Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mXahlA8CTB4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Economy?
- Thread starter thoughtone
- Start date
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
Your "argument" is a non-argument because the premise that Obama is doing everything he can to "help" the economy is outright false! It's already been proven you can not spend your way to prosperity
When you're in a hole, the first thing you do is STOP DIGGIN!
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JnX-D4kkPOQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Your "argument" is a non-argument because the premise that Obama is doing everything he can to "help" the economy is outright false! It's already been proven you can not spend your way to prosperity
When you're in a hole, the first thing you do is STOP DIGGIN!
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JnX-D4kkPOQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
The difference between my arguments and yours is I post actual quotes from those that made them and you post made up commercials
Talk about DIGGIN!!
Where did you get that?
Numbers don't lie, opinions do.
The difference between my arguments and yours is I post actual quotes from those that made them and you post made up commercials
Talk about DIGGIN!!Where did you get that?
Numbers don't lie, opinions do.
Last edited:
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
you like that, don't u
Pres Obama & "W" recieved significantly more tax revenues that Pres Clinton, yet today, we are 1.6 Trillion over-budget. How does that happen?
3 B T
you like that, don't u
Numbers don't lie, opinions do.
Pres Obama & "W" recieved significantly more tax revenues that Pres Clinton, yet today, we are 1.6 Trillion over-budget. How does that happen?
3 B T
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
post it
Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950
you like that, don't u
Pres Obama & "W" recieved significantly more tax revenues that Pres Clinton, yet today, we are 1.6 Trillion over-budget. How does that happen?
3 B T
post it
Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
Tax Receipts
1993.....1,154,471
1994.....1,258,721
1995.....1,351,932
1996.....1,453,177
1997.....1,579,423
1998.....1,721,955
1999.....1,827,645
2000.....2,025,457
2001.....1,991,426
2002.....1,853,395
2003.....1,782,532
2004.....1,880,279
2005.....2,153,859
2006.....2,407,254
2007.....2,570,000
2008.....2,582,000
Like I Said; Pres Obama & "W" recieved more tax revenues that Pres Clinton, yet today, we are 1.6 Trillion over-budget. How does that happen?
3 B T
Tax Receipts
1993.....1,154,471
1994.....1,258,721
1995.....1,351,932
1996.....1,453,177
1997.....1,579,423
1998.....1,721,955
1999.....1,827,645
2000.....2,025,457
2001.....1,991,426
2002.....1,853,395
2003.....1,782,532
2004.....1,880,279
2005.....2,153,859
2006.....2,407,254
2007.....2,570,000
2008.....2,582,000
Like I Said; Pres Obama & "W" recieved more tax revenues that Pres Clinton, yet today, we are 1.6 Trillion over-budget. How does that happen?
3 B T
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
I'm confused. President Obama didn't take office until January 20. 2009. His budget didn't pass (stimulus) until later that year. Where are Obama's tax receipts in your post?
I'm confused. President Obama didn't take office until January 20. 2009. His budget didn't pass (stimulus) until later that year. Where are Obama's tax receipts in your post?
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
I have no idea what the answer is, but its a great question. Before comparisons can be made, apples need to be aligned next to apples and oranges, the same.
I have no idea what the answer is, but its a great question. Before comparisons can be made, apples need to be aligned next to apples and oranges, the same.
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
Once/if he clears that up, then we will discuss his claim and I will throw in GW's Medicare part 'D'.
Once/if he clears that up, then we will discuss his claim and I will throw in GW's Medicare part 'D'.
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
"I hope Obama fails"
<IFRAME height=349 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/XuYjWbAU2eU" frameBorder=0 width=425 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
How are you confused? Following receipts of a specified year is not complicated
The chart only went to 2009 but I included 2009 receipts (over 2.6 Trill in 2009)
1993.....1,154,471
1994.....1,258,721
1995.....1,351,932
1996.....1,453,177
1997.....1,579,423
1998.....1,721,955
1999.....1,827,645
2000.....2,025,457
2001.....1,991,426
2002.....1,853,395
2003.....1,782,532
2004.....1,880,279
2005.....2,153,859
2006.....2,407,254
2007.....2,570,000
2008.....2,582,000
2009.....2,616,397
Like I said, the govt is recieving a lot more tax revenue than when Clinton was in office. Why do we have a $1.6 Trill deficit?
Maybe we should go back to Clinton Era spending levels!
And what does Medicare Part D have to do with Tax receipts?
How are you confused? Following receipts of a specified year is not complicated
The chart only went to 2009 but I included 2009 receipts (over 2.6 Trill in 2009)
1993.....1,154,471
1994.....1,258,721
1995.....1,351,932
1996.....1,453,177
1997.....1,579,423
1998.....1,721,955
1999.....1,827,645
2000.....2,025,457
2001.....1,991,426
2002.....1,853,395
2003.....1,782,532
2004.....1,880,279
2005.....2,153,859
2006.....2,407,254
2007.....2,570,000
2008.....2,582,000
2009.....2,616,397
Like I said, the govt is recieving a lot more tax revenue than when Clinton was in office. Why do we have a $1.6 Trill deficit?
