The Logic of ConservaRepub on Economy, UnEmployment & A Helping Hand from Govt.

[Rshermr]

Yes, we should make it more attractive to start a business here.
Of course that would involve reducing regulations and cutting our highest in the world corporate tax rates.
The exact opposite of what Obama wants.

Oh yah right! lol Who needs clean water, clean air, health, food, etc!?! As well, who needs protection from being fleeced, ripped off, etc. by those biz's who charge an inflated price for crap or worse like it was prior to reg's, OR what worker benefits from reg's for handling or breathing dangerous chem's, worker's safety, etc. Lets not forget those beloved banks and all their bs, skirting the reg's that have no teeth in them because they're above those law's they themselves weakened or just plain ignore.

We should have the highest tax rates for any biz that is privileged enough access to our markets which are #1 in the world. Got to pay to play!!

Oh, yeah, because the tens of thousands of business killing regulations only involve clean air, water and food.

Yeah, hike those corporate rates, what could go wrong? Idiot.

Jese, todd. Are you at it again, suggesting that the proposed HUGE 3% tax hike is going to kill businesses?
You still can not show where raising taxes has caused a decrease in employment in a bad economy, can you, todd. You have been told its a bad idea, and you believe it. Because you want to. Even though it has never happened. Now who is the idiot.
Check this out. It may help you:
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias ...
www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism...

 

[daveman]

Any reasoning being understands that you do not use totally entrenched sources to prove a point. Hence, my reference to moveon.
And, if you actually read the document, you would see that he actually did what you said he had not.

Obviously, he didn't. You do know that Obama's words do not alter reality, right?

I forgot you are a con, only capable of stating dogma. Maybe this will help.
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias ...
www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism...

Yeah, relying on pseudoscience to provide confirmation bias to your bigotry proves only that you're a bigot unable to think for yourself.

But you just keep pretending you're an intelligent person. It's amusing when you prove otherwise.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All I see from the conservative standpoint is that raising taxes are bad, lowering them is good, reducing regulations is good, increasing them is bad; Obama is raising taxes; obama is increasing regulations.

Any proof to any of these statements?? In a bad economy, is there any proof that decreasing taxes has helped unemployment?

During the obama administration, I have seen plenty of tax decreases. Where are the increases you are concerned about?
during the abama administration, there has been a major effort to decrease regulations. What new regulations are you concerned about?

So, you want to decrease taxes and decrease regulations. Show me when this has ever helped a bad economy in terms of decreasing unemployment. Because I can show the opposite, on more than one occasion.

All I see from the conservative standpoint is that raising taxes are bad, lowering them is good, reducing regulations is good, increasing them is bad; Obama is raising taxes; obama is increasing regulations.

Yes, conservatives think overregulation is bad, taxes are high enough and Obama is taking the country in the wrong direction.

Recent polls indicate that 63% of likely voters think the country is on the wrong track.

In a bad economy, is there any proof that decreasing taxes has helped unemployment?

In 1981, Reagan's phased in tax cuts reduced the top rate from 70% to 50%. Unemployment peaked at 10.8% at the end of 1982 and by the 1984 election were 7.2%.

During the obama administration, I have seen plenty of tax decreases.

Which ones were you seeing?

Where are the increases you are concerned about?

He wants to raise the tax on capital gains, on dividends, on corporations, on the "rich" and I even heard a rumor that Obamacare is really a tax hike. Luckily, cap and trade is dead.

during the abama administration, there has been a major effort to decrease regulations.

OMG! That's funny.

In a bad economy, is there any proof that decreasing taxes has helped unemployment?

Toddsterpatriot responds: In 1981, Reagan's phased in tax cuts reduced the top rate from 70% to 50%. Unemployment peaked at 10.8% at the end of 1982 and by the 1984 election were 7. 2%.


Here is the thing, toddster. You need to exhibit a bit of integrity. Like the truth, you know. As I have already proved to you in a different post, you forget a good deal of what happened between the tax decrease becoming active (August 81) and the last two months of 82. Like, for instance, the greatest gain in the national debt to that point in time, and tax INCREASES (several by Nov 84). And he spent, and he hired public employees. So, looks to me quite obvious that the tax cuts did not work. Only someone who REALLY wants to believe that would believe tax cuts helped Reagan. If you still don't want to admit it, then tell us all why Reagan raised taxes 11 times and borrowed enough to triple the national debt.

During the obama administration, I have seen plenty of tax decreases.

Toddsterpatriot responds: Which ones were you seeing?

follow this link to see Politifact discuss claimed 17 tax cuts for small business, for example:
PolitiFact | DNC Chair Wasserman Schultz says Obama has signed bills with 17 small business tax cuts

According to the dept of revenue, tax rates are lower than at any time since the early 1950's for all tax rates. So, what are you talking about.



Where are the increases you are concerned about?


Toddsterpatriot responds: He wants to raise the tax on capital gains, on dividends, on corporations, on the "rich" and I even heard a rumor that Obamacare is really a tax hike. Luckily, cap and trade is dead.

