Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

pbrauer · Dec 1, 2011

Conservative said:
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?

Catawba · Dec 1, 2011

Conservative said:
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!

Conservative · Dec 1, 2011

pbrauer said:
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.

Conservative · Dec 1, 2011

Catawba said:
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.

Jetboogieman · Dec 1, 2011

Conservative said:
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?

Conservative · Dec 1, 2011

Jetboogieman said:
What exactly has Obama micro-managed?

You're kidding, right? Obamacare, extended unemployment benefits, EPA, OSHA, and NLRB requirements and regulations? All add costs to business

mertex · Dec 1, 2011

Conservative said:
Obama's record, deal with it and stop running from it

25 million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011(bls.gov)154.1 X 16.2% Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Quit avoiding the fact that Bush was responsible for most of this.

14.8 million unemployed PLUS Discouraged workers Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Unemployment was spiraling faster under Bush, Obama kept it from going into depression mode. I know you will never admit that.

2.2 million fewer jobs(bls.gov) Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics ln : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Obama is trying to get a Jobs Act Bill passed to create millions of jobs. Republicans are sitting on their butts not caring about the unemployed, instead hell-bent on sticking it to seniors and the poor.

4.4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years(U.S. Treasury Site) Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Bush is responsible for most of the debt that is being credited to Obama. Where is your outrage on that? You keep ignoring facts and keep posting your pseudo facts.

Down grade of U.S. Credit rating(S&P)

Thanks to the ignorant Republican Congressmen who thought it was a good idea to hold it hostage to get their precious tax cuts for the rich preserved.

Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.53 The United States Misery Index By Year

While Democrats and Obama are trying to do what they can to help, the Republicans, in lock step vote no. They are the ones that will be held accountable in 2012.

38-44% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings(Gallup)
Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval

Have you seen Congress' job approval. It is lower than Obama's, thanks to Republicans.
Congressional Job Approval

Polling Data


RCP Average	11/3 - 11/15	12.3	81.7	-69.4
FOX News	11/13 - 11/15	12	80	-68
Politico/GWU/Battleground	11/6 - 11/9	12	83	-71
Gallup	11/3 - 11/6	13	82	-69

US Poverty Hits Record High: 1 in 6 Americans Living Below Poverty Line | Economy Watch
Report: Poverty hits record level - MJ Lee - POLITICO.com

And the Republicans want to stick it to them even more. They want to end food stamps. Your #1 candidate makes ignorant statements such as people on food stamps are using them to pay for trips to Hawaii. How insane is that? And, conservatives are giving 50% support to Gingrich! Amazing.

“Fast and Furious”, “Wide Receiver”

Solyndra, Fisker, and Crony Capitalism Jobs Panel Member Whose Solar Firm Won Loan Guarantees Raises 'Conflict Of Interest' Concerns | Fox News

Solyndra solar power company shuts down 15 months after Obama visit
Solyndra solar power company shuts down 15 months after Obama visit

When you compare what was wasted on Solyndra to what was wasted on Iraq and Afghanistan and you show some outrage, then come talk to me, otherwise, you are just being disingenuous.

The Tonopah Solar company in Harry Reid's Nevada is getting a $737 million loan from Obama's DOE.
The project will produce a 110 megawatt power system and employ 45 permanent workers.
That's costing us just $16 million per job.

The fact that Republicans are willing to let the payroll tax on the middleclass expire is costing us millions of jobs and millions in money that could help the economy.

One of the investment partners in this endeavor is Pacific Corporate Group (PCG).
The PCG executive director is Ron Pelosi who is the brother of Nancy's husband.
But there is nothing wrong here, is there?

Was there nothing wrong here?

Halliburton, the Texas company which has been awarded the Pentagon's contract to put out potential oil-field fires in Iraq and which is bidding for postwar construction contracts, is still making annual payments to its former chief executive, the vice-president Dick Cheney.The payments, which appear on Mr Cheney's 2001 financial disclosure statement, are in the form of "deferred compensation" of up to $1m (£600,000) a year.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/12/usa.iraq5

U.S. Bridges, Roads Being Built by Chinese Firms | Video - ABC News
U.S. Bridges, Roads Being Built by Chinese Firms | Video - ABC News

Bush Record on Outsourcing Jobs

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/jobs/upload/bushrecord_jobsoverseas.pdf

Stimulus failure

Review & Outlook:Why the Stimulus Failed - WSJ.com

Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs
Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs - USATODAY.com

Conservative · Dec 1, 2011

mertex said:
Quit avoiding the fact that Bush was responsible for most of this.

