Senate Votes to Side With the Middle Class, Gauntlet Thrown Down to House Repubs.

[DontBeStupid]

For the record you do know that everyone in the upper tax bracket will still be getting the tax break in the 15%, 25% and 28% brackets (everything below $200,000 for individuals).

No. "Conservatives" do not believe that.

 

[Conservative]

Middle-Class Tax Cuts Preserved For A Year In Bill Passed By Senate

So the Senate killed the GOP plan, passed the Democrats' (which will extend cuts to over 90% of Americans ...probably more like 95-99%) plan. And now the House Republicans will be forced to show their cards. America will get to see them literally choose to punish EVERYONE to protect the 1%.

Good jerb, Grrvrrr Nrrqrrrst.

well tell me something asshole. why don't 100% of us deserve protection? Aren't we all the same under the law? **** you and your ******* class warfare.

Oh sure, Republicans can keep the best interests of the 1% as their primary concern, that's fine. But we on the Left are just trying to get them (and their clueless electorate) to own it, that's all. Just own the fact that you've sold out EVERYONE else for people who have more money than God and could literally pay off our national debt and keep the government running completely tax free for six months. But sure, they need four more cents per dollar. Okay!

link, dumb ass???

 

[DontBeStupid]

I'm still waiting for our resident Lefties to explain WHY they believe raising taxes on anyone is a good thing. I've yet to hear a coherent response.

Raising tax rates will lead to increase revenue which will help lower the deficit.

You're welcome.

Raising taxes does not automatically increase revenue. Additionally, increasing revenue does not automaticazlly lower the deficit.

Dumb ass.

Since we're on the left side of the Laffer Curve, raising taxes will increase revenue.

And I said help lower the deficit. Obviously there are other items at play there.

 

[eflatminor]

You supplied your reference only after being called out on it.

And I did talk about revenue after 2003. You just chose to ignore me. After 2003, revenue as a percentage of GDP, peaked at 18.5% in 2007. That level is 2.1 percentage points LOWER than Clinton's record of 20.1%, which was set in 2000, and is the ONLY time Bush had revenue above the historic average for the country, which is 18.2%. Although, he did tie the average one time. This number is also LOWER than Reagan's peaks of 19.6% and 19.2%.

All facts you are choosing to ignore.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

One last time, let's get to the heart of this. Do you acknowledge that after the 2003 tax cuts kicked in, revenue increased? Yes or no?

For the hundredth time, yes, revenue went up from 2003 to 2004 and then again in 2005. THAT'S BECAUSE OF INFLATION! You are refusing to use inflation adjusted numbers so of course revenue will look like it's growing. If you look at non-inflation adjusted numbers from the past 100 years, there are only a couple of years the number did not go up. And then Bush made it DROP 3 years in a row! That had never happened before.

But of course, you don't believe that happened, so no wonder you don't understand inflation adjusted numbers.

Inflation? That makes zero sense. So, when you say that revenues fell in 2001 and 2002, was that due to deflation?

Of course not!

 

[8537]

One last time, let's get to the heart of this. Do you acknowledge that after the 2003 tax cuts kicked in, revenue increased? Yes or no?

For the hundredth time, yes, revenue went up from 2003 to 2004 and then again in 2005. THAT'S BECAUSE OF INFLATION! You are refusing to use inflation adjusted numbers so of course revenue will look like it's growing. If you look at non-inflation adjusted numbers from the past 100 years, there are only a couple of years the number did not go up. And then Bush made it DROP 3 years in a row! That had never happened before.

But of course, you don't believe that happened, so no wonder you don't understand inflation adjusted numbers.

Inflation? That makes zero sense. So, when you say that revenues fell in 2001 and 2002, was that due to deflation?

Of course not!

In part, yes. Part of the revenue fall in the last few months of 2001 was due to deflation.

 

[Wiseacre]

Raising tax rates will lead to increase revenue which will help lower the deficit.

You're welcome.

Raising taxes does not automatically increase revenue. Additionally, increasing revenue does not automaticazlly lower the deficit.

Dumb ass.

Since we're on the left side of the Laffer Curve, raising taxes will increase revenue.

And I said help lower the deficit. Obviously there are other items at play there.

Just wondering how you know we're on the left side of the Laffer curve.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

For the hundredth time, yes, revenue went up from 2003 to 2004 and then again in 2005. THAT'S BECAUSE OF INFLATION! You are refusing to use inflation adjusted numbers so of course revenue will look like it's growing. If you look at non-inflation adjusted numbers from the past 100 years, there are only a couple of years the number did not go up. And then Bush made it DROP 3 years in a row! That had never happened before.

But of course, you don't believe that happened, so no wonder you don't understand inflation adjusted numbers.

Inflation? That makes zero sense. So, when you say that revenues fell in 2001 and 2002, was that due to deflation?

Of course not!

In part, yes. Part of the revenue fall in the last few months of 2001 was due to deflation.

 

[Stephanie]

this is all a game people by the Democrats in the SENATE

these people are playing games with your lives...HOW DO YOU LIKE IT?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Seriously, i suggest you kooks go take some economic courses. Your pretzel logic and doublespeak is really embarrassing. I'm embarrassed for you.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

well tell me something asshole. why don't 100% of us deserve protection? Aren't we all the same under the law? **** you and your ******* class warfare.