Corporations. really. Got any proof. On the rich, yes. He wants to sunset the bush tax cuts that were to have ended 2 years ago. On over $250k. On the margin, of course. By 3 whole percent. That's a killer, right. Back to the Clinton rates on those higher level earners, when you may remember, we had a balanced budget and killer economy. That would apply to corporations also, but there are no proposals relative to corporations separately
Capital gains and dividends? Any proof ot that??

What is funny is that you are blaming obama for the requirement that everyone pays, which was a Republican idea. And part of Romneycare. Same for cap and trade. A republican proposal that they now pretend they always hated. Problem is, they are on the record.
So, no new taxes, but some proposed ones. Integrity is a good thing. You should consider it.

during the abama administration, there has been a major effort to decrease regulations.

Toddsterpatriot responds:OMG! That's funny.

You should get out more often, Toddster. It is all over the internet. If you just follow fox and the other right wing sights, they will never tell you. Google obama regulation decreases and see what you find.
White House to Scale Back Regulations on Businesses - WSJ.com
online.wsj.com/.../SB1000142405311190427900457652487030761..

If I were lied to as often as you have obviously been, I would be really pissed at those trying to lead me astray. As would any progressive. Funny thing to me is that cons don't seem to mind. Do you???

As I have already proved to you in a different post, you forget a good deal of what happened between the tax decrease becoming active (August 81) and the last two months of 82.

Forget? Did I forget what the Federal Reserve was doing at this time? Did you?
And you realize, of course, that tax cuts don't instantly cause a change in employment, right?

Like, for instance, the greatest gain in the national debt to that point in time

As a % of GDP, what was the increase?

So, looks to me quite obvious that the tax cuts did not work.

Obama spent more,much more, with much smaller, if any, tax cuts. So why didn't Obama's massive spending do as much as Reagan's smaller, much smaller, spending increases?

Corporations. really. Got any proof. On the rich, yes. He wants to sunset the bush tax cuts that were to have ended 2 years ago. On over $250k.

Yes, raising taxes on small business is really helpful to the economy.

Back to the Clinton rates on those higher level earners, when you may remember, we had a balanced budget and killer economy.

Yes, Clinton benefitted from the Internet bubble. Was that caused by his tax hikes?

Capital gains and dividends? Any proof ot that??

You haven't heard he wants to hike capital gains to 20%, plus more for Obamacare?
You haven't heard he wants to raise the tax on dividends to 40%?
You need to get out more often.

According to the dept of revenue, tax rates are lower than at any time since the early 1950's for all tax rates.

Revenues drop when the economy slows.

If I were lied to as often as you have obviously been, I would be really pissed at those trying to lead me astray.

I know, first Clinton promised a middle class tax cut, then he raised middle class taxes.
Then Obama promised no taxes under $250K in income, but he lied too.
I'm pissed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oh yah right! lol Who needs clean water, clean air, health, food, etc!?! As well, who needs protection from being fleeced, ripped off, etc. by those biz's who charge an inflated price for crap or worse like it was prior to reg's, OR what worker benefits from reg's for handling or breathing dangerous chem's, worker's safety, etc. Lets not forget those beloved banks and all their bs, skirting the reg's that have no teeth in them because they're above those law's they themselves weakened or just plain ignore.

We should have the highest tax rates for any biz that is privileged enough access to our markets which are #1 in the world. Got to pay to play!!

Oh, yeah, because the tens of thousands of business killing regulations only involve clean air, water and food.

Yeah, hike those corporate rates, what could go wrong? Idiot.

Jese, todd. Are you at it again, suggesting that the proposed HUGE 3% tax hike is going to kill businesses?
You still can not show where raising taxes has caused a decrease in employment in a bad economy, can you, todd. You have been told its a bad idea, and you believe it. Because you want to. Even though it has never happened. Now who is the idiot.
Check this out. It may help you:
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias ...
www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism...

Raising taxes helps the economy.
That's why Obama signed an extension of the Bush tax cuts. LOL!

 

[Rshermr]

Any reasoning being understands that you do not use totally entrenched sources to prove a point. Hence, my reference to moveon.
And, if you actually read the document, you would see that he actually did what you said he had not.

Obviously, he didn't. You do know that Obama's words do not alter reality, right?

I forgot you are a con, only capable of stating dogma. Maybe this will help.
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias ...
www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism...

Yeah, relying on pseudoscience to provide confirmation bias to your bigotry proves only that you're a bigot unable to think for yourself.

But you just keep pretending you're an intelligent person. It's amusing when you prove otherwise.

Actually, I have talked to MANY cons. Gone to tea party events. Jesus, there is no intelligent life there. So, you do not believe the study. There are many more. I know you call it pseudoscience, but you see, you would. Because you WANT to believe it is. Because the stuff fox says, and the tea party leaders say, over and over and over, just as they did in hitler germany and the USSR in the 50's. Because they make you mad, just as you enjoy being. And you can pretend that you know everything, because they will give you all the answers. Yes, I do understand your type. Sad. And, of course, you will not change because being part of the con culture is what you are all about.
And, of course, relying on scientific methodology is BAD to cons, as you show. You would not even read the document. Just condemn it out of hand.
You see, to the rational in the world, believing in scientific methodology is GOOD. To cons, better to listen to fox, and NEVER question. So, I do not worry about looking prejudiced. I follow reason, where you follow fox. And hate.
And, if you actually read what I wrote, I did not claim to be intelligent. But certainly nothing that a dumb person says is going to bother me in the least.

