Page 83 of 136 FirstFirst ... 3373818283848593133 ... LastLast
Results 821 to 830 of 1355

Thread: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

  1. #821
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Barack Obama is NO FDR. FDR loved his country and worked with the private sector to get it growing again.
    That is because Obama is in cahoots with The Legion of Doom!

    Aviary comicbookmovie-com Picture 1.jpg

  2. #822
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Try actually reading a post before you respond:

    "I posted the estimates, and the facts they were based on, and you could not refute a single one of them.
    the only facts are the amount of the tax cut not the amount of revenue generated, jobs created, or economic growth. In the liberal world it is all about basic math not growth. You would never make it in the retail business

  3. #823
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    That is because Obama is in cahoots with The Legion of Doom!

    Aviary comicbookmovie-com Picture 1.jpg
    He will go down in history worse than Jimmy Carter.

  4. #824
    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
    the only facts are the amount of the tax cut not the amount of revenue generated, jobs created, or economic growth. In the liberal world it is all about basic math not growth. You would never make it in the retail business

    As Foghorn Leghorn might have said, I see your lips a flapping but I'm not seeing you refuting any facts!
    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. #825
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    As Foghorn Leghorn might have said, I see your lips a flapping but I'm not seeing you refuting any facts!
    As usual, you pass off predictions as fact, still waiting for the 6 trillion dollar number as well as how much revenue will be generated from those evil rich people that you don't like. I have posted GDP numbers and I have posted Federal Income tax numbers, all actual. Where are those in the predictions?

  6. #826
    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
    As usual, you pass off predictions as fact, still waiting for the 6 trillion dollar number as well as how much revenue will be generated from those evil rich people that you don't like. I have posted GDP numbers and I have posted Federal Income tax numbers, all actual. Where are those in the predictions?
    More lip flapping and nothing to refute the facts the estimates were based on.
    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

  7. #827
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    More lip flapping and nothing to refute the facts the estimates were based on.
    nothing to refute as it didn't happen. There was no reduction in revenue especially not 6 trillion dollars as you indicated. Anyone can put numbers together and claim they are projections. You haven't proven those projections right

  8. #828
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    More lip flapping and nothing to refute the facts the estimates were based on.
    From the article and you call the article factual?

    Last week, we somewhat rashly speculated that the actual size of the Bush tax cuts might be lower because they were based on revenue estimates that ultimately fell far short of what was predicted in 2001. The true “cost” to the Treasury may never be known. Economists generally agree there are feedback effects from lower tax rates and the like, but little consensus has been reached on what that might be.
    Then there is this

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

    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.
    Estimates, predictions, and nothing factual. your 6 trillion dollar number is bogus just like most of your posts.

  9. #829
    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
    nothing to refute as it didn't happen. There was no reduction in revenue especially not 6 trillion dollars as you indicated. Anyone can put numbers together and claim they are projections. You haven't proven those projections right
    I'll give you another shot at them, can you prove any of the facts wrong, any at all?

    "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
    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

  10. #830
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I'll give you another shot at them, can you prove any of the facts wrong, any at all?

    "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
    As I posted, it was never rescored and here is your problem

    the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimated how much they might reduce revenue
    Those tax cuts didn't lower revenue, they grew revenue so your numbers are bogus

Posting Permissions

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