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

[Mr. Shaman]

Obama and the Dems want to raise taxes on any single making over $200K, and any married couple making more than $250K.

"A lie told often enough becomes truth" - Vladimir Lenin​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Nonsense. Most people who make over $200K or $250K, which is the level of income subject to the highest tax increase ever, are not spending lavishly and sheltering their income overseas. Most are actually working upper middle class or small business owners.

Link?​

Surely, you jest.​

 

[Samson]

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....

you're really losing it on trying to get these petty gotcha moments on repubs modbert

Yeap--and this administration is working "against" private sector job creation. That's all Boehner needs to know--and he does know it. Stats are stats--and listening to the American people and specifically one single stat --"consumer confidence" tells you the rest.

Right now--there are very few people in this country that feel "confident" about getting a job--or keeping the one they have.

Linky?

Its been a while since I've heard where the consumer confidence index is at.......oddly it seems to have been ignored?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Obama and the Dems want to raise taxes on any single making over $200K, and any married couple making more than $250K. Those are the magical income levels they have defined as Rich and deserving of the biggest tax increase in history.

Link as letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire being the biggest tax increase in history?

That's what Republicans called it, the first-time-around.....​

"The President promised a middle-class tax cut, yet he and his party imposed the largest tax increase in American history. We hope his higher taxes will not cut short the economic recovery and declining interest rates he inherited… Instead of stifling growth through higher taxes and increased government regulations, Republicans would take America in a different direction." — Sen. Robert Dole (Republican, Kansas; stage-diver, extraordinaire)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWib8GbrIlA[/ame]

 

[editec]

It is a CONSUMER DRIVEN economy, folks.

Sadly the consumers are either unemployed, underemployed, underpaid and over taxed.

Giving back to the wealthiest among us still more disposable income, income that they'll either hoard or invest, won't solve the problem.

Supply side economic responses won't CREATE DEMAND, folks.

Jesus! This shouldn't be so hard to figure out, but so many of you are steeped in Randian bullshit that you still cannot get it.

If the MIDDLE CLASS is in trouble the economy is in trouble.

I can't say it any more simply than that.

 

[Samson]

It is a CONSUMER DRIVEN economy, folks.

Sadly the consumers are either unemployed, underemployed, underpaid and over taxed.

Giving back to the wealthiest among us still more disposable income, income that they'll either hoard or invest, won't solve the problem.

Supply side economic responses won't CREATE DEMAND, folks.

Jesus! This shouldn't be so hard to figure out, but so many of you are steeped in Randian bullshit that you still cannot get it.

If the MIDDLE CLASS is in trouble the economy is in trouble.

I can't say it any more simply than that.

You've exposed the Catch 22: "the consumers are either unemployed, underemployed, underpaid and over taxed."

The government "employs" consumers, i.e. the defense industry, and everything that supports it, the social welfare industry, and COMING SOON TO A TOWN NEAR YOU, the healthcare industry.

Taxes fuel all these industries, and their "employment" justifies the taxes.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Doggie really does live in a bubble. This has been in the news for ages.

Who Will Pay for President Obama's Tax Increases? | The Heritage Foundation

And there's more!

The Tax Foundation - Examples of Taxpayers Facing Medicare Tax Increase under Health Care Bill

"A lie told often enough becomes truth" - Vladimir Lenin

**

"It's easy to imagine an infinite number of situations where the government might legitimately give out false information." - Ted Olson​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Well, I certainly don't need a CBO report, or an economist to tell me that the government is SPENDING too much money. The political class are crack whores addicted to spending money they don't have. We need to intervene....that is what is going to happen in November when fiscal conservatives take back our country.

Aw, jeez......AGAIN??!!!!

 

[editec]

It is a CONSUMER DRIVEN economy, folks.

Sadly the consumers are either unemployed, underemployed, underpaid and over taxed.

Giving back to the wealthiest among us still more disposable income, income that they'll either hoard or invest, won't solve the problem.

