Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Well, maybe to an illiterate Vermonter... and Longhorn queer.
No, sorry. Ijust hate the Longhorns. And the Cowboys.
And don't get me started on Les Miles and LSU.
No, sorry. Ijust hate the Longhorns. And the Cowboys.
And don't get me started on Les Miles and LSU.
Well see....we're not so different. My family lives in Texas, I spent over a decade there yet I throw up a little every time I see a Cowboys jersey. My least favorite NFL team...by far.
When you can logically or factually fault ONE thing Sen. Sanders has said, let me know.
Until then, all your Party of NO sour grapes and smokescreen is just a waste of time.
He's wrong about soaking the piss out of the wealthy so's he can vote for bullshit bills to piss it away. How's that? Thought so.
How's what? All you've done is just spew some moronic rhetoric that has NO specifics.
Let me clarify a crucial point for you: The Bush tax cuts essentially keep a few BILLION dollars out of the nation's coffers....over a ten year period that could go a LONG way to pay off the bogus invasion of Iraq, as well as the damage caused by a non-oversight Wall St. and banker mortgage/investments, and bring down the deficit. Also, the wealthy folk WILL STILL BE WEALTHY WITHOUT THE BUSH TAX CUTS.
Nearly a decade with the Bush tax cuts and the results: The Shrub has the worst job creation record to date for a President.
Sanders is on the money, and you'll just have to turn off Hannity, put down the Washington Times, stop scrolling the World Net Daily and deal with reality.
...a recent hindsight estimate of the cost of the Bush tax cuts came from the liberal Citizens for Tax Justice who used it as an opportunity to compare the Bush tax cuts' cost to health care reform. According to CTJ, the Bush tax cuts that were passed up through 2006 (the 2001 and 2003 cuts as well as other smaller cuts in 2004, 2005 and 2006) ended up costing the Treasury approximately $2.1 trillion in foregone revenue from 2001 to 2010. CTJ claims that if you add interest payments, that number goes up to around $2.5 trillion.
These numbers were calculated using CTJ's ITEP model. From what we could tell from their methodology paper, they assumed no feedback effect that would generate additional revenue. With that caveat, there is no reason to doubt these numbers. Therefore, the $2.1 trillion cost ($2.5 trillion with interest) on the Bush tax cuts is a high-end estimate. Note that also included in CTJ's $2.1 trillion estimate is the cost of annually adjusting AMT, which was technically not part of most of the "Bush tax cuts." (The annual cost of "patching" AMT went up as a result of the Bush tax cuts because the Bush tax cuts reduced mostly regular income taxes and taxpayers pay the higher of their regular income tax and their alternative minimum tax.)
Using CTJ's numbers, if one assumes that 20 percent of the tax cuts paid for themselves (overall), the non-interest cost would be approximately $1.7 trillion. If one assumes that half of the tax cuts paid for themselves (which we would consider to be a pretty extreme assumption), then the tax cuts would have cost around $1 trillion over the past 10 years.
When you can logically or factually fault ONE thing Sen. Sanders has said, let me know.
Until then, all your Party of NO sour grapes and smokescreen is just a waste of time.
He's wrong about soaking the piss out of the wealthy so's he can vote for bullshit bills to piss it away. How's that? Thought so.
How's what? All you've done is just spew some moronic rhetoric that has NO specifics.
Let me clarify a crucial point for you: The Bush tax cuts essentially keep a few BILLION dollars out of the nation's coffers....over a ten year period that could go a LONG way to pay off the bogus invasion of Iraq, as well as the damage caused by a non-oversight Wall St. and banker mortgage/investments, and bring down the deficit. Also, the wealthy folk WILL STILL BE WEALTHY WITHOUT THE BUSH TAX CUTS.
Nearly a decade with the Bush tax cuts and the results: The Shrub has the worst job creation record to date for a President.
Unemployment was 8.2% in Feb 2009.Going by the 6.5% unemployment before the $787 BILLION Stimulus in Feb 2009,
Unemployment was 8.2% in Feb 2009.Going by the 6.5% unemployment before the $787 BILLION Stimulus in Feb 2009,
And the GOP delayed its passage until UE was over 8% in Feb 2009.The Stimulus package was passed in Feb 13th 2009, Obama sold this bill to Congress and the American people, as an emergency stimulus to prevent the unemployment from reaching 8%Unemployment was 8.2% in Feb 2009.Going by the 6.5% unemployment before the $787 BILLION Stimulus in Feb 2009,
Unemployment was 8.2% in Feb 2009.Going by the 6.5% unemployment before the $787 BILLION Stimulus in Feb 2009,
The Stimulus package was passed in Feb 13th 2009, Obama sold this bill to Congress and the American people, as an emergency stimulus to prevent the unemployment from reaching 8%. Despite the belief that this package would stop the bleeding of jobs, it wasn't long before unemployment still managed to climb above 8%.
He's wrong about soaking the piss out of the wealthy so's he can vote for bullshit bills to piss it away. How's that? Thought so.
How's what? All you've done is just spew some moronic rhetoric that has NO specifics.
Let me clarify a crucial point for you: The Bush tax cuts essentially keep a few BILLION dollars out of the nation's coffers....over a ten year period that could go a LONG way to pay off the bogus invasion of Iraq, as well as the damage caused by a non-oversight Wall St. and banker mortgage/investments, and bring down the deficit. Also, the wealthy folk WILL STILL BE WEALTHY WITHOUT THE BUSH TAX CUTS.
This kind of ideology thinking from the left, is why Obama has been unable to lower the unemployment rate below 9% since he passed the $787 BILLION stimulus. What makes you believe that an individual you call "rich", who has assets wrapped up in his large corporation, will seek to spend MORE money to hire additional employees, only AFTER paying more in taxes? Taxes to pay for an overinflated government who can't run anything to the efficiency of the private sector, who may cut back by means of government salaries (5%) all while increasing the more in government size. An increase in taxes that are only used to pay for an already oversized and "overweight" government that is in long need of a diet.
How is it that the left can "justify" the raising of taxes and adding more expense on corporate business owners, as an encouragement to reducing an already high unemployment rate? That's when I came across this article of a research study from Daniel Klein and Professor George Mason, based on a series of 21 questions on the subject of economic principles. The study found that people calling themselves "conservatives" did very well when it came to the basic questions of supply, demand and the effects of regulations. Liberals, on the other hand "had trouble squaring off economic thinking with their political psychology, morals, and ethics" the two wrote. Liberal economists viewed the survey to show more of a conservative slant, however they were unable to dismiss the conclusions completely. To read more on the "economic enlightenment" survey:
Sources:
Daniel Klein: Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader? - WSJ.com
Liberals livid over economic enlightenment gauge - Washington Times
Bottom line: the unemployment rate result under Reagan, and GW Bush WAS DEPLORABLE! Major corporations outsourcing and cutting back on jobs WHEN THEY HAD THE TAX CUTS AND WERE MAKING RECORD PROFITS! And when corporations folded, MANAGEMENT THAT HEADED THE DEBACLE WAS TAKING HOME OBSCENE PROFITS. Case in point, the oil and insurance companies making out like bandits while crying crocodile tears. So your mantras and talking points borne of right wing talking points and selected theorists are as bogus as their spokesmen.
Nearly a decade with the Bush tax cuts and the results: The Shrub has the worst job creation record to date for a President.
Going by the 6.5% unemployment before the $787 BILLION Stimulus in Feb 2009, to the near constant unwavering 10% unemployment rate that followed, that record falls to Obama.
Yeah...Avowed socialists are just chock-full of that ole "truth" thingy.
Can someone give me a summary? I dont have 12 minutes to listen to this. I have books to read and people to help
