Rand Paul: We Should Let Dems Raise Taxes And Then Let Them Own It

[Zoom-boing]

Absolutely. Give Obama and the Dems the tax increase on the rich they are after ... go for it. No real cuts to spending? No problem! The tax hike on the rich will make those cuts unnecessary. That's certainly what Obama has implied so I say give them what they want, what they really, really want.

And when it doesn't work they can own every inch of it.

I have yet another thought on how we can fix this. Why don't we let the Democrats pass whatever they want? If they are the party of higher taxes, all the Republicans vote present and let the Democrats raise taxes as high as they want to raise them, let Democrats in the Senate raise taxes, let the president sign it and then make them own the tax increase. And when the economy stalls, when the economy sputters, when people lose their jobs, they know which party to blame, the party of high taxes. Let's don't be the party of just almost as high taxes.

Sen. Rand Paul: We Should Let Dems Raise Taxes And Then Let Them Own It | RealClearPolitics

 

[WillowTree]

 

[Koios]

Absolutely. Give Obama and the Dems the tax increase on the rich they are after ... go for it. No real cuts to spending? No problem! The tax hike on the rich will make those cuts unnecessary. That's certainly what Obama has implied so I say give them what they want, what they really, really want.

And when it doesn't work they can own every inch of it.

I have yet another thought on how we can fix this. Why don't we let the Democrats pass whatever they want? If they are the party of higher taxes, all the Republicans vote present and let the Democrats raise taxes as high as they want to raise them, let Democrats in the Senate raise taxes, let the president sign it and then make them own the tax increase. And when the economy stalls, when the economy sputters, when people lose their jobs, they know which party to blame, the party of high taxes. Let's don't be the party of just almost as high taxes.

Sen. Rand Paul: We Should Let Dems Raise Taxes And Then Let Them Own It | RealClearPolitics

Agreed. One less GOPnik signing onto a GOP filibuster. Maybe others will join Randy, and give 'er a shot, and see if the same economic disaster you Rightie dumbfucks were so sure were eminent when Clinton urged the same rates, will come to pass this time.

Who knows? You can't be wrong forever, on everything. Maybe you'll get it right this time. I got my fingers crossed for ya.

 

[edthecynic]

Absolutely. Give Obama and the Dems the tax increase on the rich they are after ... go for it. No real cuts to spending? No problem! The tax hike on the rich will make those cuts unnecessary. That's certainly what Obama has implied so I say give them what they want, what they really, really want.

And when it doesn't work they can own every inch of it.

I have yet another thought on how we can fix this. Why don't we let the Democrats pass whatever they want? If they are the party of higher taxes, all the Republicans vote present and let the Democrats raise taxes as high as they want to raise them, let Democrats in the Senate raise taxes, let the president sign it and then make them own the tax increase. And when the economy stalls, when the economy sputters, when people lose their jobs, they know which party to blame, the party of high taxes. Let's don't be the party of just almost as high taxes.

Sen. Rand Paul: We Should Let Dems Raise Taxes And Then Let Them Own It | RealClearPolitics

And when the economy improves the GOP will take credit for it because they let the Dems raise taxes and pass a new stimulus. They did the same thing with Clinton, no Republicans voted for Clinton's tax bill and they predicted job losses as far as the eye can see, and when 25 million new jobs were created the GOP took full credit for every one of them.

 

[J.E.D]

Rand Paul: We Should Let Dems Raise Taxes And Then Let Them Own It

That's pretty good advice...for Democrats considering a majority of those polled (left, right and center) support raising taxes on the rich.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Rand Paul should go back to where he's most-effective....his music/driving gig!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leohcvmf8kM]The B52's - Love Shack - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[eflatminor]

I agree with Rand and would go further. Let the central planning fucks raise taxes and let them increase spending as well, for as we all know, the reason we're not getting out of this economic downturn more quickly is 'cuz we just haven't spent enough money...