Unemployment was spiraling faster under Bush, Obama kept it from going into depression mode. I know you will never admit that.

Obama is trying to get a Jobs Act Bill passed to create millions of jobs. Republicans are sitting on their butts not caring about the unemployed, instead hell-bent on sticking it to seniors and the poor.

Bush is responsible for most of the debt that is being credited to Obama. Where is your outrage on that? You keep ignoring facts and keep posting your pseudo facts.

Thanks to the ignorant Republican Congressmen who thought it was a good idea to hold it hostage to get their precious tax cuts for the rich preserved.

While Democrats and Obama are trying to do what they can to help, the Republicans, in lock step vote no. They are the ones that will be held accountable in 2012.

Have you seen Congress' job approval. It is lower than Obama's, thanks to Republicans.
Congressional Job Approval

Polling Data

RCP Average 11/3 - 11/15 12.3 81.7 -69.4
FOX News 11/13 - 11/15 12 80 -68
Politico/GWU/Battleground 11/6 - 11/9 12 83 -71
Gallup 11/3 - 11/6 13 82 -69

And the Republicans want to stick it to them even more. They want to end food stamps. Your #1 candidate makes ignorant statements such as people on food stamps are using them to pay for trips to Hawaii. How insane is that? And, conservatives are giving 50% support to Gingrich! Amazing.

When you compare what was wasted on Solyndra to what was wasted on Iraq and Afghanistan and you show some outrage, then come talk to me, otherwise, you are just being disingenuous.

The fact that Republicans are willing to let the payroll tax on the middleclass expire is costing us millions of jobs and millions in money that could help the economy.

Was there nothing wrong here?

Halliburton, the Texas company which has been awarded the Pentagon's contract to put out potential oil-field fires in Iraq and which is bidding for postwar construction contracts, is still making annual payments to its former chief executive, the vice-president Dick Cheney.The payments, which appear on Mr Cheney's 2001 financial disclosure statement, are in the form of "deferred compensation" of up to $1m (£600,000) a year.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/12/usa.iraq5

Bush Record on Outsourcing Jobs

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/jobs/upload/bushrecord_jobsoverseas.pdf

Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs
Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs - USATODAY.com

Sorry, but you don't have a clue, It was the Democrat budget passed in 2009 and implemented by Obama. It was the Democrats in control of the legislative process in 2007 and 2008 which liberals like you ignore. Unemployment numbers are monthly not cumulative so the 25 million is October 2011 so how did Bush affect those results? You really want to cut payroll taxes? Do you know what payroll taxes fund. Think about it.

The results are what they are, deal with it

mertex · Dec 1, 2011

Conservative said:
Wow, the love affair for a President that has a net job loss, added 4.4 trillion to the debt, has a rising misery index, delegates responsibility, spends most of his time fund raising, vacationing, and playing golf, meager economic growth, failed stimulus, 43% approval rating. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?

You should ask yourself the same question. After seeing Bush put the country in the toilet, after seeing Republicans in Congress tell the country to go eat cake and held the debt ceiling hostage, caused our credit rating to be downgraded, and now they are hell bent on letting the payroll tax cut on the middle class expire while protecting the tax cuts for the wealthy, suggesting that we should end food stamps and cut medicare and medicaid - what makes you loyal to that party? Are you one of the billionaires? That would certainly explain it, otherwise, it's much like a chicken rooting for Col Sanders.

Conservative · Dec 1, 2011

mertex said:
You should ask yourself the same question. After seeing Bush put the country in the toilet, after seeing Republicans in Congress tell the country to go eat cake and held the debt ceiling hostage, caused our credit rating to be downgraded, and now they are hell bent on letting the payroll tax cut on the middle class expire while protecting the tax cuts for the wealthy, suggesting that we should end food stamps and cut medicare and medicaid - what makes you loyal to that party? Are you one of the billionaires? That would certainly explain it, otherwise, it's much like a chicken rooting for Col Sanders.