 

[daveman]

Any reasoning being understands that you do not use totally entrenched sources to prove a point. Hence, my reference to moveon.
And, if you actually read the document, you would see that he actually did what you said he had not.

Obviously, he didn't. You do know that Obama's words do not alter reality, right?

I forgot you are a con, only capable of stating dogma. Maybe this will help.
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias ...
www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism...

Yeah, relying on pseudoscience to provide confirmation bias to your bigotry proves only that you're a bigot unable to think for yourself.

But you just keep pretending you're an intelligent person. It's amusing when you prove otherwise.

Actually, I have talked to MANY cons. Gone to tea party events. Jesus, there is no intelligent life there. So, you do not believe the study. There are many more. I know you call it pseudoscience, but you see, you would. Because you WANT to believe it is. Because the stuff fox says, and the tea party leaders say, over and over and over, just as they did in hitler germany and the USSR in the 50's. Because they make you mad, just as you enjoy being. And you can pretend that you know everything, because they will give you all the answers. Yes, I do understand your type. Sad. And, of course, you will not change because being part of the con culture is what you are all about.
And, of course, relying on scientific methodology is BAD to cons, as you show. You would not even read the document. Just condemn it out of hand.
You see, to the rational in the world, believing in scientific methodology is GOOD. To cons, better to listen to fox, and NEVER question. So, I do not worry about looking prejudiced. I follow reason, where you follow fox. And hate.
And, if you actually read what I wrote, I did not claim to be intelligent. But certainly nothing that a dumb person says is going to bother me in the least.

Sheer projection.

 

[Rshermr]

Oh, yeah, because the tens of thousands of business killing regulations only involve clean air, water and food.

Yeah, hike those corporate rates, what could go wrong? Idiot.

Jese, todd. Are you at it again, suggesting that the proposed HUGE 3% tax hike is going to kill businesses?
You still can not show where raising taxes has caused a decrease in employment in a bad economy, can you, todd. You have been told its a bad idea, and you believe it. Because you want to. Even though it has never happened. Now who is the idiot.
Check this out. It may help you:
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias ...
www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism...

Raising taxes helps the economy.
That's why Obama signed an extension of the Bush tax cuts. LOL!

You really need to stop just spouting dogma. If you research why, useing actual impartial sources, you would see that he did not want to extend them, but had to trade that extension to get the repub intent to end unemployment for millions. Try a little research, stop being such a tool.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Jese, todd. Are you at it again, suggesting that the proposed HUGE 3% tax hike is going to kill businesses?
You still can not show where raising taxes has caused a decrease in employment in a bad economy, can you, todd. You have been told its a bad idea, and you believe it. Because you want to. Even though it has never happened. Now who is the idiot.
Check this out. It may help you:
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias ...
www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism...

Raising taxes helps the economy.
That's why Obama signed an extension of the Bush tax cuts. LOL!

You really need to stop just spouting dogma. If you research why, useing actual impartial sources, you would see that he did not want to extend them, but had to trade that extension to get the repub intent to end unemployment for millions. Try a little research, stop being such a tool.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aufAtuTwKlE]FLASHBACK: Obama Says You Don't Raise Taxes In A Recession - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Rshermr]

All I see from the conservative standpoint is that raising taxes are bad, lowering them is good, reducing regulations is good, increasing them is bad; Obama is raising taxes; obama is increasing regulations.

Yes, conservatives think overregulation is bad, taxes are high enough and Obama is taking the country in the wrong direction.

Recent polls indicate that 63% of likely voters think the country is on the wrong track.

In a bad economy, is there any proof that decreasing taxes has helped unemployment?

In 1981, Reagan's phased in tax cuts reduced the top rate from 70% to 50%. Unemployment peaked at 10.8% at the end of 1982 and by the 1984 election were 7.2%.

During the obama administration, I have seen plenty of tax decreases.

Which ones were you seeing?

Where are the increases you are concerned about?

He wants to raise the tax on capital gains, on dividends, on corporations, on the "rich" and I even heard a rumor that Obamacare is really a tax hike. Luckily, cap and trade is dead.

during the abama administration, there has been a major effort to decrease regulations.

OMG! That's funny.

In a bad economy, is there any proof that decreasing taxes has helped unemployment?

Toddsterpatriot responds: In 1981, Reagan's phased in tax cuts reduced the top rate from 70% to 50%. Unemployment peaked at 10.8% at the end of 1982 and by the 1984 election were 7. 2%.


