The Right Wingers Are Butthurt Over Obama's Speech, We Are Going Over The Cliff

[Black_Label]

Boo f'in hoo, the crybaby right wingers are throwing a temper tantrum, refusing to bring up a vote on the fiscal cliff negotiations in their usual fashion of holding the middle class hostage to defend the rich, and because of this, have decided to force the nation to go over the fiscal cliff.

I'm actually not upset with this decision, it will cost the right wingers direly in 2014

Update: No settlement on ‘fiscal cliff’ as House declines a vote | The Raw Story

 

[eflatminor]

...holding the middle class hostage to defend the rich...

France raised tax rates on the rich. Their revenues when down, not up. The UK raised tax rates on the rich too. They also lost tax revenues. California just raised tax rates. Guess what? Revenues are down.

So tell us, why exactly do you want to raise tax rates on the rich? What do you hope to accomplish?

 

[Black_Label]

...holding the middle class hostage to defend the rich...

France raised tax rates on the rich. Their revenues when down, not up. The UK raised tax rates on the rich too. They also lost tax revenues. California just raised tax rates. Guess what? Revenues are down.

So tell us, why exactly do you want to raise tax rates on the rich? What do you hope to accomplish?

Clinton made the wealthy pay their fair share, the economy skyrocketed. W, Reagan, and Bush 1 all had massive give-a-ways to the rich and all it did was tank the economy.

It's been proven that everyone pays their fair share fiscal plans lead to booming economies.

 

[WillowTree]

...holding the middle class hostage to defend the rich...

France raised tax rates on the rich. Their revenues when down, not up. The UK raised tax rates on the rich too. They also lost tax revenues. California just raised tax rates. Guess what? Revenues are down.

So tell us, why exactly do you want to raise tax rates on the rich? What do you hope to accomplish?

Clinton made the wealthy pay their fair share, the economy skyrocketed. W, Reagan, and Bush 1 all had massive give-a-ways to the rich and all it did was tank the economy.

It's been proven that everyone pays their fair share fiscal plans lead to booming economies.

Except with the Clinton tax rates came some drastic cuts. No such cuts are forthcoming.

 

[blackhawk]

France raised tax rates on the rich. Their revenues when down, not up. The UK raised tax rates on the rich too. They also lost tax revenues. California just raised tax rates. Guess what? Revenues are down.

So tell us, why exactly do you want to raise tax rates on the rich? What do you hope to accomplish?

Clinton made the wealthy pay their fair share, the economy skyrocketed. W, Reagan, and Bush 1 all had massive give-a-ways to the rich and all it did was tank the economy.

It's been proven that everyone pays their fair share fiscal plans lead to booming economies.

Except with the Clinton tax rates came some drastic cuts. No such cuts are forthcoming.

Not so loud little facts like that really upset the lefties especially the far left ones like you know who.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

...holding the middle class hostage to defend the rich...

France raised tax rates on the rich. Their revenues when down, not up. The UK raised tax rates on the rich too. They also lost tax revenues. California just raised tax rates. Guess what? Revenues are down.

So tell us, why exactly do you want to raise tax rates on the rich? What do you hope to accomplish?

Clinton made the wealthy pay their fair share, the economy skyrocketed. W, Reagan, and Bush 1 all had massive give-a-ways to the rich and all it did was tank the economy.

It's been proven that everyone pays their fair share fiscal plans lead to booming economies.

Dumbest Fuck at USMB

 

[tjvh]

Boo f'in hoo, the crybaby right wingers are throwing a temper tantrum, refusing to bring up a vote on the fiscal cliff negotiations in their usual fashion of holding the middle class hostage to defend the rich, and because of this, have decided to force the nation to go over the fiscal cliff.

I'm actually not upset with this decision, it will cost the right wingers direly in 2014

Update: No settlement on ‘fiscal cliff’ as House declines a vote | The Raw Story

How many threads do we need on this? See: GOP Throws Fit, Threatens To End Deal Over Obama Remarks

 

[Dot Com]

France raised tax rates on the rich. Their revenues when down, not up. The UK raised tax rates on the rich too. They also lost tax revenues. California just raised tax rates. Guess what? Revenues are down.

So tell us, why exactly do you want to raise tax rates on the rich? What do you hope to accomplish?

Clinton made the wealthy pay their fair share, the economy skyrocketed. W, Reagan, and Bush 1 all had massive give-a-ways to the rich and all it did was tank the economy.