You have to get over your Bush Derangement Syndrome and realize that the results shown are current and Bush had nothing to do with them. How long are you going to give this empty suit a pass.

Again, I am waiting for you to explain why you want to support cuts in SS and Medicare since that is what is funded by payroll taxes, something you probably did not even know. I don't get what motivates you because you simply don't have a clue about facts and reality.

mertex · Dec 1, 2011

Conservative said:
Sorry, but you don't have a clue,

Says one that keeps posting the same photoshopped facts.

It was the Democrat budget passed in 2009 and implemented by Obama. It was the Democrats in control of the legislative process in 2007 and 2008 which liberals like you ignore. Unemployment numbers are monthly not cumulative so the 25 million is October 2011 so how did Bush affect those results? You really want to cut payroll taxes? Do you know what payroll taxes fund. Think about it.

The results are what they are, deal with it

I know you are not that naive, maybe just disingenuous. Did Obama have to account for Bush's war in Iraq in his budget? Okay, you figure it out, and quit posting your delusional figures, they are not the facts.

Conservative · Dec 1, 2011

mertex said:
Says one that keeps posting the same photoshopped facts.

I know you are not that naive, maybe just disingenuous. Did Obama have to account for Bush's war in Iraq in his budget? Okay, you figure it out, and quit posting your delusional figures, they are not the facts.

Nothing photo shopped in my data but noticed you haven't refuted one of the numbers posted which are referenced. I know how data confuses you therefore not surprising

The War in Iraq was won by Bush and Obama implemented the Bush Iraq policy and kept the Bush Defense Secretary and Petreaus. Looks to me like you qualify as an Obama supporter. Facts just get in the way of your feelings and the Obama rhetoric.

mertex · Dec 1, 2011

Conservative said:
You have to get over your Bush Derangement Syndrome and realize that the results shown are current and Bush had nothing to do with them. How long are you going to give this empty suit a pass.

Again, I am waiting for you to explain why you want to support cuts in SS and Medicare since that is what is funded by payroll taxes, something you probably did not even know. I don't get what motivates you because you simply don't have a clue about facts and reality.

Says one that has Obama derangement syndrome. How long are you going to keep supporting Republicans that are ruining the country?

Why should I care that Medicare will cost those making over $750k more? Is Boehner lying that it will help the economy? Then why don't the rest want to help the economy? Why would you want to cut federal jobs - and add to the unemployment? So you can keep blaming Obama for job losses?

Republicans oppose any kind of tax increase and have offered a Senate alternative that would freeze discretionary government spending and cut federal jobs, while also raising Medicare costs for Americans with incomes above $750,000 a year.
"I don't think there's any question that the payroll tax relief, in fact, helps the economy," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters Thursday. His stance represented a sharp shift from previous opposition by Senate Republicans to extending the payroll tax cut.
Republican leaders shifting stance on payroll tax cut - CNN.com

Conservative · Dec 1, 2011

mertex said:
Says one that has Obama derangement syndrome. How long are you going to keep supporting Republicans that are ruining the country?

Why should I care that Medicare will cost those making over $750k more? Is Boehner lying that it will help the economy? Then why don't the rest want to help the economy? Why would you want to cut federal jobs - and add to the unemployment? So you can keep blaming Obama for job losses?

Republicans oppose any kind of tax increase and have offered a Senate alternative that would freeze discretionary government spending and cut federal jobs, while also raising Medicare costs for Americans with incomes above $750,000 a year.
"I don't think there's any question that the payroll tax relief, in fact, helps the economy," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters Thursday. His stance represented a sharp shift from previous opposition by Senate Republicans to extending the payroll tax cut.
Republican leaders shifting stance on payroll tax cut - CNN.com

Republicans haven't been in charge of Congress since January 2007 so not sure where you get that information. Again, why are your supporting a cut in SS and Medicare? Why do you think it is someone else's responsibility to pay for your SS and Medicare? isn't that why you "contributed" to SS and Medicare?