Maybe we should go back to Clinton Era spending levels!
And what does Medicare Part D have to do with Tax receipts?
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
You answered your own question. The data stops at 2009. President Obama took the oath of office on January 20, 2009 and inherited a $1.2 trillion dollar deficit. It is irrelevant how much tax receipts GW took in with respect to President Obama's term. Your continued attempt to link Obama to GW is continually laughable!
How are you confused? Following receipts of a specified year is not complicated
The chart only went to 2009 but I included 2009 receipts (over 2.6 Trill in 2009)
1993.....1,154,471
1994.....1,258,721
1995.....1,351,932
1996.....1,453,177
1997.....1,579,423
1998.....1,721,955
1999.....1,827,645
2000.....2,025,457
2001.....1,991,426
2002.....1,853,395
2003.....1,782,532
2004.....1,880,279
2005.....2,153,859
2006.....2,407,254
2007.....2,570,000
2008.....2,582,000
2009.....2,616,397
Like I said, the govt is recieving a lot more tax revenue than when Clinton was in office. Why do we have a $1.6 Trill deficit?
Maybe we should go back to Clinton Era spending levels!
And what does Medicare Part D have to do with Tax receipts?
Spell check!
You answered your own question. The data stops at 2009. President Obama took the oath of office on January 20, 2009 and inherited a $1.2 trillion dollar deficit. It is irrelevant how much tax receipts GW took in with respect to President Obama's term. Your continued attempt to link Obama to GW is continually laughable!
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
The point IS; Tax revenue has went up considerably since Clinton has left, with his "balanced budget". Point IS; If the budget was "balanced" in 2000, Why is it $1.6 Trillion over-budget with more tax revenue?
You realize the 1.2 Trill Obama inherited is a "rolling total" to the National debt? That total resets every year, Unlike The National Debt. The problem was that Bush spent tooooo much damn money, AND SOME WANNA CALL HIM CONSERVATIVE
The point IS; Tax revenue has went up considerably since Clinton has left, with his "balanced budget". Point IS; If the budget was "balanced" in 2000, Why is it $1.6 Trillion over-budget with more tax revenue?
You realize the 1.2 Trill Obama inherited is a "rolling total" to the National debt? That total resets every year, Unlike The National Debt. The problem was that Bush spent tooooo much damn money, AND SOME WANNA CALL HIM CONSERVATIVE
Last edited:
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
Ladies and gentlemen, here he is,
[1] "your boy,"
[2] that "tar baby,"
[3] the president of the United Sates, Barack Obama
If the first two seem to cancel out the third, well, that's the point. One hopes they will help the president understand something he has thus far refused to grasp about his political opposition, namely:
They have not been coy about this.
Yet somehow, the Obama brain trust, a term herein used advisedly, always seems caught off guard by the ferocity, velocity and fury of the response to him. They were surprised at the verbal and physical violence of the health care debate, surprised at the hardiness of the birther nonsense, surprised by the stiff defense of the Bush-era tax cuts.
Now, they are surprised the GOP would rather see the U.S. economy go off a cliff than surrender the aforementioned tax cuts for rich folks. So the debt ceiling gets raised in exchange for cuts to services for the poor, who shortsightedly failed to hire lobbyists.
It is time Obama quit being surprised by the predictable, time he understood this is not politics as usual, not Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill snarling at one another by day and having drinks by night, like that old cartoon where the sheepdog and the coyote punch a time clock to signal the beginning and end of their hostilities. It is not Bill Clinton living in a state of permanent investigation, nor even George W. Bush being called incompetent all day every day.
No, <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">this is a new thing, repulsion at a visceral, indeed, mitochondrial, level. Obama’s denigrators are appalled by the newness of him, the liberality of him, the exoticness of him and, yes, and the blackness of him</span>.
“Your boy?” Really?
Sure. Why not. Didn’t Rep. Lynn Westmoreland call him “uppity?” Didn’t the ex-mayor of Los Alamitos, Calif., send out an email showing the White House with a watermelon patch?
See, here’s the thing: <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">If, as is frequently said, Obama represents America’s future, what do they represent?</span>
You know the answer. Worse, they do, too.
Still, what matters here are neither their feelings nor his. No, what matters is homeowners dispossessed of their homes, workers who can’t find work, sick people who can’t afford health, American soldiers on patrol in hostile places.
The president is a basketball fan, so surely he knows it is sometimes necessary to throw an elbow on your way to the goal. This is one of those times. His instinct to compromise, to work with the opposition to solve problems, is admirable.
<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">But Obama needs to understand: As far as they are concerned, they have no problem bigger than him.</span>
Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr.
Leonard Pitts Jr., winner of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, is a columnist for the Miami Herald, 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, Fla. 33132. Readers may write to him via e-mail at lpitts@miamiherald.com. He chats with readers every Wednesday from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. EDT at Ask Leonard.
Wed, Aug. 10, 2011: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/08/10/3063944/commentary-tar-baby-is-just-more.html
Ladies and gentlemen, here he is,
[1] "your boy,"
[2] that "tar baby,"
[3] the president of the United Sates, Barack Obama
- The first title was bestowed upon Obama by political commentator Patrick Buchanan on Tuesday, August 9, 2011;
- The second by U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn on the Friday before last, July 29, 2011; and
- The third by the American electorate in November of 2008.
If the first two seem to cancel out the third, well, that's the point. One hopes they will help the president understand something he has thus far refused to grasp about his political opposition, namely:
- these people <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">don’t want to be friends</span>.
- They <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">don’t want to compromise</span> for the greater good.
- They <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">don’t want to solve problems</span> - - unless by problems - - you mean his continued tenancy in that mansion on Pennsylvania Ave.
They have not been coy about this.
- Rush Limbaugh said it ("I hope he fails") when Mrs. Obama was still picking out a dress for the inauguration.
- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in November that, in a time of war and recession, his number one goal is to deny Obama a second term.
Yet somehow, the Obama brain trust, a term herein used advisedly, always seems caught off guard by the ferocity, velocity and fury of the response to him. They were surprised at the verbal and physical violence of the health care debate, surprised at the hardiness of the birther nonsense, surprised by the stiff defense of the Bush-era tax cuts.
Now, they are surprised the GOP would rather see the U.S. economy go off a cliff than surrender the aforementioned tax cuts for rich folks. So the debt ceiling gets raised in exchange for cuts to services for the poor, who shortsightedly failed to hire lobbyists.
It is time Obama quit being surprised by the predictable, time he understood this is not politics as usual, not Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill snarling at one another by day and having drinks by night, like that old cartoon where the sheepdog and the coyote punch a time clock to signal the beginning and end of their hostilities. It is not Bill Clinton living in a state of permanent investigation, nor even George W. Bush being called incompetent all day every day.
No, <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">this is a new thing, repulsion at a visceral, indeed, mitochondrial, level. Obama’s denigrators are appalled by the newness of him, the liberality of him, the exoticness of him and, yes, and the blackness of him</span>.
“Your boy?” Really?
Sure. Why not. Didn’t Rep. Lynn Westmoreland call him “uppity?” Didn’t the ex-mayor of Los Alamitos, Calif., send out an email showing the White House with a watermelon patch?
See, here’s the thing: <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">If, as is frequently said, Obama represents America’s future, what do they represent?</span>
You know the answer. Worse, they do, too.
Still, what matters here are neither their feelings nor his. No, what matters is homeowners dispossessed of their homes, workers who can’t find work, sick people who can’t afford health, American soldiers on patrol in hostile places.
The president is a basketball fan, so surely he knows it is sometimes necessary to throw an elbow on your way to the goal. This is one of those times. His instinct to compromise, to work with the opposition to solve problems, is admirable.
<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">But Obama needs to understand: As far as they are concerned, they have no problem bigger than him.</span>
Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr.
Leonard Pitts Jr., winner of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, is a columnist for the Miami Herald, 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, Fla. 33132. Readers may write to him via e-mail at lpitts@miamiherald.com. He chats with readers every Wednesday from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. EDT at Ask Leonard.
Wed, Aug. 10, 2011: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/08/10/3063944/commentary-tar-baby-is-just-more.html
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
It's in no one's interest to sabotage the U.S economy thats probably the reason there hasn't been another major terrorist attack on American soil. 9-11 proved that this economy is not as strong as it seems and when it goes the rest of the world is going with it. So, what the GOP is fighting is change, thats what they always fight. They don't want to accept the fact that things are changing and they don't have the power they use to have. White unemployment is up but it's not far from where it usually is about 4% the other 50% of America is in a depression and now as the Black and Brown communities go so does the country. The GOP cannot grasp that reality.
It's in no one's interest to sabotage the U.S economy thats probably the reason there hasn't been another major terrorist attack on American soil. 9-11 proved that this economy is not as strong as it seems and when it goes the rest of the world is going with it. So, what the GOP is fighting is change, thats what they always fight. They don't want to accept the fact that things are changing and they don't have the power they use to have. White unemployment is up but it's not far from where it usually is about 4% the other 50% of America is in a depression and now as the Black and Brown communities go so does the country. The GOP cannot grasp that reality.
