Senate Votes to Side With the Middle Class, Gauntlet Thrown Down to House Repubs.

[hortysir]

Okay, so now that Stupid has been thoroughly discredited, I ask again, can someone explain WHY they believe raising taxes on anyone is a good thing?

Still waiting for a coherent response...

It gives them more money to spend.

Any other answer is bullshit

 

[Moonglow]

You must thank your lucky stars every day that you were blessed with good looks.

Don't you have anyother lead in line to pop your joke?

It's not a joke, sugartits.

you wish, in your wet wild dreams.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Then you're being highly disingenuous. Bush's tax cuts didn't kick in until 2003. The first (EGTRRA) was in 2001, the second (JGTRRA) was in 2003.

His first cut was in 2001, yes, that's why I start from 2001.

Why do you not count 2001-2003? Was Bush not President? Did he not cut tax rates?

Because the tax rates you Lefties are trying to undo were not put into place until 2003. The cuts of 2001 and 2003 are collectively referred to as the Bush tax cuts.

After those cuts, revenue soared. Now tell us how that squares with your insistence that a tax rate increase will surely result in more revenue? Of that you seemed to be 100% sure. Not so much now?

In 2001 he lowered the top marginal rate one percentage point. Are you trying to really claim that lowering it 1% caused a boom in revenue? You craycray.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Then you're being highly disingenuous. Bush's tax cuts didn't kick in until 2003. The first (EGTRRA) was in 2001, the second (JGTRRA) was in 2003.

His first cut was in 2001, yes, that's why I start from 2001.

Why do you not count 2001-2003? Was Bush not President? Did he not cut tax rates?

Because the tax rates you Lefties are trying to undo were not put into place until 2003. The cuts of 2001 and 2003 are collectively referred to as the Bush tax cuts.

After those cuts, revenue soared. Now tell us how that squares with your insistence that a tax rate increase will surely result in more revenue? Of that you seemed to be 100% sure. Not so much now?

I am still 100% sure. Just because you are ignoring the facts doesn't make them untrue.

As a share of GDP, revenue was higher under Clinton. It was higher under Reagan. It was even higher under Carter. How you can claim some record or call it "soaring" under Bush escapes all logic. But I guess that's why you are providing zero facts to back up your case.

Additionally, you are trying to use revisionist history. The Bush Tax Plan was never a three step process. He cut them in 2001 and things didn't get better. So he cut them again. And again. Each time he cut tax rates, total revenue dropped. EVERY TIME. That has never happened, not even in the Great Depression. Again, to call that "soaring" makes me wonder if you know what the word "soaring" means.

Now, according to Laffer, who you guys idolize, and his Laffer Curve, if tax rates are too high, you can cut taxes and get an increase in revenue. BUT, what you are ignoring, is that if the rates are too LOW, then you cut rates and get a drop in revenue. Which is what we got from 2001-2003. That means we are on the left side of the Laffer Curve. We are at Point A on the graph. Therefore raising rates will lead to an increase in revenue, as Laffer predicted.

Now that you have been thoroughly schooled on this subject, I await your attacks and insults.

 

[Moonglow]

It was called a jobless recovery

 

[Pho_King]

Don't you have anyother lead in line to pop your joke?

It's not a joke, sugartits.

you wish, in your wet wild dreams.

Your not good looking? Then you must have a stellar personality. Sometimes poor looks coupled with the type of stupidity you describe in your posts can be overcome with a great personality. We have all met those women. They are intriguing, even though they are neither smart nor pretty. But still attractive. In spite of your issues,you do seem like you are probably really nice.

 

[Charles_Main]

Middle-Class Tax Cuts Preserved For A Year In Bill Passed By Senate

So the Senate killed the GOP plan, passed the Democrats' (which will extend cuts to over 90% of Americans ...probably more like 95-99%) plan. And now the House Republicans will be forced to show their cards. America will get to see them literally choose to punish EVERYONE to protect the 1%.

Good jerb, Grrvrrr Nrrqrrrst.

Sorry Jack ass but almost all the Experts believe raising taxes even on only the top 2% in the Current Economic Situation is a bad idea. So the Senate is not siding with the Middle Class, they are ignoring economic Reality and trying to do something that will make it even harder for the Middle Class to find work.

Dip Shit.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Middle-Class Tax Cuts Preserved For A Year In Bill Passed By Senate

So the Senate killed the GOP plan, passed the Democrats' (which will extend cuts to over 90% of Americans ...probably more like 95-99%) plan. And now the House Republicans will be forced to show their cards. America will get to see them literally choose to punish EVERYONE to protect the 1%.

Good jerb, Grrvrrr Nrrqrrrst.

Sorry Jack ass but almost all the Experts believe raising taxes even on only the top 2% in the Current Economic Situation is a bad idea. So the Senate is not siding with the Middle Class, they are ignoring economic Reality and trying to do something that will make it even harder for the Middle Class to find work.

Dip Shit.

Name one.

And then link to him saying this.

 

[Pho_King]

Wh is no one concerned with the clearly dishonest op that claims hat the dems " threw down the gauntlet"? Those limp wrested fools, and the hordes of retarded homos that worship them, have nothing in their arsenal that is even as remotely masculine as a gauntlet.

 

[Pho_King]

I think the op would have been more accurate if it read" dems throw down patent leather shoes to house repubs..."

 

[eflatminor]

His first cut was in 2001, yes, that's why I start from 2001.

Why do you not count 2001-2003? Was Bush not President? Did he not cut tax rates?

Because the tax rates you Lefties are trying to undo were not put into place until 2003. The cuts of 2001 and 2003 are collectively referred to as the Bush tax cuts.

After those cuts, revenue soared. Now tell us how that squares with your insistence that a tax rate increase will surely result in more revenue? Of that you seemed to be 100% sure. Not so much now?

I am still 100% sure.

Then you're more of an idiot than anyone thought possible. Good luck with that.

As a share of GDP, revenue was higher under Clinton. It was higher under Reagan. It was even higher under Carter. How you can claim some record or call it "soaring" under Bush escapes all logic.

My goodness, you really are stupid. Let me state it so that maybe even you can understand: Comparing revenue to GDP under different Presidents in now way provides evidence to support or refute the effect on revenue following changes in tax rates. In NO WAY.

But I guess that's why you are providing zero facts to back up your case.

Perhaps you missed my post:

• From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenue increased by $785 billion, the largest four year increase in revenue in American history.
• The Treasury Department reported that federal tax receipts were up 11% in the 2006 fiscal year, the second largest gain in revenues in 25 years. The biggest single year increase was 2005.
• In the three years after the tax cuts, revenue from corporate tax receipts were up 40%.

This you call "zero facts". Yet, they are facts. See why so many think you're dumb?

Additionally, you are trying to use revisionist history. The Bush Tax Plan was never a three step process. He cut them in 2001 and things didn't get better. So he cut them again. And again. Each time he cut tax rates, total revenue dropped. EVERY TIME. That has never happened, not even in the Great Depression. Again, to call that "soaring" makes me wonder if you know what the word "soaring" means.

Tell us why you've chosen to ignore the time period after his tax cuts were implemented? That would be a start, but to answer you directly, it was a TWO step process: The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. Following those cuts, revenue soared. Soared...as in the dictionary definition.

We are at Point A on the graph.

I disagree. So does Dr. Laffer. But hey, I'm sure you know better...

Now that you have been thoroughly schooled on this subject

Now that's funny.

 

[eflatminor]

His first cut was in 2001, yes, that's why I start from 2001.

Why do you not count 2001-2003? Was Bush not President? Did he not cut tax rates?

Because the tax rates you Lefties are trying to undo were not put into place until 2003. The cuts of 2001 and 2003 are collectively referred to as the Bush tax cuts.