As for tax increases, why? What is it about you keeping more of your own money that you have a problem with? Absolutely amazing that you and other liberals always care about revenue going to the govt. and never how that money is spent. The liberal elites keep their power because of people like you as you buy their bs.

mertex · Dec 1, 2011

Conservative said:
Nothing photo shopped in my data but noticed you haven't refuted one of the numbers posted which are referenced. I know how data confuses you therefore not surprising

The War in Iraq was won by Bush and Obama implemented the Bush Iraq policy and kept the Bush Defense Secretary and Petreaus. Looks to me like you qualify as an Obama supporter. Facts just get in the way of your feelings and the Obama rhetoric.

Data doesn't confuse me. I'm just not going to bother to get you the facts/links to the real data because I have noticed you don't pay attention to it, but insist that your made up data is correct. The war in Iraq has not been won, there are still terrorists out there, and Iraq doesn't have a democracy to speak of, and were it not for Obama, Osama Bin Laden would have gotten away with 3000+ murders while your hero Bush, yawned when asked if he was going after him.

Seems to me that Republicans can put the screws to the country, but you in your euphoric state, probably because you are not unemployed, didn't lose your home to foreclosure and are not suffering financially, not to mention, the fact that you don't care about those who did, will continue to sing their praises. Go figure.

winston53660 · Dec 1, 2011

Conservative said:
You have to get over your Bush Derangement Syndrome and realize that the results shown are current and Bush had nothing to do with them. How long are you going to give this empty suit a pass.

Again, I am waiting for you to explain why you want to support cuts in SS and Medicare since that is what is funded by payroll taxes, something you probably did not even know. I don't get what motivates you because you simply don't have a clue about facts and reality.

So people keeping more of their money is no longer of concern to you?

Conservative · Dec 1, 2011

mertex said:
Data doesn't confuse me. I'm just not going to bother to get you the facts/links to the real data because I have noticed you don't pay attention to it, but insist that your made up data is correct. The war in Iraq has not been won, there are still terrorists out there, and Iraq doesn't have a democracy to speak of, and were it not for Obama, Osama Bin Laden would have gotten away with 3000+ murders while your hero Bush, yawned when asked if he was going after him.

Seems to me that Republicans can put the screws to the country, but you in your euphoric state, probably because you are not unemployed, didn't lose your home to foreclosure and are not suffering financially, not to mention, the fact that you don't care about those who did, will continue to sing their praises. Go figure.

Made up data? You think BLS, BEA, and the U.S. Treasury makes up data? you cannot prove the data wrong and you know it.

Your inability to hold "your" President accountable for results speaks volumes. Obviously you have never led anything and don't have a clue as to what leadership entails. Obama has demonized the producers and wealth creators while appealing to the ignorant, the unions, and the minorities. That doesn't bode well to the future of the country.

You are right, I held a job for 35 years because I produced and I didn't lose my home in a foreclosure because I never spent more than I could afford. I am not suffering financially because I have always been accountable for what I spent. Never did I expect you or anyone else to bail me out if I made any mistakes. You see, I understand consequences for poor choices as I learned that growing up. Why didn't you?

I don't think it is the Federal Tax Payers responsibility to help those in the local community that are in need. That is for the state, local communities, and charities. Where did you learn that was the role of the Federal government. You believe that you cannot help someone locally better than a politician in D.C?

Conservative · Dec 1, 2011

winston53660 said:
So people keeping more of their money is no longer of concern to you?

Never has been a concern of mine, what i s a concern of mine is taking money from the SS fund that is trillions in debt. Allow people to keep more of their income taxes. Why do you want to cut revenue to a fund that is already in debt?

winston53660 · Dec 1, 2011

Conservative said:
Never has been a concern of mine, what i s a concern of mine is taking money from the SS fund that is trillions in debt. Allow people to keep more of their income taxes. Why do you want to cut revenue to a fund that is already in debt?

I guess the wind changed directions:lamo

You mean the increase in economic activity from tax cuts won't cover the difference?

Conservative · Dec 1, 2011

winston53660 said:
I guess the wind changed directions:lamo

You mean the increase in economic activity from tax cuts won't cover the difference?