Seriously, give them what they want and let them wallow in it.

If I'm wrong and tax revenues increase, we actually reduce the deficit and the economy takes off, I'll happily admit Hayek, Mises, Friedman, Laffer, etc were wrong, register Democrat and sign up for food stamps, which are stimulative after all...

 

[GHook93]

Absolutely. Give Obama and the Dems the tax increase on the rich they are after ... go for it. No real cuts to spending? No problem! The tax hike on the rich will make those cuts unnecessary. That's certainly what Obama has implied so I say give them what they want, what they really, really want.

And when it doesn't work they can own every inch of it.

I have yet another thought on how we can fix this. Why don't we let the Democrats pass whatever they want? If they are the party of higher taxes, all the Republicans vote present and let the Democrats raise taxes as high as they want to raise them, let Democrats in the Senate raise taxes, let the president sign it and then make them own the tax increase. And when the economy stalls, when the economy sputters, when people lose their jobs, they know which party to blame, the party of high taxes. Let's don't be the party of just almost as high taxes.

Sen. Rand Paul: We Should Let Dems Raise Taxes And Then Let Them Own It | RealClearPolitics

Don't like it! When taxes go up they usually don't go down!

 

[Koios]

Absolutely. Give Obama and the Dems the tax increase on the rich they are after ... go for it. No real cuts to spending? No problem! The tax hike on the rich will make those cuts unnecessary. That's certainly what Obama has implied so I say give them what they want, what they really, really want.

And when it doesn't work they can own every inch of it.

I have yet another thought on how we can fix this. Why don't we let the Democrats pass whatever they want? If they are the party of higher taxes, all the Republicans vote present and let the Democrats raise taxes as high as they want to raise them, let Democrats in the Senate raise taxes, let the president sign it and then make them own the tax increase. And when the economy stalls, when the economy sputters, when people lose their jobs, they know which party to blame, the party of high taxes. Let's don't be the party of just almost as high taxes.

Sen. Rand Paul: We Should Let Dems Raise Taxes And Then Let Them Own It | RealClearPolitics

Don't like it! When taxes go up they usually don't go down!

All they've done, for 12 years, is .... drum roll ....

GO DOWN!!!

 

[Clementine]

Historically, tax decreases increased revenue. Maybe not a hard and fast rule. And just who are these wealthy they are referring to? Last I heard, no one making under $250,000 would pay a dime more in taxes. Then the Supreme Court said Obamacare was legal only because it was a tax. That was after Obama insisted over and over that it was not a tax. But, in court it was a tax. Afterward, we went back to hearing it wasn't a tax. Still wondering which it is.

Obamacare is already killing jobs, so I'm sure even more tax increases will turn that all around in a jiff. I think they hope we're dumb enough to think that, anyway.

Or maybe, the left doesn't want the economy to rebound and they don't want jobs created. They can raise taxes, decrease revenue in the long run and keep spending like fools. Once the system is so overloaded that it crushes under it's own weight, Obama can rebuild us into a socialist country. If that is really the plan, which I suspect it is, they are right on track and taxes need to be increased for their vision to be realized. If you don't like socialism, too fucking bad because it's coming..........................

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I agree with Rand and would go further. Let the central planning fucks raise taxes and let them increase spending as well, for as we all know, the reason we're not getting out of this economic downturn more quickly is 'cuz we just haven't spent enough money...

Seriously, give them what they want and let them wallow in it.

If I'm wrong and tax revenues increase, we actually reduce the deficit and the economy takes off, I'll happily admit Hayek, Mises, Friedman, Laffer, etc were wrong, register Democrat and sign up for food stamps, which are stimulative after all...

Yup, I will too. I'll burn every Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, etc book I have and give Paul Krugman's blogs rave reviews. That's how confident I am that the Dems are dead wrong.

I totally agree, eflat.