Here is the thing, toddster. You need to exhibit a bit of integrity. Like the truth, you know. As I have already proved to you in a different post, you forget a good deal of what happened between the tax decrease becoming active (August 81) and the last two months of 82. Like, for instance, the greatest gain in the national debt to that point in time, and tax INCREASES (several by Nov 84). And he spent, and he hired public employees. So, looks to me quite obvious that the tax cuts did not work. Only someone who REALLY wants to believe that would believe tax cuts helped Reagan. If you still don't want to admit it, then tell us all why Reagan raised taxes 11 times and borrowed enough to triple the national debt.

During the obama administration, I have seen plenty of tax decreases.

Toddsterpatriot responds: Which ones were you seeing?

follow this link to see Politifact discuss claimed 17 tax cuts for small business, for example:
PolitiFact | DNC Chair Wasserman Schultz says Obama has signed bills with 17 small business tax cuts

According to the dept of revenue, tax rates are lower than at any time since the early 1950's for all tax rates. So, what are you talking about.



Where are the increases you are concerned about?


Toddsterpatriot responds: He wants to raise the tax on capital gains, on dividends, on corporations, on the "rich" and I even heard a rumor that Obamacare is really a tax hike. Luckily, cap and trade is dead.

Corporations. really. Got any proof. On the rich, yes. He wants to sunset the bush tax cuts that were to have ended 2 years ago. On over $250k. On the margin, of course. By 3 whole percent. That's a killer, right. Back to the Clinton rates on those higher level earners, when you may remember, we had a balanced budget and killer economy. That would apply to corporations also, but there are no proposals relative to corporations separately
Capital gains and dividends? Any proof ot that??

What is funny is that you are blaming obama for the requirement that everyone pays, which was a Republican idea. And part of Romneycare. Same for cap and trade. A republican proposal that they now pretend they always hated. Problem is, they are on the record.
So, no new taxes, but some proposed ones. Integrity is a good thing. You should consider it.

during the abama administration, there has been a major effort to decrease regulations.

Toddsterpatriot responds:OMG! That's funny.

You should get out more often, Toddster. It is all over the internet. If you just follow fox and the other right wing sights, they will never tell you. Google obama regulation decreases and see what you find.
White House to Scale Back Regulations on Businesses - WSJ.com
online.wsj.com/.../SB1000142405311190427900457652487030761..

If I were lied to as often as you have obviously been, I would be really pissed at those trying to lead me astray. As would any progressive. Funny thing to me is that cons don't seem to mind. Do you???

As I have already proved to you in a different post, you forget a good deal of what happened between the tax decrease becoming active (August 81) and the last two months of 82.

Forget? Did I forget what the Federal Reserve was doing at this time? Did you?
And you realize, of course, that tax cuts don't instantly cause a change in employment, right?

Like, for instance, the greatest gain in the national debt to that point in time

As a % of GDP, what was the increase?

So, looks to me quite obvious that the tax cuts did not work.

Obama spent more,much more, with much smaller, if any, tax cuts. So why didn't Obama's massive spending do as much as Reagan's smaller, much smaller, spending increases?

Corporations. really. Got any proof. On the rich, yes. He wants to sunset the bush tax cuts that were to have ended 2 years ago. On over $250k.

Yes, raising taxes on small business is really helpful to the economy.

Back to the Clinton rates on those higher level earners, when you may remember, we had a balanced budget and killer economy.

Yes, Clinton benefitted from the Internet bubble. Was that caused by his tax hikes?

Capital gains and dividends? Any proof ot that??

You haven't heard he wants to hike capital gains to 20%, plus more for Obamacare?
You haven't heard he wants to raise the tax on dividends to 40%?
You need to get out more often.

According to the dept of revenue, tax rates are lower than at any time since the early 1950's for all tax rates.

Revenues drop when the economy slows.

If I were lied to as often as you have obviously been, I would be really pissed at those trying to lead me astray.

I know, first Clinton promised a middle class tax cut, then he raised middle class taxes.
Then Obama promised no taxes under $250K in income, but he lied too.
I'm pissed.

Toddster, me boy. You just can not let go, can you??? You are wrong on every point where you could
wrong. enough is enough.

Forget? Did I forget what the Federal Reserve was doing at this time? Did you?
And you realize, of course, that tax cuts don't instantly cause a change in employment, right?

No, I did not forget. They weenre reducing rates as fast as they could because inflation was getting much better. So what is your point. Old saying in economics - you can't push on a string. Look it up. So, Toddster, me boy, why DID Reagan raise taxes 11 times, and triple the national debt by borrowing more than all the previous presidents?? I hear crickets$$$
And Toddster, it was a LONG TIME in Political Years for the administration. Fifteen months. Which is not a long time at all to increase the deficit by record amounts. And to get make unemployment skyrocket. Took a while to bring it back down, but based on the stimulus that Reagan was able to wield, it turned around as it should have. Just think of what obama could have done could he have gotten any cooperation from congress, as Reagan did.

As a % of GDP, what was the increase?
Why don't you look it up. Oh, hell, here you are:
Why does reagan hold the record for deficits, debt and unemployment?
Regan has the highest unemployment at 10.8% in dec 83, 2 years after taking over

Before 2009, Reagan held the record for the largest deficit since WW2 at 6.1% of GDP in fiscal year 1983) (Source: cbo 5056)
Reagan STILL holds the record for increasing our debt.
Reagan increased our debt an average of 23% yearly...he TRIPLED it from 934B to 2.6T (186%)
Bush increased our debt an average of 11% yearly...he DOUBLED it from 5.7 to 10.6T (86%)
Obama increased our debt an average of 16% yearly from 10.6 to 14T (inherited massive deficits)
Source: US Treasury Dept.

