The Ryan Budget

[signelect]

I haven't seen it have you? Lets wait a few days before the full frontal attack begins or may you have some unkown source that have an inside idea of what will happen, Harry R does why shouldn't everyone else.

 

[taichiliberal]

What's the joke here is how Romney and Ryan are acting as if the GOP Congress and Senate are NOT responsible in any way for the state of the union at present.

The GOP leadership stated in NO uncertain terms that their primary purpose was to make Obama a one term President. It's documented that their leadership met the day of the President's inauguration and assessed that all they had to do was stymie any effort to govern by the President and it's a slam dunk in November 2012.

That's NOT governing.

Ryan was and is a part of that agenda. His "budget" is a fucking joke....just more reaganomics-on-steroids in a different form (yeah, try getting hospitalized for 7 days or more, and then pay for meds and post-visits on an $8K voucher...and pray you don't get ill again).

Watching these two glass eyed fucks lying their asses off as if no one can remember past yesterday would be the greatest comedy team since Abbott and Costello....if it weren't so tragic that this is the GOP choice for Presidency.

 

[Full-Auto]

What's the joke here is how Romney and Ryan are acting as if the GOP Congress and Senate are NOT responsible in any way for the state of the union at present.

The GOP leadership stated in NO uncertain terms that their primary purpose was to make Obama a one term President. It's documented that their leadership met the day of the President's inauguration and assessed that all they had to do was stymie any effort to govern by the President and it's a slam dunk in November 2012.

That's NOT governing.

Ryan was and is a part of that agenda. His "budget" is a fucking joke....just more reaganomics-on-steroids in a different form (yeah, try getting hospitalized for 7 days or more, and then pay for meds and post-visits on an $8K voucher...and pray you don't get ill again).

Watching these two glass eyed fucks lying their asses off as if no one can remember past yesterday would be the greatest comedy team since Abbott and Costello....if it weren't so tragic that this is the GOP choice for Presidency.

Your one sidedness makes you look extremely foolish. Will your side grow a pair to even begin to think about the problem.

 

[hortysir]

What's the joke here is how Romney and Ryan are acting as if the GOP Congress and Senate are NOT responsible in any way for the state of the union at present.

The GOP leadership stated in NO uncertain terms that their primary purpose was to make Obama a one term President. It's documented that their leadership met the day of the President's inauguration and assessed that all they had to do was stymie any effort to govern by the President and it's a slam dunk in November 2012.

That's NOT governing.

Ryan was and is a part of that agenda. His "budget" is a fucking joke....just more reaganomics-on-steroids in a different form (yeah, try getting hospitalized for 7 days or more, and then pay for meds and post-visits on an $8K voucher...and pray you don't get ill again).

Watching these two glass eyed fucks lying their asses off as if no one can remember past yesterday would be the greatest comedy team since Abbott and Costello....if it weren't so tragic that this is the GOP choice for Presidency.

Your one sidedness makes you look extremely foolish. Will your side grow a pair to even begin to think about the problem.

oh....you were serious?

 

[Full-Auto]

What's the joke here is how Romney and Ryan are acting as if the GOP Congress and Senate are NOT responsible in any way for the state of the union at present.

The GOP leadership stated in NO uncertain terms that their primary purpose was to make Obama a one term President. It's documented that their leadership met the day of the President's inauguration and assessed that all they had to do was stymie any effort to govern by the President and it's a slam dunk in November 2012.

That's NOT governing.

Ryan was and is a part of that agenda. His "budget" is a fucking joke....just more reaganomics-on-steroids in a different form (yeah, try getting hospitalized for 7 days or more, and then pay for meds and post-visits on an $8K voucher...and pray you don't get ill again).

Watching these two glass eyed fucks lying their asses off as if no one can remember past yesterday would be the greatest comedy team since Abbott and Costello....if it weren't so tragic that this is the GOP choice for Presidency.

Your one sidedness makes you look extremely foolish. Will your side grow a pair to even begin to think about the problem.

oh....you were serious?