After those cuts, revenue soared. Now tell us how that squares with your insistence that a tax rate increase will surely result in more revenue? Of that you seemed to be 100% sure. Not so much now?

In 2001 he lowered the top marginal rate one percentage point. Are you trying to really claim that lowering it 1% caused a boom in revenue? You craycray.

No, but in combination with his 2003 cuts, revenue increased dramatically from both personal income and corporate tax. That's just a fact. If you believe the increase in revenue was due to other factors, feel free to enlighten us.

 

[hortysir]

Middle-Class Tax Cuts Preserved For A Year In Bill Passed By Senate

So the Senate killed the GOP plan, passed the Democrats' (which will extend cuts to over 90% of Americans ...probably more like 95-99%) plan. And now the House Republicans will be forced to show their cards. America will get to see them literally choose to punish EVERYONE to protect the 1%.

Good jerb, Grrvrrr Nrrqrrrst.

Sorry Jack ass but almost all the Experts believe raising taxes even on only the top 2% in the Current Economic Situation is a bad idea. So the Senate is not siding with the Middle Class, they are ignoring economic Reality and trying to do something that will make it even harder for the Middle Class to find work.

Dip Shit.

Name one.

And then link to him saying this.

Bill Clinton

"I personally don't believe we ought to be raising taxes or cutting spending, either one, until we get this economy off the ground,"
Bill Clinton Says Obama’s Tax Increase Proposal Is a Bad Idea | Video | TheBlaze.com

 

[DontBeStupid]

Sorry Jack ass but almost all the Experts believe raising taxes even on only the top 2% in the Current Economic Situation is a bad idea. So the Senate is not siding with the Middle Class, they are ignoring economic Reality and trying to do something that will make it even harder for the Middle Class to find work.

Dip Shit.

Name one.

And then link to him saying this.

Bill Clinton

"I personally don't believe we ought to be raising taxes or cutting spending, either one, until we get this economy off the ground,"
Bill Clinton Says Obama’s Tax Increase Proposal Is a Bad Idea | Video | TheBlaze.com

I'm sorry. Did you just call Bill Clinton an "expert" ?

 

[hortysir]

Name one.

And then link to him saying this.

Bill Clinton

"I personally don't believe we ought to be raising taxes or cutting spending, either one, until we get this economy off the ground,"
Bill Clinton Says Obama’s Tax Increase Proposal Is a Bad Idea | Video | TheBlaze.com

I'm sorry. Did you just call Bill Clinton an "expert" ?

I often give Clinton credit for a lot of things.

Partisan blinders make my ears hurt.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Let me state it so that maybe even you can understand: Comparing revenue to GDP under different Presidents in now way provides evidence to support or refute the effect on revenue following changes in tax rates. In NO WAY.

And I never said it did.

Perhaps you missed my post:

• From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenue increased by $785 billion, the largest four year increase in revenue in American history.
• The Treasury Department reported that federal tax receipts were up 11% in the 2006 fiscal year, the second largest gain in revenues in 25 years. The biggest single year increase was 2005.
• In the three years after the tax cuts, revenue from corporate tax receipts were up 40%.

This you call "zero facts". Yet, they are facts. See why so many think you're dumb?

Funny thing about those numbers. You never said where you got them and provided no link to back them up. For all we know, you completely fabricated your so-called "facts". See now why you got schooled?

Tell us why you've chosen to ignore the time period after his tax cuts were implemented? That would be a start, but to answer you directly, it was a TWO step process: The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. Following those cuts, revenue soared. Soared...as in the dictionary definition.

I'm not ignoring it. Revenue went up after Bush stopped cutting tax rates. That actually supports my claim of his tax cuts lowering revenue. Beyond that, revenue ALWAYS goes up. It's called inflation. This is why we compare it to GDP to get a better picture. When you do that, what you call "soaring" is in fact, the exact opposite, as the graph I posted showed. Funny how you are choosing to ignore that.

