kallend 2,027
Recommended Posts
billeisele 130
todays headlines:
2 WORDS = NEARLY $2 MILLION
Contributions pour in for Wilson and Miller (the democrat wannabe). Say they have raised nearly $1.75 million in 40 hours. All hard money in the bank via online contributions. Wilson posted a new video on his website, "Stand up for Joe." Wilson will appear on FOX News Sunday.
www.thestate.com
2 WORDS = NEARLY $2 MILLION
Contributions pour in for Wilson and Miller (the democrat wannabe). Say they have raised nearly $1.75 million in 40 hours. All hard money in the bank via online contributions. Wilson posted a new video on his website, "Stand up for Joe." Wilson will appear on FOX News Sunday.
www.thestate.com
Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuote
Conversely, you can raise taxes and have the rich shelter their money even more and have corporations downsize or move overseas where they can afford to do business - you know, like what happened a whole lot during the 90's.
.
More appeal to emotion. Show me the tax revenues, not the expenditures.
Of course, tax revenues increased during the '90s leading to steadily declining deficits. Revenues decreased during Bush's administration after correcting for inflation and population growth. In real terms, revenues were down about $50Billion in 2008 compared with 2000.
In 2000 federal revenue was $2.03T
In 2008 federal revenue was $2.52T
An increase of 24.1%
The CPI went from 515.8 (2000) to 644.4 (2008), a 24.8% increase
The population went from 281.4M (2000) to 303.5M (2008), a 7.8% increase.
In order just to keep up with inflation and population growth from 2000 to 2008 the federal revenues needed to be $2.57T in 2008. So the shortfall in revenues in real terms was $50Billion.
Thanks be to the GOP.
Cite, please - and YOU can leave the spending off, as well - we are discussing tax revenues.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
mnealtx 0
Quote
You are clutching at straws in a pathetic attempt to excuse the lies propagated by your party.
And that is all there is to it.
What's that? You *STILL* can't find the word "coverage" in section 246?
That's what I thought.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
rushmc 23
Quote
You are clutching at straws in a pathetic attempt to excuse the lies propagated by your party.
And that is all there is to it.
You know even in this you link there is true shit (from your liberal site) that is disgusting.
First, it is true you will be taxed unless you have health insurance and then second, the damn gov defines what insurance you must have!!!
That will help cut costs! That keeps freedom of choice in the hands of the people.
Shit dude, this plan is a gov take over. No wonder you support it
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
And then, to yet again top all things off, WHY would the Obama admin now say they will do this?
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/11/2065287.aspx
You all are self blinded it is funny to see
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Lucky... 0
QuoteSo the shortfall in revenues in real terms was $50Billion.
Kind of easily explains how Clinton lowered the debt increase to just 1/9th of what it had been for the 12 years prior to him taking office - no fluke, the debt increase lowered every year he was in office, if he had been in office 1 more year it probably would have actually lowered the debt number.
As well, it also explains how the annual deficit fell every year until it turned into a surplus of 236B his final year.
It also explains how, under the 3 previous Republican presidents the debt went crazy as a shortfall of tax revenues amounted to 2/3 of the total debt today, more than 2/3 if you look at the debt total of 11.3T when Bush left office, probably 9/10th or more you look at the totality of the debt situation: National debt was 900B in 1981, now it's 12T, all of that increase from 900B should be attributed to the Republicans considering it all happened under 3 Republicans since 81 but for 1.6 under Clinton which he inherited a mess and left a virtual flat debt increase.
I can't understand how this isn't clear to some, or perhaps it is but denial prevails.
some peopel just don't look at the facts. Clinton didn't become financially responsible until the rep's got control of congress. when the dem's had control of congress the first 2 years of Clinton's term the spending was out of control, and that is when the deficit grew under Clinton.
funjumper101 15
Quote
You are missing the entire point. Without a way to monitor whether someone is legal (there is no provision that requires proof of being here legally in this legislation) and associated penalties (there are none here) its meaningless drivel. If speeding is illegal but the authorities have no tools to monitor speed and there is no fine for speeding....how much speeding will be prevented?
You are quite naive to think these few words would prevent illegal immigrants being covered...it's a completely meaningless provision as it currently stands.
I thought that righties were supposed to be all about minimal government.
Why all of a sudden are you all in favor af having to show your National ID card when conducting transactions for goods and services?
