Obama's 95% Illusion

[jillian]

Jillian,

What economic policy are you referring to?

Trickle down voodoo economics, PB... Even Daddy Bush was smart enough to understand it was idiocy.

And, psssst... Bush was the only president in history to cut taxes during wartime... stupidest move ever and probably hugely contributed to where we are right now.

I'm not sure why this is complicated for you.

But more to the point, PB, what has Bush done that HASN'T been a failure?

 

[The Paperboy]

Trickle down voodoo economics, PB... Even Daddy Bush was smart enough to understand it was idiocy.

And, psssst... Bush was the only president in history to cut taxes during wartime... stupidest move ever and probably hugely contributed to where we are right now.

I'm not sure why this is complicated for you.

But more to the point, PB, what has Bush done that HASN'T been a failure?

The Bush tax cuts have resulted in a 20% increase in tax revenues so your argument on tax cuts is empty.

So I'll ask again, what economic policy did Bush implement that was failed? Or even better, what Clinton economic policy did Bush change?

 

[jillian]

The Bush tax cuts have resulted in a 20% increase in tax revenues so your argument on tax cuts is empty.

So I'll ask again, what economic policy did Bush implement that was failed? Or even better, what Clinton economic policy did Bush change?

It has been pointed out to you already that that is a fallacious argument given upward population trending at the same time.

Bush cut taxes for the top 1%.

And you're still not addressing the stupidity of his being the first leader in history to cut taxes during wartime and are ignoring the deficit and our empowerment of China because of it.

 

[The Paperboy]

It has been pointed out to you already that that is a fallacious argument given upward population trending at the same time.

Bush cut taxes for the top 1%.

And you're still not addressing the stupidity of his being the first leader in history to cut taxes during wartime and are ignoring the deficit and our empowerment of China because of it.

You're tap dancing around my questions. You ignore the facts on taxes: Revenues are up 20%. You also ignore the effect that 9/11, the tech bubble bursting and the housing meltdown had on the economy. And please don't even tell me that Bush is the cause for the housing meltdown. Or better yet tell me specifically how this is so if you think so.

You have very passionately stated that it is the "failed economic policies" of Bush that have caused the current economic problems (by the way many parts of the economy are doing quite well). Please give me the 5 pieces of legislation, enacted into law, that are "these failed policies". Then tell me what Clinton economic policies Bush cancelled or got rid of or let lapse.

Let's please keep this discussion limited to economics. You're a lawyer. Let's deal in facts, not propaganda.

 

[mdjgirl7]

I have no problem with people earning over 2 million paying more tax. If they are so greedy and selfish that they throw their toys out the cot with their "I'm gonna cut jobs, just so I can stay super rich", they can get stuffed! Being rich isn't a right.....just look at all those lovely bonuses these turds on Wall St gave themselves while their house of cards were collapsing...

Let me just say yes I think we all could share but on the other hand I do not see punishing someone because they are successful. I do not think Obama has the right to spread the wealth off someone else's blood sweat and tears. If you are able to work get a freaking job and pull your own weight and stop waiting for a hand out.

Obama is teaching people how to be lazy and collect a check. I am sick of seeing grown men and women who can work but CHOOSE not to so they can get a welfare check.

AS someone else stated 45% of the people do not pay ANY federal tax at all. So who is paying it oh yeah that is right the rich people. Sooo if you are rich and successful you are supposed to carry the country on your back. That is incentive to go out and work and be successful. When you know you are going to have to support the lazy slugs of our country.

I am a firm believer in helping those who cannot physically or mentally cannot help themselves those are not the people I am talking about. I am talking about the people who are in great shape wheeling up behind me in the grocery store who are healthy with a basket full of steaks and food stamps while I work and eat veggies and very little meat because it is expensive.

I am sick of lazy do nothing people sucking off our tax dollars. I think we need to revisit our welfare system it has gone horribly wrong. Oh you know what else we do? The more babies you have the more money we will give you. Obama wants to stop unwanted pregnancies cut off the welfare for more then one child. My Sister in law used to work for DHR these are the kinds of stories she tells.

I do not think anyone should be selfish but you should have the right to be selfish in this country or generous that should be a choice not government mandate the more we let government rule our lives the more of a dictatorship we become. Obama wants to be a dictator in my opinion.

No I do not think wall street did us any favors by giving themselves hooog bonus but they has the right to do so they did not break any laws they showed poor judgment we all were effected by but what they did not break any laws. I personally thought the bail out was and is wrong we should have let them fall flat on their faces that is what they all deserved. We would have survived it. My point is less government say no to Obama he wants more government.