No worries, I expect Romney will make tea partiers drink coffee

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What's the joke here is how Romney and Ryan are acting as if the GOP Congress and Senate are NOT responsible in any way for the state of the union at present.

The GOP leadership stated in NO uncertain terms that their primary purpose was to make Obama a one term President. It's documented that their leadership met the day of the President's inauguration and assessed that all they had to do was stymie any effort to govern by the President and it's a slam dunk in November 2012.

That's NOT governing.

Ryan was and is a part of that agenda. His "budget" is a fucking joke....just more reaganomics-on-steroids in a different form (yeah, try getting hospitalized for 7 days or more, and then pay for meds and post-visits on an $8K voucher...and pray you don't get ill again).

Watching these two glass eyed fucks lying their asses off as if no one can remember past yesterday would be the greatest comedy team since Abbott and Costello....if it weren't so tragic that this is the GOP choice for Presidency.

Does that mean when Ryan talks about how Bush's budgets contributed to the problem he is blaming you?

 

[DontBeStupid]

Low capital gains did not increase revenue.

Review & Outlook: Obama's Revenue Soup - WSJ.com

According to this, capital gains in 2003 collected $51.3 billion. In 2007, $137.1 billion.
Even though the rate went from 20% to 15%.

Perhaps you didn't read my post.

Prove the capital gains cut caused this increase.

Just because it happened doesn't mean the cuts caused it. There were other things going on at that time you know.

Prove the capital gains cut caused this increase.

Unlike income, capital gains can be deferred.
Historically, when rates are hiked, tax receipts decline.
When rates are cut, tax receipts increase.
It must be just a coincidence that taxes jumped by 167% in four years after rates were cut by 25% on long term gains.

That's it? That's what I waited all day for? A happened then B happened therefore A caused B. Shit, the sun came up every day after Green Bay won the Super Bowl, so CLEARLY Green Bay winning caused the sun to rise.

Come on man, don't be stupid. You know there were other factors at the time. We've gone over this. Drop in interest rates? Housing bubble? You think any of that may have caused this "jump" in revenue? And I say "jump" because we all know you never account for inflation, even though inflation at that time was much higher than now.

If you think the capital gains tax cut caused the increase in revenue, you're going to have to try harder than four sentences, zero links and one gigantic leap in logic.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Considering that 49% of the US population pays zero taxes to the federal government I don't see how you came by your figure.

This is a lie.

The 49% figure refers to people who pay no federal INCOME tax. They still pay all other kinds of federal taxes, including the payroll tax, which hits them harder than those at the upper incomes.

Interpol is right and brings up the heart of why I asked about the Ryan Budget. The Budget clearly cuts taxes for the top incomes while at the same time cutting services and benefits for the bottom. I'm just wondering why people think that's a good idea. I'm looking for someone to explain how that approach is good for the country and is the correct direction in which we should be headed.

So whats your point? You want me to pay for their social security and medicare benefits?

My point was purely that you were lying.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Perhaps you didn't read my post.

Prove the capital gains cut caused this increase.

Just because it happened doesn't mean the cuts caused it. There were other things going on at that time you know.

Prove the capital gains cut caused this increase.

Unlike income, capital gains can be deferred.
Historically, when rates are hiked, tax receipts decline.
When rates are cut, tax receipts increase.
It must be just a coincidence that taxes jumped by 167% in four years after rates were cut by 25% on long term gains.

That's it? That's what I waited all day for? A happened then B happened therefore A caused B. Shit, the sun came up every day after Green Bay won the Super Bowl, so CLEARLY Green Bay winning caused the sun to rise.

Come on man, don't be stupid. You know there were other factors at the time. We've gone over this. Drop in interest rates? Housing bubble? You think any of that may have caused this "jump" in revenue? And I say "jump" because we all know you never account for inflation, even though inflation at that time was much higher than now.

If you think the capital gains tax cut caused the increase in revenue, you're going to have to try harder than four sentences, zero links and one gigantic leap in logic.

You're funny.
Every time the rate is cut, receipts increase.
Every time the rate is hiked, receipts decrease.

If that's a coincidence, I'll take it, every time.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Prove the capital gains cut caused this increase.

Unlike income, capital gains can be deferred.
Historically, when rates are hiked, tax receipts decline.
When rates are cut, tax receipts increase.
It must be just a coincidence that taxes jumped by 167% in four years after rates were cut by 25% on long term gains.

That's it? That's what I waited all day for? A happened then B happened therefore A caused B. Shit, the sun came up every day after Green Bay won the Super Bowl, so CLEARLY Green Bay winning caused the sun to rise.

Come on man, don't be stupid. You know there were other factors at the time. We've gone over this. Drop in interest rates? Housing bubble? You think any of that may have caused this "jump" in revenue? And I say "jump" because we all know you never account for inflation, even though inflation at that time was much higher than now.

If you think the capital gains tax cut caused the increase in revenue, you're going to have to try harder than four sentences, zero links and one gigantic leap in logic.

You're funny.
Every time the rate is cut, receipts increase.
Every time the rate is hiked, receipts decrease.

If that's a coincidence, I'll take it, every time.

Over how long? Why are you not talking about a time frame? Oh, man, here we go again. You're the one who hates considering inflation and hates talking about time frames. Well, this should be quick.

Policy Points: Experts Agree That Capital Gains Tax Cuts Lose Revenue — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Do capital gains tax cuts increase revenues? | Business | TIME.com

"Capital Gains Tax Cuts Decrease Revenue " by Richard H. Serlin

Do Capital Gains Tax Increases Reduce Revenue? « Back in the Black

Cutting capital gains tax rates has an, obvious, short term affect as people realize their gains. But, in the long run, as should be obvious, the over all revenue drops, as all those studies prove.

So, Todd, if the goal is reduce the deficit, why then do you want less revenue? How does that help reduce the deficit?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's it? That's what I waited all day for? A happened then B happened therefore A caused B. Shit, the sun came up every day after Green Bay won the Super Bowl, so CLEARLY Green Bay winning caused the sun to rise.

Come on man, don't be stupid. You know there were other factors at the time. We've gone over this. Drop in interest rates? Housing bubble? You think any of that may have caused this "jump" in revenue? And I say "jump" because we all know you never account for inflation, even though inflation at that time was much higher than now.

If you think the capital gains tax cut caused the increase in revenue, you're going to have to try harder than four sentences, zero links and one gigantic leap in logic.

You're funny.
Every time the rate is cut, receipts increase.
Every time the rate is hiked, receipts decrease.

If that's a coincidence, I'll take it, every time.

Over how long? Why are you not talking about a time frame? Oh, man, here we go again. You're the one who hates considering inflation and hates talking about time frames. Well, this should be quick.

Policy Points: Experts Agree That Capital Gains Tax Cuts Lose Revenue — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Do capital gains tax cuts increase revenues? | Business | TIME.com

"Capital Gains Tax Cuts Decrease Revenue " by Richard H. Serlin

Do Capital Gains Tax Increases Reduce Revenue? « Back in the Black

Cutting capital gains tax rates has an, obvious, short term affect as people realize their gains. But, in the long run, as should be obvious, the over all revenue drops, as all those studies prove.

So, Todd, if the goal is reduce the deficit, why then do you want less revenue? How does that help reduce the deficit?

You're the one who hates considering inflation

I am?

It must be just a coincidence that taxes jumped by 167% in four years after rates were cut by 25% on long term gains.

Was inflation 167% from 2003 to 2007?

So, Todd, if the goal is reduce the deficit, why then do you want less revenue?

I want to reduce the deficit. Cut Spending Now!

 

[DontBeStupid]

You're funny.
Every time the rate is cut, receipts increase.
Every time the rate is hiked, receipts decrease.

If that's a coincidence, I'll take it, every time.

