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

[ConzHateUSA]

yes luke, the baggers positions are not based on anything but hate

Well if you say so...

if i am wrong, explain to me why they oppose things they once supported, especially AFTER Obama supports those same things?

racism is still huge in this country, sorry for the bad news

 

[Too Tall]

You're right. My mistake. The NASDAQ bubble popped in 2000-2001. Which would lead to a downturn in revenue for 2001, 2, 3. Then in 2004, moving forward, the revenue swelled. Likely from the tax cuts.

Thanks for making me check facts instead of going off the head. Makes it easier to prove you're pissing in the wind too.

So your opinion is that the popping of the NASDAQ bubble was worse than any other financial disaster in the past 75 years. Including, the most recent Great Recession.

I am reasonably sure you won't read any of these facts, but Bush got hit with the Dotcom bust, 911 and Katrina and I don't recall him asking for or getting a $700 billion stimulus package.

The height of the dot-com bubble was the (January) 2000 Super Bowl, when almost 20 dot-com companies paid more than $2 million each for prime advertising spots. On March 10, 2000, the NASDAQ index of leading technology peaked at 5048.62: a year earlier the index was less than half that, right around 2500; and a year later it hovered around 2000, or about 40 percent of its peak. (In spring 2005 the NASDAQ composite index was below 2000.)

The subsequent stock market crash caused the loss of $5 trillion in the market value of companies from March 2000 to October 2002, and those parts of the world which were the epicenters of the dot com boom, such as the San Francisco Bay Area, were plunged into a financial nuclear winter.

The 9/11 terrorist destruction of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers, killing almost 700 employees of Cantor-Fitzgerald, accelerated the stock market drop; the NYSE suspended trading for four sessions. When trading resumed, some of it was transacted in temporary new locations.

 

[ConzHateUSA]

Smh

 

[Stephanie]

Times like this when I remember that the baggers in the house and senate have obstructed our govt more in the past 2 yrs than in anytime in history, thus causing massive pain and suffering for millions of americans

how they will get out of DC in one piece, well, i guess that is a testament to how decent MOST americans are

Conz the problem with these people is they are under the impresstion that tax cuts pay for themselves, which they dont. I do not feel like giving an econ 1 class right now but here is an article "muchers against welfare" its shows how the tea party and crazy right wingers are just plain dump. Aslo here is a tidbit, the "tea party" as it was intended or as to the events that took place was the people of mass. did not like taxation with out repensitation, the modern tea party should be at an outrage of what is happening in michigan, where the "emergency" planner is being implemented leaving 50% of all aferican americans with out elected reps. BUT its a republican Gov. with a republican led state senate doing this so, nothing, infact fox news and company have said 0 about it, but if it had been the other way around ww3 would have started

oh boy, pass the barf bag...

 

[8537]

When combined, we saw less taxes, more revenue.

I'm just quoting that for posterity's sake. Read it again and let me know if you want to change your claim.

 

[ShackledNation]

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

You're welcome.

Not if the increased revenues are outweighed by increased spending.

Lets look at the number 1 spending issue, the military(which is a socialist program, sorry to all you right wingers who think otherwise) lets cut down on military spending like 15 percent and pay down the mortgage our coutry took out to pay for these"bush" tax cuts for the super rich

The need to cut military spending does not justify raising taxes. You're argument is a red herring. If you gave Congress 100 billion more dollars, they would be more likely to spend 100 billion additional dollars than to reduce the deficit by 100 billion dollars.

 

[ConzHateUSA]

all you need to justify raising taxes on the wealthy is look at the past 100 yrs

there is no debate about this, stop being stupid

 

[Too Tall]

Not if the increased revenues are outweighed by increased spending.

Lets look at the number 1 spending issue, the military(which is a socialist program, sorry to all you right wingers who think otherwise) lets cut down on military spending like 15 percent and pay down the mortgage our coutry took out to pay for these"bush" tax cuts for the super rich

The need to cut military spending does not justify raising taxes. You're argument is a red herring. If you gave Congress 100 billion more dollars, they would be more likely to spend 100 billion additional dollars than to reduce the deficit by 100 billion dollars.

Wrong! If the past is to be believed, the Congress would spend the 100 billion dollars and borrow 40 billion more dollars to spend.

 

[candycorn]

Not if the increased revenues are outweighed by increased spending.

Lets look at the number 1 spending issue, the military(which is a socialist program, sorry to all you right wingers who think otherwise) lets cut down on military spending like 15 percent and pay down the mortgage our coutry took out to pay for these"bush" tax cuts for the super rich

The need to cut military spending does not justify raising taxes. You're argument is a red herring. If you gave Congress 100 billion more dollars, they would be more likely to spend 100 billion additional dollars than to reduce the deficit by 100 billion dollars.

Most of the "cuts" are reductions in future spending when it comes down to it....

Vote your values; both candidates and parties are out to lunch on monetary and budgetary issues.

 

[ConzHateUSA]

vote your values?

so a vote for the con is a vote against womens rights, minority rights, working mans rights?

and a vote for the dem is a vote in support of these things, right!

 

[Mac1958]

.

I think the title of the thread is right on the money, and very appropriate.

A specialty of today's Democrat party is "siding" with one American group against another. Identity politics.

.

 

[jgarden]

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

The whole idea of tax cuts under Reagan, GHW Bush and GW Bush was to stimulate the economy and generate jobs in America.

Those 3 presidents were instrumental in increasing the federal debt/GDP ratio by 60% - when Carter left office it was 32.5%, the lowest since 1945.

