Boehner:"I Don’t Need To See GDP Numbers Or Listen To Economists"

[Yurt]

strawman...i never said that

next

Nope, not strawman. You say "tax the rich" as if the rich aren't already being taxed. You're acting as if Obama wants to kill the rich with tax rates. Pre-Bush levels, less than 10 years ago tax rates. Y'know, when the country actually was doing great!

you said 20%....that is a strawman....i never said that

the country was doing well during bush as well....the HOUSING market was unsustainable....i take it you failed to read my thread about the rich spending less and it harming the economy....one of the reasons is because they are unsure if they are going to have to pay more taxes...

raising taxes is going to do nothing but make the federal government bigger, we need the economy and people's bank account larger

 

[Yurt]

it really cracks me up the level of immaturity displayed by modbert...if you make a post to his threads, you're obsessed with him

poor insecure modbert

Yurt, you need to move on dude. You continue to attack me because of prior events, it's sad really. You need to grow up and let it go dude.

if you can't handle having your opinions challenged, it is YOU who needs to move on and stop posting....YOU are the only person who constantly brings up these past events....not me, YOU

your lies only show what an immature whiner you are

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

No dem can possibly keep a straight face and claim to be concerned about the deficit, Mod. Please.

And "tax cuts for the wealthy?" Could you find, like, a more imbalanced source than Think Progress?

Center for American Progress?

 

[Modbert]

you said 20%....that is a strawman....i never said that

the country was doing well during bush as well....the HOUSING market was unsustainable....i take it you failed to read my thread about the rich spending less and it harming the economy....one of the reasons is because they are unsure if they are going to have to pay more taxes...

raising taxes is going to do nothing but make the federal government bigger, we need the economy and people's bank account larger

So what would you do Yurt? Get rid of taxes completely? Federal taxes are at their lowest rate in 60 years.

This country was not doing well during Bush. You seem to forget how many jobs we lost overall in his Administration.

Ironically, what you guys bash Obama for when he talks about Bush:

Bush says he inherited recession - Aug. 7, 2002

It was also easier for Bush and Cheney to point to the two quarters of growth so far in 2002 and claim that the tax cuts and economic stimulus packages they pushed in 2001 had helped the economy recover.

 

[boedicca]

Boehner is absolutely correct.

When 17% of American adults are either under or unemployed, egghead academics providing excuses for Obamanomics are just pandering to the left. Even Christina Romer knows that RAISING TAXES RETARDS ECONOMIC GROWTH.

Obamanomics = Epic Fail

Anyone with a grasp of reality groks this.

 

[boedicca]

you said 20%....that is a strawman....i never said that

the country was doing well during bush as well....the HOUSING market was unsustainable....i take it you failed to read my thread about the rich spending less and it harming the economy....one of the reasons is because they are unsure if they are going to have to pay more taxes...

raising taxes is going to do nothing but make the federal government bigger, we need the economy and people's bank account larger

So what would you do Yurt? Get rid of taxes completely? Federal taxes are at their lowest rate in 60 years.

This country was not doing well during Bush. You seem to forget how many jobs we lost overall in his Administration.

Ironically, what you guys bash Obama for when he talks about Bush:

Bush says he inherited recession - Aug. 7, 2002

It was also easier for Bush and Cheney to point to the two quarters of growth so far in 2002 and claim that the tax cuts and economic stimulus packages they pushed in 2001 had helped the economy recover.

The only reason Federal Taxes are at their lowest rate in 60 years is because so many people are UNEMPLOYED and UNDEREMPLOYED, resulting in lower tax receipts. In the meantime, Obama is SPENDING 25% of GDP - an increase of 25% from most of the post WWII era. Since the Dems took control of Congress in 2008, spending in absolute dollars has increase 33%. Think about it. In three years, Federal spending has increased Frelling 33%. Is inflation up 33% during that time? Have wages increased 33% during that time? There is absolutely no fundamental economic justification for this spending binge.

