Page 129 of 129 FirstFirst ... 2979119127128129
Results 1,281 to 1,290 of 1290

Thread: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge[W:513,870]

  1. #1281
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Sure he raised income taxes, but he didn't raise marginal rates.



    I got it, really. But by the same measuring stick used by Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, Clinton and Obama, he produced the only 'surplus.' You're objecting to him using the same standard everyone's used for decades, which is technically correct of course.



    Yes, I object to using SS to reduce the deficit, then when we draw on the surplus, treat it like we're in a damn crisis. We're in a crisis because SS was used to hide the real effect of decades of taxes way too low to fund government. SS hid $2.5T in actual deficits.

    And I have a problem with a $3.9T federal government, but we probably disagree in some cases about how to make it smaller.
    He raised income tax REVENUE, not income taxes. 17 million new taxpayers created more govt. revenue and you cannot prove that it wasn't because of the tax cuts. You simply don't understand what taxes were raised and who paid them. you don't seem to comprehend the value of economic growth and the way to increase economic activity, Reagan did

    Taxes too low? How much exactly do you believe a taxpayer should pay in Federal, State, and local taxes? What percentage of their income?

    By the way do you know who created the sub prime mortgages?

  2. #1282
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,788

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    He raised income tax REVENUE, not income taxes. 17 million new taxpayers created more govt. revenue and you cannot prove that it wasn't because of the tax cuts. You simply don't understand what taxes were raised and who paid them. you don't seem to comprehend the value of economic growth and the way to increase economic activity, Reagan did
    Goodness, he signed bills that had the intended effect and did increase the revenue collected by government without regard to economic growth. Those are tax increases. Just one example - he changed depreciation rules from ACRS to MACRS. That lengthened the depreciation term and raised taxes on everyone buying any type of depreciable asset. There isn't any dispute about that, and it had nothing to do with economic growth, because THAT change was a disincentive to invest in property and equipment.

    Taxes too low? How much exactly do you believe a taxpayer should pay in Federal, State, and local taxes? What percentage of their income?
    Too low to support the spending that occurred. If you want to argue that spending was too high, and taxes juuuussttt right, fine. But spending was NOT cut and the use of SS to offset deficits in part allowed spending to be too high. Same result, different side of the income statement.

    By the way do you know who created the sub prime mortgages?
    I'm not going to get into that here, but the short answer is people in both parties over a period of a couple decades. Sheesh, anyone who wants to point to Clinton, and ignore the GOP's role, is an ignoramus.

  3. #1283
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Last Seen
    07-10-14 @ 06:13 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    100

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    [QUOTE=CalGun;1063468322]Good for them; I like the union decision even better.[/QU

    Short-term win for conservatives and the GOP, but long-term win for the Democrats as more and more women leave the GOP. The anti-abortion law passed by the legislature in Missouri vetoed by the Governor is another example of this war that the GOP and conservatives are waging on women. It's hard to understand how the GOP is missing the demographic changes that are taking place in this country. Gerrymandering and voter suppression is all it has left.

  4. #1284
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    JasperL;1063487291]Goodness, he signed bills that had the intended effect and did increase the revenue collected by government without regard to economic growth. Those are tax increases. Just one example - he changed depreciation rules from ACRS to MACRS. That lengthened the depreciation term and raised taxes on everyone buying any type of depreciable asset. There isn't any dispute about that, and it had nothing to do with economic growth, because THAT change was a disincentive to invest in property and equipment.
    Again, you show that this is a waste of time, it is waste of time for me to explain to you the benefits of you keeping more of what you earn. I don't have any idea why I continue to do that. You want to pay more in taxes, do so, send more into the govt. whatever you want. Why don't you do that? I am waiting for you to prove that the 17 million jobs created weren't the result of increased economic activity due to those tax cuts?


    Too low to support the spending that occurred. If you want to argue that spending was too high, and taxes juuuussttt right, fine. But spending was NOT cut and the use of SS to offset deficits in part allowed spending to be too high. Same result, different side of the income statement.

