FARK.com: (7209253) The last time US taxes were lower than today post-it notes didn't exist, Three Mile Island was working perfectly and there was a peanut farmer in the White House

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.

		The last time US taxes were lower than today post-it notes didn't exist, Three Mile Island was working perfectly and there was a peanut farmer in the White House (factcheck.org)		147
		More: Ironic, Three Mile Island, White House, excise taxes, income taxes, tax rates, corporate income tax, median household income

• • •

1275 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Jul 2012 at 10:19 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7209253

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

147 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

lordaction		2012-07-12 11:07:24 AM

Mrtraveler01: lordaction: Mrtraveler01: lordaction: If we were to freeze spending right now the deb would be paid of by 2015. LIberals can't stop spending for 3 farking years.

So what you're saying is that we should suspend all federal spending (including defense) for 3 years?

Were you born this stupid or was this something you picked up gradually as you grew up?

Freeze the increases in spending. Keep the currents levels. Do you understand yet? Gosh, you guys really don't understand the terminology no wonder you don't understand basic economics.

lordaction: Mrtraveler01: lordaction: If we were to freeze spending right now the deb would be paid of by 2015. LIberals can't stop spending for 3 farking years.

So what you're saying is that we should suspend all federal spending (including defense) for 3 years?

Were you born this stupid or was this something you picked up gradually as you grew up?

Freeze the increases in spending. Keep the currents levels. Do you understand yet? Gosh, you guys really don't understand the terminology no wonder you don't understand basic economics.

Some also pointed out that you don't understand inflation and the fact that $1 will not equal $1 in 2015.

And you think I don't understand basic economics? Talk about the pot calling the kettle Blargh...

You honestly think the inflation in 3 years would make this impossible. You are just reaching now. Shows how greedy liberals are. They can't even stop INCREASES for 3 years to balance the budget. Guess y'all need the money to buy the votes of welfare queens and illiterate, criminal immigrants.

DarwiOdrade		2012-07-12 11:08:27 AM

skullkrusher: This is the thread where FactCheck.org is taken at face value.

Are you saying the CBO data is wrong, or that FactCheck has manipulated it in some way to make it say something it doesn't really say? Not sure what your problem is here.

qorkfiend		2012-07-12 11:08:32 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: qorkfiend: Debeo Summa Credo: quatchi: Being on the wrong side of the Laffer curve is wrong.

This simple fact has been staring in the face of the Taxed Enough Already morons for a while now.

chiett: And we are blaming Bush again !!!

People will stop blaming Bush shortly after the rest of the country finishes paying for all his farkups including Iraq and his tax giveaway to the rich.

I give it about 30 years or so.

So, taxes are low relative to the last 30 years, and the bush tax cuts were "giveaways to the rich".

I would assume then that you'd be in favor of letting all the bush tax cuts expire. This would raise taxes closer to historic averages, and also presumably represent a "takeaway" from the rich.

Well then, good news! We can easily devise a plan that lets the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire, while keeping them for everyone else!

Oh wait; that's what Obama's plan does.

Or we could just let them all expire! We still stick it to the rich, because after all the original tax cuts were giveaways to the wealthy (at least that's what liberals said and still say, and they're really smart and don't lie or exaggerate, so you know it's true) plus we'd raise $4t in revenue over the next 10 years as opposed to the $700b we would if only allowing cuts for incomes greater than $250k to expire.

Yeah, no. That's not what liberals said. Liberals said "They overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy", which was true then and is true now.

Fart_Machine		2012-07-12 11:10:11 AM

qorkfiend: Xcott: In my home town, one of the TEA party types ended up as county executive, and tried to float the idea of selling off major parts of town---like the garbage dump---because of the usual TEA party line about how everything is too big and too complicated and too expensive and too waah.

When this was reported in the newspaper, the comment board was flooded with fellow TEA partiers, who said we can't have these things anymore because we can't pay for it all, and society has to learn to live with fewer trappings of civilization. No work about how all previous generations of Americans somehow managed.

This will not be the generation that brings us back to the moon. I find it odd that they dress up in revolutionary garb, when they seem to be the least interested in having a country or otherwise living up to the responsibilities of American citizenship.

I'm curious what the Tea Partiers think happens to their garbage if and when they sell off the town dump.

It will play out like a Simpsons episode.

Mrtraveler01		2012-07-12 11:10:12 AM

lordaction: Guess y'all need the money to buy the votes of welfare queens and illiterate, criminal immigrants.

Well it's either that or buy the votes of the wealthy and powerful.

skullkrusher		2012-07-12 11:10:57 AM

DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: This is the thread where FactCheck.org is taken at face value.

Are you saying the CBO data is wrong, or that FactCheck has manipulated it in some way to make it say something it doesn't really say? Not sure what your problem is here.

"Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years"

Here's a dataset to prove it that ends 2.5 years ago. Unless they are taking a retroactive shot at Teabaggers in 2009, I don't see much of current value here.

Jackpot777		2012-07-12 11:12:38 AM

lordaction: Here is what liberals don't want you to know. If we were to freeze spending right now the deb would be paid of by 2015. LIberals can't stop spending for 3 farking years. Instead they bring up this bullshiat about how unfair it is the top tax payers are only paying 75% of the tax burden. These people are delusional, entitled children with no grasp of economics or math.

i301.photobucket.com

Because when I want to know what the Liberals really think, I go to a person that has no idea of how a Liberal thinks and acts like the internet equivelent of an abusive husband.

Shouldn't you be complaining about sodomy, lordaction? You do it so often.

Jackpot777		2012-07-12 11:13:49 AM

skullkrusher: Jackpot777: What's funny is that Romney's new ad about Obama and the talk of Bain is named "No Evidence"...

In The Dilbert Future: Thriving On Stupidity In The 21st Century, Scott Adams (in Prediction 49 - in the future, new technology will allow police to solve 100 percent of all crimes. The bad news is that we'll realize 100 percent of the population are criminals, including the police) points out how easy it is to spot the murderer in a crime drama.

When asked if he killed his wife, an innocent man would say, "no, are you f***ing crazy, of course I didn't kill my wife." He would address the charge directly.

When asked if he killed his wife, a murderer would say, "you can't prove I murdered her, so unless you're going to charge me this interview is over." He doesn't address denying the charge at all, he just says there's no absolute smoking gun of evidence that eliminates shadows of doubt in some people's minds about that one particular thing.

It's based on human nature. That's how you can watch everything from a crime drama, to a reality TV show where someone gets called out on a lie, to incidents in your own personal life and know it's a believable scenario. People telling the truth address the truth directly. People with something to hide will be evasive in case they give away they do know something and it implicates them.

It's also how you can say, "interesting choice of wording the Romney camp chose for that video. So what's he hiding? So many lies that wants to label the Dems as Obama And His Tax And Spend Liberals In Congress despite overwhelming evidence it's a lie, and now he's passing off Bain as 'you have no evidence...' like the guilty party in an episode of CSI. It smells fishy..."

I think you posted in the wrong thread. This is the thread where FactCheck.org is taken at face value. The one below is the one where they are engaged in a coverup to protect Mittens from prosecution.

No, it's in the right thread.

i301.photobucket.com

Do you ever get anything right, even accidentally?

Fart_Machine		2012-07-12 11:14:49 AM

Cataholic: quatchi: Being on the wrong side of the Laffer curve is wrong.

This simple fact has been staring in the face of the Taxed Enough Already morons for a while now.

chiett: And we are blaming Bush again !!!

People will stop blaming Bush shortly after the rest of the country finishes paying for all his farkups including Iraq and his tax giveaway to the rich.

I give it about 30 years or so.

I take it you didn't see this chart in the article.

So they're still playing lower rates than 30 years ago. Also we all know that TEA party members are part of the 1% income bracket.

DarwiOdrade		2012-07-12 11:16:10 AM

Saiga410		2012-07-12 11:17:50 AM

qorkfiend: Yeah, no. That's not what liberals said. Liberals said "They overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy", which was true then and is true now

Except when you see that the part that benefit the wealthy only account for~ 25% of the entire bundle.

qorkfiend		2012-07-12 11:18:29 AM

Saiga410: qorkfiend: Yeah, no. That's not what liberals said. Liberals said "They overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy", which was true then and is true now

Except when you see that the part that benefit the wealthy only account for~ 25% of the entire bundle.

So, 1% of earners get 25% of the benefit to themselves, on top of the benefits they get from the lower bracket cuts? Yeah, that's real wonderful.

skullkrusher		2012-07-12 11:19:28 AM

Jackpot777: skullkrusher: Jackpot777: What's funny is that Romney's new ad about Obama and the talk of Bain is named "No Evidence"...

In The Dilbert Future: Thriving On Stupidity In The 21st Century, Scott Adams (in Prediction 49 - in the future, new technology will allow police to solve 100 percent of all crimes. The bad news is that we'll realize 100 percent of the population are criminals, including the police) points out how easy it is to spot the murderer in a crime drama.

When asked if he killed his wife, an innocent man would say, "no, are you f***ing crazy, of course I didn't kill my wife." He would address the charge directly.

When asked if he killed his wife, a murderer would say, "you can't prove I murdered her, so unless you're going to charge me this interview is over." He doesn't address denying the charge at all, he just says there's no absolute smoking gun of evidence that eliminates shadows of doubt in some people's minds about that one particular thing.

It's based on human nature. That's how you can watch everything from a crime drama, to a reality TV show where someone gets called out on a lie, to incidents in your own personal life and know it's a believable scenario. People telling the truth address the truth directly. People with something to hide will be evasive in case they give away they do know something and it implicates them.

It's also how you can say, "interesting choice of wording the Romney camp chose for that video. So what's he hiding? So many lies that wants to label the Dems as Obama And His Tax And Spend Liberals In Congress despite overwhelming evidence it's a lie, and now he's passing off Bain as 'you have no evidence...' like the guilty party in an episode of CSI. It smells fishy..."

I think you posted in the wrong thread. This is the thread where FactCheck.org is taken at face value. The one below is the one where they are engaged in a coverup to protect Mittens from prosecution.

No, it's in the right thread.

[i301.photobucket.com ...

You posted a comment with a link to "No Evidence" which refers to Romney's response to the Bain accusations in a thread about tax rates when the thread right below this one is about the Bain accusations... yeah, I think I got it right.

Saiga410		2012-07-12 11:20:10 AM

qorkfiend: Saiga410: qorkfiend: Yeah, no. That's not what liberals said. Liberals said "They overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy", which was true then and is true now

Except when you see that the part that benefit the wealthy only account for~ 25% of the entire bundle.

So, 1% of earners get 25% of the benefit to themselves, on top of the benefits they get from the lower bracket cuts? Yeah, that's real wonderful.

Oh my the group that pays the most gets the most for an relative equal % cut across board gets the most...... Rick is that you?

qorkfiend		2012-07-12 11:22:30 AM

Saiga410: qorkfiend: Saiga410: qorkfiend: Yeah, no. That's not what liberals said. Liberals said "They overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy", which was true then and is true now

Except when you see that the part that benefit the wealthy only account for~ 25% of the entire bundle.

So, 1% of earners get 25% of the benefit to themselves, on top of the benefits they get from the lower bracket cuts? Yeah, that's real wonderful.

Oh my the group that pays the most gets the most for an relative equal % cut across board gets the most...... Rick is that you?

Yes. Overwhelming benefit. 1% gets 25%, 99% gets 75%. Is this really that difficult to understand?

skullkrusher		2012-07-12 11:22:52 AM

DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: This is the thread where FactCheck.org is taken at face value.

Are you saying the CBO data is wrong, or that FactCheck has manipulated it in some way to make it say something it doesn't really say? Not sure what your problem is here.

"Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years"

Here's a dataset to prove it that ends 2.5 years ago. Unless they are taking a retroactive shot at Teabaggers in 2009, I don't see much of current value here.

Teabaggers have been claiming since he was elected that Obama is the worst ever when it comes to tax rates. This is the latest available data from the CBO, and it shows they were wrong. Is there evidence that tax rates increased in 2010 or 2011?

so it is a retroactive response to teabagger claims from 2009?

It's just that the a piece titled "Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years" published on July 11, 2012 should contain data from 1982-2012, especially when TFA references the impacts of the recession and the stimulus tax breaks, dontcha think?

Dr Dreidel		2012-07-12 11:24:06 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Or we could just let them all expire! We still stick it to the rich, because after all the original tax cuts were giveaways to the wealthy (at least that's what liberals said and still say, and they're really smart and don't lie or exaggerate, so you know it's true) plus we'd raise $4t in revenue over the next 10 years as opposed to the $700b we would if only allowing cuts for incomes greater than $250k to expire.

And as I said yesterday, we could close the budget hole even quicker if we taxed everyone 100%, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

Letting the rates expire on the lower brackets returns money to more people who can use it well (in terms of stimulative effect). Letting the rates expire for everyone, while it might help the country's bottom line, it'll hurt the bottom lines of people who are barely treading water already and really can't handle you tossing them a brick. Keeping the rates for everyone is part of what got us into the budgetary hole in the first place.

// oh, and your last comment from yesterday ignored the last point I made
// I was talking about providing a benefit to more people, not that more money comes back
// germane to this discussion, too

Saiga410		2012-07-12 11:25:03 AM

qorkfiend: Yes. Overwhelming benefit. 1% gets 25%, 99% gets 75%. Is this really that difficult to understand

When I look at the delta on the change in effective taxes I see the tax cuts to overwelmingly benefit the middleclass.

DarwiOdrade		2012-07-12 11:26:31 AM

skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: This is the thread where FactCheck.org is taken at face value.

Are you saying the CBO data is wrong, or that FactCheck has manipulated it in some way to make it say something it doesn't really say? Not sure what your problem is here.

"Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years"

Here's a dataset to prove it that ends 2.5 years ago. Unless they are taking a retroactive shot at Teabaggers in 2009, I don't see much of current value here.

Teabaggers have been claiming since he was elected that Obama is the worst ever when it comes to tax rates. This is the latest available data from the CBO, and it shows they were wrong. Is there evidence that tax rates increased in 2010 or 2011?

so it is a retroactive response to teabagger claims from 2009?

It's just that the a piece titled "Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years" published on July 11, 2012 should contain data from 1982-2012, especially when TFA references the impacts of the recession and the stimulus tax breaks, dontcha think?

Were such data available, yes, I would think that. Since they are using the most recent available data, their only offense is not including the phrase "according to the most recent available data."

MachineHead		2012-07-12 11:28:53 AM

lordaction: Mrtraveler01: lordaction: Mrtraveler01: lordaction: If we were to freeze spending right now the deb would be paid of by 2015. LIberals can't stop spending for 3 farking years.

So what you're saying is that we should suspend all federal spending (including defense) for 3 years?

Were you born this stupid or was this something you picked up gradually as you grew up?

Freeze the increases in spending. Keep the currents levels. Do you understand yet? Gosh, you guys really don't understand the terminology no wonder you don't understand basic economics.

lordaction: Mrtraveler01: lordaction: If we were to freeze spending right now the deb would be paid of by 2015. LIberals can't stop spending for 3 farking years.

So what you're saying is that we should suspend all federal spending (including defense) for 3 years?

Were you born this stupid or was this something you picked up gradually as you grew up?

Freeze the increases in spending. Keep the currents levels. Do you understand yet? Gosh, you guys really don't understand the terminology no wonder you don't understand basic economics.

Some also pointed out that you don't understand inflation and the fact that $1 will not equal $1 in 2015.

And you think I don't understand basic economics? Talk about the pot calling the kettle Blargh...

You honestly think the inflation in 3 years would make this impossible. You are just reaching now. Shows how greedy liberals are. They can't even stop INCREASES for 3 years to balance the budget. Guess y'all need the money to buy the votes of welfare queens and illiterate, criminal immigrants.

Are you a troll? I'm confused. The first hit for a search for "three year spending free" is Obama proposing a plan to freeze spending.

www.picsthatdontsuck.com

Fart_Machine		2012-07-12 11:29:03 AM

Saiga410: qorkfiend: Saiga410: qorkfiend: Yeah, no. That's not what liberals said. Liberals said "They overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy", which was true then and is true now

Except when you see that the part that benefit the wealthy only account for~ 25% of the entire bundle.

So, 1% of earners get 25% of the benefit to themselves, on top of the benefits they get from the lower bracket cuts? Yeah, that's real wonderful.

Oh my the group that pays the most gets the most for an relative equal % cut across board gets the most...... Rick is that you?

Pays the most =\ greatest percentage of their income going towards taxes.

Jackpot777		2012-07-12 11:30:41 AM

skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: This is the thread where FactCheck.org is taken at face value.

Are you saying the CBO data is wrong, or that FactCheck has manipulated it in some way to make it say something it doesn't really say? Not sure what your problem is here.

"Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years"

Here's a dataset to prove it that ends 2.5 years ago. Unless they are taking a retroactive shot at Teabaggers in 2009, I don't see much of current value here.

If we used that quasi-logic (it happened in the past, let it go) as a metric for anything, we'd never prosecute anyone for crimes.

Newsflash, poppet: every conversation, every data set, is from the past.

What: you think they're going to have full data for Fiscal Year 2012? We're still in it. You think they're going to have full date For Fiscal Year 2011? People are only getting the raw data for that now for certain things like colleges. It hasn't been collated yet. So the earliest year we have FOR collated data right now for something as large as the whole nation IS for F.Y. 2009, you dolt!

We don't have a crystal ball to see the future, or a bigger government department to disseminate the information. THAT'S HOW THE PASSAGE OF TIME WORKS IN THIS REALITY. You don't want to see it as a problem, because you know it IS a problem when you apply reality to it.

Cry moar.

qorkfiend		2012-07-12 11:30:45 AM

Saiga410: qorkfiend: Yes. Overwhelming benefit. 1% gets 25%, 99% gets 75%. Is this really that difficult to understand

When I look at the delta on the change in effective taxes I see the tax cuts to overwelmingly benefit the middleclass.

That's funny. Surely it would be trivial to provide some evidence that supports this assertion?

meat0918		2012-07-12 11:31:00 AM

Saiga410: meat0918: Is today the day we trust FactCheck?

I don't know are you a lib or a con?

I am a jelly doughnut.

skullkrusher		2012-07-12 11:32:18 AM

DarwiOdrade: Were such data available, yes, I would think that. Since they are using the most recent available data, their only offense is not including the phrase "according to the most recent available data."

and the claim "Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years" while all but saying outright that effective tax rates are most likely higher now

Jackpot777		2012-07-12 11:32:21 AM

DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: This is the thread where FactCheck.org is taken at face value.

Are you saying the CBO data is wrong, or that FactCheck has manipulated it in some way to make it say something it doesn't really say? Not sure what your problem is here.

"Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years"

Here's a dataset to prove it that ends 2.5 years ago. Unless they are taking a retroactive shot at Teabaggers in 2009, I don't see much of current value here.

Teabaggers have been claiming since he was elected that Obama is the worst ever when it comes to tax rates. This is the latest available data from the CBO, and it shows they were wrong. Is there evidence that tax rates increased in 2010 or 2011?

Not unless anyone has a way to read data that hasn't been fully collected and compiled yet. Poor skullkrusher doesn't see it as a problem because it takes time for things to be done in this universe.

Jackpot777		2012-07-12 11:33:10 AM

skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: Were such data available, yes, I would think that. Since they are using the most recent available data, their only offense is not including the phrase "according to the most recent available data."

and the claim "Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years" while all but saying outright that effective tax rates are most likely higher now

The Payroll Tax Reduction Signed By Obama, You Dolt!

Jackpot777		2012-07-12 11:34:35 AM

meat0918: Saiga410: meat0918: Is today the day we trust FactCheck?

I don't know are you a lib or a con?

I am a jelly doughnut.

3.bp.blogspot.com

IlGreven		2012-07-12 11:34:52 AM

Jackpot777: In The Dilbert Future: Thriving On Stupidity In The 21st Century, Scott Adams (in Prediction 49 - in the future, new technology will allow police to solve 100 percent of all crimes. The bad news is that we'll realize 100 percent of the population are criminals, including the police) points out how easy it is to spot the murderer in a crime drama.

When asked if he killed his wife, an innocent man would say, "no, are you f***ing crazy, of course I didn't kill my wife." He would address the charge directly.

When asked if he killed his wife, a murderer would say, "you can't prove I murdered her, so unless you're going to charge me this interview is over." He doesn't address denying the charge at all, he just says there's no absolute smoking gun of evidence that eliminates shadows of doubt in some people's minds about that one particular thing.

It's based on human nature. That's how you can watch everything from a crime drama, to a reality TV show where someone gets called out on a lie, to incidents in your own personal life and know it's a believable scenario. People telling the truth address the truth directly. People with something to hide will be evasive in case they give away they do know something and it implicates them.

Actually, nowadays most of the time it's the guy whom most people would peg as innocent being the actual murderer. Probably because it was becoming so obvious that everyone knows the act.

skullkrusher		2012-07-12 11:35:00 AM

Jackpot777: If we used that quasi-logic (it happened in the past, let it go) as a metric for anything, we'd never prosecute anyone for crimes.

Newsflash, poppet: every conversation, every data set, is from the past.

What: you think they're going to have full data for Fiscal Year 2012? We're still in it. You think they're going to have full date For Fiscal Year 2011? People are only getting the raw data for that now for certain things like colleges. It hasn't been collated yet. So the earliest year we have FOR collated data right now for something as large as the whole nation IS for F.Y. 2009, you dolt!

We don't have a crystal ball to see the future, or a bigger government department to disseminate the information. THAT'S HOW THE PASSAGE OF TIME WORKS IN THIS REALITY. You don't want to see it as a problem, because you know it IS a problem when you apply reality to it.

Cry moar.

The People intend to prove that Mr Jones killed Mr Smith on July 11, 2012. Here is videotape of him killing Mr Smith in 2009. Why are you looking at me funny?

It's not the use of data from the past that's the problem, dumdum. It's using that data to make a claim about the state of affairs TODAY.