 

[Koios]

Historically, tax decreases increased revenue. Maybe not a hard and fast rule. And just who are these wealthy they are referring to? Last I heard, no one making under $250,000 would pay a dime more in taxes. Then the Supreme Court said Obamacare was legal only because it was a tax. That was after Obama insisted over and over that it was not a tax. But, in court it was a tax. Afterward, we went back to hearing it wasn't a tax. Still wondering which it is.

Obamacare is already killing jobs, so I'm sure even more tax increases will turn that all around in a jiff.

Or maybe, the left doesn't want the economy to rebound and they don't want jobs created. They can raise taxes, decrease revenue in the long run and keep spending like fools. Once the system is so overloaded that it crushes under it's own weight, Obama can rebuild us into a socialist country. If that is really the plan, which I suspect it is, they are right on track and taxes need to be increased for their vision to be realized. If you don't like socialism, too fucking bad because it's coming..........................

Supplyside Lives!!!!

Not true, they (tax cuts) decimate revenue. But growth plods upward and eventually we get a bigger number, nominally, not accounting for inflation.

Case in point, this past stupidity (Bush Tax Cuts, 1 and 2): revenue tanks, and it takes 4.5 years for it to return to the number it was at prior to the cut, nominally, not even accounting for inflation. Meanwhile, spending, which also grows with the population and inflation, keeps plodding upward, too; about 3% a year sans any new spending programs. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where suplus turns into Record Deficit!!! Whadaya know.

But back in Rightie Retard Land, lower rates to 1%, wait 300 years, and let the revenue number get bigger than it is today, and sing, YIPPEE!!! The cuts increased revenue!!!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You never give up repeating complete gobbledeegook of economic understanding, do you.

 

[Oddball]

Historically, tax decreases increased revenue. Maybe not a hard and fast rule. And just who are these wealthy they are referring to? Last I heard, no one making under $250,000 would pay a dime more in taxes. Then the Supreme Court said Obamacare was legal only because it was a tax. That was after Obama insisted over and over that it was not a tax. But, in court it was a tax. Afterward, we went back to hearing it wasn't a tax. Still wondering which it is.

Obamacare is already killing jobs, so I'm sure even more tax increases will turn that all around in a jiff.

Or maybe, the left doesn't want the economy to rebound and they don't want jobs created. They can raise taxes, decrease revenue in the long run and keep spending like fools. Once the system is so overloaded that it crushes under it's own weight, Obama can rebuild us into a socialist country. If that is really the plan, which I suspect it is, they are right on track and taxes need to be increased for their vision to be realized. If you don't like socialism, too fucking bad because it's coming..........................

Supplyside Lives!!!!

Not true, they (tax cuts) decimate revenue. But growth plods upward and eventually we get a bigger number, nominally, not accounting for inflation.

Case in point, this past stupidity (Bush Tax Cuts, 1 and 2): revenue tanks, and it takes 4.5 years for it to return to number it was at prior to the cut, nominally, not even accounting for inflation. Meanwhile, spending, which also grows with the population and inflation, keeps plodding upward, too; about 3% a year sans any new spending programs. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where suplus turns into Record Deficit!!! Wahadaya know.

But back in Rightie Retard Land, lower rates to 1%, wait 300 years, and let the revenue number get bigger than it is today, and sing, YIPPEE!!! The cuts increased revenue!!!

Spending decimates revenue.

Chimpola McShrub expanded spending in his first six years dramatically faster than did his "liberal" predecessor....And much of that spending came via Ted Kennedy's NCLB bill, Medicare D (which lolberals had been whining about for decades), bloated ag and transportation appropriations, etcetera, that progressive/socialists like you deem to be the things that make America great.

I know that's an inconvenient little factoid that socialist central planners like to paper over over, but that's the fact, Jack.

 

[Koios]

You never give up repeating complete gobbledeegook of economic understanding, do you.

Just trying to be reciprocal, TASB.