Over how long? Why are you not talking about a time frame? Oh, man, here we go again. You're the one who hates considering inflation and hates talking about time frames. Well, this should be quick.

Policy Points: Experts Agree That Capital Gains Tax Cuts Lose Revenue — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Do capital gains tax cuts increase revenues? | Business | TIME.com

"Capital Gains Tax Cuts Decrease Revenue " by Richard H. Serlin

Do Capital Gains Tax Increases Reduce Revenue? « Back in the Black

Cutting capital gains tax rates has an, obvious, short term affect as people realize their gains. But, in the long run, as should be obvious, the over all revenue drops, as all those studies prove.

So, Todd, if the goal is reduce the deficit, why then do you want less revenue? How does that help reduce the deficit?

You're the one who hates considering inflation

I am?

It must be just a coincidence that taxes jumped by 167% in four years after rates were cut by 25% on long term gains.

Was inflation 167% from 2003 to 2007?

So, Todd, if the goal is reduce the deficit, why then do you want less revenue?

I want to reduce the deficit. Cut Spending Now!

Really? Taxes jumped by 167% in four years? Hmm.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

2003 - $1.782T (lower than 1999 levels, by the way)
2007 - $2.568T

difference = $786B or a 44% increase. And that's without adjusting for inflation!

Using constant dollars:

2003 - $1.901T (lower than 1998 now)
2007 - $2.414T

difference = $513B or a 27% increase

You were saying?

edit:

For those following at home, yes, Todd is cherry picking his time frame. There's a reason he's talking about 2003-2007 only. That's because in 2003 revenue was at its lowest, and in 2007 it was its highest due to the housing bubble fueled in part by low interest rates. This cherry picking makes his argument look more solid, even though it isn't. I know. It's dishonest. But Todd doesn't believe in being honest with time frames. What can ya do?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Over how long? Why are you not talking about a time frame? Oh, man, here we go again. You're the one who hates considering inflation and hates talking about time frames. Well, this should be quick.

Policy Points: Experts Agree That Capital Gains Tax Cuts Lose Revenue — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Do capital gains tax cuts increase revenues? | Business | TIME.com

"Capital Gains Tax Cuts Decrease Revenue " by Richard H. Serlin

Do Capital Gains Tax Increases Reduce Revenue? « Back in the Black

Cutting capital gains tax rates has an, obvious, short term affect as people realize their gains. But, in the long run, as should be obvious, the over all revenue drops, as all those studies prove.

So, Todd, if the goal is reduce the deficit, why then do you want less revenue? How does that help reduce the deficit?

You're the one who hates considering inflation

I am?

It must be just a coincidence that taxes jumped by 167% in four years after rates were cut by 25% on long term gains.

Was inflation 167% from 2003 to 2007?

So, Todd, if the goal is reduce the deficit, why then do you want less revenue?

I want to reduce the deficit. Cut Spending Now!

Really? Taxes jumped by 167% in four years? Hmm.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

2003 - $1.782T (lower than 1999 levels, by the way)
2007 - $2.568T

difference = $786B or a 44% increase. And that's without adjusting for inflation!

Using constant dollars:

2003 - $1.901T (lower than 1998 now)
2007 - $2.414T

difference = $513B or a 27% increase

You were saying?

edit: p.s.

For those following at home, yes, Todd is cherry picking his time frame. There's a reason he's talking about 2003-2007 only. That's because in 2003 revenue was at its lowest, and in 2007 it was its highest due to the housing bubble fueled in part by low interest rates.

Really? Taxes jumped by 167% in four years? Hmm.

Really, capital gains tax receipts jumped by 167% in four years.

There's a reason he's talking about 2003-2007 only.

I'm talking about 2003, because that's the year the Bush cuts in capital gains and dividends passed.
I'm talking about 2007 because capital gains always shrink after a crash.

and in 2007 it was its highest due to the housing bubble

If you have any info about the portion of the capital gains that were due to housing, I'd like to see it. I haven't seen a breakdown.