DarwiOdrade		2012-07-12 11:35:58 AM

skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: Were such data available, yes, I would think that. Since they are using the most recent available data, their only offense is not including the phrase "according to the most recent available data."

and the claim "Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years" while all but saying outright that effective tax rates are most likely higher now

wat?

Jackpot777		2012-07-12 11:37:13 AM

skullkrusher: Jackpot777: skullkrusher: Jackpot777: What's funny is that Romney's new ad about Obama and the talk of Bain is named "No Evidence"...

In The Dilbert Future: Thriving On Stupidity In The 21st Century, Scott Adams (in Prediction 49 - in the future, new technology will allow police to solve 100 percent of all crimes. The bad news is that we'll realize 100 percent of the population are criminals, including the police) points out how easy it is to spot the murderer in a crime drama.

When asked if he killed his wife, an innocent man would say, "no, are you f***ing crazy, of course I didn't kill my wife." He would address the charge directly.

When asked if he killed his wife, a murderer would say, "you can't prove I murdered her, so unless you're going to charge me this interview is over." He doesn't address denying the charge at all, he just says there's no absolute smoking gun of evidence that eliminates shadows of doubt in some people's minds about that one particular thing.

It's based on human nature. That's how you can watch everything from a crime drama, to a reality TV show where someone gets called out on a lie, to incidents in your own personal life and know it's a believable scenario. People telling the truth address the truth directly. People with something to hide will be evasive in case they give away they do know something and it implicates them.

It's also how you can say, "interesting choice of wording the Romney camp chose for that video. So what's he hiding? So many lies that wants to label the Dems as Obama And His Tax And Spend Liberals In Congress despite overwhelming evidence it's a lie, and now he's passing off Bain as 'you have no evidence...' like the guilty party in an episode of CSI. It smells fishy..."

I think you posted in the wrong thread. This is the thread where FactCheck.org is taken at face value. The one below is the one where they are engaged in a coverup to protect Mittens from prosecution.

No, it's in the right thread.

[i301.pho ...

See the bold part. See it.

Go on. Put it together. You can do it, YOU DOLT!

Debeo Summa Credo		2012-07-12 11:37:36 AM

qorkfiend: Debeo Summa Credo: qorkfiend: Debeo Summa Credo: quatchi: Being on the wrong side of the Laffer curve is wrong.

This simple fact has been staring in the face of the Taxed Enough Already morons for a while now.

chiett: And we are blaming Bush again !!!

People will stop blaming Bush shortly after the rest of the country finishes paying for all his farkups including Iraq and his tax giveaway to the rich.

I give it about 30 years or so.

So, taxes are low relative to the last 30 years, and the bush tax cuts were "giveaways to the rich".

I would assume then that you'd be in favor of letting all the bush tax cuts expire. This would raise taxes closer to historic averages, and also presumably represent a "takeaway" from the rich.

Well then, good news! We can easily devise a plan that lets the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire, while keeping them for everyone else!

Oh wait; that's what Obama's plan does.

Or we could just let them all expire! We still stick it to the rich, because after all the original tax cuts were giveaways to the wealthy (at least that's what liberals said and still say, and they're really smart and don't lie or exaggerate, so you know it's true) plus we'd raise $4t in revenue over the next 10 years as opposed to the $700b we would if only allowing cuts for incomes greater than $250k to expire.

Yeah, no. That's not what liberals said. Liberals said "They overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy", which was true then and is true now.

Quatchi, who is liberal, used the term "giveaway" in the original comment in our discussion.

Regardless, if they "overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy", then letting them all expire would presumably be to the overwhelming detriment of the wealthy, which I thought you would be supportive of. As I would support the same (subject to the possibile phasing out rather than all expiring at once), I thought this could be an issue upon which we could reach agreement.

Crotchrocket Slim		2012-07-12 11:40:52 AM

Jackpot777		2012-07-12 11:41:25 AM

skullkrusher: Jackpot777: If we used that quasi-logic (it happened in the past, let it go) as a metric for anything, we'd never prosecute anyone for crimes.

Newsflash, poppet: every conversation, every data set, is from the past.

What: you think they're going to have full data for Fiscal Year 2012? We're still in it. You think they're going to have full date For Fiscal Year 2011? People are only getting the raw data for that now for certain things like colleges. It hasn't been collated yet. So the earliest year we have FOR collated data right now for something as large as the whole nation IS for F.Y. 2009, you dolt!

We don't have a crystal ball to see the future, or a bigger government department to disseminate the information. THAT'S HOW THE PASSAGE OF TIME WORKS IN THIS REALITY. You don't want to see it as a problem, because you know it IS a problem when you apply reality to it.

