If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Republicans filibuster middle class tax cut. Wait... what?   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 995
    More: Obvious, GOP, middle-classes, filibusters, tax cuts  
•       •       •

6096 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Dec 2010 at 5:27 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



995 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-12-04 09:36:22 PM  
cameroncrazy1984: DeltaXi65: I don't think so.

You're wrong.


So you have a study that has been signed by 7,300 economists? Okay, let's see it.
 
2010-12-04 09:37:30 PM  
rohar: Heh, I am. This last decade was among the worst on record. Call me crazy, but maybe we should quit comming up with new ideas and go back to something that works.

Some might even call that "conservative".


No it wasn't. Not even close.
 
2010-12-04 09:39:15 PM  
Mrtraveler01: rohar: Mrtraveler01: rohar: DeltaXi65: cameroncrazy1984: DeltaXi65: I don't think anyone who understands how taxes work is forgetting that. But, again, we don't want taxes raised on anyone for any portion of their income.

And you don't want that so much that you're willing to possibly let everyone's taxes go up.

That's almost the exact same question I'm asking you.

You don't want to extend the tax rates for the top wage earners so much that you're willing to possibly let everyone's taxes go up?

Heh, I am. This last decade was among the worst on record. Call me crazy, but maybe we should quit comming up with new ideas and go back to something that works.

Some might even call that "conservative".



I didn't leave the republican party, the republican party left me.

/ok, I was 4 when it happened so it didn't matter THAT much

It's sad. If the Republicans actually toned down the hypocrisy and stupid, I might be complled to support them now and then.


No you wouldn't.
 
2010-12-04 09:40:13 PM  
DeltaXi65: rohar: Heh, I am. This last decade was among the worst on record. Call me crazy, but maybe we should quit comming up with new ideas and go back to something that works.

Some might even call that "conservative".

No it wasn't. Not even close.


Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

/Prove it or no one will believe you
 
2010-12-04 09:41:21 PM  
astonrickenbach: DeltaXi65: It's not wrong, and there is no way to be sure what the effect will be until it happens. There's a lot of indirect consequences not extending the rates may have, especially on the stock market, consumer confidence and other indicators that are based on public perception. Those are difficult to project and I would rather not risk the possibility of damage.

But if 67% of Americans want the tax cuts to expire for everyone or to expire on the $ 250K and over crowd then continuing them on high earners could have a negative effect also.

If I recall correctly a few weeks ago a poll showed a little over 60% of earners over $250K thought their taxes should increase.

It would appear a substantial part of the US citizens thinks they should expire over 250.


It seems less likely that making no changes at all in the current tax rates would have a negative impact.
 
2010-12-04 09:41:58 PM  
DeltaXi65:

Obviously you like the hypocrisy and stupid of the current GOP. ;)

Serious though, I'm all for fiscal responsibility. But nothing the GOP has proposed is fiscally responsible.
 
2010-12-04 09:42:54 PM  
DeltaXi65: rohar: Heh, I am. This last decade was among the worst on record. Call me crazy, but maybe we should quit comming up with new ideas and go back to something that works.

Some might even call that "conservative".

No it wasn't. Not even close.


You sure you aren't in an institution, with a memory that can't maintain an hour's information, how do you remember where you work in the morning?

media3.washingtonpost.com
 
2010-12-04 09:43:22 PM  
GhostFish: Mrtraveler01: I wonder what the right's rational is on the fact that Job creation overall last decade was and was relatively modest compared to previous decades even though we had more tax cuts?

/Grabs the popcorn to await to hear a whopper for this

I'm still waiting to hear about why having more money on hand encourages people to hire. I was under the impression that you hired people to meet demand for your goods and services, and not just because you could.


Having money on hand allows expansion into new areas that could allow you to increase demand for a broader range of goods and services. Not only do you have money available, your cash position looks better for banks to loan you the money needed to make those plans more economical long term.

If you're standing still, you'll get run over.
 
