the tax-rate package would reduce revenues by $115 billion in 2010. In December, the extension of those tax rates in 2012 was estimated to cost $105 billion. (We have to skip 2011 for complicated, technical reasons not worth explaining.)

    The $10 billion difference means the cost of the tax rates rose about 5 percent each year. At that trend, the 2001 prediction of the 2012 tax rate package would have been about $126 billion.

    In other words, the current estimate of the cost of the 2012 tax rate reductions is 17 percent lower than what would have been predicted under the 2001 methodology.

    This shift, however, appears to be largely because of the impact of the recession, which devastated all government revenues. The reduction is less dramatic if you go back all the way to 2001.

    To do this, we compared the Congressional Budget Office’s 2001 prediction for the gross domestic product for each fiscal year. Then we looked up the actual GDP, found in the historical records of the White House Budget Office (Table 10.1). It was lower for each year, and we used the resulting ratio to adjust the size of the tax cut for each year. (Generally, the 2001 tax cut was just under or just above 1 percent of GDP.)

    Under this method, for most years, the impact was minimal, just a slight reduction. But when the recession hit in 2008, and the GDP turned out to be 10 percent below predictions for three straight years, the cost of the tax cut was reduced by billions of dollars each year.

    Over the 10-year period, the overall size of the tax cut dropped about 5 percent, or $65 billion, to $1.285 trillion. Some people might call that a rounding error in the context of a ten-year federal budget."

    Revisiting the cost of the Bush tax cuts - The Fact Checker - The Washington Post


    You are welcome to provide documentation (not opinion) to refute any of these facts if you can!
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  8. #778
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    What makes you think that any of the clowns running for the GOP nomination can do any better?
    I don't, Obama had his chance and failed. time for someone else to get a chance. Doubt that any of them would micro manage the economy and social engineer like Obama and that is a good thing.

  9. #779
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    They are estimates based on:

    The Facts

    "President Bush instituted two big tax cuts, one in 2001 and another in 2003. The first was implemented amid rosy predictions of a 10-year, $5.6 trillion surplus; the second was enacted after the economy appeared to stumble after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

    When the tax cuts were passed, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimated how much they might reduce revenue: the 2001 tax cuts was pegged at $1.35 trillion over 10 years; the 2003 tax cut was set at $350 billion over 10 years.

    Those estimates have never been updated, even as the economy and the budget have moved on.

    Here are two ways to look at how the 2001 numbers might be different today.

    First, although the JCT has not gone back and rescored the 2001 tax cuts, the committee recently estimated the revenue impact of virtually the same tax cut — the two-year extension negotiated by President Obama and the Congress. For simplicity, and because some elements were changed in other parts of the tax cut, we will focus just on the reductions in individual taxes.

    In 2001, the JCT estimated that the tax-rate package would reduce revenues by $115 billion in 2010. In December, the extension of those tax rates in 2012 was estimated to cost $105 billion. (We have to skip 2011 for complicated, technical reasons not worth explaining.)

    The $10 billion difference means the cost of the tax rates rose about 5 percent each year. At that trend, the 2001 prediction of the 2012 tax rate package would have been about $126 billion.

    In other words, the current estimate of the cost of the 2012 tax rate reductions is 17 percent lower than what would have been predicted under the 2001 methodology.

    This shift, however, appears to be largely because of the impact of the recession, which devastated all government revenues. The reduction is less dramatic if you go back all the way to 2001.

    To do this, we compared the Congressional Budget Office’s 2001 prediction for the gross domestic product for each fiscal year. Then we looked up the actual GDP, found in the historical records of the White House Budget Office (Table 10.1). It was lower for each year, and we used the resulting ratio to adjust the size of the tax cut for each year. (Generally, the 2001 tax cut was just under or just above 1 percent of GDP.)

    Under this method, for most years, the impact was minimal, just a slight reduction. But when the recession hit in 2008, and the GDP turned out to be 10 percent below predictions for three straight years, the cost of the tax cut was reduced by billions of dollars each year.

    Over the 10-year period, the overall size of the tax cut dropped about 5 percent, or $65 billion, to $1.285 trillion. Some people might call that a rounding error in the context of a ten-year federal budget."

    Revisiting the cost of the Bush tax cuts - The Fact Checker - The Washington Post


    You are welcome to provide documentation (not opinion) to refute any of these facts if you can!
    So you calling for repeal of ALL the Bush tax cuts? If so, then you have a better case although I do not buy the 6 trillion dollar number nor does the article. It does appear that you didn't even read it. Everything posted is estimates, where are the actual numbers? Where are the billions of dollars of revenue coming from the new jobs created counted and the benefits from the 4.5 trillion GDP growth? Amazingly any growth is left out of the projections.

    The problem today remains the unemployed not paying full taxes and the 47% of income earning households aren't paying any Federal Income Taxes yet your focus is only on the rich. That is nothing more than class warfare and jealousy. It serves no purpose as you don't have any idea what that will do to the economy and thus govt. revenue.

  10. #780
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,273
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    I don't, Obama had his chance and failed. time for someone else to get a chance. Doubt that any of them would micro manage the economy and social engineer like Obama and that is a good thing.
    What exactly has Obama micro-managed?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •