Will Republicans ever admit the mess they left President Obama?

[Oldstyle]

Faun? Since you can't name a single Obama policy that created jobs...and you can't explain why Bill Clinton says that we should cut the corporate tax rate if we want the economy to grow....why are you even here?

All you're doing is blowing smoke. Using misleading statistics in a failed attempt to paint an economic picture that doesn't exist.

 

[Oldstyle]

And nobody "dumped" anything on Barack Obama! He came into office saying he had solutions to the recession. He said he would hit the ground running to fix the economy and put people back to work. Then once he was elected he chose to chase ObamaCare as his first priority...something that slowed the economy and hurt job creation. The reason that Barack Obama OWNS the "Great Recession" is because of the decisions that HE made about what was most important.

 

[Oldstyle]

Yes I did. And did you not pay attention enough to understand that it's the previous administrations tax reduction and not Obama? He spent his first year entirely on Commie Care. He never lowered the corporate tax rate. He increased it--yes, but never lowered it.

WTF?? The chart you posted indicates the average corporate tax rate hit a historic low in 2011.

You think Bush was still president??

Wall Street Journal

Corporate income-tax receipts typically fall during recessions, and they declined sharply after the 2008 financial crisis, which wiped out big swaths of profits across the huge financial sector. But U.S. profits have rebounded sharply in recent quarters, while tax receipts have stayed low.

So where is the money? There are a lot of moving pieces, budget watchers say, but one view shared inside Washington is that a temporary tax break—supported by both political parties—is a key reason.

This tax break, known as "bonus depreciation," has allowed companies to write off investments in goods like industrial equipment, manufacturing machinery and computers in the year in which they're bought rather than over time. The White House estimates the subsidy has saved companies roughly $55 billion in corporate income taxes over each of the past two years.

[...]

The tax break shrinks for calendar 2012. Now, companies can write off only half of their investments, but the White House has proposed expanding it to again cover 100%. The White House estimated this would cost roughly $5 billion, as it only accelerates deductions businesses would otherwise have taken over time. Business groups have supported the tax break, and some are now lobbying Congress to extend it through 2012.
_____________________________________________________​

Bonus Depreciation Increased and Extended Under 2010 Tax Act

Businesses typically are allowed to deduct the costs of capital expenditures over time according to various depreciation schedules. In 2008, 2009 and 2010 businesses were allowed to deduct 50 percent of the cost of eligible property (generally, tangible personal property with recovery periods of 20 years or less) in the year of acquisition. The recently enacted Tax Relief Act of 2010 extends the first-year 50% write-off for eligible property placed in service during 2011 and 2012 (and in 2013 for aircraft and certain long-term-production-period property), and provides a new first-year 100% write off for certain property placed in service in 2011.​

Your article talks about write-offs--not lowering the corporate tax rates.

It talks about how the average rate per profits paid by corporations hit historic lows in 2011. You should know that since it was reflected in the chart you posted.

I know what it talked about, but that wasn't the debate.

You said Reagan lowered corporate tax rates, but increased them again after the economy got moving. You said that's exactly what DumBama did. I asked when your big-eared dope ever lowered the corporate tax rate. You ran around Google only to find I was correct, and then posted information that dealt with corporate taxes, but couldn't find one that said DumBama lowered the corporate tax rate.

I was talking about the rate displayed in the chart you posted. I even referenced that chart to show Obama, like Reagan, lowered the rate. Yet according to you, it was good for the economy when Reagan did it; but bad when Obama did it.

Once again...since even Bill Clinton is now calling for a lowering of corporate tax rates to stimulate the economy...WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

 

[Faun]

Faun? Since you can't name a single Obama policy that created jobs...and you can't explain why Bill Clinton says that we should cut the corporate tax rate if we want the economy to grow....why are you even here?

All you're doing is blowing smoke. Using misleading statistics in a failed attempt to paint an economic picture that doesn't exist.

As pointed out, no one can prove any policy was good for the economy since accurate studies are not performed on policies. You can claim Reagan's tax cuts were good for the economy, but you can't prove causation. It just bugs the shit out of you that Obama's job approval is higher than Reagan's was at this point. I get that. Sucks for you.

 

[Faun]

And nobody "dumped" anything on Barack Obama! He came into office saying he had solutions to the recession. He said he would hit the ground running to fix the economy and put people back to work. Then once he was elected he chose to chase ObamaCare as his first priority...something that slowed the economy and hurt job creation. The reason that Barack Obama OWNS the "Great Recession" is because of the decisions that HE made about what was most important.

Of course it was dumped on him. He was running for president for more than a year when it was the recession was officially declared about two months before the election. True, he took on the challenge; that doesn't mean Bush didn't dump the worst economy on his predecessor since Hoover dumped one on FDR.

 

[Faun]

WTF?? The chart you posted indicates the average corporate tax rate hit a historic low in 2011.