Cry moar.

The People intend to prove that Mr Jones killed Mr Smith on July 11, 2012. Here is videotape of him killing Mr Smith in 2009. Why are you looking at me funny?

It's not the use of data from the past that's the problem, dumdum. It's using that data to make a claim about the state of affairs TODAY.

"and the claim "Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years" while all but saying outright that effective tax rates are most likely higher now"

Your proofs.

static.tvfanatic.com

Present them.

Because the line that this government was Obama And His Tax And Spend Liberals was used in 2009 too.

F***ing history repeating, how does it work?

Unless you want to complain more about 100% proven reality as you provide none for something you claim is "most likely higher now"? Come on, you dolt. Prove this wrong.

oren0		2012-07-12 11:41:43 AM

This just in: unemployed people pay less tax. Film at 11.

Jackpot777		2012-07-12 11:42:36 AM

DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: Were such data available, yes, I would think that. Since they are using the most recent available data, their only offense is not including the phrase "according to the most recent available data."

and the claim "Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years" while all but saying outright that effective tax rates are most likely higher now

wat?

I'm asking him to prove it.

PROVE THIS.

skullkrusher		2012-07-12 11:43:07 AM

Jackpot777: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: Were such data available, yes, I would think that. Since they are using the most recent available data, their only offense is not including the phrase "according to the most recent available data."

and the claim "Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years" while all but saying outright that effective tax rates are most likely higher now

The Payroll Tax Reduction Signed By Obama, You Dolt!

$288 billion in tax breaks to individuals and businesses in the stimulus
- $145 billion payroll tax cuts this year.
____
$143 billion more in tax breaks from the stimulus which ended in 2010 than in the current payroll tax cut. You dolt.

This is shooting fish in a barrel except fish aren't usually this stupid.

Raharu		2012-07-12 11:43:38 AM

oren0: This just in: unemployed people pay less tax. Film at 11.

and why republicans think they should be paying more!

Jackpot777		2012-07-12 11:45:09 AM

Crotchrocket Slim: lordaction: Here is what liberals don't want you to know. If we were to freeze spending right now the deb would be paid of by 2015. LIberals can't stop spending for 3 farking years. Instead they bring up this bullshiat about how unfair it is the top tax payers are only paying 75% of the tax burden. These people are delusional, entitled children with no grasp of economics or math.

Yeah, good thing there aren't a farkload of essential services even your self-absorbed narcissistic ass depend on every day that would not be funded and thus would fail very quickly. Oh wait.

Teabaggers complain there isn't enough socialism when THEY need it... difficulty level: Wall Street Journal!

skullkrusher		2012-07-12 11:46:51 AM

Jackpot777: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: Were such data available, yes, I would think that. Since they are using the most recent available data, their only offense is not including the phrase "according to the most recent available data."

and the claim "Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years" while all but saying outright that effective tax rates are most likely higher now

wat?

I'm asking him to prove it.

PROVE THIS.

It is not difficult to prove that a statement which implies current tax rates are the lowest they've been in 30 years using data that is over 2.5 years old - data which, TFA itself admits, was skewed downward because of the recession and stimulus, is bogus.

"In 2009 effective tax rates were the lowest they had been in 30 years" - that's an accurate headline supported by the data contained in the article.

why does logic [f]right[en] you?

Jackpot777		2012-07-12 11:47:48 AM

skullkrusher: Jackpot777: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: Were such data available, yes, I would think that. Since they are using the most recent available data, their only offense is not including the phrase "according to the most recent available data."

and the claim "Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years" while all but saying outright that effective tax rates are most likely higher now

The Payroll Tax Reduction Signed By Obama, You Dolt!

$288 billion in tax breaks to individuals and businesses in the stimulus
- $145 billion payroll tax cuts this year.
____
$143 billion more in tax breaks from the stimulus which ended in 2010 than in the current payroll tax cut. You dolt.

This is shooting fish in a barrel except fish aren't usually this stupid.

Did you just subtract a minus FROM a minus and come up with a lower number?

I can wait.

Jackpot777		2012-07-12 11:52:15 AM

skullkrusher: Jackpot777: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: Were such data available, yes, I would think that. Since they are using the most recent available data, their only offense is not including the phrase "according to the most recent available data."

and the claim "Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years" while all but saying outright that effective tax rates are most likely higher now

wat?

I'm asking him to prove it.

PROVE THIS.