2010-12-04 09:43:49 PM  

Republican's answer to the economy:

Spend alot on things that make our cock look big, you know giant boats, jets, helicopters, missles, bombs.

Don't spend anything on mamby pamby shiat like healthcare, or unemployment, or the poor.

Don't count the military viagra in the budget when you're in charge.

Have the people that earn the most pay the least nothing, hell how do you think they got there in the first place amirite?

Complain we're taxed too much and spending our grandkids money for entitlements like making sure there's a school system left when they get here so they can do more than grunt and laugh at Oww My Balls!

Because in republican math a balnced budget means spend alot for blowing shiat up, nothing for dirty brown I mean poor people and take in as little revenue as possible.

THIS IS WHAT REPUBLICANS ACTUALLY BELIEVE
 
2010-12-04 09:44:27 PM  
DeltaXi65: rohar: Heh, I am. This last decade was among the worst on record. Call me crazy, but maybe we should quit comming up with new ideas and go back to something that works.

Some might even call that "conservative".

No it wasn't. Not even close.


It's called math you willfully ignorant twit, and it shows that the 2000's was one of the worst for job creation and economic health in a century.
 
2010-12-04 09:44:49 PM  
Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65:

Obviously you like the hypocrisy and stupid of the current GOP. ;)

Serious though, I'm all for fiscal responsibility. But nothing the GOP has proposed is fiscally responsible.


I don't like hypocrisy or stupidity in either party, and I'm doing my best to stamp it out in mine.

What would be fiscally responsible in your eyes? Raising taxes and continuing to spend at the current rates?
 
2010-12-04 09:45:33 PM  
DeltaXi65:

Then how come fewer jobs were created last decade than in previous decades? Apparantly tax cuts aren't the magic pill to fix the economy.
 
2010-12-04 09:47:14 PM  
DeltaXi65: Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65:

Obviously you like the hypocrisy and stupid of the current GOP. ;)

Serious though, I'm all for fiscal responsibility. But nothing the GOP has proposed is fiscally responsible.

I don't like hypocrisy or stupidity in either party, and I'm doing my best to stamp it out in mine.

What would be fiscally responsible in your eyes? Raising taxes and continuing to spend at the current rates?


No how about this novel idea.

Let the tax cuts expire and cut down on the spending.
 
2010-12-04 09:49:13 PM  
DeltaXi65: GhostFish: Mrtraveler01: I wonder what the right's rational is on the fact that Job creation overall last decade was and was relatively modest compared to previous decades even though we had more tax cuts?

/Grabs the popcorn to await to hear a whopper for this

I'm still waiting to hear about why having more money on hand encourages people to hire. I was under the impression that you hired people to meet demand for your goods and services, and not just because you could.

Having money on hand allows expansion into new areas that could allow you to increase demand for a broader range of goods and services. Not only do you have money available, your cash position looks better for banks to loan you the money needed to make those plans more economical long term.

If you're standing still, you'll get run over.


Sounds good, but hasn't seemed to have worked over the past decade.
 
2010-12-04 09:49:31 PM  
Lunchlady: DeltaXi65: rohar: Heh, I am. This last decade was among the worst on record. Call me crazy, but maybe we should quit comming up with new ideas and go back to something that works.

Some might even call that "conservative".

No it wasn't. Not even close.

It's called math you willfully ignorant twit, and it shows that the 2000's was one of the worst for job creation and economic health in a century.


No, it shows that it was one of the worst for job creation in the last 70 years. The 30s were far worse, as were plenty of years in the previous century. The guy I was responding to said "on record." That's simply not true.

The 30s saw net job loss - at least in the aughts, it evened out.
 
2010-12-04 09:50:55 PM  
Here's an excellent blog post on how both sides are full of it regarding taxes and the state of our current deficit. If you actually care about this issue, I highly recommend you read it.

http://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=174030
 
2010-12-04 09:51:17 PM  
Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65:

Then how come fewer jobs were created last decade than in previous decades? Apparantly tax cuts aren't the magic pill to fix the economy.