 

[Dick Tuck]

The Ryan Budget


The only plan on the table.

The thought of a budget makes the dem leadership heads hurt.

Did anyone tell them they invented calculators?

Did anyone teach you basic math? Which loopholes is going to give Ryan over $700 billion a year? Child tax credit? Home mortgage deduction? State tax deduction? You know he's not going to go after Mitten's dancing horse write-off.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Prove the capital gains cut caused this increase.

Unlike income, capital gains can be deferred.
Historically, when rates are hiked, tax receipts decline.
When rates are cut, tax receipts increase.
It must be just a coincidence that taxes jumped by 167% in four years after rates were cut by 25% on long term gains.

That's it? That's what I waited all day for? A happened then B happened therefore A caused B. Shit, the sun came up every day after Green Bay won the Super Bowl, so CLEARLY Green Bay winning caused the sun to rise.

Come on man, don't be stupid. You know there were other factors at the time. We've gone over this. Drop in interest rates? Housing bubble? You think any of that may have caused this "jump" in revenue? And I say "jump" because we all know you never account for inflation, even though inflation at that time was much higher than now.

If you think the capital gains tax cut caused the increase in revenue, you're going to have to try harder than four sentences, zero links and one gigantic leap in logic.

You're funny.
Every time the rate is cut, receipts increase.
Every time the rate is hiked, receipts decrease.

If that's a coincidence, I'll take it, every time.

Wow, Reagan and Bush must have generated quite a surplus......not!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's it? That's what I waited all day for? A happened then B happened therefore A caused B. Shit, the sun came up every day after Green Bay won the Super Bowl, so CLEARLY Green Bay winning caused the sun to rise.

Come on man, don't be stupid. You know there were other factors at the time. We've gone over this. Drop in interest rates? Housing bubble? You think any of that may have caused this "jump" in revenue? And I say "jump" because we all know you never account for inflation, even though inflation at that time was much higher than now.

If you think the capital gains tax cut caused the increase in revenue, you're going to have to try harder than four sentences, zero links and one gigantic leap in logic.

You're funny.
Every time the rate is cut, receipts increase.
Every time the rate is hiked, receipts decrease.

If that's a coincidence, I'll take it, every time.

Wow, Reagan and Bush must have generated quite a surplus......not!

No, but when they cut the capital gains tax, capital gains tax revenues increased.

 

[Dick Tuck]

You're the one who hates considering inflation

I am?

It must be just a coincidence that taxes jumped by 167% in four years after rates were cut by 25% on long term gains.

Was inflation 167% from 2003 to 2007?

So, Todd, if the goal is reduce the deficit, why then do you want less revenue?

I want to reduce the deficit. Cut Spending Now!

Really? Taxes jumped by 167% in four years? Hmm.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

2003 - $1.782T (lower than 1999 levels, by the way)
2007 - $2.568T

difference = $786B or a 44% increase. And that's without adjusting for inflation!

Using constant dollars:

2003 - $1.901T (lower than 1998 now)
2007 - $2.414T

difference = $513B or a 27% increase

You were saying?

edit: p.s.

For those following at home, yes, Todd is cherry picking his time frame. There's a reason he's talking about 2003-2007 only. That's because in 2003 revenue was at its lowest, and in 2007 it was its highest due to the housing bubble fueled in part by low interest rates.

Really? Taxes jumped by 167% in four years? Hmm.

Really, capital gains tax receipts jumped by 167% in four years.

There's a reason he's talking about 2003-2007 only.

I'm talking about 2003, because that's the year the Bush cuts in capital gains and dividends passed.
I'm talking about 2007 because capital gains always shrink after a crash.

and in 2007 it was its highest due to the housing bubble

If you have any info about the portion of the capital gains that were due to housing, I'd like to see it. I haven't seen a breakdown.

Are you claiming that revenues went down after the Clinton tax increase?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Really? Taxes jumped by 167% in four years? Hmm.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

2003 - $1.782T (lower than 1999 levels, by the way)
2007 - $2.568T

difference = $786B or a 44% increase. And that's without adjusting for inflation!