Obama spent more,much more, with much smaller, if any, tax cuts. So why didn't Obama's massive spending do as much as Reagan's smaller, much smaller, spending increases?

for multiple reasons. If you really cared you would find out yourself. Simple research. First, Obama did not spend much, much more on STIMULUS. He negotiated with congress to get through a barely helpful stimulus, made up of half tax cuts (look it up, you tea party friends will not admit it is true, and I am tired of doing your research). Secondly, you as most cons believe that tax cuts are going to really help. As it did not with Reagan, it did not with obama. His tax cuts were better aimed but much smaller than Reagans.

Yes, raising taxes on small business is really helpful to the economy.
You are, again, not doing your research. Total Small Businesses with over $250K in taxable income make up less than 3% of all small businesses. So, again, as I said previously, nothing was in his tax plans to increase taxes on corporations specifically.

Yes, Clinton benefitted from the Internet bubble. Was that caused by his tax hikes?
Yes, I know all cons believe that Clinton was just lucky. So why should I believe you would be any different?

You haven't heard he wants to hike capital gains to 20%, plus more for Obamacare?
You haven't heard he wants to raise the tax on dividends to 40%?
You need to get out more often.
I did not suggest he did not, now, did I. I simply asked for your proof. And as always, you did not provide any. That is another trait. Cons are typically lazy.

Revenues drop when the economy slows.
Toddster, Toddster, Toddster. What I said was: According to the dept of revenue, tax rates are lower than at any time since the early 1950's for all tax rates. I was not discussing revenue. If you do not pay more attention, I will not try to educate you more.

I know, first Clinton promised a middle class tax cut, then he raised middle class taxes.
Then Obama promised no taxes under $250K in income, but he lied too.
I'm pissed.

Where are those taxes to the middle class under $250K. Assuming repubs like decreased taxes, there will be none. So, no lie. But you are a true con. Never admit you are wrong, even when it is staring you in the face. And always believe fox.
More proof FOX viewers dumber than the average American

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why does reagan hold the record for deficits, debt and unemployment?

Reagan increased the national debt by less than 20% of GDP in 8 years.
He won the Cold War and added 20 million new jobs.

Obama increased the national debt by more than 25% in 3 years and we have fewer jobs than the day he started.

 

[JoeNormal]

In a bad economy, is there any proof that decreasing taxes has helped unemployment?

Toddsterpatriot responds: In 1981, Reagan's phased in tax cuts reduced the top rate from 70% to 50%. Unemployment peaked at 10.8% at the end of 1982 and by the 1984 election were 7. 2%.


Here is the thing, toddster. You need to exhibit a bit of integrity. Like the truth, you know. As I have already proved to you in a different post, you forget a good deal of what happened between the tax decrease becoming active (August 81) and the last two months of 82. Like, for instance, the greatest gain in the national debt to that point in time, and tax INCREASES (several by Nov 84). And he spent, and he hired public employees. So, looks to me quite obvious that the tax cuts did not work. Only someone who REALLY wants to believe that would believe tax cuts helped Reagan. If you still don't want to admit it, then tell us all why Reagan raised taxes 11 times and borrowed enough to triple the national debt.

During the obama administration, I have seen plenty of tax decreases.

Toddsterpatriot responds: Which ones were you seeing?

follow this link to see Politifact discuss claimed 17 tax cuts for small business, for example:
PolitiFact | DNC Chair Wasserman Schultz says Obama has signed bills with 17 small business tax cuts

According to the dept of revenue, tax rates are lower than at any time since the early 1950's for all tax rates. So, what are you talking about.



Where are the increases you are concerned about?


Toddsterpatriot responds: He wants to raise the tax on capital gains, on dividends, on corporations, on the "rich" and I even heard a rumor that Obamacare is really a tax hike. Luckily, cap and trade is dead.

Corporations. really. Got any proof. On the rich, yes. He wants to sunset the bush tax cuts that were to have ended 2 years ago. On over $250k. On the margin, of course. By 3 whole percent. That's a killer, right. Back to the Clinton rates on those higher level earners, when you may remember, we had a balanced budget and killer economy. That would apply to corporations also, but there are no proposals relative to corporations separately
Capital gains and dividends? Any proof ot that??

What is funny is that you are blaming obama for the requirement that everyone pays, which was a Republican idea. And part of Romneycare. Same for cap and trade. A republican proposal that they now pretend they always hated. Problem is, they are on the record.
So, no new taxes, but some proposed ones. Integrity is a good thing. You should consider it.

during the abama administration, there has been a major effort to decrease regulations.

Toddsterpatriot responds:OMG! That's funny.

