The Right Wingers Are Butthurt Over Obama's Speech, We Are Going Over The Cliff

[Truthmatters]

The left is butthurt over the fact that they will have to pay more - they thought it would only come from the " evil rich "

when did this country become the property of the wealthy?

 

[boedicca]

Clinton made the wealthy pay their fair share, the economy skyrocketed.

Actually, the economy worsened after Clinton raised tax rates. The economy grew at 4.5% in the twelve months before the tax hikes. After the tax hike was enacted, the economy slipped to a 2-3% growth rate for 1993 and into 1994. It was only in 1995, after Clinton LOWERED the capital gains in November of 1994 that the stock market rose, interest rates fell, and the economy took off, leading to a rise in tax revenues.

So, I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.

Take that historical evidence along with the recent examples in France, UK, and California and I have to wonder WHY you want to raise tax rates.



Actually, when Reagan's tax rate cuts where fully implemented in 1983, the economy took off. It expanded at 3.5% in 1983 and 6.8% in 1984, which was the highest single year growth rate in 50 years. In 1986, they lowered tax rates again (15 and 28 percent). The economy grew even more throughout the decade. In fact, the National Bureau of Economic Research in 1999 declared the period 1982-99 "the longest sustained period of prosperity in the 20th century".

Now what were you saying about "tanking the economy"?

It's been proven that everyone pays their fair share fiscal plans lead to booming economies.

Well, the rich today pay a bigger proportion of the overall tax burden then they did under Clinton. How's that not their "fair share". Similarly, America has the most progressive tax structure in the world. That is, our rich pay a larger proportion of the overall tax burden than in any other country in the world. Still not "fair" enough for you?

Either way, you're continuing to overlook the historical reality of raising tax rates on the rich. It very often leads to LOWER tax revenues.

So again, I ask, what specifically do you hope to accomplish by raising tax rates on the rich?

links?

The heartbreak of economic illiteracy on parade. ^^^

Basic economic facts than anyone with a modicum of knowledge should already know have to be explained to TMN.

BTW, TMN, if you ever split with you husband, you should hook up with bob collum. He's your type.

 

[Truthmatters]

Good then they should be real easy to link to

 

[eflatminor]

Actually, the economy worsened after Clinton raised tax rates. The economy grew at 4.5% in the twelve months before the tax hikes. After the tax hike was enacted, the economy slipped to a 2-3% growth rate for 1993 and into 1994. It was only in 1995, after Clinton LOWERED the capital gains in November of 1994 that the stock market rose, interest rates fell, and the economy took off, leading to a rise in tax revenues.

So, I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.

Take that historical evidence along with the recent examples in France, UK, and California and I have to wonder WHY you want to raise tax rates.



Actually, when Reagan's tax rate cuts where fully implemented in 1983, the economy took off. It expanded at 3.5% in 1983 and 6.8% in 1984, which was the highest single year growth rate in 50 years. In 1986, they lowered tax rates again (15 and 28 percent). The economy grew even more throughout the decade. In fact, the National Bureau of Economic Research in 1999 declared the period 1982-99 "the longest sustained period of prosperity in the 20th century".

Now what were you saying about "tanking the economy"?



Well, the rich today pay a bigger proportion of the overall tax burden then they did under Clinton. How's that not their "fair share". Similarly, America has the most progressive tax structure in the world. That is, our rich pay a larger proportion of the overall tax burden than in any other country in the world. Still not "fair" enough for you?

Either way, you're continuing to overlook the historical reality of raising tax rates on the rich. It very often leads to LOWER tax revenues.

So again, I ask, what specifically do you hope to accomplish by raising tax rates on the rich?

links?

The heartbreak of economic illiteracy on parade. ^^^

Basic economic facts than anyone with a modicum of knowledge should already know have to be explained to TMN.

BTW, TMN, if you ever split with you husband, you should hook up with bob collum. He's your type.

The troll is on ignore. However, if the individual I responded to wishes to see the sources I used for these facts, I'd be happy to provide them. TM can go **** itself.

 

[francoHFW]

And all Reagan had to do to get growth was triple the debt and let the S+Ls run wild and BUST. Great idea. And now Boooosh and RR's brainwashed legacy. How bout growing the nonrich and the country for a change, with education and intelligent, safe growth- with education and training fcs?

 

[Dot Com]

Except with the Clinton tax rates came some drastic cuts. No such cuts are forthcoming.

cuts will be forthcoming after the lame ducK congress changes hands willow. This is enough to do for the lame duck session.

One great big pile of freshly shat out liberal bullshit. The cuts never come. Asshole.

Why would someone like West (R-Fl), who will be leaving in January, care since he got booted to the curb this past election. You should feel lucky that the Lame Duck Congress is even doing this much.

 

[Political Junky]

As a result, Democrats will win both the House and the Senate in 2014.

 

[eflatminor]

cuts will be forthcoming after the lame ducK congress changes hands willow. This is enough to do for the lame duck session.

One great big pile of freshly shat out liberal bullshit. The cuts never come. Asshole.

Why would someone like West (R-Fl), who will be leaving in January, care since he got booted to the curb this past election.

I suspect it's because he thinks we spend to much...too damn much.