You are consisitent as all get out on empty rhetoric. So I feel obligated to be equallly consitent in posting shit that actually happened, which you seemingly cannot dispute.

We make a hell of team, yeah pal?

 

[Oddball]

You never give up repeating complete gobbledeegook of economic understanding, do you.

Just trying to be reciprocal, TASB.

You are consisitent as all get out on empty rhetoric. So I feel obligated to be equallly consitent in posting shit that actually happened, which you seemingly cannot dispute.

We make a hell of team, yeah pal?

Empty rhetoric?

You post fucking text walls of empty rhetoric, s0n.

Physician, heal thyself.

 

[Koios]

Historically, tax decreases increased revenue. Maybe not a hard and fast rule. And just who are these wealthy they are referring to? Last I heard, no one making under $250,000 would pay a dime more in taxes. Then the Supreme Court said Obamacare was legal only because it was a tax. That was after Obama insisted over and over that it was not a tax. But, in court it was a tax. Afterward, we went back to hearing it wasn't a tax. Still wondering which it is.

Obamacare is already killing jobs, so I'm sure even more tax increases will turn that all around in a jiff.

Or maybe, the left doesn't want the economy to rebound and they don't want jobs created. They can raise taxes, decrease revenue in the long run and keep spending like fools. Once the system is so overloaded that it crushes under it's own weight, Obama can rebuild us into a socialist country. If that is really the plan, which I suspect it is, they are right on track and taxes need to be increased for their vision to be realized. If you don't like socialism, too fucking bad because it's coming..........................

Supplyside Lives!!!!

Not true, they (tax cuts) decimate revenue. But growth plods upward and eventually we get a bigger number, nominally, not accounting for inflation.

Case in point, this past stupidity (Bush Tax Cuts, 1 and 2): revenue tanks, and it takes 4.5 years for it to return to number it was at prior to the cut, nominally, not even accounting for inflation. Meanwhile, spending, which also grows with the population and inflation, keeps plodding upward, too; about 3% a year sans any new spending programs. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where suplus turns into Record Deficit!!! Wahadaya know.

But back in Rightie Retard Land, lower rates to 1%, wait 300 years, and let the revenue number get bigger than it is today, and sing, YIPPEE!!! The cuts increased revenue!!!

Spending decimates revenue.

Chimpola McShrub expanded spending in his first six years dramatically faster than did his "liberal" predecessor....And much of that spending came via Ted Kennedy's NCLB bill, Medicare D (which lolberals had been whining about for decades), bloated ag and transportation appropriations, etcetera, that progressive/socialists like you deem to be the things that make America great.

I know that's an inconvenient little factoid that socialist central planners like to paper over over, but that's the fact, Jack.

Spending is money the Executive spends if appropriated by Congress, pursuant to the US Constitution. In Excel, for example, it would have its own column.

Revenue is money coming in, and usually, in Excel for example, is in a column of its own, too.

Gosh; ain't learning fun?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Historically, tax decreases increased revenue. Maybe not a hard and fast rule. And just who are these wealthy they are referring to? Last I heard, no one making under $250,000 would pay a dime more in taxes. Then the Supreme Court said Obamacare was legal only because it was a tax. That was after Obama insisted over and over that it was not a tax. But, in court it was a tax. Afterward, we went back to hearing it wasn't a tax. Still wondering which it is.

Obamacare is already killing jobs, so I'm sure even more tax increases will turn that all around in a jiff.

Or maybe, the left doesn't want the economy to rebound and they don't want jobs created. They can raise taxes, decrease revenue in the long run and keep spending like fools. Once the system is so overloaded that it crushes under it's own weight, Obama can rebuild us into a socialist country. If that is really the plan, which I suspect it is, they are right on track and taxes need to be increased for their vision to be realized. If you don't like socialism, too fucking bad because it's coming..........................

Supplyside Lives!!!!