To take a page out of the President's book, it's just as easy to argue that if we hadn't had the tax cuts things would have been even worse. Isn't that the talking point on the stimulus?

A lot of things happened in the aughts that hadn't happened in 70 years. No net new jobs was just one of them.
 
2010-12-04 09:51:23 PM  
GhostFish: I'm still waiting to hear about why having more money on hand encourages people to hire. I was under the impression that you hired people to meet demand for your goods and services, and not just because you could.

Actually, you hire people so that you can exclude their payroll from your own taxes. Raise the top tier tax rates high enough, and the rich will be forced to hire employees or loose their entire fortune to the IRS.

Want more jobs? Make hiring the most attractive option for the people who have the money.
 
2010-12-04 09:51:32 PM  
Link (new window)
 
2010-12-04 09:53:09 PM  
www.yourfunnystuff.com
this one is smarter than the usual, still a farking waste.
 
2010-12-04 09:53:29 PM  
Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65: Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65:

Obviously you like the hypocrisy and stupid of the current GOP. ;)

Serious though, I'm all for fiscal responsibility. But nothing the GOP has proposed is fiscally responsible.

I don't like hypocrisy or stupidity in either party, and I'm doing my best to stamp it out in mine.

What would be fiscally responsible in your eyes? Raising taxes and continuing to spend at the current rates?

No how about this novel idea.

Let the tax cuts expire and cut down on the spending.


How about we cut down on the spending and then see if we need to raise taxes to cover the rest first?

Like I said a while back, I'm not averse to raising taxes to reduce the debt if it's the last step taken and the economy is in a place where it can handle the increase. But until we get spending under control, I don't want to raise anyone's taxes.
 
2010-12-04 09:53:56 PM  
How much more revenue will the middle class be providing to the coffers than the rich when no one gets the extension?
 
2010-12-04 09:56:24 PM  
GhostFish: DeltaXi65: GhostFish: Mrtraveler01: I wonder what the right's rational is on the fact that Job creation overall last decade was and was relatively modest compared to previous decades even though we had more tax cuts?

/Grabs the popcorn to await to hear a whopper for this

I'm still waiting to hear about why having more money on hand encourages people to hire. I was under the impression that you hired people to meet demand for your goods and services, and not just because you could.

Having money on hand allows expansion into new areas that could allow you to increase demand for a broader range of goods and services. Not only do you have money available, your cash position looks better for banks to loan you the money needed to make those plans more economical long term.

If you're standing still, you'll get run over.

Sounds good, but hasn't seemed to have worked over the past decade.


How many of the jobs lost during the first half of Bush's presidency were a result of the dot.com bubble bursting? How many were a result of the hit the economy took after 9/11?

We don't know what would have happened if the tax cuts had never been passed. But it seems likely to me that we would not have recovered as fast as we did before the 2008 crash. But it's impossible to say for sure.

I don't buy, however, the tax cuts played no role in anything that happened during the aughts. That just doesn't make sense, and it doesn't jibe with other examples of where cutting taxes has stimulated the economy in the past.
 
2010-12-04 09:56:55 PM  
DeltaXi65: Lunchlady: DeltaXi65: rohar: Heh, I am. This last decade was among the worst on record. Call me crazy, but maybe we should quit comming up with new ideas and go back to something that works.

Some might even call that "conservative".

No it wasn't. Not even close.

It's called math you willfully ignorant twit, and it shows that the 2000's was one of the worst for job creation and economic health in a century.

No, it shows that it was one of the worst for job creation in the last 70 years. The 30s were far worse, as were plenty of years in the previous century. The guy I was responding to said "on record." That's simply not true.

The 30s saw net job loss - at least in the aughts, it evened out.


You'll remember I said "among the worst on record". It's not just about job creation, GDP and household income were in the toilet too.

We should do that again and see what happens right?

Why is it admitted republicans can't find a conservative talking point to save their souls?
 
2010-12-04 09:57:16 PM  
DeltaXi65: Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65:

Then how come fewer jobs were created last decade than in previous decades? Apparantly tax cuts aren't the magic pill to fix the economy.

