They did it on purpose

rocket88 · Nov 22, 2011

apdst said:
I don't think putting off the decision for a whole years showed much leadership.

So did you think they were going to re-route it on the fly or something?

It's going to take that long to figure out a different route, which is what the Republican Governor of Nebraska wants.

whysoserious · Nov 22, 2011

Karl said:
More brain dead supply side talking points :roll:

I got $20 that says I could argue the pros of supply-side economics better than apdst.

Karl · Nov 22, 2011

coolwalker said:
Why not balance the effin' budget and lower taxes...lower taxes means we spend more money and people get more jobs when the economy is running smoothly... [...] Again, common sense!

Reagan cut taxes and the deficit shot up (he nearly tripled the total public debt).

Bush II cut taxes and the deficit shot up (he doubled the total public debt).

And you're talking about common sense? :lamo

apdst · Nov 22, 2011

rocket88 said:
So did you think they were going to re-route it on the fly or something?

It's going to take that long to figure out a different route, which is what the Republican Governor of Nebraska wants.

They're not even going to talk about it for another year.

The move is the latest in a series of administration decisions pushing back thorny environmental matters beyond next November’s presidential election to try to avoid the heat from opposing interests — business lobbies or environmental and health advocates — and to find a political middle ground. President Obama delayed a review of the nation’s smog standard until 2013, pushed back offshore oil lease sales in the Arctic until at least 2015 and blocked new regulations for coal ash from power plants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/u...delay-pipeline-decision-past-12-election.html

Hundreds of billion in tax revenue, just sitting on Obama's desk.

Karl · Nov 22, 2011

friday said:
By the way, Republicans offered $640 billion in spending cuts that Democrats and Republicans both liked as a start in negotiations and Democrats ignored it because it didn't include tax hikes. I challenge anyone to present me with evidence, aside from Harry Reid's seance over Kennedy's grave, that Democrats wanted anything but failure for this committee.

I challenge you to present evidence proving your claim in bold.

November 11, 2011: Democrats agree to Republicans’ top lines including just $400 billion in revenues and $875 billion in spending cuts, but refuse to accept the GOP’s tax cut for the rich. Republicans reject it and make their final offer: $640 billion in spending cuts and $3 billion in revenues.

Republicans Won?t Compromise on Taxes: A Timeline

apdst · Nov 22, 2011

Karl said:
Reagan cut taxes and the deficit shot up (he nearly tripled the total public debt).

Bush II cut taxes and the deficit shot up (he doubled the total public debt).

And you're talking about common sense? :lamo

It shot up because of spending, not because of tax cuts. Tax cuts have nothing to do with deficit spending.

whysoserious · Nov 22, 2011

apdst said:
It shot up because of spending, not because of tax cuts. Tax cuts have nothing to do with deficit spending.

Revenue - expenses = income/loss

Care to explain your lack of logic?

Karl · Nov 22, 2011

apdst said:
[...] Hundreds of billion in tax revenue, just sitting on Obama's desk.

Your arguments would carry more weight if they were actually true :lamo

TransCanada said that it would work with the State Department to find a new route, but warned that delay could kill the project, and with it tens of thousands of construction and related jobs and billions of dollars in tax revenues.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/u...-pipeline-decision-past-12-election.html?_r=1

Thunder · Nov 22, 2011

apdst said:
It shot up because of spending, not because of tax cuts. Tax cuts have nothing to do with deficit spending.

I have actually looked into this, by examining Federal revenue vs. expenditures from 1992-2008.

Its a big mess, hard to understand. But clearly, the Bush tax-cuts had a negative-effect on Federal revenue.

How much? Your guess is as good as mine.

apdst · Nov 22, 2011

whysoserious said:
Revenue - expenses = income/loss

Care to explain your lack of logic?

Where did you dream that silly equation up?

You might oughta hold on to that 20 bucks. :lamo

Karl · Nov 22, 2011

apdst said:
[...] Tax cuts have nothing to do with deficit spending.

Karl · Nov 22, 2011

apdst said:
We also realize that the party that serves the poor only benefits from creating more poor people to serve, so those new poor people can now vote for them. [...]

More brain dead right wing talking points. Is Fox 'News' available as an IV drip?

apdst · Nov 22, 2011

Thunder said:
I have actually looked into this, by examining Federal revenue vs. expenditures from 1992-2008.

Its a big mess, hard to understand. But clearly, the Bush tax-cuts had a negative-effect on Federal revenue.

How much? Your guess is as good as mine.

I guess that's why the IRS received record revenues.

Revenue collections hit record high in April - Business - Personal finance - Tax Tactics - msnbc.com

apdst · Nov 22, 2011

Karl said:
More brain dead right wing talking points. Is Fox 'News' available as an IV drip?

Do you have anything to offer, besides personal attacks?

apdst · Nov 22, 2011

Karl said:
Your arguments would carry more weight if they were actually true :lamo

Still more. Right? :rofl

Thunder · Nov 22, 2011

apdst said:
I guess that's why the IRS received record revenues.

Revenue collections hit record high in April - Business - Personal finance - Tax Tactics - msnbc.com

Government spending also at an all-time high

guess you forgot to read the next sentence, huh?

oh, and btw, how was revenue in 2002? 2003? 2004? 2005? 2006?

look at those numbers, and you will get sick to your stomach.

apdst · Nov 22, 2011

Thunder said:
Government spending also at an all-time high

guess you forgot to read the next sentence, huh?

