How does it stimulate the economy to cut taxes and then raise them the same amount?

[Vast LWC]

Your post is not responsive. I said that Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Romney were strong leaders who were able to get their major agenda items passed by rallying popular support for these items that forced hostile legislatures to compromise, but because Obama is a diva and not a leader, despite his personal popularity, he was not able to do this and we hear this endless whining about how mean the Republicans have been to him. Obama is like a reality TV star, popular despite the fact he has no talent. He is the Kim Kardashian of American politics.

Please.

At the rare times where you're actually right, concerning Clinton and Reagan ONLY, they were working with Congresses that weren't filled with spoiled children who got into office on a platform of "Stop Obama".

As far as Bush goes, the only time he was EVER able to get a Democratic Congress to agree with him on ANYTHING was when he had war fever behind him after 9/11, and then he used that to turn around and FUCK the very same congresspeople that worked with him.

If Romney comes in and does exactly what he promised to do, which is repeal pretty much ever major piece of legislation the Democrats did manage to get passed over the past four years, the exact same thing will happen to him that happened to Bush, and to Obama. Congress will stonewall him at every turn.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Did Obama say he was going to lower the corporate tax rates to 25%?? Why yes, I believe he did, during the debate. He agreed with Romney. It's about 8 minutes into the debate if you want to see it.

Since corporations generally don't actually pay their taxes, there's no reason not to.

Plus, I personally would assume that cutting the Corporate tax rate would be done to take away the justification for lower capital gains rates.

If it was me, I'd lower corporate taxes to 15%, and then change the Cap Gains rate to be equal to income tax rates.

That would be an excellent "simplification".

That's a great idea if you want to discourage new investment and increase the volatility of he stock market. The less profit investors get to take home, the less risk they are willing to tolerate and the fewer new business ventures they will be willing to fund.

 

[Obamanation]

How is such a simple premise lost on liberals? The notion is a fair one, that if offered from Clinton would be a raging success. Romney wants to get rid of loopholes for the rich --- and they are complaining about it.

They keep talking about the rich paying their "fair share" and it's being purposed.

What the left wants is to punich the successful. They don't even care about the bottom line. Trillion dollar deficits are OK as long as the rich are punished....

MORONS!!!

 

[Vast LWC]

If you want investors to invest to grow companies, raising the capital gains taxes isn't such a good idea. But if you prefer not to have investments, it's a good plan.

BTW, C corps do pay taxes, those are the big guys, you know the ones that are included in the 1%.

That's also false.

Are you suggesting that no-one invested in companies in the '80s or '90s, when rates were much higher than they are now?

The only thing having 15% Cap Gains rates does is create massive bubbles, based on over-leveraging, which then proceed to burst and crash the economy. It happened in the 1920's, the only other time the rate was 15% or lower, the exact same way it happened in the last decade.

 

[Obamanation]

Your post is not responsive. I said that Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Romney were strong leaders who were able to get their major agenda items passed by rallying popular support for these items that forced hostile legislatures to compromise, but because Obama is a diva and not a leader, despite his personal popularity, he was not able to do this and we hear this endless whining about how mean the Republicans have been to him. Obama is like a reality TV star, popular despite the fact he has no talent. He is the Kim Kardashian of American politics.

Please.

At the rare times where you're actually right, concerning Clinton and Reagan ONLY, they were working with Congresses that weren't filled with spoiled children who got into office on a platform of "Stop Obama".

As far as Bush goes, the only time he was EVER able to get a Democratic Congress to agree with him on ANYTHING was when he had war fever behind him after 9/11, and then he used that to turn around and FUCK the very same congresspeople that worked with him.

If Romney comes in and does exactly what he promised to do, which is repeal pretty much ever major piece of legislation the Democrats did manage to get passed over the past four years, the exact same thing will happen to him that happened to Bush, and to Obama. Congress will stonewall him at every turn.

You think a Republican congress is going to stonewall Romney... lol

Dems will work with Romney anyway. He is smart enough to realize that starting negotiations from a point of agreement will get you further than Obama's devide and conquer techniques.

 

[Vast LWC]

That's a great idea if you want to discourage new investment and increase the volatility of he stock market. The less profit investors get to take home, the less risk they are willing to tolerate and the fewer new business ventures they will be willing to fund.

"Increase volatility"?

That's ludicrous. Volatility increases with decreases in capital gains rates. Just look at historic rates, it's pretty much always the same.

And, as I said, people didn't seem to be discouraged from investing in the 80s and 90s, now did they?

 

[Vast LWC]

You think a Republican congress is going to stonewall Romney... lol

Dems will work with Romney anyway. He is smart enough to realize that starting negotiations from a point of agreement will get you further than Obama's devide and conquer techniques.

There is absolutely no way that the Republicans will gain enough seats to override a filibuster. No way, no how.

The Democrats can simply do the exact same thing the Republicans were doing to them, and filibuster, or threaten to filibuster, every single piece of legislation that comes onto the floor.

 

[Vast LWC]

How is such a simple premise lost on liberals? The notion is a fair one, that if offered from Clinton would be a raging success. Romney wants to get rid of loopholes for the rich --- and they are complaining about it.

They keep talking about the rich paying their "fair share" and it's being purposed.

What the left wants is to punich the successful. They don't even care about the bottom line. Trillion dollar deficits are OK as long as the rich are punished....

MORONS!!!

Personally, I'm not even concerned about "fair shares" for the purposes of this discussion.

I'm talking about what will get us out of this hole, and nothing Mitt Romney has suggested will raise on extra cent in revenue.

What I was saying is that the only thing Mr Romney's plan will succeed in doing is to lower taxes for the rich, therefore increasing the tax burden on others, and that won't help pay the debt at all.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Your post is not responsive. I said that Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Romney were strong leaders who were able to get their major agenda items passed by rallying popular support for these items that forced hostile legislatures to compromise, but because Obama is a diva and not a leader, despite his personal popularity, he was not able to do this and we hear this endless whining about how mean the Republicans have been to him. Obama is like a reality TV star, popular despite the fact he has no talent. He is the Kim Kardashian of American politics.

Please.

At the rare times where you're actually right, concerning Clinton and Reagan ONLY, they were working with Congresses that weren't filled with spoiled children who got into office on a platform of "Stop Obama".

As far as Bush goes, the only time he was EVER able to get a Democratic Congress to agree with him on ANYTHING was when he had war fever behind him after 9/11, and then he used that to turn around and FUCK the very same congresspeople that worked with him.

If Romney comes in and does exactly what he promised to do, which is repeal pretty much ever major piece of legislation the Democrats did manage to get passed over the past four years, the exact same thing will happen to him that happened to Bush, and to Obama. Congress will stonewall him at every turn.

That's simply not accurate. Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Romney all faced legislatures that were equally hostile as the one with which Obama has failed to deal effectively, but by rallying popular support for their agendas they were able to force their critics to compromise with them. Bush became ineffective only after Katrina eroded his ability to rally popular support for his proposals. The false argument that this Congress has been more hostile than the ones Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Romney faced is just a silly conspiracy theory intended to hide how fundamentally incompetent Obama has been.

 

[eflatminor]

I imagine that you'll somehow now imply that the CBO, with a Republican White House and Congress, was "partisan"....

No, not partisan. The CBO is more like a calculator. Whichever side gives them the data, they dutifully calculate the economic impact. In other words, they accept the assumptions given to them, which are sometimes correct assumptions, sometimes not.

Either way, we'll know next year which way revenues head following a change in the tax rates. Stay tuned...

 

[eflatminor]

Since corporations generally don't actually pay their taxes, there's no reason not to.

Companies that paid the most in taxes 2011 (amount income tax paid/effective tax rate):

Exxon Mobil - $27.3 billion, 42%
Chevron - $17.4 billion, 43.3%
ConocoPhillips - $10.6 billion, 45.6%
JP Morgan - $8.2 billion, 29.1%
WalMart - $5.9 billion, 32.6%

Now, what were you saying?

 

[SniperFire]

Did Obama say he was going to lower the corporate tax rates to 25%?? Why yes, I believe he did, during the debate. He agreed with Romney. It's about 8 minutes into the debate if you want to see it.

Since corporations generally don't actually pay their taxes, there's no reason not to.

Plus, I personally would assume that cutting the Corporate tax rate would be done to take away the justification for lower capital gains rates.