Where are your papers? You must have your papers in order.
Why the support for a huge expansion of government intrusion into personal privacy?
Just to save a few dollars? That is pathetic.
The stench continues to be overwhelming....
Because the dem's are spending money at a rate that will bankrupt us and we are trying to find ways to slow it down. By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions.
mnealtx 0
QuoteKind of easily explains how Clinton lowered the debt increase to just 1/9th of what it had been for the 12 years prior to him taking office
It's your story, tell it how you want it.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuoteQuote
Conversely, you can raise taxes and have the rich shelter their money even more and have corporations downsize or move overseas where they can afford to do business - you know, like what happened a whole lot during the 90's.
.
More appeal to emotion. Show me the tax revenues, not the expenditures.
Of course, tax revenues increased during the '90s leading to steadily declining deficits. Revenues decreased during Bush's administration after correcting for inflation and population growth. In real terms, revenues were down about $50Billion in 2008 compared with 2000.
In 2000 federal revenue was $2.03T
In 2008 federal revenue was $2.52T
An increase of 24.1%
The CPI went from 515.8 (2000) to 644.4 (2008), a 24.8% increase
The population went from 281.4M (2000) to 303.5M (2008), a 7.8% increase.
In order just to keep up with inflation and population growth from 2000 to 2008 the federal revenues needed to be $2.57T in 2008. So the shortfall in revenues in real terms was $50Billion.
Thanks be to the GOP.
Cite, please - and YOU can leave the spending off, as well - we are discussing tax revenues.
What I wrote was VERY clear. In REAL terms, revenues declined. You can choose 2000 or 2008 as your baseline for the $US, but either way, revenues declined in terms of the REAL value of the revenues.
All the data are easy to verify.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,027
“There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”
Try very very hard to understand that statement, since it is clear that right now you do not.
Try very very hard to understand that statement, since it is clear that right now you do not.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
funjumper101 15
QuoteBecause the dem's are spending money at a rate that will bankrupt us and we are trying to find ways to slow it down. By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions.
Your opinion is based on what source of factual information?
Faux News?
Newsmax?
Lush Rimjob?
You sell out your so called principles for a measly few billion? I guess that they aren't really that important, when push comes to shove.
How about the trillion dollars that ShrubCo borrowed to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy and the Iraq invasion? Were you opposed to those plans at the time? Why not?
Do you support ending the "temporary" ShrubCo tax cuts and the complete elimination of the income cap on Social Secuity and Medicare taxes?
Why not?
The tax cuts had expiration dates so that they would expire if the circumstances changed from when they were implmented. The USA went from a budget surplus in 2000, to record deficits in 2007. Any rational human would conclude that having the tax cuts expire as planned would be the right thing for the country. Somehow righties have come to see the temporary tax cuts as something that should stay in place permanantly. In other words, you folks insist that we keep borrowing money to keep the tax cuts in place for the richest 1% of the population. Are you folks really that stupid? Why do you want to let what was sold as a "temporary" measure become permanent, when we can't afford it? Fiscal responsibility? Not even close.
Why should the taxes for Social Security and Medicare end at 115,000 in income?
Why does that make any sense to anyone?
That means that the folks that can most afford to pay more, don't. That is really twisted. Eliminate the cap and we can easily pay for whatever we want.
Lucky... 0
QuoteCite, please - and YOU can leave the spending off, as well - we are discussing tax revenues.
I can:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html
TAX INCREASE:
Following what seemed to be a yearly tradition of new tax acts that began in 1986, the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990 was signed into law on Nov. 5, 1990. As with the '87, '88, and '89 acts, the 1990 act, while providing a number of substantive provisions, was small in comparison with the 1986 act. The emphasis of the 1990 act was increased taxes on the wealthy.
On Aug. 10, 1993, President Clinton signed the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993 into law. The act's purpose was to reduce by approximately $496 billion the federal deficit that would otherwise accumulate in fiscal years 1994 through 1998. In 1997, Clinton signed another tax act. The act, which cut taxes by $152 billion, included a cut in capital-gains tax for individuals, a $500 per child tax credit, and tax incentives for education.
AND WHAT APPENED FOLLOWING THESE INCREASES? Oh yea, fiscal harmony.
