Does the Republican base really think RW Billionaires are "on their side"?

[Harry Dresden]

"do some research ya putz.... "

The same guy contributed big bucks to throw my own daughter under the bus. 2nd grade teacher. Get that one.

and i am sure the big rich Democrats have done the same to someone somewhere.....get that one......

 

[flacaltenn]

"do some research ya putz.... "

The same guy contributed big bucks to throw my own daughter under the bus. 2nd grade teacher. Get that one.

Gee I thought UNION rules determines who gets canned when the money dissappears.

Did your daughter have Seniority and up-to-date with her dues? Or did some fat-ass lazy awful teacher help her to the door?

 

[hortysir]

but but but but look at the democrats

in other words

the republican bar is driven by democrats

how low

There is no limit to how low the dem bar can be, is there?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Dems influence elections = Bad
Repubs influence elections = Good

Makes sense dont it? What people should be pushing for is public financing in elections then either side couldnt bitch about it, but no that would be too easy. Then the monied interests wouldnt have us at each others throats. Cant have that!

Public financing? Oh that's great, put government in charge of who gets elected.

Uh, I didnt say government should vote, I said public financing. If you knew what public financing was you wouldnt have made such a stupid statement

 

[ClosedCaption]

No. I think they are on their own side, along with LW Billionaires.

It's a role of government equation for me. Do I think a right leaning approach is best or a left leaning approach? Currently I think a right leaning approach is best. That could change, but so far the left leaning approach hasn't worked. The economy is cyclical so while I think the loss of 750K jobs per month is abhorrent, I don't think that rate is permanent and I don't think anyone could have stopped it.

The left leaning approach to picking winners, subsidizing and controlling business sectors, increasing regulation instead of increasing oversight, and bailing out state governments didn't jump start the economy as promised.

Time for a change.

So far the left leaning approach hasnt worked? What left leaning policies would that be? The stimulus was 50% tax cuts because Obama refused to work with Republicans who wanted it, then didnt want it once Obama agreed to it. It's weird how you guys push for things until you get it then cry foul.

The stimulus was not 50% tax cuts. it was budgeted as about 30% tax cuts which have not materialized. There is no data on the success of the stimulus tax cuts because there is no success there. The tax cuts were either too specific and manipulative or simply not enough to provide an incentive.

The left leaning approach didn't work. It was sold as a means to jump start the economy, fuel a roaring recovery and predicted in both the pitch and the next budged to keep unemployment under 8%. It was supposed to go towards "shovel ready" projects and ended up mostly going to bail out state governments.

The left leaning approach to creating jobs was either just accounting tricks which gave us the "created or saved" figure or outright boondoggles that fed inefficient bureaucracies.

Regardless of the reasons, justifications, or political rhetoric nobody can deny the fact that the economy is in terrible shape. It's time to try something new.

PolitiFact | Stewart claims that the stimulus bill is one-third tax cuts

The Tax Policy Center, a joint venture between the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, gave the AMT extension a D-minus in its Tax Stimulus Report Card because "the provision would provide virtually no economic stimulus. Because the patch is perennially extended, it would have no effect on behavior in 2009. Almost 80 percent of the benefits would go to the richest 20 percent of households, who would be least likely to spend the additional funds and stimulate demand."

So, our tax experts are skeptical that the $70 billion AMT fix should be included in the stimulus bill's tax relief. That would bring down the cost of the tax cuts to about $218 billion. That means about 28 percent of the bill could be described as tax cuts, a little less than the one-third cited by Stewart.

So we find Stewart's claim to be Mostly True.

Thats why it didnt work according to tax experts because it went to the richest who wouldnt spend it. Once the money was disbursed did Obama use it to bail out state govts? No, but you blame Obama for providing the money then when a drunk gets his hands on it you blame Obama for the alcohol poisoning.