If it was me, I'd lower corporate taxes to 15%, and then change the Cap Gains rate to be equal to income tax rates.

That would be an excellent "simplification".

LOL


What a tool.

 

[SniperFire]

Just the opposite was true. Both Reagan and Bush were savaged by the Democrats and Clinton was impeached by the Republicans, but these men were leaders who were able to get their important agenda items passed despite fierce opposition from the other party partly by negotiating with their critics after rallying popular support for their agendas, and Romney was able to do the same in Mass., but Obama is a diva, not a leader so that despite his considerable personal popularity all he can do is whine about how mean the Republicans have been to him.

Please. What a bunch of utter garbage.

Bush vetoed, or promised to veto, every single piece of legislation that the Democratic Congress put on his desk.

And the current Republican Congressional brood came into office with, by their own admission, a mission to make sure that Obama would not be able to get anything done to "further his agenda".

From day one, that is what they promised they would do.

And stopping anything from getting done is exactly what they did.

Let me ask you this:

If Romney does exactly what he promised, which is gut all the legislation the Democrats have gotten passed in the last 4 years, in what dreamworld do you believe that "reaching across the aisle" will occur?

Do you think that the Democrats will be happy about Romney walking in and giving them the finger "on day one"?

Hmmm?

LOL

You are a laughable fool.:


See also: 2008 Congressional Record, Vol. 154, Page D845 , Resume of Congressional Activity

[edit]Enacted
Main article: List of United States federal legislation#110th United States Congress
February 2, 2007 — House Page Board Revision Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-2, 121 Stat. 4
May 25, 2007 — U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub.L. 110-28, 121 Stat. 112, including Title VIII: Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, 121 Stat. 188
June 14, 2007 — Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-34, 121 Stat. 224
July 26, 2007 — Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-49, 121 Stat. 246
August 3, 2007 — Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266
August 5, 2007 — Protect America Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-55, 121 Stat. 552
September 14, 2007 — Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, Pub.L. 110-81, 121 Stat. 735
November 8, 2007 — Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-114, 121 Stat. 1041 - Veto Overridden
December 19, 2007 — Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492
February 13, 2008 — Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-185, 122 Stat. 613
May 21, 2008 — Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, Pub.L. 110-233, 122 Stat. 881
May 22, 2008 — Food and Energy Security Act of 2007 (2007 Farm Bill), Pub.L. 110-234, 122 Stat. 923 - Veto Overridden
June 30, 2008 — Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-252, 122 Stat. 2323, including Title V: Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 ("G.I. Bill 2008")
July 10, 2008 — FISA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-261, 122 Stat. 2436
July 29, 2008 — Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-286, 122 Stat. 2632
July 30, 2008 — Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Pub.L. 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654


House in Salinas, California under foreclosure, following the bursting of the U.S. real estate bubble.
October 3, 2008 — Public Law 110-343 (Pub.L. 110-343), 122 Stat. 3765, including:
Div. A: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, H.R. 1424;
Div. B: Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008; and
Div. C: Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008
October 15, 2008 — Pub.L. 110-430: Setting the beginning of the first session of the 111th Congress and the date for counting Electoral College votes, 122 Stat. 4846
December 19, 2008 — Pub.L. 110-455: A Saxbe fix, reducing the compensation and other emoluments attached to the office of Secretary of State to that which was in effect on January 1, 2007: allowing Hillary Clinton to serve as Secretary of State despite the Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution.
More information: Public Laws for the 110th Congress and Complete index of Public and Private Laws for 110th Congress at GPO

110th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SniperFire]

Your post is not responsive. I said that Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Romney were strong leaders who were able to get their major agenda items passed by rallying popular support for these items that forced hostile legislatures to compromise, but because Obama is a diva and not a leader, despite his personal popularity, he was not able to do this and we hear this endless whining about how mean the Republicans have been to him. Obama is like a reality TV star, popular despite the fact he has no talent. He is the Kim Kardashian of American politics.

Please.

At the rare times where you're actually right, concerning Clinton and Reagan ONLY, they were working with Congresses that weren't filled with spoiled children who got into office on a platform of "Stop Obama".

As far as Bush goes, the only time he was EVER able to get a Democratic Congress to agree with him on ANYTHING was when he had war fever behind him after 9/11, and then he used that to turn around and FUCK the very same congresspeople that worked with him.

If Romney comes in and does exactly what he promised to do, which is repeal pretty much ever major piece of legislation the Democrats did manage to get passed over the past four years, the exact same thing will happen to him that happened to Bush, and to Obama. Congress will stonewall him at every turn.

Why would you make such a ridiculous claim when it is so easily refuted?

LOL

 

[NYcarbineer]

How does it stimulate the economy to cut taxes and then raise them the same amount? Romney's plan is to cut tax rates and then get rid of deductions, credits, and loopholes to make up the difference. How is that a tax cut? The federal government still extracts the same amount of money from the economy.

Why hasn't he been more specific about which deductions, loopholes, and credits he's going to ax? Do we not have a right to know or is that a secret?

It doesn't but Romney has made up a story about how he's not cutting taxes for the Rich every since his camp found out that was a very unpopular position.

They're just saying anything now that polls well.

Can you show anywhere he ever said he would cut taxes on the rich?

They were playing a clip this morning on MSNBC of Romney in the primaries saying he wanted a 20% tax cut for every American.

 

[SniperFire]

If you want investors to invest to grow companies, raising the capital gains taxes isn't such a good idea. But if you prefer not to have investments, it's a good plan.

BTW, C corps do pay taxes, those are the big guys, you know the ones that are included in the 1%.

That's also false.

Are you suggesting that no-one invested in companies in the '80s or '90s, when rates were much higher than they are now?

The only thing having 15% Cap Gains rates does is create massive bubbles, based on over-leveraging, which then proceed to burst and crash the economy. It happened in the 1920's, the only other time the rate was 15% or lower, the exact same way it happened in the last decade.

You are reduced to lame all-or-nothing bifurcation fallacy, then?

He didn't say NO ONE invested in the 80's and 90's, he said raising capital gains is not a good idea for encouraging investment.

Hell, even Clinton knew that as he worked with the Republicans to lower capital gains taxes to 20%.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How does it stimulate the economy to cut taxes and then raise them the same amount? Romney's plan is to cut tax rates and then get rid of deductions, credits, and loopholes to make up the difference. How is that a tax cut? The federal government still extracts the same amount of money from the economy.

Why hasn't he been more specific about which deductions, loopholes, and credits he's going to ax? Do we not have a right to know or is that a secret?

It doesn't but Romney has made up a story about how he's not cutting taxes for the Rich every since his camp found out that was a very unpopular position.

They're just saying anything now that polls well.

Can you show anywhere he ever said he would cut taxes on the rich?

Yes. In the GOP primary Arizona debate:

ROMNEY: There were so many misrepresentations there, it's going to take me a little while. Number one, I said today that we're going to cut taxes on everyone across the country by 20 percent, including the top 1 percent.

Link:

Transcript of Tonight's CNN Republican Debate in Arizona | The Weekly Standard

 

[SniperFire]

Romney said that has to be worked out in Congress.

It may shock you, but before Obama became a tinpot dictator, Congress used to decide these sort of things.

ROFL, now that's a laugh.

Was that during the second Clinton term, where Congress did nothing but try to get the President impeached over blow jobs?

Or was it during most of the Bush term, where Congress was so damn ineffectual that they still try to blame the fact that they couldn't fix Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on the Democrats, even though the Republicans held Capital Hill and the White House?

Wow. A poor student of history as well.

Clinton was the first elected President to be Impeached in our history on two charges: Obstruction of Justice and perjury.

He will forever be a stain on American history, not to mention Monica's dress.

 

[SniperFire]

Romney got things done with a legislature which was 87% hostile party to him.

He did it by compromise and skill, neither of which Obama can bring to negotiation.

What he did was completely fold, because he had no other choice.

The state of Massachusetts is one of the most liberal states in the nation. If Mitt Romney didn't go along with what the Liberals wanted, he would have lost his job.

And the result of that was ObamaCare, oh I mean RomneyCare.

This is too easy sometimes.

Would a Chief Executive that issued 844 vetos be someone that could be characterized as completely folding to his legislature?

LOL

 

[GoneBezerk]

The PooPooEater starts another idiotic thread.....must get paid by the DNC for each started thread here.