You think Bush was still president??

Wall Street Journal

Corporate income-tax receipts typically fall during recessions, and they declined sharply after the 2008 financial crisis, which wiped out big swaths of profits across the huge financial sector. But U.S. profits have rebounded sharply in recent quarters, while tax receipts have stayed low.

So where is the money? There are a lot of moving pieces, budget watchers say, but one view shared inside Washington is that a temporary tax break—supported by both political parties—is a key reason.

This tax break, known as "bonus depreciation," has allowed companies to write off investments in goods like industrial equipment, manufacturing machinery and computers in the year in which they're bought rather than over time. The White House estimates the subsidy has saved companies roughly $55 billion in corporate income taxes over each of the past two years.

[...]

The tax break shrinks for calendar 2012. Now, companies can write off only half of their investments, but the White House has proposed expanding it to again cover 100%. The White House estimated this would cost roughly $5 billion, as it only accelerates deductions businesses would otherwise have taken over time. Business groups have supported the tax break, and some are now lobbying Congress to extend it through 2012.
_____________________________________________________​

Bonus Depreciation Increased and Extended Under 2010 Tax Act

Businesses typically are allowed to deduct the costs of capital expenditures over time according to various depreciation schedules. In 2008, 2009 and 2010 businesses were allowed to deduct 50 percent of the cost of eligible property (generally, tangible personal property with recovery periods of 20 years or less) in the year of acquisition. The recently enacted Tax Relief Act of 2010 extends the first-year 50% write-off for eligible property placed in service during 2011 and 2012 (and in 2013 for aircraft and certain long-term-production-period property), and provides a new first-year 100% write off for certain property placed in service in 2011.​

Your article talks about write-offs--not lowering the corporate tax rates.

It talks about how the average rate per profits paid by corporations hit historic lows in 2011. You should know that since it was reflected in the chart you posted.

I know what it talked about, but that wasn't the debate.

You said Reagan lowered corporate tax rates, but increased them again after the economy got moving. You said that's exactly what DumBama did. I asked when your big-eared dope ever lowered the corporate tax rate. You ran around Google only to find I was correct, and then posted information that dealt with corporate taxes, but couldn't find one that said DumBama lowered the corporate tax rate.

I was talking about the rate displayed in the chart you posted. I even referenced that chart to show Obama, like Reagan, lowered the rate. Yet according to you, it was good for the economy when Reagan did it; but bad when Obama did it.

Once again...since even Bill Clinton is now calling for a lowering of corporate tax rates to stimulate the economy...WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

I've already explained my point twice. You're clearly not capable of understanding so I don't see how explaining it a third time will prove useful.

 

[Oldstyle]

And nobody "dumped" anything on Barack Obama! He came into office saying he had solutions to the recession. He said he would hit the ground running to fix the economy and put people back to work. Then once he was elected he chose to chase ObamaCare as his first priority...something that slowed the economy and hurt job creation. The reason that Barack Obama OWNS the "Great Recession" is because of the decisions that HE made about what was most important.

Of course it was dumped on him. He was running for president for more than a year when it was the recession was officially declared about two months before the election. True, he took on the challenge; that doesn't mean Bush didn't dump the worst economy on his predecessor since Hoover dumped one on FDR.

So "taking on the challenge" consisted of what exactly? Making the passage of ObamaCare his first priority...legislation that hurt the economy and job creation?

 

[Oldstyle]

You haven't explained anything! Bill Clinton is right now calling for cuts to the corporate tax rate. Since you're touted HIS success as the blueprint for how to grow the economy...kindly explain why Clinton...YOUR ROLE MODEL!!!...is calling for exactly the same thing that the we on the right have been calling for!

 

[Faun]

And nobody "dumped" anything on Barack Obama! He came into office saying he had solutions to the recession. He said he would hit the ground running to fix the economy and put people back to work. Then once he was elected he chose to chase ObamaCare as his first priority...something that slowed the economy and hurt job creation. The reason that Barack Obama OWNS the "Great Recession" is because of the decisions that HE made about what was most important.

Of course it was dumped on him. He was running for president for more than a year when it was the recession was officially declared about two months before the election. True, he took on the challenge; that doesn't mean Bush didn't dump the worst economy on his predecessor since Hoover dumped one on FDR.

So "taking on the challenge" consisted of what exactly? Making the passage of ObamaCare his first priority...legislation that hurt the economy and job creation?

Again, you can't prove it hurt the economy or job creation. Especially in the face of...

 

[Oldstyle]

Faun? Since you can't name a single Obama policy that created jobs...and you can't explain why Bill Clinton says that we should cut the corporate tax rate if we want the economy to grow....why are you even here?

All you're doing is blowing smoke. Using misleading statistics in a failed attempt to paint an economic picture that doesn't exist.

