This is a No Win proposition for the GOP

LOL. What a tragic propaganda victim you are.

Yeah, wedded to facts and truth. You ought to try it sometime instead of smoking the kool aid.

Maybe you can explain why the rich deserve continued handouts in the name of job creation?

Newsflash: Letting people keep money they've earned is not a handout.
Maybe you can explain why the administration is pushing policies that will not raise as much revenue as the GOP proposals.
 
Yeah, wedded to facts and truth. You ought to try it sometime instead of smoking the kool aid.

Maybe you can explain why the rich deserve continued handouts in the name of job creation?

Newsflash: Letting people keep money they've earned is not a handout.
Maybe you can explain why the administration is pushing policies that will not raise as much revenue as the GOP proposals.

Semantics, the Bush tax cuts were a temporary measure that added to the deficit and were sold as a stimulative measure. It cannot be shown to have been effective as advertised so other than just being ideologically opposed to all taxation you cannot defend these cuts as being stimulative so why defend them at all? As to your other claim, the GOP has not provided details or independent reviews of their "plan" so I have to ask how you can make such a statement so confidently?
 
Maybe you can explain why the rich deserve continued handouts in the name of job creation?

Newsflash: Letting people keep money they've earned is not a handout.
Maybe you can explain why the administration is pushing policies that will not raise as much revenue as the GOP proposals.

Semantics, the Bush tax cuts were a temporary measure that added to the deficit and were sold as a stimulative measure. It cannot be shown to have been effective as advertised so other than just being ideologically opposed to all taxation you cannot defend these cuts as being stimulative so why defend them at all? As to your other claim, the GOP has not provided details or independent reviews of their "plan" so I have to ask how you can make such a statement so confidently?

The tax cuts were effective. They were effective at bringing the country out of recession and they brought in more revenue to the Treasury. Raising rates means taking more money from what people have earned. Which part of that do you not get?

Obama himself agrees that raising cap gains taxes will bring in less money. Are you arguing with Obama?
 
:D
Yeah, wedded to facts and truth. You ought to try it sometime instead of smoking the kool aid.

Maybe you can explain why the rich deserve continued handouts in the name of job creation?

Newsflash: Letting people keep money they've earned is not a handout.
Maybe you can explain why the administration is pushing policies that will not raise as much revenue as the GOP proposals.

Well it is to a moron. you keep forgetting the left has an over abundance of morons. :D
 
Newsflash: Letting people keep money they've earned is not a handout.
Maybe you can explain why the administration is pushing policies that will not raise as much revenue as the GOP proposals.

Semantics, the Bush tax cuts were a temporary measure that added to the deficit and were sold as a stimulative measure. It cannot be shown to have been effective as advertised so other than just being ideologically opposed to all taxation you cannot defend these cuts as being stimulative so why defend them at all? As to your other claim, the GOP has not provided details or independent reviews of their "plan" so I have to ask how you can make such a statement so confidently?

The tax cuts were effective. They were effective at bringing the country out of recession and they brought in more revenue to the Treasury. Raising rates means taking more money from what people have earned. Which part of that do you not get?

Obama himself agrees that raising cap gains taxes will bring in less money. Are you arguing with Obama?

We should have more jobs than we know what to do with yet I am willing to bet you also feel the tax cut heavy stimulus package the Democrats passed didn't work at all so what's the difference?
 
Semantics, the Bush tax cuts were a temporary measure that added to the deficit and were sold as a stimulative measure. It cannot be shown to have been effective as advertised so other than just being ideologically opposed to all taxation you cannot defend these cuts as being stimulative so why defend them at all? As to your other claim, the GOP has not provided details or independent reviews of their "plan" so I have to ask how you can make such a statement so confidently?

The tax cuts were effective. They were effective at bringing the country out of recession and they brought in more revenue to the Treasury. Raising rates means taking more money from what people have earned. Which part of that do you not get?

Obama himself agrees that raising cap gains taxes will bring in less money. Are you arguing with Obama?

We should have more jobs than we know what to do with yet I am willing to bet you also feel the tax cut heavy stimulus package the Democrats passed didn't work at all so what's the difference?

Newsflash: UE under Bush was under 6% for most of his term. We did have more jobs than we knew what to do with. Pizza delivery guys were making $10/hr.
The Democrats passed a package with temporary targeted tax cuts, their favorite form because they get to reward their supporters. Thsoe never work. Not all tax cuts are equal.
 
The rich will leave. Like they are leaving Europe. Asia has the land, the workers, the tax structure. The wealthy can afford to watch the communists collapse and wait it out. Socialism always fails. It's only a matter of time.
 
The tax cuts were effective. They were effective at bringing the country out of recession and they brought in more revenue to the Treasury. Raising rates means taking more money from what people have earned. Which part of that do you not get?

Obama himself agrees that raising cap gains taxes will bring in less money. Are you arguing with Obama?

We should have more jobs than we know what to do with yet I am willing to bet you also feel the tax cut heavy stimulus package the Democrats passed didn't work at all so what's the difference?

Newsflash: UE under Bush was under 6% for most of his term. We did have more jobs than we knew what to do with. Pizza delivery guys were making $10/hr.
The Democrats passed a package with temporary targeted tax cuts, their favorite form because they get to reward their supporters. Thsoe never work. Not all tax cuts are equal.

Maybe you should show a little cause and effect here because while Bush was president job creation was essentially flat as millions of good paying jobs were replaced with crap jobs along with negative adjusted wage growth culminating with the worse recession in our lifetimes. Things were not good during the 00s no matter how you want to frame them as awesome prosperity the democrats ruined.
 
The rich will leave. Like they are leaving Europe. Asia has the land, the workers, the tax structure. The wealthy can afford to watch the communists collapse and wait it out. Socialism always fails. It's only a matter of time.

Good riddance to bad rubbish if they think having to bribe their way though life in Asia is any better than a piddly 4% tax hike.
 
They can drag their feet and whine, but it will be their heads on the chopping block in 2014. Why are they protecting the rich, while trying to slam the poor SS recipients? WOW! Political suicide before our very eyes! :clap2:

Why is it more important to you to "punish" the rich than it is to help people?

This is America. The rich should not want to take from the very poor and SHOULD want to help them. Go america
 
We need a new WPA to employ civil servants on our infrastructure.............The costs wont matter in the long run................Maybe even more civil servants to document its successes........LOl
 
We should have more jobs than we know what to do with yet I am willing to bet you also feel the tax cut heavy stimulus package the Democrats passed didn't work at all so what's the difference?

Newsflash: UE under Bush was under 6% for most of his term. We did have more jobs than we knew what to do with. Pizza delivery guys were making $10/hr.
The Democrats passed a package with temporary targeted tax cuts, their favorite form because they get to reward their supporters. Thsoe never work. Not all tax cuts are equal.

Maybe you should show a little cause and effect here because while Bush was president job creation was essentially flat as millions of good paying jobs were replaced with crap jobs along with negative adjusted wage growth culminating with the worse recession in our lifetimes. Things were not good during the 00s no matter how you want to frame them as awesome prosperity the democrats ruined.
Yawn.
LNS14000000_61621_1354674306275.gif


US Personal Income, 1969-2009 | The Big Picture

I could go on and on. By every measure the years 2000-2006 were far better than the years 2007-2012. Spin it any way you want. You are simply incorrect.
 
Whats with these clueless adolescents marxist obsession with the "rich " ???

What's with these plutocratic sycophants obsession with defending the rich?

Why do the rich need defending? Are they under attack? Thought so!

Hell, Widyo Wilyo, Fruitloops Nugent thinks you should be tossed out into the street. You are one of the useless 47%, a taker that has no reason for existance. I am sure you agree with your fellow rightwingnut, correct?
 
The rich will leave. Like they are leaving Europe. Asia has the land, the workers, the tax structure. The wealthy can afford to watch the communists collapse and wait it out. Socialism always fails. It's only a matter of time.

All you Galt freakazoids are welcome to leave. We will do better without you. And once they get solidly esconsed in those lands, the people their will nationalize their wealth, and laugh at them.
 
Newsflash: UE under Bush was under 6% for most of his term. We did have more jobs than we knew what to do with. Pizza delivery guys were making $10/hr.
The Democrats passed a package with temporary targeted tax cuts, their favorite form because they get to reward their supporters. Thsoe never work. Not all tax cuts are equal.

Maybe you should show a little cause and effect here because while Bush was president job creation was essentially flat as millions of good paying jobs were replaced with crap jobs along with negative adjusted wage growth culminating with the worse recession in our lifetimes. Things were not good during the 00s no matter how you want to frame them as awesome prosperity the democrats ruined.
Yawn.
LNS14000000_61621_1354674306275.gif


US Personal Income, 1969-2009 | The Big Picture

I could go on and on. By every measure the years 2000-2006 were far better than the years 2007-2012. Spin it any way you want. You are simply incorrect.

Not by every measure, a simple graph of employment numbers does not show that a lot of people were thrown out of good jobs and had to take crap jobs or that wages showed negative growth or that medical bankruptcy went through the roof along with deficit spending, consumer credit rates, CDO scams and mortgage fraud. The economy was packed with ticking time bombs and when it all went south the democrats were there as a convenient scapegoat despite being all but ignored on many of these issues for a long time.
 
A great Question![/B] Please, one of you RW loons answer this.

Avatar won't answer. I knew he wouldn't when I asked it. He has proven time and time again that he doesn't have a single original thought based in reality. His purpose on this site is purely for comedy relief.

So I guess I've just proven you a liar.

Don't make it so easy next time:)

Still waiting for your answer. You responded but gave no answer.
 
They're falling apart.

Boehner is throwing Rs off of committees, they're all fighting amongst themselves, even fux is back peddling as fast as they can. They even fired Rove.

Boehner has no control, never did have. He's got his little posse, icluding Cantor and Ryan but they're in a pretty untenable position.
 

Forum List

Back
Top