You should get out more often, Toddster. It is all over the internet. If you just follow fox and the other right wing sights, they will never tell you. Google obama regulation decreases and see what you find.
White House to Scale Back Regulations on Businesses - WSJ.com
online.wsj.com/.../SB1000142405311190427900457652487030761..

If I were lied to as often as you have obviously been, I would be really pissed at those trying to lead me astray. As would any progressive. Funny thing to me is that cons don't seem to mind. Do you???

As I have already proved to you in a different post, you forget a good deal of what happened between the tax decrease becoming active (August 81) and the last two months of 82.

Forget? Did I forget what the Federal Reserve was doing at this time? Did you?
And you realize, of course, that tax cuts don't instantly cause a change in employment, right?

Like, for instance, the greatest gain in the national debt to that point in time

As a % of GDP, what was the increase?

So, looks to me quite obvious that the tax cuts did not work.

Obama spent more,much more, with much smaller, if any, tax cuts. So why didn't Obama's massive spending do as much as Reagan's smaller, much smaller, spending increases?

Corporations. really. Got any proof. On the rich, yes. He wants to sunset the bush tax cuts that were to have ended 2 years ago. On over $250k.

Yes, raising taxes on small business is really helpful to the economy.

Back to the Clinton rates on those higher level earners, when you may remember, we had a balanced budget and killer economy.

Yes, Clinton benefitted from the Internet bubble. Was that caused by his tax hikes?

Capital gains and dividends? Any proof ot that??

You haven't heard he wants to hike capital gains to 20%, plus more for Obamacare?
You haven't heard he wants to raise the tax on dividends to 40%?
You need to get out more often.

According to the dept of revenue, tax rates are lower than at any time since the early 1950's for all tax rates.

Revenues drop when the economy slows.

If I were lied to as often as you have obviously been, I would be really pissed at those trying to lead me astray.

I know, first Clinton promised a middle class tax cut, then he raised middle class taxes.
Then Obama promised no taxes under $250K in income, but he lied too.
I'm pissed.

Toddster, me boy. You just can not let go, can you??? You are wrong on every point where you could
wrong. enough is enough.

Forget? Did I forget what the Federal Reserve was doing at this time? Did you?
And you realize, of course, that tax cuts don't instantly cause a change in employment, right?

No, I did not forget. They weenre reducing rates as fast as they could because inflation was getting much better. So what is your point. Old saying in economics - you can't push on a string. Look it up. So, Toddster, me boy, why DID Reagan raise taxes 11 times, and triple the national debt by borrowing more than all the previous presidents?? I hear crickets$$$
And Toddster, it was a LONG TIME in Political Years for the administration. Fifteen months. Which is not a long time at all to increase the deficit by record amounts. And to get make unemployment skyrocket. Took a while to bring it back down, but based on the stimulus that Reagan was able to wield, it turned around as it should have. Just think of what obama could have done could he have gotten any cooperation from congress, as Reagan did.

As a % of GDP, what was the increase?
Why don't you look it up. Oh, hell, here you are:
Why does reagan hold the record for deficits, debt and unemployment?
Regan has the highest unemployment at 10.8% in dec 83, 2 years after taking over

Before 2009, Reagan held the record for the largest deficit since WW2 at 6.1% of GDP in fiscal year 1983) (Source: cbo 5056)
Reagan STILL holds the record for increasing our debt.
Reagan increased our debt an average of 23% yearly...he TRIPLED it from 934B to 2.6T (186%)
Bush increased our debt an average of 11% yearly...he DOUBLED it from 5.7 to 10.6T (86%)
Obama increased our debt an average of 16% yearly from 10.6 to 14T (inherited massive deficits)
Source: US Treasury Dept.

Obama spent more,much more, with much smaller, if any, tax cuts. So why didn't Obama's massive spending do as much as Reagan's smaller, much smaller, spending increases?

for multiple reasons. If you really cared you would find out yourself. Simple research. First, Obama did not spend much, much more on STIMULUS. He negotiated with congress to get through a barely helpful stimulus, made up of half tax cuts (look it up, you tea party friends will not admit it is true, and I am tired of doing your research). Secondly, you as most cons believe that tax cuts are going to really help. As it did not with Reagan, it did not with obama. His tax cuts were better aimed but much smaller than Reagans.

Yes, raising taxes on small business is really helpful to the economy.
You are, again, not doing your research. Total Small Businesses with over $250K in taxable income make up less than 3% of all small businesses. So, again, as I said previously, nothing was in his tax plans to increase taxes on corporations specifically.

Yes, Clinton benefitted from the Internet bubble. Was that caused by his tax hikes?
Yes, I know all cons believe that Clinton was just lucky. So why should I believe you would be any different?

You haven't heard he wants to hike capital gains to 20%, plus more for Obamacare?
You haven't heard he wants to raise the tax on dividends to 40%?
You need to get out more often.
I did not suggest he did not, now, did I. I simply asked for your proof. And as always, you did not provide any. That is another trait. Cons are typically lazy.

Revenues drop when the economy slows.
Toddster, Toddster, Toddster. What I said was: According to the dept of revenue, tax rates are lower than at any time since the early 1950's for all tax rates. I was not discussing revenue. If you do not pay more attention, I will not try to educate you more.