Using constant dollars:

2003 - $1.901T (lower than 1998 now)
2007 - $2.414T

difference = $513B or a 27% increase

You were saying?

edit: p.s.

For those following at home, yes, Todd is cherry picking his time frame. There's a reason he's talking about 2003-2007 only. That's because in 2003 revenue was at its lowest, and in 2007 it was its highest due to the housing bubble fueled in part by low interest rates.

Really? Taxes jumped by 167% in four years? Hmm.

Really, capital gains tax receipts jumped by 167% in four years.

There's a reason he's talking about 2003-2007 only.

I'm talking about 2003, because that's the year the Bush cuts in capital gains and dividends passed.
I'm talking about 2007 because capital gains always shrink after a crash.

and in 2007 it was its highest due to the housing bubble

If you have any info about the portion of the capital gains that were due to housing, I'd like to see it. I haven't seen a breakdown.

Are you claiming that revenues went down after the Clinton tax increase?

Clinton increased the capital gains tax rate? No.
But when rates were cut during his presidency, capital gains revenues increased.

 

[DontBeStupid]

You're the one who hates considering inflation

I am?

It must be just a coincidence that taxes jumped by 167% in four years after rates were cut by 25% on long term gains.

Was inflation 167% from 2003 to 2007?

So, Todd, if the goal is reduce the deficit, why then do you want less revenue?

I want to reduce the deficit. Cut Spending Now!

Really? Taxes jumped by 167% in four years? Hmm.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

2003 - $1.782T (lower than 1999 levels, by the way)
2007 - $2.568T

difference = $786B or a 44% increase. And that's without adjusting for inflation!

Using constant dollars:

2003 - $1.901T (lower than 1998 now)
2007 - $2.414T

difference = $513B or a 27% increase

You were saying?

edit: p.s.

For those following at home, yes, Todd is cherry picking his time frame. There's a reason he's talking about 2003-2007 only. That's because in 2003 revenue was at its lowest, and in 2007 it was its highest due to the housing bubble fueled in part by low interest rates.

Really? Taxes jumped by 167% in four years? Hmm.

Really, capital gains tax receipts jumped by 167% in four years.

There's a reason he's talking about 2003-2007 only.

I'm talking about 2003, because that's the year the Bush cuts in capital gains and dividends passed.
I'm talking about 2007 because capital gains always shrink after a crash.

and in 2007 it was its highest due to the housing bubble

If you have any info about the portion of the capital gains that were due to housing, I'd like to see it. I haven't seen a breakdown.

It took a while to find you a link. Feel free to use this in the future when discussing this topic.

Historical Capital Gains and Taxes

Yup. You're clearly cherry picking your time frame. But hey, I can do that too!

From 2000 to 2001, tax receipts from capital gains plummeted 61% in one year. The same year Bush took office and cut tax rates. Not since Reagan's record setting drop of 63% in one year has tax revenue from capital gains ever dropped so far in such a short amount of time. Clearly, this is proof that the Bush Tax Plan, and Reganomics as a whole, was a failure and we should reverse it.

Thanks Todd!

 

[Dick Tuck]

Really? Taxes jumped by 167% in four years? Hmm.

Really, capital gains tax receipts jumped by 167% in four years.

There's a reason he's talking about 2003-2007 only.

I'm talking about 2003, because that's the year the Bush cuts in capital gains and dividends passed.
I'm talking about 2007 because capital gains always shrink after a crash.

and in 2007 it was its highest due to the housing bubble

If you have any info about the portion of the capital gains that were due to housing, I'd like to see it. I haven't seen a breakdown.

Are you claiming that revenues went down after the Clinton tax increase?

Clinton increased the capital gains tax rate? No.
But when rates were cut during his presidency, capital gains revenues increased.

No shit shirlock. Whenever you increase the tax rates on those with the most disposable income, they'll invest it to preserve wealth.