It's been proven that everyone pays their fair share fiscal plans lead to booming economies.

Except with the Clinton tax rates came some drastic cuts. No such cuts are forthcoming.

cuts will be forthcoming after the lame ducK congress changes hands willow. This is enough to do for the lame duck session.

 

[tjvh]

...holding the middle class hostage to defend the rich...

France raised tax rates on the rich. Their revenues when down, not up. The UK raised tax rates on the rich too. They also lost tax revenues. California just raised tax rates. Guess what? Revenues are down.

So tell us, why exactly do you want to raise tax rates on the rich? What do you hope to accomplish?

Clinton made the wealthy pay their fair share, the economy skyrocketed. W, Reagan, and Bush 1 all had massive give-a-ways to the rich and all it did was tank the economy.

It's been proven that everyone pays their fair share fiscal plans lead to booming economies.

Yeah... And he also enraged Democrats by making sweeping cuts to entitlement programs... Or did you conveniently forget that?

 

[WillowTree]

Clinton made the wealthy pay their fair share, the economy skyrocketed. W, Reagan, and Bush 1 all had massive give-a-ways to the rich and all it did was tank the economy.

It's been proven that everyone pays their fair share fiscal plans lead to booming economies.

Except with the Clinton tax rates came some drastic cuts. No such cuts are forthcoming.

cuts will be forthcoming after the lame ducK congress changes hands willow. This is enough to do for the lame duck session.

One great big pile of freshly shat out liberal bullshit. The cuts never come. Asshole.

 

[Oddball]

Clinton made the wealthy pay their fair share, the economy skyrocketed. W, Reagan, and Bush 1 all had massive give-a-ways to the rich and all it did was tank the economy.

It's been proven that everyone pays their fair share fiscal plans lead to booming economies.

Except with the Clinton tax rates came some drastic cuts. No such cuts are forthcoming.

cuts will be forthcoming after the lame ducK congress changes hands willow. This is enough to do for the lame duck session.

Bullshit...The cuts never ever come.

You are a true blue rube.

 

[blackhawk]

France raised tax rates on the rich. Their revenues when down, not up. The UK raised tax rates on the rich too. They also lost tax revenues. California just raised tax rates. Guess what? Revenues are down.

So tell us, why exactly do you want to raise tax rates on the rich? What do you hope to accomplish?

Clinton made the wealthy pay their fair share, the economy skyrocketed. W, Reagan, and Bush 1 all had massive give-a-ways to the rich and all it did was tank the economy.

It's been proven that everyone pays their fair share fiscal plans lead to booming economies.

Yeah... And he also enraged Democrats by making sweeping cuts to entitlement programs... Or did you conveniently forget that?

It's hard to tell what he conveniently forgets from what he never knew to begin with.

 

[tjvh]

Clinton made the wealthy pay their fair share, the economy skyrocketed. W, Reagan, and Bush 1 all had massive give-a-ways to the rich and all it did was tank the economy.

It's been proven that everyone pays their fair share fiscal plans lead to booming economies.

Yeah... And he also enraged Democrats by making sweeping cuts to entitlement programs... Or did you conveniently forget that?

It's hard to tell what he conveniently forgets from what he never knew to begin with.

Point taken!

 

[Black_Label]

France raised tax rates on the rich. Their revenues when down, not up. The UK raised tax rates on the rich too. They also lost tax revenues. California just raised tax rates. Guess what? Revenues are down.

So tell us, why exactly do you want to raise tax rates on the rich? What do you hope to accomplish?

Clinton made the wealthy pay their fair share, the economy skyrocketed. W, Reagan, and Bush 1 all had massive give-a-ways to the rich and all it did was tank the economy.

It's been proven that everyone pays their fair share fiscal plans lead to booming economies.

Dumbest Fuck at USMB

Yes you are! How much do you get paid per post again?

 

[eflatminor]

...holding the middle class hostage to defend the rich...

France raised tax rates on the rich. Their revenues when down, not up. The UK raised tax rates on the rich too. They also lost tax revenues. California just raised tax rates. Guess what? Revenues are down.

So tell us, why exactly do you want to raise tax rates on the rich? What do you hope to accomplish?

Clinton made the wealthy pay their fair share, the economy skyrocketed.

