modemocrat

Discussion in 'Politics' started by jacobi, Dec 30, 2011.

  1. jacobi
    Offline

    jacobi Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2011
    Messages:
    8
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +2
    Republicans best chance in 2012, Romney/Huntsman, that's all the help you are going to get from me. My vote will be for President Obama VP Biden, The Democrat party has always fought for the working man & woman. We are in debt because of 2 unfunded wars & an unfunded prescription plan for Medicare. The Bush tax cuts should have been repealed to help pay and we wouldn't be in this mess.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Lovebears65
    Offline

    Lovebears65 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2011
    Messages:
    6,258
    Thanks Received:
    1,468
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Georgia
    Ratings:
    +2,034
    You got Obama down pat. Its all Bushs fault. Youre a true idiot if you think Obama is for the working people while he is in a 4 million dollar house in HI
     
  3. eflatminor
    Offline

    eflatminor Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    9,243
    Thanks Received:
    1,399
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,052
    Always? The Democrat party was also the party that fought for slavery. Of course, they didn't think slaves were actually humans, so you may still be correct in your statement.

    Actually, Medicare itself is the biggest contributor to our debt. The wars certainly don't help our financial situation but you do realize the your Democrat president has started a few wars of his own, all unfunded and undeclared by Congress?

    Actually,tax revenues as a percentage of GDP changes very little over time, even as marginal tax rates vary widely. There is no evidence to suggest that if we had higher tax rates (no "Bush tax cuts") that we would have realized more actual revenue. In fact, a strong case can be made that we have realized more revenue do to those cuts. Either scenario is difficult to prove but we certainly know that your statement cannot be proven. And by the way, you do understand that Bush cut taxes for all Americans, not just the wealthy, right?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. DontBeStupid
    Offline

    DontBeStupid Look it up!

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,463
    Thanks Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Ratings:
    +422
    Really? Then how do you explain that revenue as a percentage of GDP is down 25% from a decade ago?
    I would love to see this case, because tax revenue dropped every year Bush cut taxes. That's three years in a row, something that has never happened in modern history. It didn't even happen during the Great Depression.
    Yes, but you understand that as a percentage of their income, the wealthy received the largest percentage cuts, right?
     
  5. eflatminor
    Offline

    eflatminor Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    9,243
    Thanks Received:
    1,399
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,052
    Since WWII, tax revenues have stayed within 15 to 20 percent of GDP despite marginal rates as high as 90%. Of course, revenues always decrease during an economic downturn. The case for increased revenues following marginal tax rate decreases was predicted by Art Laffer...and proven following Regan's tax cuts. True, wealthier Americans may have seen a larger percentage cut, but then we all know the wealthy pay the largest portion of the taxes...by a frickin' long shot. The fact nearly half of Americans now don't pay any federal income tax is another subject, but one that speaks volumes about tax inequity.
     
  6. DontBeStupid
    Offline

    DontBeStupid Look it up!

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,463
    Thanks Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Ratings:
    +422
    The last time tax receipts as a percentage of GDP were below 17% was in 1959 when they dropped to 16.2%. The last time they were below 16% was in 1950 and 1949 when they were 14.4% and 14.5%. To claim "Since WWII, tax revenues have stayed within 15 to 20 percent of GDP" is completely false and utterly dishonest. It is more honest and accurate to say receipts average between 17%-19%, and in the 90's were in the high 19s and hit 20 by the end.

    However you phrase it, we have not seen tax receipts this low as a percentage of GDP since the end of WWII. That is a fact.

    Additionally, you are utterly wrong about Laffer and Reagan. From 1980-82, by no means economic boom years, receipts never dipped below 19% of GDP. From 1983-1986, they never went above 18%! Just like with the Bush tax cuts, tax receipts went down not up.

    Lastly, I am amazed by your spin on the fact that half of Americans don't pay federal income tax. If that isn't proof that taxes are their lowest in generations, I don't know what else to tell you. You're simply ignoring reality and history.
     
  7. LordBrownTrout
    Offline

    LordBrownTrout Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    15,492
    Thanks Received:
    2,962
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    South Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,353
    Dems could care less about the working people. Looks like they have you fully encapsulated in their wonderland.
     
  8. eflatminor
    Offline

    eflatminor Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    9,243
    Thanks Received:
    1,399
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,052
    I am not in any way amazed by your spin on facts...I've come to expect it.

    Nevertheless, let's take 'em one at a time:

    1) Glad we agree that all Americans should pay an income tax. Chalk one up for bipartisan support.

    2) Regan's tax rates included both increases and decreases and were not fully implemented until 1983. And what do you know, receipts stayed about the same. Amazing, isn't it?! The people has less taken out of their pockets but the government still got its revenue. And yes, we stayed within that traditional 15-20 percent range.

    3) So you're saying I lied because since WWII, we saw 14.4% in 1950, which isn't technically 15%. You got me. Mia culpa.

    But hey, at the end of the day, I'm sure your degree in economics and experience in the field outpaces that of Art Laffer...I'm sure.
     
  9. Luddly Neddite
    Offline

    Luddly Neddite Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    53,216
    Thanks Received:
    8,455
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +20,829
    What does one thing have to do with the other?

    Even a neocon knows one can be successful financially AND be a real human being. Not everyone is like the bushes or gingrich.

    OR, are you saying that since romney was given his money, didn't work for it except to tear down companies and fire employees, since he is tearing down his $4MILLION DOLLAR shack in order to rebuild 4 times bigger, are you saying he's for big Business (as he himself has said repeatedly) and NOT for the working class?

    See how that works?
     
  10. Luddly Neddite
    Offline

    Luddly Neddite Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    53,216
    Thanks Received:
    8,455
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +20,829
    The last two points are just flat wrong and we all know it but I have a question for all the pubs/bags -

    Why do you think using ancient history is germane to your modern day point?

    Pretty dumb, actually.
     

Share This Page