    Got it, so because we spend too much we need higher taxes? Now that is interesting logic. So because the govt. continues to spend, waste our tax dollars, and drive up debt you want to give them more money and power? Still waiting for what the percentage of income taxpayers should pay in Federal, State, and Local taxes?


    I'm not going to get into that here, but the short answer is people in both parties over a period of a couple decades. Sheesh, anyone who wants to point to Clinton, and ignore the GOP's role, is an ignoramus.
    Your personal passion for liberal economic policy is incredible and misguided. I asked a question because you want to blame Bush for the housing bubble and ignore one of the major causes, the sub prime loans none of which were issued by Bush. The answer to the question is Clinton in 1993 and to simply blame Bush ignores who else was involved in creating that bubble. Fact, there is plenty of blame to go around and Clinton deserves some of it.

  5. #1285
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,788

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Again, you show that this is a waste of time, it is waste of time for me to explain to you the benefits of you keeping more of what you earn. I don't have any idea why I continue to do that. You want to pay more in taxes, do so, send more into the govt. whatever you want. Why don't you do that? I am waiting for you to prove that the 17 million jobs created weren't the result of increased economic activity due to those tax cuts?
    You said Reagan didn't raise income taxes. I responded to that point - he DID raise them.

    And I can no more "prove" the tax cuts did NOT create 17 million jobs than you can prove they DID. Lots of academics look at taxes and jobs, I've read maybe 20 papers on that topic. Most find taxes have a small but real effect. So if that research is correct, some of those jobs were created because of lower taxes, some were due to deficit spending, most had nothing to do with either and were a function of the economy, perhaps stable interest rates, normal growth, etc.

    Got it, so because we spend too much we need higher taxes? Now that is interesting logic. So because the govt. continues to spend, waste our tax dollars, and drive up debt you want to give them more money and power? Still waiting for what the percentage of income taxpayers should pay in Federal, State, and Local taxes?
    If you want me to put it succinctly, if we're going to spend, tax to pay for spending. So tax and spend is FAR preferable to cut taxes, borrow the shortfall, and spend more - which is the GOP record, what's in the data.

    Your personal passion for liberal economic policy is incredible and misguided. I asked a question because you want to blame Bush for the housing bubble and ignore one of the major causes, the sub prime loans none of which were issued by Bush. The answer to the question is Clinton in 1993 and to simply blame Bush ignores who else was involved in creating that bubble. Fact, there is plenty of blame to go around and Clinton deserves some of it.
    I said this, "the short answer is people in both parties over a period of a couple decades." Does that look like someone who is ignoring Clinton's role? And there is nothing wrong with the idea of sub prime loans. They were to risky borrowers, high interest rates, that's how it should be. The problem in a nutshell was dog crap sub prime was rated AAA, backed by trillions in derivatives, and sold with a stated risk profile equal to U.S. f'ing Treasuries. Prior to the bubble, dog crap was rated dog crap and investors behaved accordingly.

  6. #1286
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    J
    asperL;1063487849]You said Reagan didn't raise income taxes. I responded to that point - he DID raise them.
    Just as I thought, you have no idea what your taxes fund or even what they are. Reagan did not raise FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. He cut them three years in a row

    And I can no more "prove" the tax cuts did NOT create 17 million jobs than you can prove they DID. Lots of academics look at taxes and jobs, I've read maybe 20 papers on that topic. Most find taxes have a small but real effect. So if that research is correct, some of those jobs were created because of lower taxes, some were due to deficit spending, most had nothing to do with either and were a function of the economy, perhaps stable interest rates, normal growth, etc.
    Yes, I can because that is exactly what happened, the results are at BLS.gov You seem to put a lot of faith in textbooks and little in understanding the U.S. economy which is consumer driven. Hell, you don't even seem to know what you do with more money in your paycheck and how that multiplied by the labor force affects economic activity



    If you want me to put it succinctly, if we're going to spend, tax to pay for spending. So tax and spend is FAR preferable to cut taxes, borrow the shortfall, and spend more - which is the GOP record, what's in the data.
    We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem, Reagan increased FIT revenue by 60% with three tax cuts, and Bush did the same thing. Interesting how that reality is ignored by the left.

    I said this, "the short answer is people in both parties over a period of a couple decades." Does that look like someone who is ignoring Clinton's role? And there is nothing wrong with the idea of sub prime loans. They were to risky borrowers, high interest rates, that's how it should be. The problem in a nutshell was dog crap sub prime was rated AAA, backed by trillions in derivatives, and sold with a stated risk profile equal to U.S. f'ing Treasuries. Prior to the bubble, dog crap was rated dog crap and investors behaved accordingly
    .

    Good, many liberals blame it all on Bush

  7. #1287
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,788

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    J

    Just as I thought, you have no idea what your taxes fund or even what they are. Reagan did not raise FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. He cut them three years in a row
    Your facts are different than mine. He had the big tax cut the first year, and then raised taxes every year after that. TRA 86 cut marginal rates, but was a net tax increase.

    Yes, I can because that is exactly what happened, the results are at BLS.gov You seem to put a lot of faith in textbooks and little in understanding the U.S. economy which is consumer driven. Hell, you don't even seem to know what you do with more money in your paycheck and how that multiplied by the labor force affects economic activity
    Correlation =/= causation. If taxes were the only thing that mattered, we'd all have to believe two things:

    1) Reagan cut taxes, the economy created 17 million jobs, and therefore all job gains were as a result of Reagan's tax cut.
    2) Clinton raised taxes, over the next 8 years the economy created 22 million jobs, and those job gains were the result of Clinton's tax increases.

    And that above is exactly why academics study this stuff, and why the general findings are that taxes matter, tax cuts do increase employment in most cases, but the effect is small and generally overwhelmed by other factors - general trends, interest rates, increasing productivity, exchange rates, population growth, education levels, wage trends, etc..............

    Finally, I get multipliers. There are multipliers with government spending and multipliers with tax cuts.

    We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem, Reagan increased FIT revenue by 60% with three tax cuts, and Bush did the same thing. Interesting how that reality is ignored by the left.
    .
    I guess I'll have to start a thread so we can bring some facts to this conversation. That's a HUGE oversimplification of what happened. And whether spending should be higher or lower is a preference.

  8. #1288
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    JasperL;1063490419]Your facts are different than mine. He had the big tax cut the first year, and then raised taxes every year after that. TRA 86 cut marginal rates, but was a net tax increase.
    Wow, again you cannot admit that you are wrong, Reagan cut FEDERAL INCOME TAXES 3 years in a row and there was NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX increase at any time during the Reagan term. Not sure where you get your information but I can guess. You simply are wrong. Please educate yourself on what taxes you pay and what those taxes fund. Big govt. liberals always ignore the various taxes and believe in the unified budget where all tax dollars go into a big pot.



    Correlation =/= causation. If taxes were the only thing that mattered, we'd all have to believe two things:

    1) Reagan cut taxes, the economy created 17 million jobs, and therefore all job gains were as a result of Reagan's tax cut.
    2) Clinton raised taxes, over the next 8 years the economy created 22 million jobs, and those job gains were the result of Clinton's tax increases.

    And that above is exactly why academics study this stuff, and why the general findings are that taxes matter, tax cuts do increase employment in most cases, but the effect is small and generally overwhelmed by other factors - general trends, interest rates, increasing productivity, exchange rates, population growth, education levels, wage trends, etc..............

    Finally, I get multipliers. There are multipliers with government spending and multipliers with tax cuts.
    Typical liberal argument from someone who buys the big govt. theory. The reality is we had 17 million jobs created, 60% increase in FIT revenue, and a doubling of the GDP after the tax cuts. You choose to believe that the tax cuts didn't do that but cannot prove it which is more proof that you have no idea as to the components of GDP and that they contribute.