 

[paulitician]

Oh, grow up Entitlement dunces. Stop counting on anyone to be on 'your side.' Stop whining and get out there. You're not Entitled and you don't deserve anything. You'll just have to buck up and make something of yourself. I know that's real scary for you guys, but it is what it is.

 

[hortysir]

Dems influence elections = Bad
Repubs influence elections = Good

Makes sense dont it? What people should be pushing for is public financing in elections then either side couldnt bitch about it, but no that would be too easy. Then the monied interests wouldnt have us at each others throats. Cant have that!

Public financing? Oh that's great, put government in charge of who gets elected.

Uh, I didnt say government should vote, I said public financing. If you knew what public financing was you wouldnt have made such a stupid statement

You mean the same public financing Obama agreed to and then flip-flopped on?

 

[asterism]

Dems influence elections = Bad
Repubs influence elections = Good

Makes sense dont it? What people should be pushing for is public financing in elections then either side couldnt bitch about it, but no that would be too easy. Then the monied interests wouldnt have us at each others throats. Cant have that!

Public financing? Oh that's great, put government in charge of who gets elected.

Uh, I didnt say government should vote, I said public financing. If you knew what public financing was you wouldnt have made such a stupid statement

Ok, I'll dance. How does public financing work without putting someone in government in charge of who gets the money?

 

[asterism]

So far the left leaning approach hasnt worked? What left leaning policies would that be? The stimulus was 50% tax cuts because Obama refused to work with Republicans who wanted it, then didnt want it once Obama agreed to it. It's weird how you guys push for things until you get it then cry foul.

The stimulus was not 50% tax cuts. it was budgeted as about 30% tax cuts which have not materialized. There is no data on the success of the stimulus tax cuts because there is no success there. The tax cuts were either too specific and manipulative or simply not enough to provide an incentive.

The left leaning approach didn't work. It was sold as a means to jump start the economy, fuel a roaring recovery and predicted in both the pitch and the next budged to keep unemployment under 8%. It was supposed to go towards "shovel ready" projects and ended up mostly going to bail out state governments.

The left leaning approach to creating jobs was either just accounting tricks which gave us the "created or saved" figure or outright boondoggles that fed inefficient bureaucracies.

Regardless of the reasons, justifications, or political rhetoric nobody can deny the fact that the economy is in terrible shape. It's time to try something new.

PolitiFact | Stewart claims that the stimulus bill is one-third tax cuts

The Tax Policy Center, a joint venture between the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, gave the AMT extension a D-minus in its Tax Stimulus Report Card because "the provision would provide virtually no economic stimulus. Because the patch is perennially extended, it would have no effect on behavior in 2009. Almost 80 percent of the benefits would go to the richest 20 percent of households, who would be least likely to spend the additional funds and stimulate demand."

So, our tax experts are skeptical that the $70 billion AMT fix should be included in the stimulus bill's tax relief. That would bring down the cost of the tax cuts to about $218 billion. That means about 28 percent of the bill could be described as tax cuts, a little less than the one-third cited by Stewart.

So we find Stewart's claim to be Mostly True.

Thats why it didnt work according to tax experts because it went to the richest who wouldnt spend it. Once the money was disbursed did Obama use it to bail out state govts? No, but you blame Obama for providing the money then when a drunk gets his hands on it you blame Obama for the alcohol poisoning.

As your source shows, it was budgeted as about 30%. Nowhere close to the 50% you claimed.

You're then talking about a non-stimulus tax matter, the AMT exemption. That's not a stimuls because it was just a continuation of existing policies (AMT gets patched continuously).

Regarless, the left leaning approach (that is, the approach that those who lean left implemented) didn't work. It's time for something new.

 

[daveman]

Does the Republican base really think RW Billionaires are "on their side"?

Do you really think Obama is on your side?

He thinks you're an idiot.

And you prove he's right.

 

[flacaltenn]

Does the Republican base really think RW Billionaires are "on their side"?

Do you really think Obama is on your side?

He thinks you're an idiot.