Why would it cover SS and Medicare payments since those are contributory expenses? You seem to be confused about SS and Medicare funding, not surprising

mertex · Dec 1, 2011

Conservative said:
Republicans haven't been in charge of Congress since January 2007 so not sure where you get that information. Again, why are your supporting a cut in SS and Medicare? Why do you think it is someone else's responsibility to pay for your SS and Medicare? isn't that why you "contributed" to SS and Medicare?

As for tax increases, why? What is it about you keeping more of your own money that you have a problem with? Absolutely amazing that you and other liberals always care about revenue going to the govt. and never how that money is spent. The liberal elites keep their power because of people like you as you buy their bs.

The country could have fared a lot better had it not been since 2010, when the Republicans took the house and made it impossible for most bills that would help the economy, the country and the unemployed, so, I get my information from real life.

And I am not supporting a cut in SS and Medicare. I'm supporting an end to the Bush Tax cuts. Why are you supporting the end of the payroll tax cut that will put $1k in middle-class people's bank and boost the economy? There's other ways to pay for things other than the Republican's way, which always includes protecting the wealthy's tax cuts. Even some Republicans are beginning to give a little on that issue, so what are you going to do if they do? Come up with another spin?

Democrats plan to propose paying for the extension with a surtax on millionaires, which Republicans oppose
Payroll Tax Cut Big Question Mark as Congress Returns | FDL News Desk

winston53660 · Dec 1, 2011

Conservative said:
Why would it cover SS and Medicare payments since those are contributory expenses? You seem to be confused about SS and Medicare funding, not surprising

So now tax cuts don't pay for theme selves, correct?

Conservative · Dec 1, 2011

mertex said:
The country could have fared a lot better had it not been since 2010, when the Republicans took the house and made it impossible for most bills that would help the economy, the country and the unemployed, so, I get my information from real life.

And I am not supporting a cut in SS and Medicare. I'm supporting an end to the Bush Tax cuts. Why are you supporting the end of the payroll tax cut that will put $1k in middle-class people's bank and boost the economy? There's other ways to pay for things other than the Republican's way, which always includes protecting the wealthy's tax cuts. Even some Republicans are beginning to give a little on that issue, so what are you going to do if they do? Come up with another spin?

Democrats plan to propose paying for the extension with a surtax on millionaires, which Republicans oppose
Payroll Tax Cut Big Question Mark as Congress Returns | FDL News Desk

How do you explain the poor results from 2009-2010? Did Obama just take office in 2011 when the Republicans took the House? Where was the 2010 and 2011 budgets that the Democrat Congress was supposed to pass but didn't? I don't think you get your information from real life but instead from leftwing sites, BEA, BLS, and Treasury aren't leftwing sites

You didn't say you were for ending the Bush tax cuts. Obama extended them in the lame duck Congress when Democrats were in charge. The payroll tax cuts cut funding for SS and Medicare. Where is that money going to come from when you retire? Why would you proposing cutting funding for a program that is already trillions in debt? We have had a payroll tax cut the last year and economic growth is less than 2% and we 2 million more unemployed than when the payroll taxes were higher so where is the economic benefit?

The Democrats are continuing to promote class warfare and people like you buy the rhetoric without thinking. How do you put 25 million unemployed/under employed Americans back to work full time by raising taxes on anyone? How much revenue is going to come from a tax increase on those evil rich people and what effect will that have on the people they employ? That isn't going to pass and Democrats are not going to win the class warfare battle. people get it as evidenced by the 2010 and 2011 elections.

Conservative · Dec 1, 2011

winston53660 said:
So now tax cuts don't pay for theme selves, correct?

What funds SS and Medicare? What effect does economic growth have on SS and Medicare funding? Do corporate and individual income taxes go towards SS and Medicare?

Catawba · Dec 1, 2011

Conservative said:
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.

Per usual you provide zero documentation to refute the facts, but then no one was expecting you to do that anyway so you have not disappointed.

Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

pbrauer

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Conservative

Conservative

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon

Conservative

mertex

Don't Mess With Texas

Conservative

mertex

Don't Mess With Texas

Conservative

mertex

Don't Mess With Texas

Conservative

mertex

Don't Mess With Texas

Conservative

mertex

Don't Mess With Texas

winston53660

Conservative

Conservative

winston53660

Conservative

mertex

Don't Mess With Texas

winston53660

Conservative

Conservative

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist