Do tax cuts for the rich lead to horrible economic times?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

A standard and normal are not the same thing.

Dude, you are so easy.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/normal

2 a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern

Quote

#1 we have not agreed that what you want should be the standard

And as my citation in the previous post states, we are the only indust country in the world not to have iniversal care. That is the standard; THE ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD OF INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS.

Is that too obscure for you or are we "special?"

Quote

normal: conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

Since we have not agreed on "standard", we cannot agree to "normal"

Even your own cite states the same: Standards don't deviate from norms and vice versa. They are really the same word, a thesaurus would reference both.

RUSH, YOU BREAK INTO A SEMANTIC ARGUMENT OVER WHAT A STANDARD IS OVER A NORM, THAT WAY YOU DON'T HAVE TO ADDRESS WHETHER NOT OFFERING HC IS A NORM, STANDARD OR ANY OTHER AFU MESS, OR OFTEN DEFER TO SPELLING ERRORS WHEN YOU GET STUCK; WE ALL SEE IT.

Quote

Because your OPINION, is not a fact.

But I didn't JUST assert my opinion, I asserted this:

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=66

And this:

http://zzpat.tripod.com/graphs.htm

Those are not my opinion, they reinforce my opinion. Where are your OBJECTIVE citeations that support your assertions? Oh, you have none.

Quote

And you don't know my effort, therefore you are also guessing.

I didn't say you were lazy, you made that claim of me.

Quote

Your lame childish attempts to make this personal is just another example of you thinking only you could be correct.

How am I making it personal and why are you once again running from data and evidence and wasting your time playing the victim. Post some dat, make a point, etc.

Quote

And you can't refute that HC is not an right, or more accurately you can't prove that only YOUR vision of HC is correct.

Nope, that's why I use a world standard, norm or whatever you want to call it.

Quote

You want the country to be socialist, yet it was not founded on socialism.

So, many countriues change ideologies; it's called adaptation. Also, I want quasi-Socialism. Also, we were founded on slavery, refusal to give women rights and antimiscegenation, we changed all that too. And they say Repubs/Conservatives are regressive

Quote

Your data has been countered time after time... yet you still claim that only your data, and only your opinions matter.

It hasn't. Refute this data in this argument. You made an assertion somewhere that giving money to the rich creates growth, I refuted it as compared to both Reagan and GWb in contrast with Clinton. It's right here, go get and quit living on your alleged former victories that never were.

Quit playing the victim and pls,pls address this data and don't respond with Heritage Republican sites and the like.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

The economy took a hit after 9/11 and maintained growth till a bunch of social programs designed to give everyone everything blew up.

The post 911 job losses were long and sustained.

WHich social programs threw a wrench in the works when?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

In your example, the patrons do not own the dinner equally. That is not the case with the government.

Sure it is, they all had the same buffet.

Then they would have paid equally.

The government is not a buffet. Your analogy doesn't work.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Ron 7]

Quote

Agreed - but they do spend more of their disposable income than the rich do.

As a percentage, but not as a total dollar amount.

Quote

Also agreed. That is a much longer term stimulus though. If you spend $1000 at the local car repair place, that is money that is immediately used to pay salaries, hire new mechanics and buy parts. If you put $1000 into oil futures, that is money that might someday enrich other people who buy oil futures, and may (in the future) encourage oil exploration - but does not immediately get money into the economy.

Yes, which is why I said tax breaks to lower income brackets sustain an economy, while tax breaks to higher income brackets grow the economy.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

And as my citation in the previous post states, we are the only indust [SIC] country in the world not to have iniversal [SIC] care. That is the standard;

That is the standard according to YOU, not everyone else.

Quote

How am I making it personal

If you can't see that... then it is pretty clear you will not be able to stop it... and I have no desire to get into 3rd grade pissing contests.

Quote

Also, we were founded on slavery, refusal to give women rights and antimiscegenation,

No, we were not FOUNDED on those... Quit trying to make up facts.

Quote

and don't respond with Heritage Republican sites and the like.

Oh.... YOU can used biased sites and make up data, but I can only use cites YOU approve of?

Quote

WHich social programs threw a wrench in the works when?

CRA for one.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

Then they would have paid equally.

The government is not a buffet. Your analogy doesn't work.

Actually, it is a very good analogy. I pay more in taxes than you, but you get the same fire, police, and emergency services I get. I pay more, you pay less and we both get the same services. Same with the military, I pay more, but get the same protection that you do.

It actually is a perfect analogy. You just refuse to admit it.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

It actually is a perfect analogy. You just refuse to admit it.

It's a bad analogy, because dinner at a restaurant is not typically priced variably, according to income. I two people pay different prices, they get different meals, i.e. they don't own equal shares of their dinner. A refund should be given according to the amount of equity owned in the dinner (pre-consumption).

The government is not purchased that way. It is paid for according to income levels. However, those who pay more don't own more, significantly different from your dinner analogy.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Ion01 1]

Quote

It hasn't. Refute this data in this argument. You made an assertion somewhere that giving money to the rich creates growth, I refuted it as compared to both Reagan and GWb in contrast with Clinton. It's right here, go get and quit living on your alleged former victories that never were.