Spending is the problem, not undertaxation.

 

[boedicca]

it really cracks me up the level of immaturity displayed by modbert...if you make a post to his threads, you're obsessed with him

poor insecure modbert

Yurt, you need to move on dude. You continue to attack me because of prior events, it's sad really. You need to grow up and let it go dude.

if you can't handle having your opinions challenged, it is YOU who needs to move on and stop posting....YOU are the only person who constantly brings up these past events....not me, YOU

your lies only show what an immature whiner you are

Doggie the Bubble Mod has never lived out in the real world, hence all he knows is what his leftwing teachers have taught him. It's not his fault - he's just a typical victim of progressive education.

 

[Toro]

tax the rich and they spend less....that doesn't help the economy, the more people spend, the more others make, thus revenues increase for the feds

Obama wants to raise the tax rate for the Rich to Pre-Bush levels at 39%. It is ridiculous for you to sit there and act like he's raising the rate by 20%.

I remember when I was a young pup new in the business in 1993 listening to a portfolio manager rant about how awful the Clinton tax increases were, how the US was about to plunge back into a recession, and how the government of Argentina with its tax-cutting free market administration were better economic managers than Clinton's team were. We all know how that turned out.

Its a bad idea to raise the total tax level during a recession. Its not necessarily a bad idea to change the composition of taxes, but any changes should be net neutral during a recession.

As for tax rates and the affects on an economy, at some point, higher taxes leads to lower growth. But thus far, tax rates have made little difference to the structure of the US economy. The rate of growth today is the same as it was 100 years ago even though the general level of taxes are 500% higher.

 

[asterism]

He wants to listen to the people about jobs, that's fine. However, to listen to just the people and to ignore the people's who job it is to examine the economy is insane.

You have a valid point that Boehner is clueless. He needs to go get a real job and give someone else a shot. The Republican party has ZERO leadership right now.

That said, the "people who job it is to examine the economy" got it 100% wrong. NONE of their predictions came true, NONE of their analyses were correct, and NONE of their recommendations worked.

Scrap the whole system, all of them.

That's like saying I'm going to go fly a plane in stormy weather but not take advice from other pilots but rather from the passengers.

No, it's like saying that you're going to to fly a plane in stormy weather and you not take advice from the weather guy who predicted sunny skies and the pilot instructor that crashed his plane last year.

I agree that it's not wise to listen to the passengers, but don't listen to the idiots that got it wrong either.

 

[asterism]

Boehner wants to extend the Bush Tax Cuts. If he cared so much about the deficit, why does he want to extend the tax cuts?

Because if the tax cuts expire then the Federal government will take in less revenues in the long run. Raising taxes in a recession is an incredibly stupid thing to do. Just ask Herbert Hoover.

Or George H.W. Bush.

"It's the Economy, stupid"

 

[Yurt]

you said 20%....that is a strawman....i never said that

the country was doing well during bush as well....the HOUSING market was unsustainable....i take it you failed to read my thread about the rich spending less and it harming the economy....one of the reasons is because they are unsure if they are going to have to pay more taxes...

raising taxes is going to do nothing but make the federal government bigger, we need the economy and people's bank account larger

So what would you do Yurt? Get rid of taxes completely? Federal taxes are at their lowest rate in 60 years.

This country was not doing well during Bush. You seem to forget how many jobs we lost overall in his Administration.

Ironically, what you guys bash Obama for when he talks about Bush:

Bush says he inherited recession - Aug. 7, 2002

It was also easier for Bush and Cheney to point to the two quarters of growth so far in 2002 and claim that the tax cuts and economic stimulus packages they pushed in 2001 had helped the economy recover.

no, i'm not for getting rid of all taxes, your extremism is noted....i am for not getting rid of the bush tax cuts...i've laid out why, others have also done so and i gave you a thread that showed the wealthy are spending less because the bush tax cuts might expire....

bush's stimulus in 2001 is not at all comparible to obama's....i was for bush's stimulus because it gave tax credits, i also was for part of obama's stimulus that included tax cuts....once again, you have failed at your petty gotcha moments

 

[rdean]

Has anyone noticed the Republican leadership doesn't bother with "statistics" or "data"? It's all about how they "imagine" things will work if only we did "this" or "that".