To take a page out of the President's book, it's just as easy to argue that if we hadn't had the tax cuts things would have been even worse. Isn't that the talking point on the stimulus?

A lot of things happened in the aughts that hadn't happened in 70 years. No net new jobs was just one of them.


So just because the policy had no visible positive effect on the economy over a decade, it doesn't mean that it should be changed.

But the Democrats only get "two years to try [their] hand"?
 
2010-12-04 09:57:19 PM  
DeltaXi65: Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65: Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65:

Obviously you like the hypocrisy and stupid of the current GOP. ;)

Serious though, I'm all for fiscal responsibility. But nothing the GOP has proposed is fiscally responsible.

I don't like hypocrisy or stupidity in either party, and I'm doing my best to stamp it out in mine.

What would be fiscally responsible in your eyes? Raising taxes and continuing to spend at the current rates?

No how about this novel idea.

Let the tax cuts expire and cut down on the spending.

How about we cut down on the spending and then see if we need to raise taxes to cover the rest first?

Like I said a while back, I'm not averse to raising taxes to reduce the debt if it's the last step taken and the economy is in a place where it can handle the increase. But until we get spending under control, I don't want to raise anyone's taxes.


jesus... there's no see... unless you're suggesting we cleave the defense budget by 60% or so...

didn't think so

see what I mean, republicans actually believe you can pay debt with minimal revenue...
 
2010-12-04 09:58:03 PM  
roncofooddehydrator: Here's an excellent blog post on how both sides are full of it regarding taxes and the state of our current deficit. If you actually care about this issue, I highly recommend you read it.

http://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=174030


I read it up to this part:

That's right Jan. And that's entirely because the Democrat Congress, with a filibuster-proof Senate and objection-proof House, plus a Democrat President spent two years kneeling before those "captains of business" from Wall Street and blew them on a daily basis

No need to go any further.
 
2010-12-04 09:58:05 PM  
DeltaXi65: Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65: Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65:

Obviously you like the hypocrisy and stupid of the current GOP. ;)

Serious though, I'm all for fiscal responsibility. But nothing the GOP has proposed is fiscally responsible.

I don't like hypocrisy or stupidity in either party, and I'm doing my best to stamp it out in mine.

What would be fiscally responsible in your eyes? Raising taxes and continuing to spend at the current rates?

No how about this novel idea.

Let the tax cuts expire and cut down on the spending.

How about we cut down on the spending and then see if we need to raise taxes to cover the rest first?

Like I said a while back, I'm not averse to raising taxes to reduce the debt if it's the last step taken and the economy is in a place where it can handle the increase. But until we get spending under control, I don't want to raise anyone's taxes.


You know you'll never pay off the debt/deficit that way. This is what I mean when I say Republicans know jackshiat about fiscal responsibility.
 
2010-12-04 09:59:42 PM  
GhostFish: DeltaXi65: Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65:

Then how come fewer jobs were created last decade than in previous decades? Apparantly tax cuts aren't the magic pill to fix the economy.

To take a page out of the President's book, it's just as easy to argue that if we hadn't had the tax cuts things would have been even worse. Isn't that the talking point on the stimulus?

A lot of things happened in the aughts that hadn't happened in 70 years. No net new jobs was just one of them.

So just because the policy had no visible positive effect on the economy over a decade, it doesn't mean that it should be changed.

But the Democrats only get "two years to try [their] hand"?


I'm glad I know I'm not the only one who thought there were logical inconsistencies with that whopper.

I should really learn to stop feeding the trolls.
 
2010-12-04 09:59:58 PM  
DeltaXi65: I don't buy, however, the tax cuts played no role in anything that happened during the aughts. That just doesn't make sense, and it doesn't jibe with other examples of where cutting taxes has stimulated the economy in the past.

You might be on to something. Cutting taxes during this period had a significantly different outcome that almost any other period in the prior century. I'll bet if you rub those two brain cells together REAL hard, you'll figure it out.

