PDA

View Full Version : The regime's jobs plan!



LWW
06-23-2011, 02:49 AM
WASTE MORE MONEY (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/22/usa-debt-idUSN1E75L0GC20110622) on the same failed policies of the 2009 stimulus.

At least they finally realize that tax reduction will help the economy. Now if they could get it through their brainwashed heads that reducing the amount of new debt will actually fix the problem ...

Qtec
06-23-2011, 03:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At least they finally realize that tax reduction will help the economy. </div></div>

Lick the spoon some more.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">CBO smacks Republicans and Defict Hawks with new report

The CBO proves the only reason America should have a deficit problem is if Conservatives want one.

Ezra Klein:

The Congressional Budget Office just released the latest edition of its long-term budget outlook (pdf), <u>and it shows the same thing as always:</u> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>If Congress lets the Bush tax cuts expire or offsets their extension, implements the Affordable Care Act as scheduled and makes or offset the Medicare cuts prescribed by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act — which CBO calls the “extended baseline scenario” — the national debt will be totally manageable.</span> <span style="color: #990000">If Congress passes laws extending the Bush tax cuts without offsetting the cost, repealing the Affordable Care Act and its cost controls and protecting doctors from Medicare cuts without making up the savings elsewhere — the “alternative fiscal scenario” — the national debt will be totally out of control:</span>

Or, if Politicians want a deficit they will get one. We can now say to the Villagers that if you guys want to have a serious and adult conversation about our deficit then tax increases for the rich are off the table and all the talk deficit fearmongering for months has been total garbage.

Hullabaloo

In other words there is no long term debt crisis unless the politicians decide to create one. Everything's already in place to keep it perfectly under control. So why are we talking about it?

I don't think there's any better evidence that this deficit fever is nothing more than a disaster capitalist boondoggle. The wealthy elites and their nihilist ideologue allies in both parties are flogging this debt crisis in order to enact favorable legislation and fill out their long term wish list. That they are doing it under a Democratic administration just makes it sweeter.

</div></div>

Q

LWW
06-23-2011, 04:43 AM
You have never addressed the question of ... if that myth is true, why was the treasury flooded with revenue following the Bush, and Reagan, and Kennedy tax cuts?

This is where you duck Snoopy.

Qtec
06-23-2011, 05:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">why was the treasury flooded with revenue following the Bush, and Reagan </div></div>

Are you really so dumb? haven't we had this discourse over and over again?

After the Bush tax cuts, revenue dropped! It took 5 years before revenue reached the same level.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/include/us_revenue_100.png

Do you deny this?

Q

LWW
06-23-2011, 05:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">why was the treasury flooded with revenue following the Bush, and Reagan </div></div>

Are you really so dumb? haven't we had this discourse over and over again?

After the Bush tax cuts, revenue dropped! It took 5 years before revenue reached the same level.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/include/us_revenue_100.png

Do you deny this?

Q </div></div>

Do I deny that you have been pimped?

Of course not.

Your chart does not show federal revenue ... it shows revenue as a percentage of GDP.

You are either willingly being played or oblivious to what the chart is telling you.

Meanwhile, according to the Obama regime's OMB ... revenue fell in 2001, 2002, qnd 2003 when the tax cuts took effect.

Between 2004 and 2007 ... when the democrook budget took effect ... leaped from $1,782.3B to $2,568.0B. That's a 44% rise in 4 years.

In the 4 years since it has dropped to $2,173.7B.

You can deny the truth ... you can run from the truth ... but like a mountain, the truth will still be standing there.

Qtec
06-23-2011, 06:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your chart does not show federal revenue ... it shows revenue as a percentage of GDP. </div></div>

..which is the most accurate comparison.

Q

LWW
06-23-2011, 07:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your chart does not show federal revenue ... it shows revenue as a percentage of GDP. </div></div>

..which is the most accurate comparison.

Q </div></div>

The one that answers if the tax cuts increased revenue.

Actually yours s also quite compelling in that it shows that the tax cuts caused so much growth that revenue went up by 44% in 4 years while reducing the bite out of the nation's economy.

That is a textbook example of gubmint fiscal policy causing prosperity ... you can figure this out, if you want to.

eg8r
06-23-2011, 08:46 AM
It is only accurate if the numbers LWW is talking about were in reference to GDP. You are trying to compare apples to oranges. If you want to be honest then you need to make sure that the graphs you display are of the same data criteria as those you are trying to refute.

eg8r

LWW
06-23-2011, 12:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is only accurate if the numbers LWW is talking about were in reference to GDP. You are trying to compare apples to oranges. If you want to be honest then you need to make sure that the graphs you display are of the same data criteria as those you are trying to refute.

eg8r </div></div>

Agreed ... but he doesn't even understand the data of either set of numbers, much less how to refute them.

Taken to it's core ... his argument is that overall prosperity is bad and that it's better to punish the EEEVILLL rich even if that punishment also harms everyone else.