Supply side economic responses won't CREATE DEMAND, folks.

Jesus! This shouldn't be so hard to figure out, but so many of you are steeped in Randian bullshit that you still cannot get it.

If the MIDDLE CLASS is in trouble the economy is in trouble.

I can't say it any more simply than that.

You've exposed the Catch 22: "the consumers are either unemployed, underemployed, underpaid and over taxed."

The government "employs" consumers, i.e. the defense industry, and everything that supports it, the social welfare industry, and COMING SOON TO A TOWN NEAR YOU, the healthcare industry.

Taxes fuel all these industries, and their "employment" justifies the taxes.

I'm not sure but I think we're on the same page.

So much of the wealth this nation has produced has gone to a very select group of Americans that the liquidity of the consumer class has dried up.

And much of that liquidity goes through the government(s) before it goes to the top 1% that cannot jumpstart the economy (with their billions)because they do not SPEND the money, they hoard it or reinvest it.

Now we cannot blame the rich for investing their money, but when they do, all they do is pump up a SUPPLY side - which cannot find enough DEMAND to make their investments worthy of having been made in the first place

This is what happens when a nation has given too much advantage to the very wealthy (supply side) of its economy.

Conversely we can also have screwed up our economy by giving too much advantage to the consuming classes.

Then, as during the 70s, we ended up with runaway inflation.

But that is not our problem NOW, you see? Now we're facing our OVER REACTION to inflation because we started worshipping the theory that the rich weren't rich enough!

So now our problem is DEFLATION, not INFLATION.

DEFLATION happens when SUPPLY outstrips DEMAND.

And we see the outcomes of this just as you'd expect to see them.

Asset devaluations, a fibrilating stock market, high unemployment and the CALL from the people for the GOVERNMENT to mitigate their suffering.

This rigid aherence some of you have to one economic theory or the other is based on the false notion that the economy is alw3ays the same and therefore the solutions to it are always the same.

That makes virtually no sense and none of you would think like that about most other problems in life.

Cars have brakes AND accelerators for a REASON, folks.

Because you need both to get down the road, don't you?

Well economies are kind like that, too.

They need BALANCE to work, but many of you are so brainwashed that you hate workers, love the rich, and think that the RICH produce the wealthy ALL BY THEMSELVES,

OR...

You're the kind of person who imagines that the WORKERS create all the wealth, that capital formation is an evil plot and so hate the system, too

Either way, in the system we have today if we want our economy to thrive, we need balance.

And what that means is that people need jobs to create demand.

And no I do NOT think I have THE solution to this problem.

Not any solution, at least, that we have the politicaL will to undertake.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

why do liberals run around proclaiming bush tax cuts are only about the wealthy?

How much time ya' got???????

Bush Exaggerates Tax Cuts​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

None of those links say letting the Bush tax cuts expire will be the largest tax increase in history however. A 3% and 4.6% increase is nothing compared to prior increases.

Going from 35% to 39.6% is not a 4.6% increase. Going from 33% to 36% is not a 3% increase Did you fail basic arithmetic?

35% of 1000 is 350. 39.6% of 1000 is 396. 396-350=46. An increase of 46 from 350 is 46/350=13%.

33% of 1000 is 330. 36% of 1000 is 360. 360-330=30. An increase of 30 from 330 is 30/330=9%.

Webster

percent: reckoned on the basis of a whole divided into 100 parts.

*



Did you fail basic ENGLISH?​

 

[Samson]

It is a CONSUMER DRIVEN economy, folks.

Sadly the consumers are either unemployed, underemployed, underpaid and over taxed.

Giving back to the wealthiest among us still more disposable income, income that they'll either hoard or invest, won't solve the problem.

Supply side economic responses won't CREATE DEMAND, folks.

Jesus! This shouldn't be so hard to figure out, but so many of you are steeped in Randian bullshit that you still cannot get it.