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
. . . wonder what they were thinking, here ? ? ?
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.bgol.us/board/showpost.php?p=6470661&postcount=22" WIDTH=760 HEIGHT=800>
<A HREF="http://www.bgol.us/board/showpost.php?p=6470661&postcount=22">link</A>
</IFRAME>
. . . wonder what they were thinking, here ? ? ?
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.bgol.us/board/showpost.php?p=6470661&postcount=22" WIDTH=760 HEIGHT=800>
<A HREF="http://www.bgol.us/board/showpost.php?p=6470661&postcount=22">link</A>
</IFRAME>
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
That don't mean Rush wanted to sabotage the whole economy sounds like he wanted to stop Obama from being successful and if it meant boycotting GM then so be it. It's really a desperation type move imo, sort of a last stand for demagogues.
That don't mean Rush wanted to sabotage the whole economy sounds like he wanted to stop Obama from being successful and if it meant boycotting GM then so be it. It's really a desperation type move imo, sort of a last stand for demagogues.
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
An apologist for the racists!
An apologist for the racists!
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
Which would mean going back to the Clinton tax rates and ending the Bush tax cuts. So we agree.
Which would mean going back to the Clinton tax rates and ending the Bush tax cuts. So we agree.
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
We're halfway there, let me explain;
In 2000, Clinton raised 2.025 Trillion in tax revenue (his best year, revenue-wise). He spent 1.788 Trillion, which led to an approx. $200 Billion surplus.
Fast-forward to 2008, Tax revenue was $2.523 Trillion (over $500 Billion more). However, $2.982 Trillion was spent, which obviously led to a deficit.
3 Points:
1) If spending is at $1.788 Trillion (Clinton era), we would still operate at a surplus as we still recieve over $2 Trillion in tax revenue.
2) Despite the "Bush Tax Cuts", tax revenue has increased since 2000, the year that led to the highest tax revenue during the Clinton era. From an objective standpoint, the evidence shows that tax cuts produce more tax revenue.
Bush collected $2,153 Trill in 2005
Bush collected $2,406 Trill in 2006
Bush collected $2,567 Trill in 2007
Bush collected $2,523 Trill in 2008
All of these years eclipsed Clintons record tax revenue of $2.025 Trill
3) Pres. Obama's projected spending in 2011 is $3.818 Trillion......Upgrade, thats more than twice of what Clinton spent! We would have to double the tax rate just to keep up with DC's spending..........At the expense of whom?
We're halfway there, let me explain;
In 2000, Clinton raised 2.025 Trillion in tax revenue (his best year, revenue-wise). He spent 1.788 Trillion, which led to an approx. $200 Billion surplus.
Fast-forward to 2008, Tax revenue was $2.523 Trillion (over $500 Billion more). However, $2.982 Trillion was spent, which obviously led to a deficit.
3 Points:
1) If spending is at $1.788 Trillion (Clinton era), we would still operate at a surplus as we still recieve over $2 Trillion in tax revenue.
2) Despite the "Bush Tax Cuts", tax revenue has increased since 2000, the year that led to the highest tax revenue during the Clinton era. From an objective standpoint, the evidence shows that tax cuts produce more tax revenue.
Bush collected $2,153 Trill in 2005
Bush collected $2,406 Trill in 2006
Bush collected $2,567 Trill in 2007
Bush collected $2,523 Trill in 2008
All of these years eclipsed Clintons record tax revenue of $2.025 Trill
3) Pres. Obama's projected spending in 2011 is $3.818 Trillion......Upgrade, thats more than twice of what Clinton spent! We would have to double the tax rate just to keep up with DC's spending..........At the expense of whom?
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
<iframe src="http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html" width=800 height=1000></iframe>
So you agree that:
Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
<iframe src="http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html" width=800 height=1000></iframe>
So you agree that:
Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
When you're marginalized in a debate, run to Factcheck
She says it is clear the tax cuts did not "increase revenues". But thats what happened, as I spelled out to you with hard numbers! ! !
It is in the best interest of Americans that govt spending be cut to $1.788 Trillion (Clinton Era)
When you're marginalized in a debate, run to Factcheck
She says it is clear the tax cuts did not "increase revenues". But thats what happened, as I spelled out to you with hard numbers! ! !It is in the best interest of Americans that govt spending be cut to $1.788 Trillion (Clinton Era)
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
When you're marginalized in a debate, run to Factcheck
So where are the jobs?
It is in the best interest of Americans that govt spending be cut to $1.788 Trillion (Clinton Era)
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
Thats the trillion dollar question! My opinion, for what its worth is; the 'productive' resources of the US are being squandered in its attempts to continue these fruitless wars. MLK said "War was the enemy of the poor" & I stand by that!
You're gonna hate this but hear me out: In order for capitalism to work, we first need capital. In order to have capital, we need savings. In order to incentivize people to save, we need higher interest rates! As long as we have 0% interest rates, we will continue down this road (heard of Japan's lost decade?). Zero percent interest rates drive investments abroad as people seek to find investments with a higher return, whereas, higher interest rates invite domestic investment. So, its not so much a stab at Pres Obama, but I'm targeting Bernanke & Geithner/Paulson for pursuing a 'weak' dollar policy.
A healthy economy is one that saves & produces and currently, we are on the opposite end of the spectrum as we borrow to consume everything in site. Fundamentals my friend
Couple all these items with a White House that is not particularly business-friendly and you see entreprenuers sitting on the sidelines, buying gold or investing abroad
Thats the trillion dollar question! My opinion, for what its worth is; the 'productive' resources of the US are being squandered in its attempts to continue these fruitless wars. MLK said "War was the enemy of the poor" & I stand by that!
You're gonna hate this but hear me out: In order for capitalism to work, we first need capital. In order to have capital, we need savings. In order to incentivize people to save, we need higher interest rates! As long as we have 0% interest rates, we will continue down this road (heard of Japan's lost decade?). Zero percent interest rates drive investments abroad as people seek to find investments with a higher return, whereas, higher interest rates invite domestic investment. So, its not so much a stab at Pres Obama, but I'm targeting Bernanke & Geithner/Paulson for pursuing a 'weak' dollar policy.
A healthy economy is one that saves & produces and currently, we are on the opposite end of the spectrum as we borrow to consume everything in site. Fundamentals my friend
Couple all these items with a White House that is not particularly business-friendly and you see entreprenuers sitting on the sidelines, buying gold or investing abroad
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
Damn. LOL. One side in a debate criticizing the other, FOR USING FACTS
is
or
uck the
acts.
When you're marginalized in a debate, run to Factcheck
Damn. LOL. One side in a debate criticizing the other, FOR USING FACTS
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
you aint right Que
But I manage to lay out hard numbers to show tax collections were greater under Bush than Clinton.......that was not, and can not be refuted.
Again;
It is in the best interest of Americans that govt spending be cut to $1.788 Trillion (Clinton Era)
Damn. LOL. One side in a debate criticizing the other, FOR USING FACTS
you aint right Que
But I manage to lay out hard numbers to show tax collections were greater under Bush than Clinton.......that was not, and can not be refuted.
Again;
It is in the best interest of Americans that govt spending be cut to $1.788 Trillion (Clinton Era)
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
Then, as I said, we agree. End the wars and conflicts we're in and end the Bush tax cuts. If we're halfway there, let's go the other half.
Damn. LOL. One side in a debate criticizing the other, FOR USING FACTS
[/size]
you aint right Que
But I manage to lay out hard numbers to show tax collections were greater under Bush than Clinton.......that was not, and can not be refuted.
Again;
It is in the best interest of Americans that govt spending be cut to $1.788 Trillion (Clinton Era)
Then, as I said, we agree. End the wars and conflicts we're in and end the Bush tax cuts. If we're halfway there, let's go the other half.
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
But throughout all of his posts in this thread, he has yet to post anything disproving the the original premise I posed. In fact he has only reinforced it.
Damn. LOL. One side in a debate criticizing the other, FOR USING FACTS
isoruck theacts.
But throughout all of his posts in this thread, he has yet to post anything disproving the the original premise I posed. In fact he has only reinforced it.
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
source: Politico
GOP grumbles about jobs plan
House Republicans may pass bits and pieces of President Barack Obama’s jobs plan, but behind the scenes, some Republicans are becoming worried about giving Obama any victories — even on issues the GOP has supported in the past.
And despite public declarations about finding common ground with Obama, some Republicans are privately grumbling that their leaders are being too accommodating with the president.
“Obama is on the ropes; why do we appear ready to hand him a win?” said one senior House Republican aide who requested anonymity to discuss the matter freely. “I just don’t want to co-own the economy by having to tout that we passed a jobs bill that won’t work or at least won’t do enough.”
Even with the presence of so many GOP-friendly provisions in Obama’s plan — like trade agreements and small-business tax relief — some senior lawmakers are pulling back, wondering how the president will ensure his initiatives will not add to the nation’s debt.
“To assume that we’re naturally for these things because we’ve been for them does not mean we will be for them if they cause debt, if they [have] tax increases and if they take money from the free-enterprise sector, which creates jobs,” said Texas Rep. Pete Sessions, who heads up the House Republican campaign arm.
So as they try to grab smaller, passable measures from Obama’s jobs package, Republicans are also trying to strike their own balance between appearing open to bipartisan solutions and not giving the president an easy legislative victory that could tether them to his ownership of a bad economy.
Immediately after Obama’s speech on Thursday, Republican lawmakers said they liked some of what they heard in the president’s plan — identifying and eliminating unnecessary federal regulations and the free-trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, which have been front and center on the Republican agenda for several months.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said at an event at a cement mixing plant in Henrico, Va., that there were “lots of things” in Obama’s speech that “reflect the kind of things” that House Republicans want to pass. Cantor singled out small-business tax relief, certain infrastructure spending projects and trade deals.
“All [of] these are things we can work together [on] to build consensus,” Cantor said.
But that feeling wasn’t universal.
“I have great respect for everybody in Republican leadership,” Sessions said. “I found what the president said to be out of balance; … It’s fair to give any [proposal by the] president [a chance] out of respect to him, but also we need to look at the substance.”
Sessions, noting the president’s dismal approval ratings on the economy, said that he didn’t get the sense over the August recess that voters were frustrated with both parties’ efforts to revamp the economy. Of course, Congress enjoys even worse approval ratings than the president — but many Republicans are still placing their electoral bets on the public placing ownership of the economy squarely on the president in 2012.
I know how to read,” Sessions said, referring to the polls, “but my sense is that I’m unhappy with us also, with the way we work together, the House and Senate. We’re not on a pro-growth agenda; we’re on a pro-tax and spend agenda. … The American people will judge us [on] the aggregate, not [on] specifics.”
Moving individual pieces of the jobs bill isn’t all Republican leadership is aiming to do. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Cantor and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) are also embarking on a 10-week crusade to cut federal regulation. During his appearance in Henrico last week, Cantor talked about helping construction companies by cutting regulations on cement and the regulation that forces companies who do business with the federal government to withhold 3 percent. Cantor said he wants the Obama administration to return to a “reasonable regulatory posture.”
“Of course, there’s skepticism; there’s healthy skepticism on behalf of our constituents who have said what we need to do is get government out of the way,” said Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn. But Blackburn and other Republicans are taking a page out of the president’s playbook — insisting that job creation is an issue too sacred to befall the typical trappings of Washington partisanship. Die-hards, like Iowa Rep. Steve King, insist that it’s merely an earnest philosophical disagreement.
“This is Keynesianism, and I have been critical of his approach since the beginning,” King said, adding that he found nothing GOP friendly about the president’s tax-cut-heavy plan. “The difficulty I might have had would be if he had actually offered a proposal that took us back to free markets and back to real serious tax reform and real reduction of regulation.”
But even some of his most conservative colleagues, like tea party freshman Rep. Raul Labrador of Idaho, made the case that they are willing to work for a bipartisan agreement, pointing to former President Bill Clinton as a model.
“Take a page from Clinton — when you’re willing to come to the Hill and work with Republicans, it actually makes both sides look better. What he said [in his speech] was all or nothing,” Labrador said. “If he says all or nothing, we won’t be able to work together. But if he takes those things we’re willing to work on, we could have a breakthrough, and it would be good for him and his reelection.”
Illinois Republican Rep. Bobby Schilling agreed: “His demand of pass this bill now wasn’t taken very well, because how can you pass a bill when you don’t know what it’s got?”
source: Politico
GOP grumbles about jobs plan
House Republicans may pass bits and pieces of President Barack Obama’s jobs plan, but behind the scenes, some Republicans are becoming worried about giving Obama any victories — even on issues the GOP has supported in the past.
And despite public declarations about finding common ground with Obama, some Republicans are privately grumbling that their leaders are being too accommodating with the president.
“Obama is on the ropes; why do we appear ready to hand him a win?” said one senior House Republican aide who requested anonymity to discuss the matter freely. “I just don’t want to co-own the economy by having to tout that we passed a jobs bill that won’t work or at least won’t do enough.”
Even with the presence of so many GOP-friendly provisions in Obama’s plan — like trade agreements and small-business tax relief — some senior lawmakers are pulling back, wondering how the president will ensure his initiatives will not add to the nation’s debt.
“To assume that we’re naturally for these things because we’ve been for them does not mean we will be for them if they cause debt, if they [have] tax increases and if they take money from the free-enterprise sector, which creates jobs,” said Texas Rep. Pete Sessions, who heads up the House Republican campaign arm.
So as they try to grab smaller, passable measures from Obama’s jobs package, Republicans are also trying to strike their own balance between appearing open to bipartisan solutions and not giving the president an easy legislative victory that could tether them to his ownership of a bad economy.
Immediately after Obama’s speech on Thursday, Republican lawmakers said they liked some of what they heard in the president’s plan — identifying and eliminating unnecessary federal regulations and the free-trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, which have been front and center on the Republican agenda for several months.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said at an event at a cement mixing plant in Henrico, Va., that there were “lots of things” in Obama’s speech that “reflect the kind of things” that House Republicans want to pass. Cantor singled out small-business tax relief, certain infrastructure spending projects and trade deals.