I'll wait.
 
2010-12-04 10:00:26 PM  
GhostFish: DeltaXi65: Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65:

Then how come fewer jobs were created last decade than in previous decades? Apparantly tax cuts aren't the magic pill to fix the economy.

To take a page out of the President's book, it's just as easy to argue that if we hadn't had the tax cuts things would have been even worse. Isn't that the talking point on the stimulus?

A lot of things happened in the aughts that hadn't happened in 70 years. No net new jobs was just one of them.

So just because the policy had no visible positive effect on the economy over a decade, it doesn't mean that it should be changed.

But the Democrats only get "two years to try [their] hand"?


Yes... Hey we spent 8 years farking America in the ass raw, you have 24 months to get us back in the "black" *nudge nudge* or we're taking the wheel back...

that's like going on a road trip with someone who starts driving while you're asleep and you end up completely lost. When you wake up you're told you have exactly 2 hours to get your asses back on course or they're driving the rest of the trip...
 
2010-12-04 10:01:43 PM  
Mrtraveler01: I'm glad I know I'm not the only one who thought there were logical inconsistencies with that whopper.

I should really learn to stop feeding the trolls.


He's not a troll, he's just a true believer. Which in many respects is kind of worse.
 
2010-12-04 10:01:57 PM  
Tor_Eckman: roncofooddehydrator: Here's an excellent blog post on how both sides are full of it regarding taxes and the state of our current deficit. If you actually care about this issue, I highly recommend you read it.

http://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=174030

I read it up to this part:

That's right Jan. And that's entirely because the Democrat Congress, with a filibuster-proof Senate and objection-proof House, plus a Democrat President spent two years kneeling before those "captains of business" from Wall Street and blew them on a daily basis

No need to go any further.


that sounds professional, I trust their every word as fact.
 
2010-12-04 10:02:52 PM  
GhostFish: Mrtraveler01: I'm glad I know I'm not the only one who thought there were logical inconsistencies with that whopper.

I should really learn to stop feeding the trolls.

He's not a troll, he's just a true believer. Which in many respects is kind of worse.


Yeah...sad there's people who really believe that crap out there isn't it?
 
2010-12-04 10:03:50 PM  
Yeah.... having a drink while reading this thread isn't helping. I'm ah... I'm gonna back out of here real slow and go have another couple drinks and maybe not wake up as pissed off as I am right now. K, bye.

/Dutch style loaded eggnog
 
2010-12-04 10:04:02 PM  
GhostFish: DeltaXi65: Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65:

Then how come fewer jobs were created last decade than in previous decades? Apparantly tax cuts aren't the magic pill to fix the economy.

To take a page out of the President's book, it's just as easy to argue that if we hadn't had the tax cuts things would have been even worse. Isn't that the talking point on the stimulus?

A lot of things happened in the aughts that hadn't happened in 70 years. No net new jobs was just one of them.

So just because the policy had no visible positive effect on the economy over a decade, it doesn't mean that it should be changed.

But the Democrats only get "two years to try [their] hand"?


I'm not saying that is had no visible positive effect and just looking at beginning and ending dates doesn't prove that. Yes, the aughts were bad. But if you look at the number of differnt things that happened in that time period - from two wars, a devastating terrorist attack, a financial meltdown the likes of which we haven't seen in over a century, and the two of the biggest natural and manmade disasters to hit the country ever - you can't just take the tax cuts in a vacuum and say they didn't work. There are just too many variables.
 
2010-12-04 10:05:24 PM  
Where does the idea that tax cuts for rich employers encourages job creation even come from?

Money you spend on wages for your employees isnt even farking taxed to you in the first place, only your final profit is, and everyone wants to increase that anyway. You employ people to make more money, and thats the end of it. if emplying more people will make you more money you do it, and taxation is a zero factor in that. You dont need encouragement from the government to make more money unless you are retarded.