We are at Point A on the graph.

I disagree. So does Dr. Laffer. But hey, I'm sure you know better...

And when did he say this?

But you think we are on the right still? Even with an unprecedented three-year drop in revenue, you think we are on the right. Well, I can't help that you're choosing to be ignorant.

 

[Jroc]

I'm still waiting for our resident Lefties to explain WHY they believe raising taxes on anyone is a good thing. I've yet to hear a coherent response.

Raising tax rates will lead to increase revenue which will help lower the deficit.

You're welcome.

Wrong stupid raising taxes will not raise revenue...Get a clue, and change your name it dosn't fit

 

[eflatminor]

Let me state it so that maybe even you can understand: Comparing revenue to GDP under different Presidents in now way provides evidence to support or refute the effect on revenue following changes in tax rates. In NO WAY.

And I never said it did.

Then why in the hell do you keep bringing it up in the context of revenue vs tax rates?

Perhaps you missed my post:

• From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenue increased by $785 billion, the largest four year increase in revenue in American history.
• The Treasury Department reported that federal tax receipts were up 11% in the 2006 fiscal year, the second largest gain in revenues in 25 years. The biggest single year increase was 2005.
• In the three years after the tax cuts, revenue from corporate tax receipts were up 40%.

This you call "zero facts". Yet, they are facts. See why so many think you're dumb?

Funny thing about those numbers. You never said where you got them and provided no link to back them up. For all we know, you completely fabricated your so-called "facts.

Well that's typical. When you can't argue with logic and reason, attack the source. Pathetic. In any case, these facts came from the CBO and a New York Times article entitled "Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues is Curbing Deficit", written by Edmund Andrews, July 9, 2006. Feel better now?

See now why you got schooled?

Yea, THAT's what happened...

I'm not ignoring it. Revenue went up after Bush stopped cutting tax rates. That actually supports my claim of his tax cuts lowering revenue.

Oh...my...God. What a twisted reality you live in. Yes, revenue went up after Bush cut tax rates. If you think that supports your position that revenue will rise following tax rate increases, there really is no hope for you.

Beyond that, revenue ALWAYS goes up. It's called inflation.

Another lie. You said yourself revenue decreased in 2001 and 2002. What, no inflation during those years. Lying sack of shit.

This is why we compare it to GDP to get a better picture.

You just contradicted your own statement that "I never said it did". Liar, liar...

When you do that, what you call "soaring" is in fact, the exact opposite, as the graph I posted showed. Funny how you are choosing to ignore that.

Oh for christsake, your graph shows revenues increasing dramatically after 2003. Making up your own reality doesn't help you case.

We are at Point A on the graph.

I disagree. So does Dr. Laffer. But hey, I'm sure you know better...

And when did he say this?

Dr Laffer has been on economic/politic talk shows for months saying just that. He's warning that an increase in taxes will likely result in less revenue.

But you think we are on the right still? Even with an unprecedented three-year drop in revenue, you think we are on the right.

As does Dr Laffer. But again, I'm sure you now better...

 

[hortysir]

I'm still waiting for our resident Lefties to explain WHY they believe raising taxes on anyone is a good thing. I've yet to hear a coherent response.

Raising tax rates will lead to increase revenue which will help lower the deficit.

You're welcome.

Wrong stupid raising taxes will not raise revenue...Get a clue, and change your name it dosn't fit

Any raised revenue will only be promptly spent.
And NOT towards the debt/deficit

 

[Jroc]

Raising tax rates will lead to increase revenue which will help lower the deficit.

You're welcome.

Wrong stupid raising taxes will not raise revenue...Get a clue, and change your name it dosn't fit

Any raised revenue will only be promptly spent.
And NOT towards the debt/deficit

it's not going to raise revenue. Raising taxes will lower our GDP it's proven fact.