You should feel lucky that the Lame Duck Congress is even doing this much.

I think the larger point is the too often case of "more taxes now" in exchange for cuts "later". They never come. Never. Ever.

I wonder if you would consider this: How about we make cuts now (actually cuts, not a slight decrease in the planned increased rate of spending) in exchange for a promise of tax rate hikes later. How does that sound to you?

Now you get the idea.

Sorry to butt in....

 

[FJO]

Responding to all previous post using the term "FAIR SHARE".

Fair share is when EVERYBODY pays the same rate.

 

[francoHFW]

"Well, the rich today pay a bigger proportion of the overall tax burden then they did under Clinton. How's that not their "fair share". Similarly, America has the most progressive tax structure in the world. That is, our rich pay a larger proportion of the overall tax burden than in any other country in the world. Still not "fair" enough for you?"

Pure Pubcrappe-

A) Federal income tax burden ONLY, dupe- Which is now less than the PAYROLL TAX, so low is it, and so few earn enough to pay it.
B)In all taxes and fees, the middle class pays higher %wise than the richest. So you're TOTALLY FULL OF SHYTTE. Change the channel, dumbazz.

 

[FJO]

And all Reagan had to do to get growth was triple the debt and let the S+Ls run wild and BUST. Great idea. And now Boooosh and RR's brainwashed legacy. How bout growing the nonrich and the country for a change, with education and intelligent, safe growth- with education and training fcs?

You seem to forget that Reagan had to deal with a spend-crazy Congress. Of course nobody blames Tip O'Neill for wasting the increased revenue, just blame Reagan for the deficit.

Kind of like in time all reasonable people WILL blame Obama, not Boehner for the biggest deficit in history.

No administration, credit or blame, has ever been referred to by the name of the Speaker of the House.

 

[eflatminor]

As a result, Democrats will win both the House and the Senate in 2014.

Good. I think you guys should get EXACTLY what you want: Tax rate hikes on the rich, more spending, and more regulatory/oversight control of markets. You should get every damn thing your dear leader wants. Everything.

If you get what you want and the economy is rocking, I'll burn my reference library, starting with Ludwig Von Mises, then Hayek and so on.

Rand Paul has it right. They should vote present.

 

[francoHFW]

And all Reagan had to do to get growth was triple the debt and let the S+Ls run wild and BUST. Great idea. And now Boooosh and RR's brainwashed legacy. How bout growing the nonrich and the country for a change, with education and intelligent, safe growth- with education and training fcs?

You seem to forget that Reagan had to deal with a spend-crazy Congress. Of course nobody blames Tip O'Neill for wasting the increased revenue, just blame Reagan for the deficit.

Kind of like in time all reasonable people WILL blame Obama, not Boehner for the biggest deficit in history.

No administration, credit or blame, has ever been referred to by the name of the Speaker of the House.

So Reagan sucked as a leader too...lol

And I guess you never heard of the Bush economic meltdown, or the worst congress EVER, this one? Mindless obstruction when we're about to exit the Pub Great Recession?

 

[Black_Label]

At the last minute, it's being reported a deal has been made, but no details on it,..http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20121231/us-fiscal-cliff/?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=politics

 

[blackhawk]

Well the breaking news now is a deal has been reached between the White house and the Senate with the Republicans on board but your more liberal Senate Democrats holding out Biden is currently trying to soothe their hurt feelings and get them on board.

 

[Darkwind]

We were going over the cliff anyway. Anyone who thought otherwise is one dumb mother ******....

Kind of like the OP.

 

[francoHFW]

Obama RIGHT AGAIN btw.

Los Angeles Times "Fiscal cliff" deal reached between White House, lawmakers: source
Reuters - *9 minutes ago*


WASHINGTON | Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:42pm EST. WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House and congressional lawmakers have reached a deal to avoid the "fiscal cliff" that would delay harsh spending cuts by two months, Obama administration officials said ...
Related Spending cuts » United States Senate » Republican Party »

 

[gwennie]

Boo f'in hoo, the crybaby right wingers are throwing a temper tantrum, refusing to bring up a vote on the fiscal cliff negotiations in their usual fashion of holding the middle class hostage to defend the rich, and because of this, have decided to force the nation to go over the fiscal cliff.

I'm actually not upset with this decision, it will cost the right wingers direly in 2014

Update: No settlement on ‘fiscal cliff’ as House declines a vote | The Raw Story

It's truly sad that the liberals feel as though they have to portray the conservatives as the villians in whatever scenario they can find just to try to show that obama and the dems are righteous dudes..... lol.....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Boo f'in hoo, the crybaby right wingers are throwing a temper tantrum, refusing to bring up a vote on the fiscal cliff negotiations in their usual fashion of holding the middle class hostage to defend the rich, and because of this, have decided to force the nation to go over the fiscal cliff.

I'm actually not upset with this decision, it will cost the right wingers direly in 2014

Update: No settlement on ‘fiscal cliff’ as House declines a vote | The Raw Story

holding the middle class hostage to defend the rich

You mean middle class taxes will rise?
I thought Bush only cut taxes for the rich?

I guess libs have been lying since 2003. LOL!