 

[jillian]

You people really need to stop with that "lazy" and "collect a check" garbage. Because it's people like ME who fund the red states. No one is talking about PUNISHING people with money. But nor should tax cuts have benefitted them when we can't pay our national bills and are living on the national credit card.

 

[DavidS]

You fail to remember the tech boom of the 90's....

No, I don't. If taxes were too high, it would've never happened.

 

[DavidS]

In fact that's exactly what happened. By the time Clinton left office we were in a recession.

And you're skipping something aren't you? Oh yeah, the economy of the late 1990s where unemployment was low and the GDP was up in double digits.

Fact: Tax revenues go up when taxes are lowered. Revenues are up 20% under Bush.

Which tax revenues? Capital gains tax? Property tax? Sales tax? Income tax? Payroll tax? Source?

 

[DavidS]

The greatest and longest peace time economic growth was under Reagan.

Not the greatest, but definitely in the top 5. I'll agree with you there.

The problem with your logic, Paperboy, is that taxes for the upper class were at 70% for the rich and Reagan, over the course of 5 years, lowered them to 28%. That's a 60% tax cut for the rich. Coupled with all of the new deregulation that allowed businsses more freedom and of course you had massive economic growth.

The problem with McCain's tax cut is that he's only going to cut taxes for the rich by 4.4%. Not 44. 4.4. It's going to have absolutely ZERO impact on the economy and short the government of badly needed money.

Bill Clinton raised taxes on the most rich, from 28% to 39.6%. That's a tax increase of 11.6% during the recession in the 1990s.

Let me repeat. Bill Clinton raised taxes by 11.6% during the recession of the early 1990s.

Obama wants to raise taxes on the top tax brackets (top 5%) by 11.5%. The top 5% will be paying no more taxes under President Obama than they did under President Clinton.

Bill Clinton's tax increases did NOT cause a depression in the 1990s. I repeat, Bill Clinton's tax increases did NOT cause a depression in the 1990s.

Additionally, under the Clinton administration, over 22 million jobs were created.

During the last 8 years, Bush lowered Clinton's taxes from 38.6% to 35%. Again, no effect. The only time trickle-down economics have worked is when the upper tax bracket was far above 50% and was lowered far below 50%. See the roaring 20s and the economy of the 1980s and 1990s.

If history is any indicator, Obama's tax increases will NOT stifle job creation. It will, however; make Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity very angry.

 

[DavidS]

The Bush tax cuts have resulted in a 20% increase in tax revenues.

But they did NOT stimulate the economy like Bush said they would. Minor tax decreases do NOT stimulate the eocnomy. And double digit tax increases, like Obama is proposing, do NOT hurt the economy nor stifle job growth. Now, of course there are always special circumstances like terrorism or a new war where people are fearful and a small tax decrease might change the psychology of the market... much like after 9/11. But no matter what we say, the government is going to spend more money under John McCain or Obama. With our national debt increasing to 11 trillion dollars before either of them take office, we need to do SOMETHING. This is simple economics: If you spend more money, you need to make more money.

 

[The Paperboy]

You people really need to stop with that "lazy" and "collect a check" garbage. Because it's people like ME who fund the red states. No one is talking about PUNISHING people with money. But nor should tax cuts have benefitted them when we can't pay our national bills and are living on the national credit card.

Jillian:

Do you think giving people money is a tax cut?

 

[The Paperboy]

But they did NOT stimulate the economy like Bush said they would.

Despite 9/11 and tech bubble bursting the economy was growing until Barney took over the Banking Committee and Rangle took over Ways and Means.

Them's the facts, Jack!

 

[The Paperboy]

Not the greatest, but definitely in the top 5. I'll agree with you there.

The problem with your logic, Paperboy, is that taxes for the upper class were at 70% for the rich and Reagan, over the course of 5 years, lowered them to 28%. That's a 60% tax cut for the rich. Coupled with all of the new deregulation that allowed businsses more freedom and of course you had massive economic growth.

The problem with McCain's tax cut is that he's only going to cut taxes for the rich by 4.4%. Not 44. 4.4. It's going to have absolutely ZERO impact on the economy and short the government of badly needed money.

Bill Clinton raised taxes on the most rich, from 28% to 39.6%. That's a tax increase of 11.6% during the recession in the 1990s.

Let me repeat. Bill Clinton raised taxes by 11.6% during the recession of the early 1990s.

Obama wants to raise taxes on the top tax brackets (top 5%) by 11.5%. The top 5% will be paying no more taxes under President Obama than they did under President Clinton.