If anything, increasing taxes on the rich would make them have less money so want more so work even harder to make more no? Stupid, but less stupid than the simple lie that tax cuts would make an employer hire more people.
 
2010-12-04 10:06:06 PM  
KingPsyz: DeltaXi65: Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65: Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65:

Obviously you like the hypocrisy and stupid of the current GOP. ;)

Serious though, I'm all for fiscal responsibility. But nothing the GOP has proposed is fiscally responsible.

I don't like hypocrisy or stupidity in either party, and I'm doing my best to stamp it out in mine.

What would be fiscally responsible in your eyes? Raising taxes and continuing to spend at the current rates?

No how about this novel idea.

Let the tax cuts expire and cut down on the spending.

How about we cut down on the spending and then see if we need to raise taxes to cover the rest first?

Like I said a while back, I'm not averse to raising taxes to reduce the debt if it's the last step taken and the economy is in a place where it can handle the increase. But until we get spending under control, I don't want to raise anyone's taxes.

jesus... there's no see... unless you're suggesting we cleave the defense budget by 60% or so...

didn't think so

see what I mean, republicans actually believe you can pay debt with minimal revenue...


We need to look for cuts everywhere, including defense. Revenue isn't the problem. Spending is the problem.
 
2010-12-04 10:06:12 PM  
DeltaXi65: GhostFish: DeltaXi65: Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65:

Then how come fewer jobs were created last decade than in previous decades? Apparantly tax cuts aren't the magic pill to fix the economy.

To take a page out of the President's book, it's just as easy to argue that if we hadn't had the tax cuts things would have been even worse. Isn't that the talking point on the stimulus?

A lot of things happened in the aughts that hadn't happened in 70 years. No net new jobs was just one of them.

So just because the policy had no visible positive effect on the economy over a decade, it doesn't mean that it should be changed.

But the Democrats only get "two years to try [their] hand"?

I'm not saying that is had no visible positive effect and just looking at beginning and ending dates doesn't prove that. Yes, the aughts were bad. But if you look at the number of differnt things that happened in that time period - from two wars, a devastating terrorist attack, a financial meltdown the likes of which we haven't seen in over a century, and the two of the biggest natural and manmade disasters to hit the country ever - you can't just take the tax cuts in a vacuum and say they didn't work. There are just too many variables.


Excuses. You're chock full of 'em. ;)
 
2010-12-04 10:09:05 PM  
DeltaXi65: We need to look for cuts everywhere, including defense. Revenue isn't the problem. Spending is the problem.

So you would prefer to see Medicaid/Medicare/SS cut $700bn over the next 10 years over a tax hike on earner over 250k?
 
2010-12-04 10:09:30 PM  
Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65: Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65: Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65:

Obviously you like the hypocrisy and stupid of the current GOP. ;)

Serious though, I'm all for fiscal responsibility. But nothing the GOP has proposed is fiscally responsible.

I don't like hypocrisy or stupidity in either party, and I'm doing my best to stamp it out in mine.

What would be fiscally responsible in your eyes? Raising taxes and continuing to spend at the current rates?

No how about this novel idea.

Let the tax cuts expire and cut down on the spending.

How about we cut down on the spending and then see if we need to raise taxes to cover the rest first?

Like I said a while back, I'm not averse to raising taxes to reduce the debt if it's the last step taken and the economy is in a place where it can handle the increase. But until we get spending under control, I don't want to raise anyone's taxes.

You know you'll never pay off the debt/deficit that way. This is what I mean when I say Republicans know jackshiat about fiscal responsibility.


I disagree. The best way to reduce the deficit is to hold the line on spending, find revenue neutral ways of spurring economic development and let the expanding economy and expanding tax base increase revenues to the point where they catch up. Once we have a surplus, instead of blowing it on stimulus checks or increasing spending, you use it to pay down the debt.

Between that and inflation, eventually the debt is paid. It can be done without raising taxes. It just takes fiscal discipline and a few years without a war or huge crisis, which is why it hasn't been done already. If 9/11 hadn't happened, we'd be in a much different economic place than we are now.
 