“All [of] these are things we can work together [on] to build consensus,” Cantor said.
But that feeling wasn’t universal.
“I have great respect for everybody in Republican leadership,” Sessions said. “I found what the president said to be out of balance; … It’s fair to give any [proposal by the] president [a chance] out of respect to him, but also we need to look at the substance.”
Sessions, noting the president’s dismal approval ratings on the economy, said that he didn’t get the sense over the August recess that voters were frustrated with both parties’ efforts to revamp the economy. Of course, Congress enjoys even worse approval ratings than the president — but many Republicans are still placing their electoral bets on the public placing ownership of the economy squarely on the president in 2012.
I know how to read,” Sessions said, referring to the polls, “but my sense is that I’m unhappy with us also, with the way we work together, the House and Senate. We’re not on a pro-growth agenda; we’re on a pro-tax and spend agenda. … The American people will judge us [on] the aggregate, not [on] specifics.”
Moving individual pieces of the jobs bill isn’t all Republican leadership is aiming to do. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Cantor and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) are also embarking on a 10-week crusade to cut federal regulation. During his appearance in Henrico last week, Cantor talked about helping construction companies by cutting regulations on cement and the regulation that forces companies who do business with the federal government to withhold 3 percent. Cantor said he wants the Obama administration to return to a “reasonable regulatory posture.”
“Of course, there’s skepticism; there’s healthy skepticism on behalf of our constituents who have said what we need to do is get government out of the way,” said Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn. But Blackburn and other Republicans are taking a page out of the president’s playbook — insisting that job creation is an issue too sacred to befall the typical trappings of Washington partisanship. Die-hards, like Iowa Rep. Steve King, insist that it’s merely an earnest philosophical disagreement.
“This is Keynesianism, and I have been critical of his approach since the beginning,” King said, adding that he found nothing GOP friendly about the president’s tax-cut-heavy plan. “The difficulty I might have had would be if he had actually offered a proposal that took us back to free markets and back to real serious tax reform and real reduction of regulation.”
But even some of his most conservative colleagues, like tea party freshman Rep. Raul Labrador of Idaho, made the case that they are willing to work for a bipartisan agreement, pointing to former President Bill Clinton as a model.
“Take a page from Clinton — when you’re willing to come to the Hill and work with Republicans, it actually makes both sides look better. What he said [in his speech] was all or nothing,” Labrador said. “If he says all or nothing, we won’t be able to work together. But if he takes those things we’re willing to work on, we could have a breakthrough, and it would be good for him and his reelection.”
Illinois Republican Rep. Bobby Schilling agreed: “His demand of pass this bill now wasn’t taken very well, because how can you pass a bill when you don’t know what it’s got?”
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
I saw a tickler from CNN talk show host Piers Morgan regarding his show that will air on Friday night, September 23, 2011, in which Morgan Freeman is interviewed. The interview centers on Morgan Freeman's emphatic statement that there are those in the Republican Party who will risk the country to get this black man, out of the White House.
I saw a tickler from CNN talk show host Piers Morgan regarding his show that will air on Friday night, September 23, 2011, in which Morgan Freeman is interviewed. The interview centers on Morgan Freeman's emphatic statement that there are those in the Republican Party who will risk the country to get this black man, out of the White House.
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo ?
Exhibit No. _______:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1eF6vCv13bw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo ?
Exhibit No. _______:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1eF6vCv13bw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/09/14/3137176/commentary-starbucks-ceo-wants.html
“I love our country. I am a beneficiary of the promise of America,” wrote the Brooklyn-born, self-made industry leader. “I am frustrated by our political leaders’ steadfast refusal to recognize that, for every day they perpetuate partisan conflict and put ideology over country, America and Americans suffer from the combined effects of paralysis and uncertainty.”
- Howard Schultz, entrepreneur, philanthropist and CEO Starbucks
- Howard Schultz, entrepreneur, philanthropist and CEO Starbucks
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/09/14/3137176/commentary-starbucks-ceo-wants.html
Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
sourcce: Huffington Post
GOP Supported Parts Of Obama's Jobs Bill
WASHINGTON -- In blocking the American Jobs Act, Congressional Republicans are voting against positions that broad swaths of the party have supported in the past. It's a flip-flop that President Obama is working hard to highlight on his campaign swing through the battleground states of Virginia and North Carolina.
The White House built the jobs bill with pieces of legislation that had been previously supported by leading Republicans so that they could hammer them with those past votes and statements, making the case that the GOP's opposition to jobs legislation is rooted in pure politics.
That indictment was made most directly by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), head of the Democratic National Committee, on Sunday when she accused Republicans of stalling jobs legislation so that they can capitalize on economic misery at the polls.