TAX CUTS:
In 1981, Congress enacted the largest tax cut in U.S. history, approximately $750 billion over six years. The tax reduction, however, was partially offset by two tax acts, in 1982 and 1984, that attempted to raise approximately $265 billion.
On Oct. 22, 1986, President Reagan signed into law the Tax Reform Act of 1986, one of the most far-reaching reforms of the United States tax system since the adoption of the income tax. The top tax rate on individual income was lowered from 50% to 28%, the lowest it had been since 1916. Tax preferences were eliminated to make up most of the revenue. In an attempt to remain revenue neutral, the act called for a $120 billion increase in business taxation and a corresponding decrease in individual taxation over a five-year period.
President George W. Bush signed a series of tax cuts into law. The largest was the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. It was estimated to save taxpayers $1.3 trillion over ten years, making it the third largest tax cut since World War II. The Bush tax cut created a new lowest rate, 10% for the first several thousand dollars earned. It also established a slow schedule of incremental tax cuts that would eventually double the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, adjust brackets so that middle-income couples owed the same tax as comparable singles, cut the top four tax rates (28% to 25%; 31% to 28%; 36% to 33%; and 39.6% to 35%).
The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003 accelerated the tax rate cuts that had been enacted in 2001, and temporarily reduced the tax rate on capital gains and dividends to 15%. In 2004, the U.S. was forced to eliminate a corporate tax provision that had been ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization. Along with that tax hike, Congress passed a cornucopia of tax breaks, which for individuals included an option to deduct the payment of whichever state taxes were higher, sales or income taxes.
Two tax bills signed in 2005 and 2006 extended through 2010 the favorable rates on capital gains and dividends that had been enacted in 2003, raised the exemption levels for the Alternative Minimum Tax, and enacted new tax incentives designed to persuade individuals to save more for retirement.
AND WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THESE TAX CUTS? Oh yea, fiscal disater on both counts.
SO there you have it, a citation, tax increase/cut references; what now?
Lucky... 0
Quotesome peopel just don't look at the facts. Clinton didn't become financially responsible until the rep's got control of congress. when the dem's had control of congress the first 2 years of Clinton's term the spending was out of control, and that is when the deficit grew under Clinton.
The 1993 Omnibus Bill, huge tax increase, was drafted and signed by all Dems, where's the substance with your remarks?
And as for the deficit not comming under control until the Repubs took Congress in 95, again, patently false.
http://static.scribd.com/profiles/images/auw7rfzmnovul-full.gif
As you can see the graph started turning around right at the very end of GHWB's term, that's because GHWB and the Democrat-drafted 1990 Debt Reconcilliation Act that he signed brought us out of the recession and started the healing / set the stage for Clinton's success. Actually all that came out of the Repub Congress were more small tax cuts as in 96 and 97; Clinton had to give those to get things like minimum wage increases.
So how did GWB's tax cuts work out?
Quote...that is when the deficit grew under Clinton.
The deficit didn't grow under Clinton as an annual reference. Furthermore, the debt increase shrank every year Clinton was in office. It is assumed that the debt would have fallen if Clinton had 1 more year in office, which would be the first time since 1969 or more substantively since Eisenhower.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteKind of easily explains how Clinton lowered the debt increase to just 1/9th of what it had been for the 12 years prior to him taking office
It's your story, tell it how you want it.
Don't you have a rimshot for the end of that one-liner?
Mike, am I factually wrong? Please, let's deal with data and numbers; valid ones. Please tell me how the numbers are measurably/grossly wrong and I will concede.
Debt increase from 1981 to 1992 = ~250B/yr
Clinton's last year (2000) debt increase = ~33B
I'm not really good at math, but I just did the round numbers and all I see is that 33 is about 1/9th of 250. Also, it wasn't a fluke, the debt increase lowered every year.
Not being partisan, I think GHWB did a great job setting the stage for this success by signing the 1990 Debt Reconcilliation Act that was drafted by the Dem Congress.
Lucky... 0
QuoteBecause the dem's are spending money at a rate that will bankrupt us and we are trying to find ways to slow it down. By eliminating illegals from helth care we save billions.
Wait, the debt was 900B as Reagan took office, it's now 12T and the only Dem president in there was Clinton who did nothign but lower the debt increase and create a surplus from a deficit every year solid, so how is it that the Dems are culpable please?
And that is all there is to it.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites