Hey GOP! If you don't broaden the party...

No really.

Phil Gramm put the amendment into a spending bill on the day before Christmas recess that allowed the creation of the financial derivatives that destroyed the banks.

George Bush cut taxes for the rich and increased the National Debt to fund the ridiculous invasion of Iraq.

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts
Furthermore, tax revenues in 2006 were actually above the levels projected before the 2003 tax cuts. Immediately before the 2003 tax cuts, the CBO pro*jected a 2006 budget deficit of $57 billion, yet the final 2006 budget deficit was $247 billion. The $190 billion deficit increase resulted from federal spend*ing that was $237 billion more than projected. Rev*enues were actually $47 billion above the projection, even after $75 billion in tax cuts enacted after the baseline was calculated.[6] By that standard, new spending was responsible for 125 percent of the higher 2006 budget deficit, and expanding revenues actually offset 25 percent of the new spending.


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

And opinion piece from Heritage.org, a partisan rightwing think tank that worshipped Geroge Bush and supported 99% of everthing he did?

Are you fucking serious with this shit?


Are you ever going to stop defending Bush with all your heart and soul? :lol:

Can you show where tax revenues weren't more than projected or are you continuing with your BDS?
 
Actually it's partisan nitwits who blame one party over another that have nearly ruined America.

No, the Republicans are mostly to blame.

Phil Gramm and George Bush specifically.


Since I am an employer--you probably should know something of the payments you & your employer pay into this fund--"for the rest of your life." First of all your gross income is taxed 12.4% TOTAL for your social security retirement. You pay 6.2% of your gross wages & your employer pays the other 6.2%. So for every $100.00 you earn--$12.40 goes into your personal social security fund over your lifetime.

I will give you a break & say you're 30 years old. So you have another 35 years to work, & you're presently making $7.00 per hr--& as an example I will assume that you only make $7.00 per hour for your remaining working years--of course I know you will make much more--I am only using this as a simple example.

$7.00 per hr. x 40 hrs. per week x 52 = $14,560.00 per year
times 35 years = $509,600.00 in gross income over your working lifetime

$509,600.00 x 12.4% = $63,190.00 That you & your employer contributed for your social security retirement==which in effect--equals less than 1.2% on your contribution.

Now if you think 1% over 35 years is a GREAT DEAL for all the money that the Federal Government has withheld from you over your working lifetime--THEN GOD GIVE YOU SOME BRAINS! You can do better than that off a FDIC insured passbook savings account! Not to mention every time the federal government needs some extra cash they will take it from your account & reduce your benefits--to enable them to spend-spend-spend.

It was President Bush that continually called for a Social Security overall--which would have enabled Americans to put a portion of their social security withholding into "bomb-proof--safe secure financial" instruments that would have paid 3 to-4% higher returns--like U.S. savings bonds. The left in the country, meaning democrats told you it would be like putting your money into the stock market & scared off the ignorant nitwits.

So when you're old & living under that bridge in your cardboard shack--remember that.
 
Last edited:
  • Thanks
Reactions: 007
Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts
Furthermore, tax revenues in 2006 were actually above the levels projected before the 2003 tax cuts. Immediately before the 2003 tax cuts, the CBO pro*jected a 2006 budget deficit of $57 billion, yet the final 2006 budget deficit was $247 billion. The $190 billion deficit increase resulted from federal spend*ing that was $237 billion more than projected. Rev*enues were actually $47 billion above the projection, even after $75 billion in tax cuts enacted after the baseline was calculated.[6] By that standard, new spending was responsible for 125 percent of the higher 2006 budget deficit, and expanding revenues actually offset 25 percent of the new spending.


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

And opinion piece from Heritage.org, a partisan rightwing think tank that worshipped Geroge Bush and supported 99% of everthing he did?

Are you fucking serious with this shit?


Are you ever going to stop defending Bush with all your heart and soul? :lol:

Can you show where tax revenues weren't more than projected or are you continuing with your BDS?

Depends on what projection you are talking about. I can show projections from 2000 that projected revenues far, far higher than were ever achieved by the Bush administration.

Revenues, in both real and actual terms, grew much more slowly during Bush's term than GDP because of the tax cuts. Had revenues simply kept up with GDP, the Govt would have taken in close to $2 trillion more revenues during the years Bush was president.
 
Actually it's partisan nitwits who blame one party over another that have nearly ruined America.

No, the Republicans are mostly to blame.

Phil Gramm and George Bush specifically.

Since I am an employer--you probably should know something of the payments you & your employer pay into this fund--"for the rest of your life." First of all your gross income is taxed 12.4% TOTAL for your social security retirement. You pay 6.2% of your gross wages & your employer pays the other 6.2%. So for every $100.00 you earn--$12.40 goes into your personal social security fund over your lifetime.

I will give you a break & say you're 30 years old. So you have another 35 years to work, & you're presently making $7.00 per hr--& as an example I will assume that you only make $7.00 per hour for your remaining working years--of course I know you will make much more--I am only using this as a simple example.

$7.00 per hr. x 40 hrs. per week x 52 = $14,560.00 per year
times 35 years = $509,600.00 in gross income over your working lifetime

$509,600.00 x 12.4% = $63,190.00 That you & your employer contributed for your social security retirement==which in effect--equals less than 1.2% on your contribution.

Wow! I'm shocked that as an employer, you don't know that SS taxes are capped at about $106,800 in earnings for 2009!

It doesn't matter if your employee makes $106,800, $509,600, or $60 million. The most paid to SS for any person is $13,243.20 including both employee and employer contribution.

The really wealthy don't effectively pay SS as a portion of their income.

Fire your accountant, hire me, and apply to the Govt for all those excess SS taxes you've been paying.

Now if you think 1% over 35 years is a GREAT DEAL for all the money that the Federal Government has withheld from you over your working lifetime--THEN GOD GIVE YOU SOME BRAINS! You can do better than that off a FDIC insured passbook savings account! Not to mention every time the federal government needs some extra cash they will take it from your account & reduce your benefits--to enable them to spend-spend-spend.

It was President Bush that continually called for a Social Security overall--which would have enabled Americans to put a portion of their social security withholding into "bomb-proof--safe secure financial" instruments that would have paid 3 to-4% higher returns--like U.S. savings bonds. The left in the country, meaning democrats told you it would be like putting your money into the stock market & scared off the ignorant nitwits.

So when you're old & living under that bridge in your cardboard shack--remember that.

We don't need to privatize SS to put the tax receipts into investments.

But the truth is the extra SS taxes the working poorer have been paying to save for their retirements have been stolen to finance the income and investment tax cuts that have principally benefitted the rich.
 
Last edited:
No, the Republicans are mostly to blame.

Phil Gramm and George Bush specifically.

Since I am an employer--you probably should know something of the payments you & your employer pay into this fund--"for the rest of your life." First of all your gross income is taxed 12.4% TOTAL for your social security retirement. You pay 6.2% of your gross wages & your employer pays the other 6.2%. So for every $100.00 you earn--$12.40 goes into your personal social security fund over your lifetime.

I will give you a break & say you're 30 years old. So you have another 35 years to work, & you're presently making $7.00 per hr--& as an example I will assume that you only make $7.00 per hour for your remaining working years--of course I know you will make much more--I am only using this as a simple example.

$7.00 per hr. x 40 hrs. per week x 52 = $14,560.00 per year
times 35 years = $509,600.00 in gross income over your working lifetime

$509,600.00 x 12.4% = $63,190.00 That you & your employer contributed for your social security retirement==which in effect--equals less than 1.2% on your contribution.

Wow! I'm shocked that as an employer, you don't know that SS taxes are capped at about $106,800 in earnings for 2009!

It doesn't matter if your employee makes $106,800, $509,600, or $60 million. The most paid to SS for any person is $13,243.20 including both employee and employer contribution.

The really wealthy don't effectively pay SS as a portion of their income.

Fire your accountant, hire me, and apply to the Govt for all those excess SS taxes you've been paying.

Now if you think 1% over 35 years is a GREAT DEAL for all the money that the Federal Government has withheld from you over your working lifetime--THEN GOD GIVE YOU SOME BRAINS! You can do better than that off a FDIC insured passbook savings account! Not to mention every time the federal government needs some extra cash they will take it from your account & reduce your benefits--to enable them to spend-spend-spend.

It was President Bush that continually called for a Social Security overall--which would have enabled Americans to put a portion of their social security withholding into "bomb-proof--safe secure financial" instruments that would have paid 3 to-4% higher returns--like U.S. savings bonds. The left in the country, meaning democrats told you it would be like putting your money into the stock market & scared off the ignorant nitwits.

So when you're old & living under that bridge in your cardboard shack--remember that.

We don't need to privatize SS to put the tax receipts into investments.

But the truth is the extra SS taxes the working poorer have been paying to save for their retirements have been stolen to finance the income and investment tax cuts that have principally benefitted the rich.


The example provided did not exceed the $106,800 annual salary figure, so what's your point?
 
Since I am an employer--you probably should know something of the payments you & your employer pay into this fund--"for the rest of your life." First of all your gross income is taxed 12.4% TOTAL for your social security retirement. You pay 6.2% of your gross wages & your employer pays the other 6.2%. So for every $100.00 you earn--$12.40 goes into your personal social security fund over your lifetime.

I will give you a break & say you're 30 years old. So you have another 35 years to work, & you're presently making $7.00 per hr--& as an example I will assume that you only make $7.00 per hour for your remaining working years--of course I know you will make much more--I am only using this as a simple example.

$7.00 per hr. x 40 hrs. per week x 52 = $14,560.00 per year
times 35 years = $509,600.00 in gross income over your working lifetime

$509,600.00 x 12.4% = $63,190.00 That you & your employer contributed for your social security retirement==which in effect--equals less than 1.2% on your contribution.

Wow! I'm shocked that as an employer, you don't know that SS taxes are capped at about $106,800 in earnings for 2009!

It doesn't matter if your employee makes $106,800, $509,600, or $60 million. The most paid to SS for any person is $13,243.20 including both employee and employer contribution.

The really wealthy don't effectively pay SS as a portion of their income.

Fire your accountant, hire me, and apply to the Govt for all those excess SS taxes you've been paying.

Now if you think 1% over 35 years is a GREAT DEAL for all the money that the Federal Government has withheld from you over your working lifetime--THEN GOD GIVE YOU SOME BRAINS! You can do better than that off a FDIC insured passbook savings account! Not to mention every time the federal government needs some extra cash they will take it from your account & reduce your benefits--to enable them to spend-spend-spend.

It was President Bush that continually called for a Social Security overall--which would have enabled Americans to put a portion of their social security withholding into "bomb-proof--safe secure financial" instruments that would have paid 3 to-4% higher returns--like U.S. savings bonds. The left in the country, meaning democrats told you it would be like putting your money into the stock market & scared off the ignorant nitwits.

So when you're old & living under that bridge in your cardboard shack--remember that.

We don't need to privatize SS to put the tax receipts into investments.

But the truth is the extra SS taxes the working poorer have been paying to save for their retirements have been stolen to finance the income and investment tax cuts that have principally benefitted the rich.


The example provided did not exceed the $106,800 annual salary figure, so what's your point?

You're right; I read the example quickly and thought the $509,600 figure was a one year salary as opposed to over time.
 
Wow! I'm shocked that as an employer, you don't know that SS taxes are capped at about $106,800 in earnings for 2009!

It doesn't matter if your employee makes $106,800, $509,600, or $60 million. The most paid to SS for any person is $13,243.20 including both employee and employer contribution.

The really wealthy don't effectively pay SS as a portion of their income.

Fire your accountant, hire me, and apply to the Govt for all those excess SS taxes you've been paying.



We don't need to privatize SS to put the tax receipts into investments.

But the truth is the extra SS taxes the working poorer have been paying to save for their retirements have been stolen to finance the income and investment tax cuts that have principally benefitted the rich.


The example provided did not exceed the $106,800 annual salary figure, so what's your point?

You're right; I read the example quickly and thought the $509,600 figure was a one year salary as opposed to over time.


Just keepin' you honest. :lol:
 
Ire are you completely devoid of a brain? What projections are used in the article I posted? The non-partisian CBO.....
And according to those projections, the tax revenue outperformed the projection.
 
Actually it's partisan nitwits who blame one party over another that have nearly ruined America.

No, the Republicans are mostly to blame.

Phil Gramm and George Bush specifically.


Since I am an employer--you probably should know something of the payments you & your employer pay into this fund--"for the rest of your life." First of all your gross income is taxed 12.4% TOTAL for your social security retirement. You pay 6.2% of your gross wages & your employer pays the other 6.2%. So for every $100.00 you earn--$12.40 goes into your personal social security fund over your lifetime.

I will give you a break & say you're 30 years old. So you have another 35 years to work, & you're presently making $7.00 per hr--& as an example I will assume that you only make $7.00 per hour for your remaining working years--of course I know you will make much more--I am only using this as a simple example.

$7.00 per hr. x 40 hrs. per week x 52 = $14,560.00 per year
times 35 years = $509,600.00 in gross income over your working lifetime

$509,600.00 x 12.4% = $63,190.00 That you & your employer contributed for your social security retirement==which in effect--equals less than 1.2% on your contribution.

Now if you think 1% over 35 years is a GREAT DEAL for all the money that the Federal Government has withheld from you over your working lifetime--THEN GOD GIVE YOU SOME BRAINS! You can do better than that off a FDIC insured passbook savings account! Not to mention every time the federal government needs some extra cash they will take it from your account & reduce your benefits--to enable them to spend-spend-spend.

It was President Bush that continually called for a Social Security overall--which would have enabled Americans to put a portion of their social security withholding into "bomb-proof--safe secure financial" instruments that would have paid 3 to-4% higher returns--like U.S. savings bonds. The left in the country, meaning democrats told you it would be like putting your money into the stock market & scared off the ignorant nitwits.

So when you're old & living under that bridge in your cardboard shack--remember that.

No, what I will remember is that Reagan and the two Bushes created 90% of the National Debt, and that Phil Gramm's deregulation destroyed the American economy.
 
We've had financial derivatives for decades. And until the subprime mortgage mess they were seldom a problem.

Again Glass Steagall was anti trust legislation and had nothing in it concerning financial derivatives.
 
We've had financial derivatives for decades. And until the subprime mortgage mess they were seldom a problem.

Swaps exploded this decades, from something like $1 trillion to $360 trillion this decade.

So its not really comparable.

Both Soros and Buffett warned against derivatives several years ago, with Buffett calling them weapons of mass destruction and Soros saying they could end society as we know it.
 
Can you show where tax revenues weren't more than projected or are you continuing with your BDS?

Depends on what projection you are talking about. I can show projections from 2000 that projected revenues far, far higher than were ever achieved by the Bush administration.

Revenues, in both real and actual terms, grew much more slowly during Bush's term than GDP because of the tax cuts. Had revenues simply kept up with GDP, the Govt would have taken in close to $2 trillion more revenues during the years Bush was president.
Ire are you completely devoid of a brain? What projections are used in the article I posted? The non-partisian CBO.....
And according to those projections, the tax revenue outperformed the projection.

Don't think so. I agree in the 2003 article you posted revenues were greater than projected, but that isn't what you asked and that doesn't show the whole picture of CBO projections vs. revenues, because by 2003 the tax cuts had already been passed.

Here are CBO projections In jan 2001, before the tax cuts:

Total Revenues
Year - CBO proj. - Actual
2001 2016 1991
2002 2096 1853
2003 2177 1782
2004 2263 1880
2005 2361 2153
2006 2465 2406
2007 2572 2567
2008 2686 2523

The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2001-2010 (Table 1-6 corrected 2/1/00)

Revenues didn't quite match up to the CBO projection.
 
Depends on what projection you are talking about. I can show projections from 2000 that projected revenues far, far higher than were ever achieved by the Bush administration.

Revenues, in both real and actual terms, grew much more slowly during Bush's term than GDP because of the tax cuts. Had revenues simply kept up with GDP, the Govt would have taken in close to $2 trillion more revenues during the years Bush was president.
Ire are you completely devoid of a brain? What projections are used in the article I posted? The non-partisian CBO.....
And according to those projections, the tax revenue outperformed the projection.

Don't think so. I agree in the 2003 article you posted revenues were greater than projected, but that isn't what you asked and that doesn't show the whole picture of CBO projections vs. revenues, because by 2003 the tax cuts had already been passed.

Here are CBO projections In jan 2001, before the tax cuts:

Total Revenues
Year - CBO proj. - Actual
2001 2016 1991
2002 2096 1853
2003 2177 1782
2004 2263 1880
2005 2361 2153
2006 2465 2406
2007 2572 2567
2008 2686 2523

The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2001-2010 (Table 1-6 corrected 2/1/00)

Revenues didn't quite match up to the CBO projection.

The CBO projections done in 2003 were done immediately before the tax cuts were signed into law. Furthermore....pay particular attention to the second paragraph.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_and_Growth_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2003
The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 ("JGTRRA", Pub.L. 108-27, 117 Stat. 752), was passed by the United States Congress on May 23, 2003 and signed by President Bush on May 28, 2003.
Read the first page the projections were done in March of 2003
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/41xx/doc4129/03-31-AnalysisPresidentBudget-Final.pdf


Ouch I guess your were trying to distort the information, didn't work now did it?
 
Last edited:
Ire are you completely devoid of a brain? What projections are used in the article I posted? The non-partisian CBO.....
And according to those projections, the tax revenue outperformed the projection.

Don't think so. I agree in the 2003 article you posted revenues were greater than projected, but that isn't what you asked and that doesn't show the whole picture of CBO projections vs. revenues, because by 2003 the tax cuts had already been passed.

Here are CBO projections In jan 2001, before the tax cuts:

Total Revenues
Year - CBO proj. - Actual
2001 2016 1991
2002 2096 1853
2003 2177 1782
2004 2263 1880
2005 2361 2153
2006 2465 2406
2007 2572 2567
2008 2686 2523

The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2001-2010 (Table 1-6 corrected 2/1/00)

Revenues didn't quite match up to the CBO projection.