When GW Bush left office in 2009 after adding $6,656 trilion to the national debt, it was 84.2%/GDP, despite the fact that Clinton had actually reduced that ratio by 9.7%.

Practicing "voodoo economics" while prosecuting 2 wars and facing a recession constitutes fiscal insanity at its worst - how long can any nation continue to sustain the illusion of tax cuts with borrowed money?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt

 

[zeke]

It is so good to see the half a dozen or so wanna be real rich people that post on here continue to carry the water for the ultra rich.

Makes you feel proud to hear rethugs claim that raising taxes 4% on the ultra rich is somehow going to have a bad effect on.............something. Just not sure what.

But carry on. One day a very very rich person will stumble on this site and read and appreciate all the work you folks have done to protect their wealth.

And I am sure they will tell you; your check is in the mail. And I am sure they will promise that they won't come in your mouth.

But with the blow jobs you rethugs give to the ultra rich, I wouldn't believe them.
They have lied before. Remember the trickle down. That was a lie. Tinkle on is the correct term.

 

[Too Tall]

It is so good to see the half a dozen or so wanna be real rich people that post on here continue to carry the water for the ultra rich.

Makes you feel proud to hear rethugs claim that raising taxes 4% on the ultra rich is somehow going to have a bad effect on.............something. Just not sure what.

But carry on. One day a very very rich person will stumble on this site and read and appreciate all the work you folks have done to protect their wealth.

And I am sure they will tell you; your check is in the mail. And I am sure they will promise that they won't come in your mouth.

But with the blow jobs you rethugs give to the ultra rich, I wouldn't believe them.
They have lied before. Remember the trickle down. That was a lie. Tinkle on is the correct term.

$250,000 is not ultra rich in several parts of the country. Wealth is not taxed, income is. Rich men create jobs, and I have never got a job from a poor person.

Your disgusting obsession with BJ's is noted.

 

[DontBeStupid]

You're right. My mistake. The NASDAQ bubble popped in 2000-2001. Which would lead to a downturn in revenue for 2001, 2, 3. Then in 2004, moving forward, the revenue swelled. Likely from the tax cuts.

Thanks for making me check facts instead of going off the head. Makes it easier to prove you're pissing in the wind too.

So your opinion is that the popping of the NASDAQ bubble was worse than any other financial disaster in the past 75 years. Including, the most recent Great Recession.

I am reasonably sure you won't read any of these facts, but Bush got hit with the Dotcom bust, 911 and Katrina and I don't recall him asking for or getting a $700 billion stimulus package.

The height of the dot-com bubble was the (January) 2000 Super Bowl, when almost 20 dot-com companies paid more than $2 million each for prime advertising spots. On March 10, 2000, the NASDAQ index of leading technology peaked at 5048.62: a year earlier the index was less than half that, right around 2500; and a year later it hovered around 2000, or about 40 percent of its peak. (In spring 2005 the NASDAQ composite index was below 2000.)

The subsequent stock market crash caused the loss of $5 trillion in the market value of companies from March 2000 to October 2002, and those parts of the world which were the epicenters of the dot com boom, such as the San Francisco Bay Area, were plunged into a financial nuclear winter.

The 9/11 terrorist destruction of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers, killing almost 700 employees of Cantor-Fitzgerald, accelerated the stock market drop; the NYSE suspended trading for four sessions. When trading resumed, some of it was transacted in temporary new locations.

All of those put together were not as bad as the Great Recession and all of those together do not explain three straight years of revenue drops. Something that had never happened before.

 

[Steelplate]

Idiot Dems are dead when the people awake now see how Mitt gives business capital gains tax breaks, lower income tax, and other positives to generate growth the Dems are done then you'd think. They know this I think look at Obama, he's trying like hell to hurt us he may do anything.

so you mean MORE. corporate welfare? navy...I'll pass.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Idiot Dems are dead when the people awake now see how Mitt gives business capital gains tax breaks, lower income tax, and other positives to generate growth the Dems are done then you'd think. They know this I think look at Obama, he's trying like hell to hurt us he may do anything.

Please. Explain to all of us why a business that pays lower taxes on its profits will, and therefore gets to keep more, will give up those profits to hire workers and try to expand in this economy.

 

[Too Tall]

So your opinion is that the popping of the NASDAQ bubble was worse than any other financial disaster in the past 75 years. Including, the most recent Great Recession.

I am reasonably sure you won't read any of these facts, but Bush got hit with the Dotcom bust, 911 and Katrina and I don't recall him asking for or getting a $700 billion stimulus package.

The height of the dot-com bubble was the (January) 2000 Super Bowl, when almost 20 dot-com companies paid more than $2 million each for prime advertising spots. On March 10, 2000, the NASDAQ index of leading technology peaked at 5048.62: a year earlier the index was less than half that, right around 2500; and a year later it hovered around 2000, or about 40 percent of its peak. (In spring 2005 the NASDAQ composite index was below 2000.)

The subsequent stock market crash caused the loss of $5 trillion in the market value of companies from March 2000 to October 2002, and those parts of the world which were the epicenters of the dot com boom, such as the San Francisco Bay Area, were plunged into a financial nuclear winter.

The 9/11 terrorist destruction of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers, killing almost 700 employees of Cantor-Fitzgerald, accelerated the stock market drop; the NYSE suspended trading for four sessions. When trading resumed, some of it was transacted in temporary new locations.

All of those put together were not as bad as the Great Recession and all of those together do not explain three straight years of revenue drops. Something that had never happened before.

Three straight years of an unemployment rate above 8% explains the revenue drops.