If the MIDDLE CLASS is in trouble the economy is in trouble.

I can't say it any more simply than that.

You've exposed the Catch 22: "the consumers are either unemployed, underemployed, underpaid and over taxed."

The government "employs" consumers, i.e. the defense industry, and everything that supports it, the social welfare industry, and COMING SOON TO A TOWN NEAR YOU, the healthcare industry.

Taxes fuel all these industries, and their "employment" justifies the taxes.

I'm not sure but I think we're on the same page.

So much of the wealth this nation has produced has gone to a very select group of Americans that the liquidity of the consumer class has dried up.

And much of that liquidity goes through the government(s) before it goes to the top 1% that cannot jumpstart the economy (with their billions)because they do not SPEND the money, they hoard it or reinvest it.

I'm on the page from Chapter 1: "If the MIDDLE CLASS is in trouble the economy is in trouble."

You claim this is a result of a conspiracy between the "wealthy class" and the government. I claim this is a result of a military/social welfare/healthcare industrial complex supported in a false economy: an artificial environment the government has created.

Our thoughts intersect if we agree that the Wealthy Class = The Government.

We both know this is obvious.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

And Doggie - $2.6 Trillion does qualify as the largest tax increase in history, which is what the CBO estimates the 10 year impact of letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire to be.

"A lie told often enough becomes truth" - Vladimir Lenin​

"The 1993 budget legislation did increase federal tax receipts. One can not, however, draw from this the conclusion that taxes increased significantly for the majority of taxpayers. The 1993 changes in the tax code increased federal income tax rates only for high-income taxpayers.

Because taxes paid by wealthy taxpayers increased significantly, average tax burdens climbed. But this tells nothing about the taxes paid by the typical taxpayer. Consider four middle-class families with taxable incomes of $30,000 and one wealthy family with a taxable income of $500,000. The four hypothetical middle-income families in the middle of the income spectrum each paid $6,000 — or 20 percent of income — in federal taxes both before and after the 1993 tax code changes. The wealthy family paid $140,000 — or 28 percent of income — before the tax code changes, and $160,000 — or 32 percent of income — after the changes. The average tax increase paid by all five families was $4,000. But all of this increase was borne by the one wealthy family.

As this example illustrates, using the increase in average tax payments produces a misleading picture of what has happened to the typical family tax burden. In this example, the typical family — the family that falls in the middle of the income distribution, with half of families earning more income and half earning less — pays no more in federal income taxes before the 1993 tax code changes than after."

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The tax cuts were Bush's, therefore even if they add to the deficit, the GOP sees nothing wrong with them. HYPOCRITES!

Heyyyyyyyy.....it's all part o' God's Plan......much like boosting-the-CRAP outta Medicare-expenses with $ub$idie$ to health-care providers! (.....An additional-expense to taxpayers, 'cause no CUTS were made, to PAY for those $ub$idie$!!!!!!!!)​

"Back in 2003, when the so-called Medicare Modernization Act was being debated in Congress, we warned that this latest round of Medicare privatization contained severe flaws that would hurt consumers and taxpayers while lining the pockets of special interests. With nearly two years of hindsight, we can safely say we were right: The MMA has been a major disappointment for consumers and taxpayers, but a windfall for private insurance and drug companies.

*Under the MMA, Medicare has been significantly overpaying private plans under Medicare Advantage. In 2005, Medicare overpaid private plans by at least 7% per beneficiary, costing taxpayers $2.7 billion. In 2006, overpayment reached 11% per beneficiary, costing taxpayers $4.6 billion.

* Under the MMA, Congress set aside $10 billion for an unnecessary subsidy (or "stabilization fund") to regional PPOs. This year, however, 88% of beneficiaries have access to a regional PPO, before the so-called "stabilization fund" was even tapped--no subsidy was necessary.