Oh sure, Republicans can keep the best interests of the 1% as their primary concern, that's fine. But we on the Left are just trying to get them (and their clueless electorate) to own it, that's all. Just own the fact that you've sold out EVERYONE else for people who have more money than God and could literally pay off our national debt and keep the government running completely tax free for six months. But sure, they need four more cents per dollar. Okay!

link, dumb ass???

Sure buddy. g5000 actually answered this question in another one of my threads.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...g-tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy-3.html#post5636604

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There is no one wealthy enough in this country or even a collective of wealthy people who can be taxed, even at 100% of all wealth and income, to pay off the national debt.

You have to be a special kind of ******* stupid to believe that. Seriously. Really, really, uneducated and stupid on this topic.

 

[8537]

Raising taxes does not automatically increase revenue. Additionally, increasing revenue does not automaticazlly lower the deficit.

Dumb ass.

Since we're on the left side of the Laffer Curve, raising taxes will increase revenue.

And I said help lower the deficit. Obviously there are other items at play there.

Just wondering how you know we're on the left side of the Laffer curve.

In terms of marginal income tax rates, most peer-reviewed articles place the apex of the curve somewhere between 65 and 85%.

Of course, you can find non-refereed articles making all sorts of wild claims....but that's why they're not refereed.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

There is no one wealthy enough in this country or even a collective of wealthy people who can be taxed, even at 100% of all wealth and income, to pay off the national debt.

You have to be a special kind of ******* stupid to believe that. Seriously. Really, really, uneducated and stupid on this topic.

So you're saying that myself AND g5000 are ******* stupid?

Or are YOU too old, saggy-balled and brainwashed to grasp the truth? Wanna take bets on MY guess?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Your guess is wrong. Period.

 

[eflatminor]

Raising tax rates will lead to increase revenue which will help lower the deficit.

You're welcome.

Raising taxes doesn't increase revenue. It decreases revenue.

Oh really? So why did Reagan pass the largest tax hike in modern US history and also nearly double the FICA tax?

Was he trying to reduce revenues?

Actually, you're mistaken. A little history:

Reagan was persuaded to agree to a tax increase in 1982, which did take away some for the corporate tax incentives that were part of the 1981 tax bill. FWIW, Reagan later believed he was snookered into accepting that tax increase compromise in exchange for the false promise of fiscal discipline from Congress. He was promised $3 of spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase. Never happened...a recurring problem in Washington.

Reagan's original plan was to cut income tax 20 percent in 1981. Turned out to be a 1.25% cut in 1981 and a 10% cut in 1982, with most of the cuts not hitting until 1983 ("Supply-side economics: An American Renaissance", Jack Kemp). It wasn't enough and the economy suffered in 1982 terribly. However, by 1983, the economy roared back to life, expanding 3.5% and 6.8% in 1984, after inflation, the highest single year growth rate in 50 years and inflation dropped by two thirds (Bureau of Economic Analysis, NIPA tables 1.1.5 and 1.1.6).

Then, in 1986, we got the Tax Reform Act, which broadened the base and flattened the tax rates to just two: 15% and 28%. The economy continued to grow until 1990. The National Bureau of Economic Research in 1999 declared the period 1982 to 1999 "the longest sustained period of prosperity in the twentieth century" (NBER, Working Papers, 1999). And despite an eight month contraction in 2001, the economy continued to grow through 2007.

So, while Reagan did enact some tax increases, they were, by 1983 and certainly by 1986, FAR outweighed by the tax rate decreases implemented.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Oh, and yes. You and g5000 are ******* hair brained.

Here, let me help you put this situation in perspective, son.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[Vel]

Ahh. Class warfare at it's finest.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Oh, and yes. You and g5000 are ******* hair brained.

Here, let me help you put this situation in perspective, son.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Hmm. That doesn't disprove what g5000 posted though. So it looks like you're spitting into a wind storm. Have fun with that, Oldy McGonnadiebeforeme.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Raising taxes does not automatically increase revenue. Additionally, increasing revenue does not automaticazlly lower the deficit.

Dumb ass.

Since we're on the left side of the Laffer Curve, raising taxes will increase revenue.

And I said help lower the deficit. Obviously there are other items at play there.

Just wondering how you know we're on the left side of the Laffer curve.

For those who don't know, here's what we're talking about.

As you can see, if you're on the left side, then a cut in tax rates would lead to less revenue and a raise in rates would lead to more revenue. So, it would stand to reason that if we cut rates and see a drop in revenue, we are on the left side of the curve, right?

From 2001 to 2003 Bush cut tax rates and in all three years revenue dropped. That had never happened in modern history prior to Bush.

We cut tax rates, revenue dropped, ergo, we're on the left side of the Laffer Curve.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Derp, you're wrong. The wealthiest Americans can not pay off the debt even if the government confiscates every last penny and asset they own. You'd have to take around 80% of the entire publics assets to do that....and sell them to China. You hair brained ninkumpoop.