Bill Clinton's tax increases did NOT cause a depression in the 1990s. I repeat, Bill Clinton's tax increases did NOT cause a depression in the 1990s.

Additionally, under the Clinton administration, over 22 million jobs were created.

During the last 8 years, Bush lowered Clinton's taxes from 38.6% to 35%. Again, no effect. The only time trickle-down economics have worked is when the upper tax bracket was far above 50% and was lowered far below 50%. See the roaring 20s and the economy of the 1980s and 1990s.

If history is any indicator, Obama's tax increases will NOT stifle job creation. It will, however; make Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity very angry.

You can't cut taxes for the 40% who don't pay them... unless of course you're Obama.

Here are the facts:

 

[DavidS]

Despite 9/11 and tech bubble bursting the economy was growing until Barney took over the Banking Committee and Rangle took over Ways and Means.

Them's the facts, Jack!

This is the last time I'm going to debate with you. I took time to research facts and statistics of taxes, job growth, the economy, etc. and you respond to me with that nonsensical one liner?

When I used to play the conservative side, before I began realizing how bad Republicans were for the economy, I used to bring up facts and statistics to counter the liberal argument. And those opposing me would do the same to counter the conservative argument. I have not met one conservative on this forum who I can actually have a reasonable, well thought out discussion with. I feel like creating a duplicate account and arguing with myself... it's for more interesting than this nonsense.

Look for a guy called DavidR arguing with me a lot. (mods, I am just joking)

 

[DavidS]

You can't cut taxes for the 40% who don't pay them... unless of course you're Obama.

Here are the facts:

And the middle class create 90% of the revenue for the top 5%. Giving them a break will create more revenue for the top 5% and thus stimulate the economy.

 

[The Paperboy]

And the middle class create 90% of the revenue for the top 5%. Giving them a break will create more revenue for the top 5% and thus stimulate the economy.

 

[The Paperboy]

This is the last time I'm going to debate with you. I took time to research facts and statistics of taxes, job growth, the economy, etc. and you respond to me with that nonsensical one liner?

When I used to play the conservative side, before I began realizing how bad Republicans were for the economy, I used to bring up facts and statistics to counter the liberal argument. And those opposing me would do the same to counter the conservative argument. I have not met one conservative on this forum who I can actually have a reasonable, well thought out discussion with. I feel like creating a duplicate account and arguing with myself... it's for more interesting than this nonsense.

Look for a guy called DavidR arguing with me a lot. (mods, I am just joking)

Since Jillian won't answer, I'll ask you: Is giving money to people a tax cut?

 

[DavidS]

Who do you think business owners sell to if only 5% of our economy are rich people??? If rich people only sold to rich people, they wouldn't be in business. If the middle class, the people Obama is giving tax cuts to, have more money in their pockets, which they will under Obama, they will spend more. They'll go out to dinner more. Do you think poor people own restaurants? A restaurant will have more business and they'll open another store catering to more middle class people who have more money. They'll buy more clothes. Do you think poor people own clothing stores? A clothing store will open up another branch to cater to more people who need clothes. They'll buy more luxury items, like art... who do you think Art galleries? Then galleries will have more money and they'll advertise with art magazines, or open up another gallery. Come on, follow along here.

 

[The Paperboy]

Who do you think business owners sell to if only 5% of our economy are rich people??? If rich people only sold to rich people, they wouldn't be in business. If the middle class, the people Obama is giving tax cuts to, have more money in their pockets, which they will under Obama, they will spend more. They'll go out to dinner more. Do you think poor people own restaurants? A restaurant will have more business and they'll open another store catering to more middle class people who have more money. They'll buy more clothes. Do you think poor people own clothing stores? A clothing store will open up another branch to cater to more people who need clothes. They'll buy more luxury items, like art... who do you think Art galleries? Then galleries will have more money and they'll advertise with art magazines, or open up another gallery. Come on, follow along here.

Since Jillian won't answer, I'll ask you: Is giving money to people a tax cut?

 

[editec]

Fibbie fibbie... it was under Clinton.

Reagan had to raise taxes because he was going to slide into a recession. Largest tax increase in history, if I recall correctly. ;o)

And there's no such thing as trickle down voodoo economics. Haven't you figured that out after what your boys have done over the last two terms?

Sheesh. Even white rats learn.

Yes, but those rodents get the cheese to LEARN.

Many of the republican rats here get the CHEESE if they agree NOT to LEARN, and even if they do understand NOT TO ADMIT that truth in a public venue.