As pointed out, no one can prove any policy was good for the economy since accurate studies are not performed on policies. You can claim Reagan's tax cuts were good for the economy, but you can't prove causation. It just bugs the shit out of you that Obama's job approval is higher than Reagan's was at this point. I get that. Sucks for you.

As for what approval ratings Reagan had at this point of his Presidency compared to Barry's? I've already pointed out that the rather severe dip in Reagan's approval ratings was due to the Iran-Contra Scandal and had nothing to do with his handling of the economy or other foreign affairs issue. You keep carefully inserting "at this point" into your claim...and it's obvious that you want to only look at one point of Reagan's last term and ignore the fact that his approval ratings were up substantially at the end of his Presidency DESPITE Iran-Contra! Why? Because the American people were doing better economically.

 

[Faun]

You haven't explained anything! Bill Clinton is right now calling for cuts to the corporate tax rate. Since you're touted HIS success as the blueprint for how to grow the economy...kindly explain why Clinton...YOUR ROLE MODEL!!!...is calling for exactly the same thing that the we on the right have been calling for!

Same question gets the same answer... I don't speak for Bill Clinton.

 

[Oldstyle]

And nobody "dumped" anything on Barack Obama! He came into office saying he had solutions to the recession. He said he would hit the ground running to fix the economy and put people back to work. Then once he was elected he chose to chase ObamaCare as his first priority...something that slowed the economy and hurt job creation. The reason that Barack Obama OWNS the "Great Recession" is because of the decisions that HE made about what was most important.

Of course it was dumped on him. He was running for president for more than a year when it was the recession was officially declared about two months before the election. True, he took on the challenge; that doesn't mean Bush didn't dump the worst economy on his predecessor since Hoover dumped one on FDR.

So "taking on the challenge" consisted of what exactly? Making the passage of ObamaCare his first priority...legislation that hurt the economy and job creation?

Again, you can't prove it hurt the economy or job creation. Especially in the face of...

Did it help the economy or job creation? Why would a President who according to you had this "surprise" of a recession dumped on him choose to go after healthcare reform as his number one priority when the economy and jobs were the biggest problem in the country and the biggest concern of the American people?

 

[Oldstyle]

You haven't explained anything! Bill Clinton is right now calling for cuts to the corporate tax rate. Since you're touted HIS success as the blueprint for how to grow the economy...kindly explain why Clinton...YOUR ROLE MODEL!!!...is calling for exactly the same thing that the we on the right have been calling for!

Same question gets the same answer... I don't speak for Bill Clinton.

Oh, so you use Bill Clinton as your example of correct policy EXCEPT when his proposed policy doesn't match your claims? You're amusing, Faun...

 

[Faun]

Faun? Since you can't name a single Obama policy that created jobs...and you can't explain why Bill Clinton says that we should cut the corporate tax rate if we want the economy to grow....why are you even here?

All you're doing is blowing smoke. Using misleading statistics in a failed attempt to paint an economic picture that doesn't exist.

As pointed out, no one can prove any policy was good for the economy since accurate studies are not performed on policies. You can claim Reagan's tax cuts were good for the economy, but you can't prove causation. It just bugs the shit out of you that Obama's job approval is higher than Reagan's was at this point. I get that. Sucks for you.

As for what approval ratings Reagan had at this point of his Presidency compared to Barry's? I've already pointed out that the rather severe dip in Reagan's approval ratings was due to the Iran-Contra Scandal and had nothing to do with his handling of the economy or other foreign affairs issue. You keep carefully inserting "at this point" into your claim...and it's obvious that you want to only look at one point of Reagan's last term and ignore the fact that his approval ratings were up substantially at the end of his Presidency DESPITE Iran-Contra! Why? Because the American people were doing better economically.

What difference does it make what caused Reagan's JAR to drop? A JAR is reflective of the overall job the president is doing. That's not just about the economy, which is what you're desperately trying to make it about.

And today, Gallup's polls reveal Americans think Obama is doing a better job than Reagan did at this point in his presidency.

 

[Oldstyle]

Faun? Since you can't name a single Obama policy that created jobs...and you can't explain why Bill Clinton says that we should cut the corporate tax rate if we want the economy to grow....why are you even here?

All you're doing is blowing smoke. Using misleading statistics in a failed attempt to paint an economic picture that doesn't exist.

As pointed out, no one can prove any policy was good for the economy since accurate studies are not performed on policies. You can claim Reagan's tax cuts were good for the economy, but you can't prove causation. It just bugs the shit out of you that Obama's job approval is higher than Reagan's was at this point. I get that. Sucks for you.

As for what approval ratings Reagan had at this point of his Presidency compared to Barry's? I've already pointed out that the rather severe dip in Reagan's approval ratings was due to the Iran-Contra Scandal and had nothing to do with his handling of the economy or other foreign affairs issue. You keep carefully inserting "at this point" into your claim...and it's obvious that you want to only look at one point of Reagan's last term and ignore the fact that his approval ratings were up substantially at the end of his Presidency DESPITE Iran-Contra! Why? Because the American people were doing better economically.