Actually, the economy worsened after Clinton raised tax rates. The economy grew at 4.5% in the twelve months before the tax hikes. After the tax hike was enacted, the economy slipped to a 2-3% growth rate for 1993 and into 1994. It was only in 1995, after Clinton LOWERED the capital gains in November of 1994 that the stock market rose, interest rates fell, and the economy took off, leading to a rise in tax revenues.

So, I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.

Take that historical evidence along with the recent examples in France, UK, and California and I have to wonder WHY you want to raise tax rates.

W, Reagan, and Bush 1 all had massive give-a-ways to the rich and all it did was tank the economy.

Actually, when Reagan's tax rate cuts where fully implemented in 1983, the economy took off. It expanded at 3.5% in 1983 and 6.8% in 1984, which was the highest single year growth rate in 50 years. In 1986, they lowered tax rates again (15 and 28 percent). The economy grew even more throughout the decade. In fact, the National Bureau of Economic Research in 1999 declared the period 1982-99 "the longest sustained period of prosperity in the 20th century".

Now what were you saying about "tanking the economy"?

It's been proven that everyone pays their fair share fiscal plans lead to booming economies.

Well, the rich today pay a bigger proportion of the overall tax burden then they did under Clinton. How's that not their "fair share". Similarly, America has the most progressive tax structure in the world. That is, our rich pay a larger proportion of the overall tax burden than in any other country in the world. Still not "fair" enough for you?

Either way, you're continuing to overlook the historical reality of raising tax rates on the rich. It very often leads to LOWER tax revenues.

So again, I ask, what specifically do you hope to accomplish by raising tax rates on the rich?

 

[Oddball]

W, Reagan, and Bush 1 all had massive give-a-ways to the rich and all it did was tank the economy.

Only a true blue looter asshole can call letting people keep what is theirs to start with a "give away".

 

[boedicca]

w, reagan, and bush 1 all had massive give-a-ways to the rich and all it did was tank the economy.

only a true blue looter asshole can call letting people keep what is theirs to start with a "give away".

qft.

 

[Black_Label]

W, Reagan, and Bush 1 all had massive give-a-ways to the rich and all it did was tank the economy.

Only a true blue looter asshole can call letting people keep what is theirs to start with a "give away".

Bankrolling the snot out of the severely over-bloated military is "letting people keep what is theirs?"

 

[Duped]

The left is butthurt over the fact that they will have to pay more - they thought it would only come from the " evil rich "

 

[Truthmatters]

France raised tax rates on the rich. Their revenues when down, not up. The UK raised tax rates on the rich too. They also lost tax revenues. California just raised tax rates. Guess what? Revenues are down.

So tell us, why exactly do you want to raise tax rates on the rich? What do you hope to accomplish?

Clinton made the wealthy pay their fair share, the economy skyrocketed.

Actually, the economy worsened after Clinton raised tax rates. The economy grew at 4.5% in the twelve months before the tax hikes. After the tax hike was enacted, the economy slipped to a 2-3% growth rate for 1993 and into 1994. It was only in 1995, after Clinton LOWERED the capital gains in November of 1994 that the stock market rose, interest rates fell, and the economy took off, leading to a rise in tax revenues.

So, I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.

Take that historical evidence along with the recent examples in France, UK, and California and I have to wonder WHY you want to raise tax rates.

W, Reagan, and Bush 1 all had massive give-a-ways to the rich and all it did was tank the economy.

Actually, when Reagan's tax rate cuts where fully implemented in 1983, the economy took off. It expanded at 3.5% in 1983 and 6.8% in 1984, which was the highest single year growth rate in 50 years. In 1986, they lowered tax rates again (15 and 28 percent). The economy grew even more throughout the decade. In fact, the National Bureau of Economic Research in 1999 declared the period 1982-99 "the longest sustained period of prosperity in the 20th century".

Now what were you saying about "tanking the economy"?

It's been proven that everyone pays their fair share fiscal plans lead to booming economies.

Well, the rich today pay a bigger proportion of the overall tax burden then they did under Clinton. How's that not their "fair share". Similarly, America has the most progressive tax structure in the world. That is, our rich pay a larger proportion of the overall tax burden than in any other country in the world. Still not "fair" enough for you?

Either way, you're continuing to overlook the historical reality of raising tax rates on the rich. It very often leads to LOWER tax revenues.

So again, I ask, what specifically do you hope to accomplish by raising tax rates on the rich?

links?