It is not difficult to prove that a statement which implies current tax rates are the lowest they've been in 30 years using data that is over 2.5 years old - data which, TFA itself admits, was skewed downward because of the recession and stimulus, is bogus.

"In 2009 effective tax rates were the lowest they had been in 30 years" - that's an accurate headline supported by the data contained in the article.

why does logic [f]right[en] you?

"and the claim "Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years" while all but saying outright that effective tax rates are most likely higher now" -- you. This thread.

Don't tell me: because you're going to fark up math?

$288 billion in tax breaks to individuals and businesses in the stimulus
PLUS $145 billion payroll tax cuts this year.
____
$433 billion more in tax breaks than BEFORE THE STIMULUS.

skullkrusher		2012-07-12 11:52:37 AM

Jackpot777: skullkrusher: Jackpot777: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: Were such data available, yes, I would think that. Since they are using the most recent available data, their only offense is not including the phrase "according to the most recent available data."

and the claim "Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years" while all but saying outright that effective tax rates are most likely higher now

The Payroll Tax Reduction Signed By Obama, You Dolt!

$288 billion in tax breaks to individuals and businesses in the stimulus
- $145 billion payroll tax cuts this year.
____
$143 billion more in tax breaks from the stimulus which ended in 2010 than in the current payroll tax cut. You dolt.

This is shooting fish in a barrel except fish aren't usually this stupid.

Did you just subtract a minus FROM a minus and come up with a lower number?

I can wait.

I love the smell of desperation in the morning. It smells like... Jackpot777's mom's basement.

sprawl15		2012-07-12 11:53:31 AM

Jackpot777: Did you just subtract a minus FROM a minus and come up with a lower number?

This is probably the dumbest thing I'll read all week.

You spent 100 dollars last week on meth. You spent 50 dollars this week on meth. How much less on meth did you spend this week?

-100 - -50 = -50
OR
100 - 50 = 50

As long as the sign remains consistent, it produces the same answer.

skullkrusher		2012-07-12 11:56:41 AM

Jackpot777: "and the claim "Tax Facts: Lowest Rates in 30 Years" while all but saying outright that effective tax rates are most likely higher now" -- you. This thread.

Don't tell me: because you're going to fark up math?

$288 billion in tax breaks to individuals and businesses in the stimulus
PLUS $145 billion payroll tax cuts this year.
____
$433 billion more in tax breaks than BEFORE THE STIMULUS.

why didn't you add the Bush rebate checks from 2008 and the Civil War era "40 acres and a mule" into that number as well?

Jackpot777		2012-07-12 11:59:23 AM

sprawl15: Jackpot777: Did you just subtract a minus FROM a minus and come up with a lower number?

This is probably the dumbest thing I'll read all week.

You spent 100 dollars last week on meth. You spent 50 dollars this week on meth. How much less on meth did you spend this week?

-100 - -50 = -50
OR
100 - 50 = 50

As long as the sign remains consistent, it produces the same answer.

We're talking about the amount since 2009, which the graph shows.

Skullcrusher asserts that's all we have data for.

He then produces the following amounts to factor into the equation.

$288 billion in tax breaks to individuals and businesses in the stimulus

$145 billion payroll tax cuts this year.

What is -$288 billion -$145 billion since 2009?

qorkfiend		2012-07-12 12:00:56 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: then letting them all expire would presumably be to the overwhelming detriment of the wealthy, which I thought you would be supportive of.

If only there was some form of middle ground, instead of this false choice between "all or nothing".

In fact, we can craft a plan that preserves the benefit for the lower brackets, while lessening the benefit for the upper brackets. Why don't we do that instead? It accomplishes all of our objectives.

Jackpot777		2012-07-12 12:01:06 PM

We're talking about the amount since up to 2009, which the graph shows.

ftfm

skullkrusher		2012-07-12 12:01:07 PM

Jackpot777: sprawl15: Jackpot777: Did you just subtract a minus FROM a minus and come up with a lower number?

This is probably the dumbest thing I'll read all week.

You spent 100 dollars last week on meth. You spent 50 dollars this week on meth. How much less on meth did you spend this week?

-100 - -50 = -50
OR
100 - 50 = 50

As long as the sign remains consistent, it produces the same answer.

We're talking about the amount since 2009, which the graph shows.

Skullcrusher asserts that's all we have data for.

He then produces the following amounts to factor into the equation.

$288 billion in tax breaks to individuals and businesses in the stimulus

$145 billion payroll tax cuts this year.

What is -$288 billion -$145 billion since 2009?

and the auto-asskicking rages on...

Displayed 50 of 147 comments