What difference does it make what caused Reagan's JAR to drop? A JAR is reflective of the overall job the president is doing. That's not just about the economy, which is what you're desperately trying to make it about.

And today, Gallup's polls reveal Americans think Obama is doing a better job than Reagan did at this point in his presidency.

"...at this point..."

 

[Oldstyle]

Care to put a wager on whether Barry's numbers improve as much in his last year as Dutch's did?

 

[Faun]

And nobody "dumped" anything on Barack Obama! He came into office saying he had solutions to the recession. He said he would hit the ground running to fix the economy and put people back to work. Then once he was elected he chose to chase ObamaCare as his first priority...something that slowed the economy and hurt job creation. The reason that Barack Obama OWNS the "Great Recession" is because of the decisions that HE made about what was most important.

Of course it was dumped on him. He was running for president for more than a year when it was the recession was officially declared about two months before the election. True, he took on the challenge; that doesn't mean Bush didn't dump the worst economy on his predecessor since Hoover dumped one on FDR.

So "taking on the challenge" consisted of what exactly? Making the passage of ObamaCare his first priority...legislation that hurt the economy and job creation?

Again, you can't prove it hurt the economy or job creation. Especially in the face of...

Did it help the economy or job creation? Why would a President who according to you had this "surprise" of a recession dumped on him choose to go after healthcare reform as his number one priority when the economy and jobs were the biggest problem in the country and the biggest concern of the American people?

Now you're lying again. I never employed the word "surprised" when describing how Bush dumped a huge pile of steamy shit on his predecessor.

As far as the ACA hurting the economy, you can't prove it. All you can do is say it. But you say it in the face of....

 

[Oldstyle]

Faun? Since you can't name a single Obama policy that created jobs...and you can't explain why Bill Clinton says that we should cut the corporate tax rate if we want the economy to grow....why are you even here?

All you're doing is blowing smoke. Using misleading statistics in a failed attempt to paint an economic picture that doesn't exist.

As pointed out, no one can prove any policy was good for the economy since accurate studies are not performed on policies. You can claim Reagan's tax cuts were good for the economy, but you can't prove causation. It just bugs the shit out of you that Obama's job approval is higher than Reagan's was at this point. I get that. Sucks for you.

As for what approval ratings Reagan had at this point of his Presidency compared to Barry's? I've already pointed out that the rather severe dip in Reagan's approval ratings was due to the Iran-Contra Scandal and had nothing to do with his handling of the economy or other foreign affairs issue. You keep carefully inserting "at this point" into your claim...and it's obvious that you want to only look at one point of Reagan's last term and ignore the fact that his approval ratings were up substantially at the end of his Presidency DESPITE Iran-Contra! Why? Because the American people were doing better economically.

What difference does it make what caused Reagan's JAR to drop? A JAR is reflective of the overall job the president is doing. That's not just about the economy, which is what you're desperately trying to make it about.

And today, Gallup's polls reveal Americans think Obama is doing a better job than Reagan did at this point in his presidency.

So Obama's drop in ratings from the 70's down to what it is now is "reflective" of what, Faun?

 

[Wilbur Right]

Oh, so you use Bill Clinton as your example of correct policy EXCEPT when his proposed policy doesn't match your claims? You're amusing, Faun...

Is that the same way republicans use democrats votes to justify the invasion and destruction of Iraq?

 

[Oldstyle]

And nobody "dumped" anything on Barack Obama! He came into office saying he had solutions to the recession. He said he would hit the ground running to fix the economy and put people back to work. Then once he was elected he chose to chase ObamaCare as his first priority...something that slowed the economy and hurt job creation. The reason that Barack Obama OWNS the "Great Recession" is because of the decisions that HE made about what was most important.

Of course it was dumped on him. He was running for president for more than a year when it was the recession was officially declared about two months before the election. True, he took on the challenge; that doesn't mean Bush didn't dump the worst economy on his predecessor since Hoover dumped one on FDR.

So "taking on the challenge" consisted of what exactly? Making the passage of ObamaCare his first priority...legislation that hurt the economy and job creation?

Again, you can't prove it hurt the economy or job creation. Especially in the face of...

Did it help the economy or job creation? Why would a President who according to you had this "surprise" of a recession dumped on him choose to go after healthcare reform as his number one priority when the economy and jobs were the biggest problem in the country and the biggest concern of the American people?

Now you're lying again. I never employed the word "surprised" when describing how Bush dumped a huge pile of steamy shit on his predecessor.

As far as the ACA hurting the economy, you can't prove it. All you can do is say it. But you say it in the face of....

Predecessor?