"They're the ones that have just been crossing their arms and hoping for failure. I mean ... it's so irresponsible for them to allow the economy to just remain stagnant, you know, so that they can get a political victory in the election next year," she said.
The jobs bill was beaten back in the Senate last week, with 51 Democrats voting to end a GOP filibuster, nine short of the 60 votes needed. The Republican Party was united in opposition.
Democrats have vowed to continue bringing the jobs bill to the floor, with Obama mocking the GOP on the campaign trail Monday.
"Maybe they just couldn't understand the whole thing all at once," he said, offering to break it into digestible "bite-sized pieces."
At the center of President Obama's 2011 jobs bill is the proposal to extend and expand the payroll tax cut. The current cut, which lowered payroll taxes from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent for salaries up to $106,000, expires at the end of this year.
Though the president's jobs bill failed to pass the Senate this October, extending the payroll tax relief has garnered approval from GOP politicians in the past. A 2010 bill extending Bush administration tax cuts, which passed with bipartisan support, included a provision for a payroll tax credit. In a press release announcing the legislation, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) praised the provision as a "reasonable" and "conservative" way to get the economy going.
"The payroll tax cut that is the center piece of this bill is a targeted, reasonable way to get employers hiring again," said Hatch in the release. "This is a conservative approach to help put our economy back on track through tax relief not more government spending."
Hatch, an original sponsor of the measure, told HuffPost he's now undecided as to whether continue backing it, echoing a position now held by the bulk of his party, including Herman Cain and Paul Ryan.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnel (R-Ky) said a payroll tax suspension was floated during a GOP discussion in 2009 as a possible alternative to stimulus. "It would put a lot of money back in the hands of businesses and in the hands of individuals," McConnell said, according to U.S. News. "Republicans, generally speaking, from Maine to Mississippi, like tax relief."
Last month House Majority Leader Eric Cantor implied his support, describing the tax cut as "something I supported in the past" and "will be part of the discussions ongoing," Bloomberg reported.
Cantor expressed a willingness to put aside partisan differences in order to create jobs, but added, there are "better ways to focus on small-business growth."
sourcce: Huffington Post
GOP Supported Parts Of Obama's Jobs Bill
WASHINGTON -- In blocking the American Jobs Act, Congressional Republicans are voting against positions that broad swaths of the party have supported in the past. It's a flip-flop that President Obama is working hard to highlight on his campaign swing through the battleground states of Virginia and North Carolina.
The White House built the jobs bill with pieces of legislation that had been previously supported by leading Republicans so that they could hammer them with those past votes and statements, making the case that the GOP's opposition to jobs legislation is rooted in pure politics.
That indictment was made most directly by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), head of the Democratic National Committee, on Sunday when she accused Republicans of stalling jobs legislation so that they can capitalize on economic misery at the polls.
"They're the ones that have just been crossing their arms and hoping for failure. I mean ... it's so irresponsible for them to allow the economy to just remain stagnant, you know, so that they can get a political victory in the election next year," she said.
The jobs bill was beaten back in the Senate last week, with 51 Democrats voting to end a GOP filibuster, nine short of the 60 votes needed. The Republican Party was united in opposition.
Democrats have vowed to continue bringing the jobs bill to the floor, with Obama mocking the GOP on the campaign trail Monday.
"Maybe they just couldn't understand the whole thing all at once," he said, offering to break it into digestible "bite-sized pieces."
At the center of President Obama's 2011 jobs bill is the proposal to extend and expand the payroll tax cut. The current cut, which lowered payroll taxes from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent for salaries up to $106,000, expires at the end of this year.
Though the president's jobs bill failed to pass the Senate this October, extending the payroll tax relief has garnered approval from GOP politicians in the past. A 2010 bill extending Bush administration tax cuts, which passed with bipartisan support, included a provision for a payroll tax credit. In a press release announcing the legislation, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) praised the provision as a "reasonable" and "conservative" way to get the economy going.
"The payroll tax cut that is the center piece of this bill is a targeted, reasonable way to get employers hiring again," said Hatch in the release. "This is a conservative approach to help put our economy back on track through tax relief not more government spending."
Hatch, an original sponsor of the measure, told HuffPost he's now undecided as to whether continue backing it, echoing a position now held by the bulk of his party, including Herman Cain and Paul Ryan.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnel (R-Ky) said a payroll tax suspension was floated during a GOP discussion in 2009 as a possible alternative to stimulus. "It would put a lot of money back in the hands of businesses and in the hands of individuals," McConnell said, according to U.S. News. "Republicans, generally speaking, from Maine to Mississippi, like tax relief."
Last month House Majority Leader Eric Cantor implied his support, describing the tax cut as "something I supported in the past" and "will be part of the discussions ongoing," Bloomberg reported.
Cantor expressed a willingness to put aside partisan differences in order to create jobs, but added, there are "better ways to focus on small-business growth."