*Medicare Part D drug prices are substantially higher than the prices obtained by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which negotiates prices on behalf of consumers. For all of the top 20 drugs prescribed to seniors, the lowest price charged by any Part D plan was higher than the lowest price secured by the VA. Yet Congress refused to let Medicare negotiate directly with the drug companies, as the VA does.

*Bottom line: this report shows that, unfortunately for consumers and taxpayers, the MMA has not even come close to meeting the high expectations set for it by Congress. Consumers are getting hurt and taxpayers fleeced, while insurance companies and drug manufacturers are raking in money faster than they can count it. Congress needs to move away from this deeply flawed privatization model, and instead focus on strengthening Medicare."

 

[Mr. Shaman]

And Doggie - $2.6 Trillion does qualify as the largest tax increase in history, which is what the CBO estimates the 10 year impact of letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire to be.

Paying more in Taxes is a Tax Increase. The fact that you feel compelled to play word games right now is an admission that you have lost the argument.

Wrong. What you're doing is framing the bush tax cuts as being in place since the beginning of this country. They were put in place less than 11 years ago. The tax rate will go up to Pre-Bush levels. The $2.6 trillion you're pulling is from over 10 years, not one.

It's still not the biggest tax increase.

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)

Go ahead and look, there are plenty of bigger tax increases in our history on that list. This is not nearly the biggest.

Toro posted a story earlier of when Clinton raised the taxes. His boss in that story is sounding exactly like you.

It is the largest tax increase in history.

"A lie told often enough becomes truth." - Vladimir Lenin​

 

[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....

you're really losing it on trying to get these petty gotcha moments on repubs modbert

Yeap--and this administration is working "against" private sector job creation. That's all Boehner needs to know--and he does know it. Stats are stats--and listening to the American people and specifically one single stat --"consumer confidence" tells you the rest.

Right now--there are very few people in this country that feel "confident" about getting a job--or keeping the one they have.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It is a CONSUMER DRIVEN economy, folks.

Sadly the consumers are either unemployed, underemployed, underpaid and over taxed.

Giving back to the wealthiest among us still more disposable income, income that they'll either hoard or invest, won't solve the problem.

Supply side economic responses won't CREATE DEMAND, folks.

Jesus! This shouldn't be so hard to figure out, but so many of you are steeped in Randian bullshit that you still cannot get it.

If the MIDDLE CLASS is in trouble the economy is in trouble.

I can't say it any more simply than that.

.....Except to reflect on The PA$T!!!!!​

 

[EriktheRed]

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....

you're really losing it on trying to get these petty gotcha moments on repubs modbert

Yeap--and this administration is working "against" private sector job creation. That's all Boehner needs to know--and he does know it. Stats are stats--and listening to the American people and specifically one single stat --"consumer confidence" tells you the rest.

Right now--there are very few people in this country that feel "confident" about getting a job--or keeping the one they have.

Boner needs to have a chat with his minority whip. They don't seem to be quite on the same page.

 

[boedicca]

As JFK said:

Tax reduction thus sets off a process that can bring gains for everyone, gains won by marshalling resources that would otherwise stand idle—workers without jobs and farm and factory capacity without markets. Yet many taxpayers seemed prepared to deny the nation the fruits of tax reduction because they question the financial soundness of reducing taxes when the federal budget is already in deficit. Let me make clear why, in today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarged the federal deficit—why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.

—President John F. Kennedy,
Economic Report of the President,

January 1963


I think he would agree with Boehner as well.

 

[Samson]

As JFK said:

Tax reduction thus sets off a process that can bring gains for everyone, gains won by marshalling resources that would otherwise stand idle—workers without jobs and farm and factory capacity without markets. Yet many taxpayers seemed prepared to deny the nation the fruits of tax reduction because they question the financial soundness of reducing taxes when the federal budget is already in deficit. Let me make clear why, in today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarged the federal deficit—why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.

—President John F. Kennedy,
Economic Report of the President,

January 1963


I think he would agree with Boehner as well.

You could get yourself shot sayin' shit like that...................