No, I saw it. It's irrelevant to the point I was making.

Allow me to summarize, you said:

Thunder said:
I But clearly, the Bush tax-cuts had a negative-effect on Federal revenue.

I pointed out that the Bush tax cuts generated record revenues. i.e. a positive effect on Federal revenues.

The article obviously points out that, spending and not tax cuts had a negative effect on the deficit.

Karl · Nov 22, 2011

apdst said:
I guess that's why the IRS received record revenues.

Revenue collections hit record high in April - Business - Personal finance - Tax Tactics - msnbc.com

One month? You're basing your argument on one month's worth of tax collections? :lamo

Further from your link:

The federal budget was in surplus for four years from 1998 through 2001 as the long economic expansion helped push revenues higher. But the 2001 recession, the cost of fighting a global war on terror and the loss of revenue from President Bush’s tax cuts sent the budget back into the red starting in 2002.

And this gem:

The administration’s budget sent to Congress in February projects that the deficit will be eliminated by 2012 even if the president achieves his goal of getting his tax cuts made permanent. They are now due to expire in 2010.

:lamo

justabubba · Nov 22, 2011

EVERYBODY (with a brain) knows what needs to happen
hell, we have had the template for it for over a year: Simpson-Bowles
revise the tax code and raise taxes while ALSO eliminating lots of discriminatory spending
plenty of both ... in the right places
it is as wrong to absolutely insist that no government spending cuts can be made as to refuse to allow tax revenues to increase because congressional representatives stupidly signed a neocon's no-new-taxes petition

those who have most prospered can now better afford to incur more taxes
every agency should be made to prioritize each of its discretionary programs and the costs of each
whatever is not in the top 90% gets eliminated

Simpson-Bowles also gives the politicians political cover. they point to it and insist there was no other way
what is there to argue; it even addresses tea party and OWS concerns

here are some highlights of the Bowles-Simpson plan:

A reduction in discretionary spending that cuts $200 billion per year
an across the board freeze on discretionary spending for two years
Reduce military spending by $100 billion per year
Reduce farm subsidies by $3 billion
Tax Reform
Eliminate most deductions, example home mortgage interest & employer health care
Lower tax rates and less brackets
Eliminate special rate for capital gains and dividends
Restore inheritance tax at 45%
Reduced corporate tax rate
Increase gasoline tax
Control Health care costs
Retain recent reform, including expansion in coverage
Strengthen cost cutting mechanisms
Protect doctors from sharp cuts in Medicare payments
Malpractice reform (commonly called tort reform)
Social security revisions
Increase the cap from $16,000 to $190,00 by 2020
Reduce benefits for wealthiest 50% of retirees
Increase age for full benefits from 65 to 67 by the year 2075
Hardship exemption for unable to work beyond 62

The Bowles

Karl · Nov 22, 2011

apdst said:
I pointed out that the Bush tax cuts generated record revenues. i.e. a positive effect on Federal revenues.

Well, yes, you pointed that out, but you failed to make any cogent argument to support it. All you've presented is a coincidence.

Bush was elected president, then Al Qaeda attacked on 9/11. Can I point out that Bush's election caused 9/11?

whysoserious · Nov 22, 2011

apdst said:
Where did you dream that silly equation up?

You might oughta hold on to that 20 bucks. :lamo

You don't know the equation to figure out gross income? In fact, apdst, if you can fine me one equation about income/loss that does not at some point include revenue, I'll concede. But considering that is impossible, you'll be looking for a long time (hopefully away from this board).

Karl · Nov 22, 2011

justabubba said:
EVERYBODY (with a brain) knows what needs to happen [...]

You just disqualified millions of right wing talk media fans

Thunder · Nov 22, 2011

Here are the hard facts:

The Clinton Administration raised taxes on the wealthy. Between 1993 & 2000, Federal revenue increased from $1.15 trillion to $2.02 trillion. That's an increase of 75%.

The Bush Administration lowered taxes on the wealthy. Between 2001 & 2008, Federal revenue increased from $1.99 trillion to $2.57 trillion. That's an increase of 28%.

So, which works better to raise revenue? Just look at the facts.

apdst · Nov 22, 2011

Karl said:
One month? You're basing your argument on one month's worth of tax collections? :lamo

Further from your link:

And this gem:

:lamo

The first sentence tells you everything, but I reckon you skipped that part.

apdst · Nov 22, 2011

Thunder said:
Here are the hard facts:

The Clinton Administration raised taxes on the wealthy. Between 1993 & 2000, Federal revenue increased from $1.15 trillion to $2.02 trillion. That's an increase of 75%.

The Bush Administration lowered taxes on the wealthy. Between 2001 & 2008, Federal revenue increased from $1.99 trillion to $2.57 trillion. That's an increase of 28%.

So, which works better to raise revenue? Just look at the facts.

When Congress raised taxes, were we in the worst depression since the great depression? I'm thinking we weren't. You?

They did it on purpose

Did Democrats cause the super committee to fail on purpose?

No, they actually thought a trillion dollar tax hike in a recession was reasonable

No, it was a bi-partisan failure

Yes, the plan from the beginning was to fail

More options

rocket88

Mod Conspiracy Theorist

whysoserious

Karl

apdst

Karl

apdst

whysoserious

Karl

Thunder

apdst

Karl

Karl

apdst

apdst

apdst

Thunder

apdst

Karl

justabubba

long standing member

Karl

whysoserious

Karl

Thunder

apdst

apdst