    By the way, please show me the BLS data that shows Clinton created 22 million jobs? I anxiously await your answer


    .
    I guess I'll have to start a thread so we can bring some facts to this conversation. That's a HUGE oversimplification of what happened. And whether spending should be higher or lower is a preference.
    That ought to go into the fiction category because that is what it will be. Obviously you weren't around during the Reagan years and have no idea what happened but buy what you are told. The reality is a different issue and led to the greatest landslide electoral victory in history in 1984

  9. #1289
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,788

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Wow, again you cannot admit that you are wrong, Reagan cut FEDERAL INCOME TAXES 3 years in a row and there was NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX increase at any time during the Reagan term. Not sure where you get your information but I can guess. You simply are wrong. Please educate yourself on what taxes you pay and what those taxes fund. Big govt. liberals always ignore the various taxes and believe in the unified budget where all tax dollars go into a big pot.
    I get my information from the fact that I do taxes for a living and I follow Federal income tax developments, and have read dozens of academic papers on tax levels. I have no idea what data you're using but it's just not accurate. Which three years in a row did Reagan cut taxes?

    Typical liberal argument from someone who buys the big govt. theory. The reality is we had 17 million jobs created, 60% increase in FIT revenue, and a doubling of the GDP after the tax cuts. You choose to believe that the tax cuts didn't do that but cannot prove it which is more proof that you have no idea as to the components of GDP and that they contribute.
    If you think that taxes are the only thing that matter to economic growth, we really can't have a debate.

    - Reagan CUT taxes, and the economy boomed.
    - Clinton RAISED taxes and the economy boomed.

    So I guess taxes only matter when they're cut, but when taxes increase and the economy booms, it's GOP policies other than taxes that caused those job gains?

    By the way, please show me the BLS data that shows Clinton created 22 million jobs? I anxiously await your answer
    Now you're just nit picking. Here's an annual table Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population, 1943 to date

    According to this, average annual jobs were as follows:

    1981 - 100,397
    1988 - 114,968
    New jobs - 14,571

    1993 - 120,259
    2000 - 136,891
    New jobs 16,632

    According to Forbes, Reagan created 16.1 million and Clinton 22.7 million. Neither source supports your 17 million number. I don't care to spend the time to reconcile the different figures, but if you want to do so knock yourself out.

    The actual number isn't the relevant point. By any measure job creation during the Clinton years was equivalent to or exceeded job creation during the Reagan years. What's also true is taxes during the Clinton era INCREASED. So if you want to attribute the jobs gained during the Reagan years to tax cuts, you have to explain why MORE jobs were created in the Clinton years with far HIGHER tax burdens and rates. You can't do that, because it's not actually a question with an answer other than, "Lots of stuff, including taxes, affects jobs and it's impossible to untangle all those factors. All anyone can do is make educated guesses."

    That ought to go into the fiction category because that is what it will be. Obviously you weren't around during the Reagan years and have no idea what happened but buy what you are told. The reality is a different issue and led to the greatest landslide electoral victory in history in 1984
    Like I said, another thread.

  10. #1290
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    JasperL;1063490603]I get my information from the fact that I do taxes for a living and I follow Federal income tax developments, and have read dozens of academic papers on tax levels. I have no idea what data you're using but it's just not accurate. Which three years in a row did Reagan cut taxes?
    Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    If you think that taxes are the only thing that matter to economic growth, we really can't have a debate.

    - Reagan CUT taxes, and the economy boomed.
    - Clinton RAISED taxes and the economy boomed.
    Clinton took over an economy that had 4+% economic growth the last quarter of 1992 and his tax increase gave us a GOP Congress which eliminated many of those taxes and led to the implementation of the Tax Cut of 1997 Which conveniently you forgot probably because you were too young and not doing taxes for a living. Clinton signed much of the Contract with America and the economic boom we had we in conjunction with working with a Republican Congress and implementing lower taxes on businesses to promote growth.