I know, first Clinton promised a middle class tax cut, then he raised middle class taxes.
Then Obama promised no taxes under $250K in income, but he lied too.
I'm pissed.

Where are those taxes to the middle class under $250K. Assuming repubs like decreased taxes, there will be none. So, no lie. But you are a true con. Never admit you are wrong, even when it is staring you in the face. And always believe fox.
More proof FOX viewers dumber than the average American

Rshermer, you remind me of the me I was a few years ago. Patiently walking the baby steps from point A to B hoping to show a conservative the way. Bravo for you patience. Better set your expectations low if you want to avoid heartbreaking disappointment.

 

[Rshermr]

Why does reagan hold the record for deficits, debt and unemployment?

Reagan increased the national debt by less than 20% of GDP in 8 years.
He won the Cold War and added 20 million new jobs.

Obama increased the national debt by more than 25% in 3 years and we have fewer jobs than the day he started.

Yup, that is what cons believe. Good for you. Believe what you want to believe, and never do the research to see what really happened.
Here is another side of the story:
10 Things Conservatives Don't Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan | ThinkProgress

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Any reasoning being understands that you do not use totally entrenched sources to prove a point. Hence, my reference to moveon.
And, if you actually read the document, you would see that he actually did what you said he had not.

Obviously, he didn't. You do know that Obama's words do not alter reality, right?

I forgot you are a con, only capable of stating dogma. Maybe this will help.
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias ...
www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism...

Yeah, relying on pseudoscience to provide confirmation bias to your bigotry proves only that you're a bigot unable to think for yourself.

But you just keep pretending you're an intelligent person. It's amusing when you prove otherwise.

Actually, I have talked to MANY cons. Gone to tea party events. Jesus, there is no intelligent life there. So, you do not believe the study. There are many more. I know you call it pseudoscience, but you see, you would. Because you WANT to believe it is. Because the stuff fox says, and the tea party leaders say, over and over and over, just as they did in hitler germany and the USSR in the 50's. Because they make you mad, just as you enjoy being. And you can pretend that you know everything, because they will give you all the answers. Yes, I do understand your type. Sad. And, of course, you will not change because being part of the con culture is what you are all about.
And, of course, relying on scientific methodology is BAD to cons, as you show. You would not even read the document. Just condemn it out of hand.
You see, to the rational in the world, believing in scientific methodology is GOOD. To cons, better to listen to fox, and NEVER question. So, I do not worry about looking prejudiced. I follow reason, where you follow fox. And hate.
And, if you actually read what I wrote, I did not claim to be intelligent. But certainly nothing that a dumb person says is going to bother me in the least.

Wow, this is one of the dumbest hings I have ever read.

FYI, pointing out that a study has no scientific validity is not evidence of stupidity.

 

[Rshermr]

Obviously, he didn't. You do know that Obama's words do not alter reality, right?

Yeah, relying on pseudoscience to provide confirmation bias to your bigotry proves only that you're a bigot unable to think for yourself.

But you just keep pretending you're an intelligent person. It's amusing when you prove otherwise.

Actually, I have talked to MANY cons. Gone to tea party events. Jesus, there is no intelligent life there. So, you do not believe the study. There are many more. I know you call it pseudoscience, but you see, you would. Because you WANT to believe it is. Because the stuff fox says, and the tea party leaders say, over and over and over, just as they did in hitler germany and the USSR in the 50's. Because they make you mad, just as you enjoy being. And you can pretend that you know everything, because they will give you all the answers. Yes, I do understand your type. Sad. And, of course, you will not change because being part of the con culture is what you are all about.
And, of course, relying on scientific methodology is BAD to cons, as you show. You would not even read the document. Just condemn it out of hand.
You see, to the rational in the world, believing in scientific methodology is GOOD. To cons, better to listen to fox, and NEVER question. So, I do not worry about looking prejudiced. I follow reason, where you follow fox. And hate.
And, if you actually read what I wrote, I did not claim to be intelligent. But certainly nothing that a dumb person says is going to bother me in the least.

Wow, this is one of the dumbest hings I have ever read.

FYI, pointing out that a study has no scientific validity is not evidence of stupidity.

Actually, it is stupid to say a study has no scientific validity is stupid IF you can not say why it has no scientific validity. Of course, you would have to actually read the study first. By the way, this is just one of several studies that come to the same conclusion.

 

[daveman]

Actually, I have talked to MANY cons. Gone to tea party events. Jesus, there is no intelligent life there. So, you do not believe the study. There are many more. I know you call it pseudoscience, but you see, you would. Because you WANT to believe it is. Because the stuff fox says, and the tea party leaders say, over and over and over, just as they did in hitler germany and the USSR in the 50's. Because they make you mad, just as you enjoy being. And you can pretend that you know everything, because they will give you all the answers. Yes, I do understand your type. Sad. And, of course, you will not change because being part of the con culture is what you are all about.
And, of course, relying on scientific methodology is BAD to cons, as you show. You would not even read the document. Just condemn it out of hand.
You see, to the rational in the world, believing in scientific methodology is GOOD. To cons, better to listen to fox, and NEVER question. So, I do not worry about looking prejudiced. I follow reason, where you follow fox. And hate.
And, if you actually read what I wrote, I did not claim to be intelligent. But certainly nothing that a dumb person says is going to bother me in the least.

