Page 58 of 58 FirstFirst ... 848565758
Results 571 to 573 of 573

Thread: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

  1. #571
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Sure, there is "voter fraud" but what some of have been saying is the 'solutions' to 'voter fraud' (mainly photo ID) wouldn't address even one of those charges. They were isolated incidents of corrupt people, entirely as far as I can tell initiated by elected or appointed officials, doing corrupt things. That will never go away. What the right wing does is conflate them all together into one big basket of "voter fraud" then propose a solution that at best attacks the tiniest sliver of cases, but justified by any kind of election irregularity or crime. That segment was a perfect example of that.
    Actually you don't know that there is a 'tiny sliver of cases'. We only know about the times people were caught, and ofcourse any challenger will not have the cooporation of the winners.

    Surely a country as technologically advanced as the United States can come up with a better system than what there is now. Even the Iraqis, with no previous experience in elections, came up with a better idea than what's happening in the US today.

    Perhaps purple ink on the index finger is the answer.

  2. #572
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,127

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    The point of the Wiki argument was to prove to you that Tax cuts were not fully implemented until July 2003, not 2001 and that is reality. The rest of the Wiki article is simply speculation and projections. CBO has never been accurate and uses Congressional information to make their projections. No one can prove that the economic activity would have been the same without the tax cuts yet that is what you and others do. Please tell me how tax cuts that grew revenue 40% after the tax cuts could have added 1.6 trillion to the debt. What data are they using??

    Please stop with the BS and send your extra money back to the govt. not selling here at all



    You don't seem to have any idea how accurate CBO is in their projections and where they get their assumptions. Find out and get back to me.
    You introduced the wiki article as competent, evidential matter. It either is or it isn't. Once introduced, every thing else in that document is fair game in debate and evidence for whatever position in supports. It just so happens to substantially supports the assertions I was making: the Bush Tax cuts cost the federal coffers between $1.2 and $1.8T in revenue over 10 years. The Wiki article has numerous cites and links to this.... including, of course, the Heritage Foundation, which forecast that. If this had been a real debate, that move would have cost you the verdict.

    While the Bush tax cuts were not FULLY implemented until 2003, they were SUBSTANTIALLY implemented in 2001, including the lowering of the lowest rate (which everyone pays) from 15 to 10%; implementation of tax rebates for everyone; beginning of a step down in all rates and expansion of the child tax credit. The 2001 tax cut had substantial impact on the coffers, as evidenced by the fact that income tax revenues fell by 20% from 2000 to 2003.

    BTW.... I have no idea where you come up with this 40% number.... Individual income tax numbers fell just under 20% from $1.0B to $800M in 2003. They then returned to pre-tax cut levels 6 years later in 2006 and then climbed to $1.15B in 2007. In essence, these taxes went up 15% in 7 years..... Meanwhile, GDP grew (each and every year, BTW) from $9.8T to $13.8T, nearly 40%. The chart below shows that tax revenues fell even when GDP rose. Why? Tax cuts....

    Bush Tax Cuts.jpg


    Again, I have produced a ton of evidence supporting my position, you have produced nothing (although you have entered some facts that you lack command in the understand of).... again, you continue to say the tax cuts grew revenue, but ALL of the evidence that far states they had NOTHING to do with revenue growth. Again, there is NO evidence that the Bush tax cuts did anything (except cost the government money). Feel free to produce some evidence (other than the same old tired impressions.... impressions are often wrong and almost always partially wrong)

    You are fundamentally arguing your impressions against overwhelming facts, studies and expert opinions that refute your impressions, yet you refuse to consider or learn. Call us when you can back up your statements.
    Last edited by upsideguy; 11-02-14 at 12:25 PM.

  3. #573
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

    upsideguy;1063936096]You introduced the wiki article as competent, evidential matter. It either is or it isn't. Once introduced, every thing else in that document is fair game in debate and evidence for whatever position in supports. It just so happens to substantially supports the assertions I was making: the Bush Tax cuts cost the federal coffers between $1.2 and $1.8T in revenue over 10 years. The Wiki article has numerous cites and links to this.... including, of course, the Heritage Foundation, which forecast that. If this had been a real debate, that move would have cost you the verdict.

    The purpose of posting the Wiki article was to give you the dates of the Bush tax cuts. You made the claim that they were in 2001 and that was part of them but not the complete package. That is the issue thus tax revenue did not fall as you indicated for 6 years following full implementation of the Bush tax cuts.

    Your position posts op ed pieces. I gave you the Treasury data and even your chart shows tax revenue going up from 2004-2007. Do you even know how to read the numbers? Do you realize that Bush inherited a recession in March 2001 or do you blame Bush for that recession without even having an economic plan implemented?

    I am waiting for you to provide the actual data and how it was calculated to show that the Bush tax cuts cost the Govt. money? You cannot take the economic activity that occurred after the tax cuts and assume they would have happened without those tax cuts but that is what liberals do, project when it suits you and ignore it when it doesn't.

    Overwhelming studies never offer the data used to calculate the projections, why is that?
    While the Bush tax cuts were not FULLY implemented until 2003, they were SUBSTANTIALLY implemented in 2001, including the lowering of the lowest rate (which everyone pays) from 15 to 10%; implementation of tax rebates for everyone; beginning of a step down in all rates and expansion of the child tax credit. The 2001 tax cut had substantial impact on the coffers, as evidenced by the fact that income tax revenues fell by 20% from 2000 to 2003.

    BTW.... I have no idea where you come up with this 40% number.... Individual income tax numbers fell just under 20% from $1.0B to $800M in 2003. They then returned to pre-tax cut levels 6 years later in 2006 and then climbed to $1.15B in 2007. In essence, these taxes went up 15% in 7 years..... Meanwhile, GDP grew (each and every year, BTW) from $9.8T to $13.8T, nearly 40%. The chart below shows that tax revenues fell even when GDP rose. Why? Tax cuts....

    Bush Tax Cuts.jpg


    Again, I have produced a ton of evidence supporting my position, you have produced nothing (although you have entered some facts that you lack command in the understand of).... again, you continue to say the tax cuts grew revenue, but ALL of the evidence that far states they had NOTHING to do with revenue growth. Again, there is NO evidence that the Bush tax cuts did anything (except cost the government money). Feel free to produce some evidence (other than the same old tired impressions.... impressions are often wrong and almost always partially wrong)

    You are fundamentally arguing your impressions against overwhelming facts, studies and expert opinions that refute your impressions, yet you refuse to consider or learn. Call us when you can back up your statements.
    The purpose of posting the Wiki article was to give you the dates of the Bush tax cuts. You made the claim that they were in 2001 and that was part of them but not the complete package. That is the issue thus tax revenue did not fall as you indicated for 6 years following full implementation of the Bush tax cuts.

    Your position posts op ed pieces. I gave you the Treasury data and even your chart shows tax revenue going up from 2004-2007. Do you even know how to read the numbers? Do you realize that Bush inherited a recession in March 2001 or do you blame Bush for that recession without even having an economic plan implemented?

    I am waiting for you to provide the actual data and how it was calculated to show that the Bush tax cuts cost the Govt. money? You cannot take the economic activity that occurred after the tax cuts and assume they would have happened without those tax cuts but that is what liberals do, project when it suits you and ignore it when it doesn't.

    Overwhelming studies never offer the data used to calculate the projections, why is that?

Page 58 of 58 FirstFirst ... 848565758

Posting Permissions

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