And you prove he's right.

Thanks for getting this IMPORTANT thread back on track DaveMan.. Lemme take a 2nd whack at the OP.. RDean worries sooo much, I don't want him to get ulcers or anything like that..

So the question here is, "Does the Republican base really think RW Billionaires are "on their side"?" You know these guys are buying up Republican politicians for a reason. Don't any right wingers wonder why? What is their agenda? Don't you care?

Who do I want on "my side" when the Socialist Revolution turns hot? Michael Moore or a RW Billionaire?

Could their agenda be to save Capitalism from getting increasingly nannified ala 16 Oz soda regs and bans on plastic bags? Or villified?

You EXPECT those who the Revolution villify to sit there and get sucker-punched? Who the hell STARTED the feud?

Of course I care.. I WANT you commie-wannabes to succeed. I truly do... I want to see the state assumed student loan program with no defaults blow up your faces like the Social Security bombshell that you've pulled the pin on by robbing from the premiums. Couldn't steal the SURPLUS anymore -- so now you're just using the premiums as BRIBERY and VOTE-BUYING. I want to see you raise taxes. If I was a Republican, I'd be voting for everything you wanted for the past 2 years.

The masses would be running ALL your comrades' asses out of town by now...

What stupid questions to be worrying about.. You SHOULD be worrying more about important stuff. Like the imminent demise of your "Green Fantasy". Or the dwindling ability of the Unions to be relevent..

 

[ClosedCaption]

Public financing? Oh that's great, put government in charge of who gets elected.

Uh, I didnt say government should vote, I said public financing. If you knew what public financing was you wouldnt have made such a stupid statement

You mean the same public financing Obama agreed to and then flip-flopped on?

What the...? So that's why public financing in your opinion is a bad idea?

 

[ClosedCaption]

The stimulus was not 50% tax cuts. it was budgeted as about 30% tax cuts which have not materialized. There is no data on the success of the stimulus tax cuts because there is no success there. The tax cuts were either too specific and manipulative or simply not enough to provide an incentive.

The left leaning approach didn't work. It was sold as a means to jump start the economy, fuel a roaring recovery and predicted in both the pitch and the next budged to keep unemployment under 8%. It was supposed to go towards "shovel ready" projects and ended up mostly going to bail out state governments.

The left leaning approach to creating jobs was either just accounting tricks which gave us the "created or saved" figure or outright boondoggles that fed inefficient bureaucracies.

Regardless of the reasons, justifications, or political rhetoric nobody can deny the fact that the economy is in terrible shape. It's time to try something new.

PolitiFact | Stewart claims that the stimulus bill is one-third tax cuts

The Tax Policy Center, a joint venture between the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, gave the AMT extension a D-minus in its Tax Stimulus Report Card because "the provision would provide virtually no economic stimulus. Because the patch is perennially extended, it would have no effect on behavior in 2009. Almost 80 percent of the benefits would go to the richest 20 percent of households, who would be least likely to spend the additional funds and stimulate demand."

So, our tax experts are skeptical that the $70 billion AMT fix should be included in the stimulus bill's tax relief. That would bring down the cost of the tax cuts to about $218 billion. That means about 28 percent of the bill could be described as tax cuts, a little less than the one-third cited by Stewart.

So we find Stewart's claim to be Mostly True.

Thats why it didnt work according to tax experts because it went to the richest who wouldnt spend it. Once the money was disbursed did Obama use it to bail out state govts? No, but you blame Obama for providing the money then when a drunk gets his hands on it you blame Obama for the alcohol poisoning.

As your source shows, it was budgeted as about 30%. Nowhere close to the 50% you claimed.

You're then talking about a non-stimulus tax matter, the AMT exemption. That's not a stimuls because it was just a continuation of existing policies (AMT gets patched continuously).

Regarless, the left leaning approach (that is, the approach that those who lean left implemented) didn't work. It's time for something new.

Republicans pushed for it.