Demcrts Be Carefl Of Trojan Hrse On Deal Extendin Tax Cut W/Repblicns!

[Old Rocks]

Why not show real fiscal sense, and just let all the cuts expire? Those of us working can afford them, those without a job will not be affected, and the wealthy have shown no intention of using the extra income from the tax cuts to create jobs.

You do know that many of us on fixed incomes do pay taxes, right?

Of course I do. Today is my 67th birthday. And I am looking hard at retiring as the real estate market is starting to move in the area that I own property. So I will be dependent on a fixed income as the base for my total yearly income. Not that I will limit myself to that amount. Plenty of short term jobs available in maintenance, including work from my present employer.

 

[SFC Ollie]

 

[MikeK]

Why extend the cuts? They obviously did not perform as intended.
Just like congress persons, if they do not perform vote em out.

There is no good reason for doing that. Obama is a corporatist Republican mole. Two baby steps forward and a giant step backward is his consistent style.

 

[MikeK]

The Bush tax cuts performed precisely as intended. The crash was because of Fannie, Fredie and the toxic loans.

Don't you realize that this style of contemptuously cynical lying just pisses people off and one day will bite you on the ass? And when it happens you'll say, WHY?

 

[edthecynic]

Heritage.org

Anything from Heritage is certain to be a lie.

St Ronnie increased the debt to GDP ratio 20.6%, the dishonest Heritage chart shows 4.3%
Bush I increased it 15%, the Heritage liars 4.3%
Bush II increased it 27.1%, the pathological liars at Heritage 3.2%

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[edthecynic]

Here's a thought, novel as it may be to a liberal...why not represent the will of the people INSTEAD of defying it.

I have lost track of how many times I have shown CON$ on both sides of every issue. Not long ago CON$ were saying representing the will of the people was PANDERING and defying the will of the people was LEADERSHIP.

May 4, 2009
RUSH: I maintain when a politician says, "We have to listen to the American people and learn," we are pandering. We're not leading.

You simply listen to what people say they want and then come up with a series of policies that give them what they want. ... Where is leadership in this equation?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Heritage.org

Anything from Heritage is certain to be a lie.

St Ronnie increased the debt to GDP ratio 20.6%, the dishonest Heritage chart shows 4.3%
Bush I increased it 15%, the Heritage liars 4.3%
Bush II increased it 27.1%, the pathological liars at Heritage 3.2%

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Um, you do know that the deficit and the debt would be two different numbers, right?

Sort of like Apples and Cows...............

If the deficit were 20% of GDP we would have been sunk years ago.

 

[edthecynic]

Heritage.org

Anything from Heritage is certain to be a lie.

St Ronnie increased the debt to GDP ratio 20.6%, the dishonest Heritage chart shows 4.3%
Bush I increased it 15%, the Heritage liars 4.3%
Bush II increased it 27.1%, the pathological liars at Heritage 3.2%

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Um, you do know that the deficit and the debt would be two different numbers, right?

Sort of like Apples and Cows...............

If the deficit were 20% of GDP we would have been sunk years ago.

The Deficit and debt are interrelated. At the bottom of your chart it is named "Debt and Deficits Chart."

Let's take the Carter numbers for example, in the dishonest Heritage chart Carter averaged a deficit of 2.4% of GDP, but the debt during the Carter years went DOWN 3.3% of GDP. How can the debt to GDP, which is the sum total of all the deficits to GDP during Carter's one term, go down as a % of GDP if, according to Heritage, Carter had an average deficit of 2.4% of GDP for each each year????????

GOP think tanks like Heritage pay people big money to manipulate stats so they are the most deliberately misleading.

 

[Full-Auto]

Heritage.org

Anything from Heritage is certain to be a lie.

St Ronnie increased the debt to GDP ratio 20.6%, the dishonest Heritage chart shows 4.3%
Bush I increased it 15%, the Heritage liars 4.3%
Bush II increased it 27.1%, the pathological liars at Heritage 3.2%

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Um, you do know that the deficit and the debt would be two different numbers, right?

Sort of like Apples and Cows...............

If the deficit were 20% of GDP we would have been sunk years ago.

The Deficit and debt are interrelated. At the bottom of your chart it is named "Debt and Deficits Chart."

Let's take the Carter numbers for example, in the dishonest Heritage chart Carter averaged a deficit of 2.4% of GDP, but the debt during the Carter years went DOWN 3.3% of GDP. How can the debt to GDP, which is the sum total of all the deficits to GDP during Carter's one term, go down as a % of GDP if, according to Heritage, Carter had an average deficit of 2.4% of GDP for each each year????????

GOP think tanks like Heritage pay people big money to manipulate stats so they are the most deliberately misleading.

Maybe you should pay closer attention to the chart. Take a look at where the info originated. CBO AND THE WHITEHOUSE.

DUFUS.

 

[edthecynic]

Um, you do know that the deficit and the debt would be two different numbers, right?

Sort of like Apples and Cows...............

If the deficit were 20% of GDP we would have been sunk years ago.

The Deficit and debt are interrelated. At the bottom of your chart it is named "Debt and Deficits Chart."

Let's take the Carter numbers for example, in the dishonest Heritage chart Carter averaged a deficit of 2.4% of GDP, but the debt during the Carter years went DOWN 3.3% of GDP. How can the debt to GDP, which is the sum total of all the deficits to GDP during Carter's one term, go down as a % of GDP if, according to Heritage, Carter had an average deficit of 2.4% of GDP for each each year????????

GOP think tanks like Heritage pay people big money to manipulate stats so they are the most deliberately misleading.

Maybe you should pay closer attention to the chart. Take a look at where the info originated. CBO AND THE WHITEHOUSE.

DUFUS.

You won't find that chart at the CBO or the OMB. If you look a little farther you will see that the CBO and OMB numbers were manipulated into the chart by HERATIGE.org.

 

[Missourian]

Here's a thought, novel as it may be to a liberal...why not represent the will of the people INSTEAD of defying it.

I have lost track of how many times I have shown CON$ on both sides of every issue. Not long ago CON$ were saying representing the will of the people was PANDERING and defying the will of the people was LEADERSHIP.

May 4, 2009
RUSH: I maintain when a politician says, "We have to listen to the American people and learn, we are pandering. We're not leading.

You simply listen to what people say they want and then come up with a series of policies that give them what they want. ... Where is leadership in this equation?

And Rush is correct. A leader who opposes the will of the people doesn't just vote against that will because he or she "knows what's best for you", they make a compelling argument and attempt to inform the people they represent.

Liberals and progressives think the people they represent are stupid, and that they "know better".

Newsflash for ya Ed, if you can't convince the people, there's usually a dam good reason for it.

Case in point, the government has been flushing our tax money down the toilet for years, and if the Bush tax cuts are not extended, the government will have MORE money to use for MORE government expansion and MORE bullcrap wasteful spending...flush, flush, fush.

Now if 100% of that money was guaranteed to go towards paying down the national debt, I would support it, but it won't...it will be squandered...and the American people are sick of it.



My previous statement stands, if the Democrats honestly believe they "know better" than those that put them in office and that the people are too stupid to understand why, they should be willing to accept the ramifications of their hubris.

 

[Sallow]

Dems hold all the cards here. If they do nothing, the cuts expire

Repubs can either agree to a cap on upper class tax cuts or let the tax system revert to the old levels.

Dems should not bargain on this unless the Republicans bring something to the table...and it better be big

They should be allowed to expire. All of them.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Heritage.org

Anything from Heritage is certain to be a lie.

St Ronnie increased the debt to GDP ratio 20.6%, the dishonest Heritage chart shows 4.3%
Bush I increased it 15%, the Heritage liars 4.3%
Bush II increased it 27.1%, the pathological liars at Heritage 3.2%

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Um, you do know that the deficit and the debt would be two different numbers, right?

Sort of like Apples and Cows...............

If the deficit were 20% of GDP we would have been sunk years ago.

The Deficit and debt are interrelated. At the bottom of your chart it is named "Debt and Deficits Chart."

Let's take the Carter numbers for example, in the dishonest Heritage chart Carter averaged a deficit of 2.4% of GDP, but the debt during the Carter years went DOWN 3.3% of GDP. How can the debt to GDP, which is the sum total of all the deficits to GDP during Carter's one term, go down as a % of GDP if, according to Heritage, Carter had an average deficit of 2.4% of GDP for each each year????????

GOP think tanks like Heritage pay people big money to manipulate stats so they are the most deliberately misleading.

GDP is not a constant. It does not remain the same, the deficit under Ford was 3.5% so yes the percentage under Carter went down. Of course the value of the GDP also went down if i remember correctly. Just as our GDP is down right now. These are not fixed variables they can change on a daily basis. What you should be pointing out is that even Heritage admits that the deficit to GDP has been higher under Republican Presidents. The chart is correct. It is not twisted, you simply are not reading the information.

Up until Obama deficit spending had been higher under Republican Presidents.

Can you deny that?