It seems they "imagine" how common sense will be, but without "common sense".

 

[Samson]

Because if the tax cuts expire then the Federal government will take in less revenues in the long run. Raising taxes in a recession is an incredibly stupid thing to do. Just ask Herbert Hoover.

Herbert Hoover raised taxes dramatically, Obama wants the rate for the Wealthy to go up 4%. To compare the two is comparing two completely different things. However, do you recall why we were in such a recession?

4% seems like a paltry amount that would make little difference one way or the other in its effect on the deficite and the economy.

Frankly, a 4% rise sounds more like smoke-and-mirrors to appease the poor and ignorant; e.g. rdean, et al.

 

[Modbert]

4% seems like a paltry amount that would make little difference one way or the other in its effect on the deficite and the economy.

Frankly, a 4% rise sounds more like smoke-and-mirrors to appease the poor and ignorant.

4% is about $600 billion or so dollars.

 

[boedicca]

Because if the tax cuts expire then the Federal government will take in less revenues in the long run. Raising taxes in a recession is an incredibly stupid thing to do. Just ask Herbert Hoover.

Herbert Hoover raised taxes dramatically, Obama wants the rate for the Wealthy to go up 4%. To compare the two is comparing two completely different things. However, do you recall why we were in such a recession?

4% seems like a paltry amount that would make little difference one way or the other in its effect on the deficite and the economy.

Frankly, a 4% rise sounds more like smoke-and-mirrors to appease the poor and ignorant; e.g. rdean, et al.

Government spending has gone up 33% in 3 years. That's the problem, not undertaxing the rich by 4%.

 

[Samson]

Herbert Hoover raised taxes dramatically, Obama wants the rate for the Wealthy to go up 4%. To compare the two is comparing two completely different things. However, do you recall why we were in such a recession?

4% seems like a paltry amount that would make little difference one way or the other in its effect on the deficite and the economy.

Frankly, a 4% rise sounds more like smoke-and-mirrors to appease the poor and ignorant; e.g. rdean, et al.

Government spending has gone up 33% in 3 years. That's the problem, not undertaxing the rich by 4%.

Yes, thats my point: A 4% change in the tax rate for "the rich" would only have the effect of adding a talking point during an election.

 

[boedicca]

Yes, thats my point: A 4% change in the tax rate for "the rich" would only have the effect of adding a talking point during an election.

BINGO. And the unemployed are the ones to pay the heavy price for it given how it would retard economic growth and private sector job creation. Many of those "rich" are small business owners who are not hiring due to the punitive nature of Obamanomics.

 

[Samson]

4% seems like a paltry amount that would make little difference one way or the other in its effect on the deficite and the economy.

Frankly, a 4% rise sounds more like smoke-and-mirrors to appease the poor and ignorant.

4% is about $600 billion or so dollars.

That's Not quite enough:

U.S. SPENDING IN IRAQ

Spent & Approved War-Spending - About $900 billion of US taxpayers' funds spent or approved for spending through Sept 2010.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

what is wrong with his point...it was more about jobs and he believes in listening to the people about job losses rather than stats or so called experts....

....So he can....as usual....DELAY, DELAY, DELAY, DELAY, DELAY, DELAY.....

Ol' Boner is toooooooooooooo obvious......​

 

[asterism]

4% seems like a paltry amount that would make little difference one way or the other in its effect on the deficite and the economy.

Really? You don't see the huge difference between the economy growing 2% vs. contracting 2%? You don't see the huge difference between a 6% rate on a mortgage and 10%?

Tell you what: take 4% of your entire income and send it to https://www.pay.gov/paygov/ if you think it seems like a paltry amount.