Wow, this is one of the dumbest hings I have ever read.

FYI, pointing out that a study has no scientific validity is not evidence of stupidity.

Actually, it is stupid to say a study has no scientific validity is stupid IF you can not say why it has no scientific validity. Of course, you would have to actually read the study first. By the way, this is just one of several studies that come to the same conclusion.

How do you know I haven't read it? Whenever one of these '"Durr hurr, Libs is smarter than is Cons!!" bits of non-scientific confirmation bias is published, idiot leftists spam them all over the board, as if they prove anything other that what gullible idiots leftists are.

Oh, yeah, idiot leftists also post them whenever they're losing an argument to a conservative. You know, like you did.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why does reagan hold the record for deficits, debt and unemployment?

Reagan increased the national debt by less than 20% of GDP in 8 years.
He won the Cold War and added 20 million new jobs.

Obama increased the national debt by more than 25% in 3 years and we have fewer jobs than the day he started.

Yup, that is what cons believe. Good for you. Believe what you want to believe, and never do the research to see what really happened.
Here is another side of the story:
10 Things Conservatives Don't Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan | ThinkProgress

I guess you could post proof that any of my claims were wrong?
I know, silly idea.
Start with the easy GDP claims. I'll wait.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, I have talked to MANY cons. Gone to tea party events. Jesus, there is no intelligent life there. So, you do not believe the study. There are many more. I know you call it pseudoscience, but you see, you would. Because you WANT to believe it is. Because the stuff fox says, and the tea party leaders say, over and over and over, just as they did in hitler germany and the USSR in the 50's. Because they make you mad, just as you enjoy being. And you can pretend that you know everything, because they will give you all the answers. Yes, I do understand your type. Sad. And, of course, you will not change because being part of the con culture is what you are all about.
And, of course, relying on scientific methodology is BAD to cons, as you show. You would not even read the document. Just condemn it out of hand.
You see, to the rational in the world, believing in scientific methodology is GOOD. To cons, better to listen to fox, and NEVER question. So, I do not worry about looking prejudiced. I follow reason, where you follow fox. And hate.
And, if you actually read what I wrote, I did not claim to be intelligent. But certainly nothing that a dumb person says is going to bother me in the least.

Wow, this is one of the dumbest hings I have ever read.

FYI, pointing out that a study has no scientific validity is not evidence of stupidity.

Actually, it is stupid to say a study has no scientific validity is stupid IF you can not say why it has no scientific validity. Of course, you would have to actually read the study first. By the way, this is just one of several studies that come to the same conclusion.

The "studies" have been fully debunked the 152 other times some idiot with a bad case of confirmation bias posted it, there is no need for us to go through it all again just because you are new here.

 

[Rshermr]

Wow, this is one of the dumbest hings I have ever read.

FYI, pointing out that a study has no scientific validity is not evidence of stupidity.

Actually, it is stupid to say a study has no scientific validity is stupid IF you can not say why it has no scientific validity. Of course, you would have to actually read the study first. By the way, this is just one of several studies that come to the same conclusion.

The "studies" have been fully debunked the 152 other times some idiot with a bad case of confirmation bias posted it, there is no need for us to go through it all again just because you are new here.

Odd. How about a link to just one IMPARTIAL debunking. You seem to be long on claims but short on evidence.

 

[Fordsflylow]

Yes, we should make it more attractive to start a business here.
Of course that would involve reducing regulations and cutting our highest in the world corporate tax rates.
The exact opposite of what Obama wants.

Oh yah right! lol Who needs clean water, clean air, health, food, etc!?! As well, who needs protection from being fleeced, ripped off, etc. by those biz's who charge an inflated price for crap or worse like it was prior to reg's, OR what worker benefits from reg's for handling or breathing dangerous chem's, worker's safety, etc. Lets not forget those beloved banks and all their bs, skirting the reg's that have no teeth in them because they're above those law's they themselves weakened or just plain ignore.

We should have the highest tax rates for any biz that is privileged enough access to our markets which are #1 in the world. Got to pay to play!!

Charge them too much, and they won't play at all.

Moron.

Not if it's a monopoly like most are now-a-days.

Idiot!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oh yah right! lol Who needs clean water, clean air, health, food, etc!?! As well, who needs protection from being fleeced, ripped off, etc. by those biz's who charge an inflated price for crap or worse like it was prior to reg's, OR what worker benefits from reg's for handling or breathing dangerous chem's, worker's safety, etc. Lets not forget those beloved banks and all their bs, skirting the reg's that have no teeth in them because they're above those law's they themselves weakened or just plain ignore.

We should have the highest tax rates for any biz that is privileged enough access to our markets which are #1 in the world. Got to pay to play!!

Charge them too much, and they won't play at all.

Moron.

Not if it's a monopoly like most are now-a-days.

Idiot!

Most businesses in the US are monopolies?