    S
    o I guess taxes only matter when they're cut, but when taxes increase and the economy booms, it's GOP policies other than taxes that caused those job gains?
    Putting money into the hands of the American taxpayers is never a bad idea. Your marriage to the Democrat rhetoric is quite interesting yet misguided. It is the American taxpayers that will stimulate and grow the U.S. economy, not the American govt.


    Now you're just nit picking. Here's an annual table Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population, 1943 to date

    According to this, average annual jobs were as follows:

    1981 - 100,397
    1988 - 114,968
    New jobs - 14,571

    1993 - 120,259
    2000 - 136,891
    New jobs 16,632

    According to Forbes, Reagan created 16.1 million and Clinton 22.7 million. Neither source supports your 17 million number. I don't care to spend the time to reconcile the different figures, but if you want to do so knock yourself out.

    The actual number isn't the relevant point. By any measure job creation during the Clinton years was equivalent to or exceeded job creation during the Reagan years. What's also true is taxes during the Clinton era INCREASED. So if you want to attribute the jobs gained during the Reagan years to tax cuts, you have to explain why MORE jobs were created in the Clinton years with far HIGHER tax burdens and rates. You can't do that, because it's not actually a question with an answer other than, "Lots of stuff, including taxes, affects jobs and it's impossible to untangle all those factors. All anyone can do is make educated guesses."
    OF course the number is relevant, you lied about the 22 million jobs and it isn't relevant to you because it is an exaggeration. It is also ignored that Clinton didn't inherit a recession, Reagan did, a worse recession than the 2007-09 recession because that recession was compounded by high inflation and a high misery index

    Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
    Original Data Value

    Series Id: LNS12000000
    Seasonally Adjusted
    Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
    Labor force status: Employed
    Type of data: Number in thousands
    Age: 16 years and over
    Years: 1980 to 2014

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
    1980 99879 99995 99713 99233 98945 98682 98796 98824 99077 99317 99545 99634
    1981 99955 100191 100571 101056 101048 100298 100693 100689 100064 100378 100207 99645
    1982 99692 99762 99672 99576 100116 99543 99493 99633 99504 99215 99112 99032
    1983 99161 99089 99179 99560 99642 100633 101208 101608 102016 102039 102729 102996
    1984 103201 103824 103967 104336 105193 105591 105435 105163 105490 105638 105972 106223
    1985 106302 106555 106989 106936 106932 106505 106807 107095 107657 107847 108007 108216
    1986 108887 108480 108837 108952 109089 109576 109810 110015 110085 110273 110475 110728
    1987 110953 111257 111408 111794 112434 112246 112634 113057 112909 113282 113505 113793
    1988 114016 114227 114037 114650 114292 114927 115060 115282 115356 115638 116100 116104
    1989 116708 116776 117022 117097 117099 117418 117472 117655 117354 117581 117912 117830
    1990 119081 119059 119203 118852 119151 118983 118810 118802 118524 118536 118306 118241
    1991 117940 117755 117652 118109 117440 117639 117568 117484 117928 117800 117770 117466
    1992 117978 117753 118144 118426 118375 118419 118713 118826 118720 118628 118876 118997
    1993 119075 119275 119542 119474 120115 120290 120467 120856 120554 120823 121169 121464
    1994 121966 122086 121930 122290 122864 122634 122706 123342 123687 124112 124516 124721
    1995 124663 124928 124955 124945 124421 124522 124816 124852 125133 125388 125188 125088
    1996 125125 125639 125862 125994 126244 126602 126947 127172 127536 127890 127771 127860
    1997 128298 128298 128891 129143 129464 129412 129822 130010 130019 130179 130653 130679
    1998 130726 130807 130814 131209 131325 131244 131329 131390 131986 131999 132280 132602
    1999 133027 132856 132947 132955 133311 133378 133414 133591 133707 133993 134309 134523
    2000 136559 136598 136701 137270 136630 136940 136531 136662 136893 137088 137322 137614
    2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047

Posting Permissions

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