2010-12-04 10:09:43 PM  
DeltaXi65: Shaggy_C: DeltaXi65: Failing to pass a cloture vote does not equal a filibuster. There was no filibuster.

Ah, so Republicans are not blocking legislation. This is all Harry Reid's fault. Thanks for clearing that up.

Every blocking of legislation is not a filibuster. A filibuster is a specific technique, not an outcome. If we vote no on a cloture vote that didn't need to be filed, that's not a filibuster. It's a failed cloture motion.

Reid didn't have to file for cloture. He knew he didn't have the votes


It seems that he had a majority of the votes. What he didn't have was a filibuster proof majority.DeltaXi65: GhostFish: Mrtraveler01: I wonder what the right's rational is on the fact that Job creation overall last decade was and was relatively modest compared to previous decades even though we had more tax cuts?

/Grabs the popcorn to await to hear a whopper for this

I'm still waiting to hear about why having more money on hand encourages people to hire. I was under the impression that you hired people to meet demand for your goods and services, and not just because you could.

Having money on hand allows expansion into new areas that could allow you to increase demand for a broader range of goods and services. Not only do you have money available, your cash position looks better for banks to loan you the money needed to make those plans more economical long term.

If you're standing still, you'll get run over.


Yet these people want to cut spending to projects that would keep the USA competitive with countries like China who are pumping money into research.

The hypocrisy is simply stunning.
 
2010-12-04 10:10:25 PM  
drewkumo: DeltaXi65: We need to look for cuts everywhere, including defense. Revenue isn't the problem. Spending is the problem.

So you would prefer to see Medicaid/Medicare/SS cut $700bn over the next 10 years over a tax hike on earner over 250k?


I would sooooo love to see the GOP try to do that.
 
2010-12-04 10:10:48 PM  
DeltaXi65: GhostFish: DeltaXi65: Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65:

Then how come fewer jobs were created last decade than in previous decades? Apparantly tax cuts aren't the magic pill to fix the economy.

To take a page out of the President's book, it's just as easy to argue that if we hadn't had the tax cuts things would have been even worse. Isn't that the talking point on the stimulus?

A lot of things happened in the aughts that hadn't happened in 70 years. No net new jobs was just one of them.

So just because the policy had no visible positive effect on the economy over a decade, it doesn't mean that it should be changed.

But the Democrats only get "two years to try [their] hand"?

I'm not saying that is had no visible positive effect and just looking at beginning and ending dates doesn't prove that. Yes, the aughts were bad. But if you look at the number of differnt things that happened in that time period - from two wars, a devastating terrorist attack, a financial meltdown the likes of which we haven't seen in over a century, and the two of the biggest natural and manmade disasters to hit the country ever - you can't just take the tax cuts in a vacuum and say they didn't work. There are just too many variables.


Yeah. Two wars just "happened." And the spin at the time was that war is good for the economy anyway. Sorry. You can't count the elective wars Bush started in the aughts as factors excusing the failure of Bush's tax cuts. The financial meltdown doesn't count either, because that marks the end point of where we'd measure the effect of Bush's tax cuts.

So for excuses, you're basically left with 9/11 and Katrina. And if it's "stimulative" to rebuild Iraqi schools after leveling them, it should also be stimulative to rebuild New Orleans after a hurricane.

Wait, I'm sorry. Spending for the benefit of America's poor and working class is wasteful and inefficient. How could I forget.
 
2010-12-04 10:11:03 PM  
KingPsyz: GhostFish: DeltaXi65: Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65:

Then how come fewer jobs were created last decade than in previous decades? Apparantly tax cuts aren't the magic pill to fix the economy.

To take a page out of the President's book, it's just as easy to argue that if we hadn't had the tax cuts things would have been even worse. Isn't that the talking point on the stimulus?

A lot of things happened in the aughts that hadn't happened in 70 years. No net new jobs was just one of them.

So just because the policy had no visible positive effect on the economy over a decade, it doesn't mean that it should be changed.

But the Democrats only get "two years to try [their] hand"?

Yes... Hey we spent 8 years farking America in the ass raw, you have 24 months to get us back in the "black" *nudge nudge* or we're taking the wheel back...

that's like going on a road trip with someone who starts driving while you're asleep and you end up completely lost. When you wake up you're told you have exactly 2 hours to get your asses back on course or they're driving the rest of the trip...


We didn't take the wheel back - all the guys in the car took a vote and said we should be at least be in the front seat again. You all are still driving, for now.
 
2010-12-04 10:12:00 PM  
DeltaXi65: The best way to reduce the deficit is to hold the line on spending, find revenue neutral ways of spurring economic development and let the expanding economy and expanding tax base increase revenues to the point where they catch up.

You do know that tax cuts aren't revenue neutral right?
 
2010-12-04 10:12:32 PM  
Jackpot777: ..you'll begin to see, specifically, why the [f]right[ened] wing only want to talk Federal, Federal, Federal Income Tax.



Gee... that is ALL that is on the table. Correct or not???


Funny how that is.

Your attempt at redirection has been noted you loser.


Guess what else, the rich pay all the same local, state, sales and every other tax the everyone else does as well.


Enjoy being wrong .
 
2010-12-04 10:13:02 PM  
DeltaXi65: GhostFish: DeltaXi65: Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65:

Then how come fewer jobs were created last decade than in previous decades? Apparantly tax cuts aren't the magic pill to fix the economy.

To take a page out of the President's book, it's just as easy to argue that if we hadn't had the tax cuts things would have been even worse. Isn't that the talking point on the stimulus?

A lot of things happened in the aughts that hadn't happened in 70 years. No net new jobs was just one of them.

So just because the policy had no visible positive effect on the economy over a decade, it doesn't mean that it should be changed.

But the Democrats only get "two years to try [their] hand"?

I'm not saying that is had no visible positive effect and just looking at beginning and ending dates doesn't prove that. Yes, the aughts were bad. But if you look at the number of differnt things that happened in that time period - from two wars, a devastating terrorist attack, a financial meltdown the likes of which we haven't seen in over a century, and the two of the biggest natural and manmade disasters to hit the country ever - you can't just take the tax cuts in a vacuum and say they didn't work. There are just too many variables.


I'm not saying they didn't work. I'm agreeing that they may have made things better, or maybe even worse. There are a lot of variables and an exact answer on just how the tax cuts impacted the economy is very difficult to nail down.

But I'm taking issue with your willingness to offer this level of patience and understanding toward Republican policies and not Democrat ones.
 
2010-12-04 10:13:37 PM  
DeltaXi65: KingPsyz: GhostFish: DeltaXi65: Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65:

Then how come fewer jobs were created last decade than in previous decades? Apparantly tax cuts aren't the magic pill to fix the economy.

To take a page out of the President's book, it's just as easy to argue that if we hadn't had the tax cuts things would have been even worse. Isn't that the talking point on the stimulus?

A lot of things happened in the aughts that hadn't happened in 70 years. No net new jobs was just one of them.

So just because the policy had no visible positive effect on the economy over a decade, it doesn't mean that it should be changed.

But the Democrats only get "two years to try [their] hand"?

Yes... Hey we spent 8 years farking America in the ass raw, you have 24 months to get us back in the "black" *nudge nudge* or we're taking the wheel back...

that's like going on a road trip with someone who starts driving while you're asleep and you end up completely lost. When you wake up you're told you have exactly 2 hours to get your asses back on course or they're driving the rest of the trip...

We didn't take the wheel back - all the guys in the car took a vote and said we should be at least be in the front seat again. You all are still driving, for now.


Wow, the GOP sure is good at covering their ass...even before they take back the House.
 
2010-12-04 10:13:51 PM  
:) Dissecting camerons trolling is so satisfying. I almost feel like I should get paid, but realizing his history of trolling...well. I guess just exposing his nonsense is reward enough.
 
Displayed 50 of 995 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report