The CBO projections done in 2003 were done immediately before the tax cuts were signed into law. Furthermore....pay particular attention to the second paragraph.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 ("JGTRRA", Pub.L. 108-27, 117 Stat. 752), was passed by the United States Congress on May 23, 2003 and signed by President Bush on May 28, 2003.
Read the first page the projections were done in March of 2003
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/41xx/doc4129/03-31-AnalysisPresidentBudget-Final.pdf


Ouch I guess your were trying to distort the information, didn't work now did it?
So I guess we can both agree that revenues were greater in 2006 than what the CBO projected right before the tax cuts were passed into law.
 
no really.

Phil gramm put the amendment into a spending bill on the day before christmas recess that allowed the creation of the financial derivatives that destroyed the banks.

George bush cut taxes for the rich and increased the national debt to fund the ridiculous invasion of iraq.

... And who keeps pushing to force these banks to loan money to high risk people that can not nor have any intention of paying them back?

profit.
cra
 
Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts
Furthermore, tax revenues in 2006 were actually above the levels projected before the 2003 tax cuts. Immediately before the 2003 tax cuts, the CBO pro*jected a 2006 budget deficit of $57 billion, yet the final 2006 budget deficit was $247 billion. The $190 billion deficit increase resulted from federal spend*ing that was $237 billion more than projected. Rev*enues were actually $47 billion above the projection, even after $75 billion in tax cuts enacted after the baseline was calculated.[6] By that standard, new spending was responsible for 125 percent of the higher 2006 budget deficit, and expanding revenues actually offset 25 percent of the new spending.


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

And opinion piece from Heritage.org, a partisan rightwing think tank that worshipped Geroge Bush and supported 99% of everthing he did?

Are you fucking serious with this shit?


Are you ever going to stop defending Bush with all your heart and soul? :lol:

Can you show where tax revenues weren't more than projected or are you continuing with your BDS?
thats ABDS he has
 
No, the Republicans are mostly to blame.

Phil Gramm and George Bush specifically.


Since I am an employer--you probably should know something of the payments you & your employer pay into this fund--"for the rest of your life." First of all your gross income is taxed 12.4% TOTAL for your social security retirement. You pay 6.2% of your gross wages & your employer pays the other 6.2%. So for every $100.00 you earn--$12.40 goes into your personal social security fund over your lifetime.

I will give you a break & say you're 30 years old. So you have another 35 years to work, & you're presently making $7.00 per hr--& as an example I will assume that you only make $7.00 per hour for your remaining working years--of course I know you will make much more--I am only using this as a simple example.

$7.00 per hr. x 40 hrs. per week x 52 = $14,560.00 per year
times 35 years = $509,600.00 in gross income over your working lifetime

$509,600.00 x 12.4% = $63,190.00 That you & your employer contributed for your social security retirement==which in effect--equals less than 1.2% on your contribution.

Now if you think 1% over 35 years is a GREAT DEAL for all the money that the Federal Government has withheld from you over your working lifetime--THEN GOD GIVE YOU SOME BRAINS! You can do better than that off a FDIC insured passbook savings account! Not to mention every time the federal government needs some extra cash they will take it from your account & reduce your benefits--to enable them to spend-spend-spend.

It was President Bush that continually called for a Social Security overall--which would have enabled Americans to put a portion of their social security withholding into "bomb-proof--safe secure financial" instruments that would have paid 3 to-4% higher returns--like U.S. savings bonds. The left in the country, meaning democrats told you it would be like putting your money into the stock market & scared off the ignorant nitwits.

So when you're old & living under that bridge in your cardboard shack--remember that.

No, what I will remember is that Reagan and the two Bushes created 90% of the National Debt, and that Phil Gramm's deregulation destroyed the American economy.
and if Obama has his way, he will have created half of it in a few years
 
Social security should be partially invested in the stock market. Other countries do it. So should America.

other countries have lots of things the USE does not...handgun controls that would ignite a war here...socialized medicine (wink),,,parliamentary systems of government...
 
Social security should be partially invested in the stock market. Other countries do it. So should America.

other countries have lots of things the USE does not...handgun controls that would ignite a war here...socialized medicine (wink),,,parliamentary systems of government...

Where the hell is the USE?
 
Social security should be partially invested in the stock market. Other countries do it. So should America.

other countries have lots of things the USE does not...handgun controls that would ignite a war here...socialized medicine (wink),,,parliamentary systems of government...

Where the hell is the USE?

The USE is in my pants...and no....


.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

you cannot view IT. :eek:
 

Forum List

Back
Top