Not true, they (tax cuts) decimate revenue. But growth plods upward and eventually we get a bigger number, nominally, not accounting for inflation.

Case in point, this past stupidity (Bush Tax Cuts, 1 and 2): revenue tanks, and it takes 4.5 years for it to return to the number it was at prior to the cut, nominally, not even accounting for inflation. Meanwhile, spending, which also grows with the population and inflation, keeps plodding upward, too; about 3% a year sans any new spending programs. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where suplus turns into Record Deficit!!! Whadaya know.

But back in Rightie Retard Land, lower rates to 1%, wait 300 years, and let the revenue number get bigger than it is today, and sing, YIPPEE!!! The cuts increased revenue!!!

First off, the 2001 Act didn't kick in until 2003 on income tax percent rates. And modified the capital gains (qualified gains) for the 15% income bracket from 10% to 8%.

The tank in revenue was due to the NASDAQ bubble burst recession.

The 2003 Act raised the income amount per bracket. And again, lowered capital gains tax.

EDITED: For error.

 

[Koios]

You never give up repeating complete gobbledeegook of economic understanding, do you.

Just trying to be reciprocal, TASB.

You are consisitent as all get out on empty rhetoric. So I feel obligated to be equallly consitent in posting shit that actually happened, which you seemingly cannot dispute.

We make a hell of team, yeah pal?

Empty rhetoric?

You post fucking text walls of empty rhetoric, s0n.

Physician, heal thyself.

Sorry you're confused. Empty rhetoric is responses void of substance, usually inclusive of some retarded characterization of some kind.

For examples, go to your User CP and browse the list of your posts. It'll give you an idea.

 

[edthecynic]

Historically, tax decreases increased revenue. Maybe not a hard and fast rule. And just who are these wealthy they are referring to? Last I heard, no one making under $250,000 would pay a dime more in taxes. Then the Supreme Court said Obamacare was legal only because it was a tax. That was after Obama insisted over and over that it was not a tax. But, in court it was a tax. Afterward, we went back to hearing it wasn't a tax. Still wondering which it is.

Obamacare is already killing jobs, so I'm sure even more tax increases will turn that all around in a jiff.

Or maybe, the left doesn't want the economy to rebound and they don't want jobs created. They can raise taxes, decrease revenue in the long run and keep spending like fools. Once the system is so overloaded that it crushes under it's own weight, Obama can rebuild us into a socialist country. If that is really the plan, which I suspect it is, they are right on track and taxes need to be increased for their vision to be realized. If you don't like socialism, too fucking bad because it's coming..........................

Supplyside Lives!!!!

Not true, they (tax cuts) decimate revenue. But growth plods upward and eventually we get a bigger number, nominally, not accounting for inflation.

Case in point, this past stupidity (Bush Tax Cuts, 1 and 2): revenue tanks, and it takes 4.5 years for it to return to number it was at prior to the cut, nominally, not even accounting for inflation. Meanwhile, spending, which also grows with the population and inflation, keeps plodding upward, too; about 3% a year sans any new spending programs. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where suplus turns into Record Deficit!!! Wahadaya know.

But back in Rightie Retard Land, lower rates to 1%, wait 300 years, and let the revenue number get bigger than it is today, and sing, YIPPEE!!! The cuts increased revenue!!!

Spending decimates revenue.

Chimpola McShrub expanded spending in his first six years dramatically faster than did his "liberal" predecessor....And much of that spending came via Ted Kennedy's NCLB bill, Medicare D (which lolberals had been whining about for decades), bloated ag and transportation appropriations, etcetera, that progressive/socialists like you deem to be the things that make America great.

I know that's an inconvenient little factoid that socialist central planners like to paper over over, but that's the fact, Jack.

But spending pissed away on the Iraq war couldn't possibly decimate revenue or you would have mentioned it!

CON$ never tell the whole truth, and reveal what is most important by what they leave out!
Thank you.