Quit playing the victim and pls,pls address this data and don't respond with Heritage Republican sites and the like.

You cant just state something as fact without with no information!

Quote

The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts generated strong economic growth. The 2003 cuts, however, were more effective at creating economic growth because Congress designed them expressly for that purpose. They worked better because they increased the incentives to generate new income by accelerating the phase-in of the 2001 reduction in marginal income tax rates, and by reducing rates on capital gains and dividends, lowering the cost of capital which is critical for economic recovery and growth.
Lower income tax rates generally promote growth, but since the 2001 cuts were phased in over several years, they did not kick in quickly enough to change the behavior of workers, businesses, and investors to help boost the ailing economy, so growth remained sluggish. The 2001 cuts also increased the Child Tax Credit from $500 to $1,000 a child. Although a large tax cut from a revenue perspective, the increase in the Child Tax Credit did nothing to increase growth-promoting incentives. Recognizing that the slow phase-in of rate reductions was not generating economic growth, Congress accelerated the rate reductions to increase the incentives to work, save, and invest during the 2003 cuts.
The 2003 tax cuts also lowered rates on capital gains and dividends, generating strong growth by decreasing the cost of capital, which caused investment to increase.[15] More investment meant that more money was available for start-up capital for new businesses and for existing businesses to expand operations and add new jobs. The rate cuts on capital gains and dividends also unlocked capital trapped in investments that paid lower returns than otherwise could have been earned if the tax did not exist. This generated economic growth by allowing capital to flow freely to its most efficient use.
The increased incentives to save and invest, coupled with an acceleration of the cuts on marginal income tax rates, were a major reason economic growth picked up steam almost immediately after the 2003 tax cuts:
The passage of [the 2003 tax cuts] started a different story. In the first quarter of that year, real GDP grew at a pedestrian 1.2 percent. In the second quarter, during which [the 2003 cuts were] signed into law, economic growth jumped to 3.5 percent, the fastest growth since the previous decade. In the third quarter, the rate of growth jumped again to an astounding 7.5 percent.[16]
Unfortunately, President Obama and Congress plan to increase the income tax rates and taxes on capital gains and dividends. This would reverse the beneficial effects of the 2001 and 2003 cuts and further slow economic growth during this severe recession.[17]

Quote

Raising the top two income tax rates will negatively impact almost three-fourths of all economic activity created by small businesses.
Small businesses are a vital component of the economy. They create jobs for millions of Americans and are a major factor driving economic growth.
Evaluating tax policy on the number of small businesses that pay the top two rates is not the proper way to determine the impact of raising those rates. What is important is how much small-business income is subject to the top two rates. This measures the extent to which the top two rates affect the economic activity that small businesses create.
Using this more accurate metric, it is clear that the top two rates have an enormous impact on small businesses. According to the Treasury Department, 72 percent of small business income is subject to those rates.[18]
The amount of small business income subject to the top two rates is high in relation to the number of businesses that pay the rates because these businesses are the most successful. As a result they employ the most people and generate the most economic activity.
Raising rates on these successful businesses would damage the economy at any time, but doing so now will only cost more people their jobs. Highly successful small businesses faced with higher tax rates will cut back on plans to expand, hire fewer workers, and lower wages for current workers at a time when the economy desperately needs them to expand and create more jobs.
Higher rates also discourage would-be entrepreneurs from entering the market.[19] This will negatively affect long-term economic growth because businesses that otherwise would have been created and added jobs to the economy will never get off the starting blocks.

Quote

High tax rates in the 1990s were a contributing factor to the 2001 recession and returning to those rates will damage the already severely weakened economy.
The economy boomed during the 1990s for a number of reasons. One key factor was an advance in information technology. Computers, cell phones, the Internet, and other technological advances made businesses more efficient. This increased profits and wages and created numerous new jobs.
The 1997 tax cut that lowered tax rates on dividends and capital gains from 28 to 20 percent was also a major factor helping fuel the economic growth of this period. It strengthened the already strong gains from the technology boom. The impressive growth of the S&P 500 index after its passage is testimony to that fact. In the year before the tax cut, the S&P 500 index increased by 22 percent. In the following year, it increased by more than 40 percent.
The economic benefits of the technological advances and lower taxes on investment were strong enough to overcome the negative impact of the higher income tax rates and the economy exhibited impressive growth--initially. Even though the economy overcame high income tax rates temporarily, it was not strong enough to resist their negative pull forever:
A contributing factor to the 2001 recession was the oppressively high levels of federal tax extracted from the economy. In the 40 years prior to 2000, federal tax receipts averaged about 18.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). In 1998 and 1999, the tax share stood at 20.0 percent, and in 2000, it shot up to tie the previous record of 20.9 percent set in 1944.[13]
Taxes were high because the top income tax rates were 39.6 percent and 36 percent--the same rates President Obama and Congress now target.
The economy is in a much more precarious position now than it was in the 1990s. In June 2009 alone the economy lost 467,000 jobs.[14] With no new innovations like those that created economic growth in the 1990s on the horizon to jump-start growth today, the economy simply cannot afford tax policies that will destroy more jobs and make it more difficult for the economy to recover.

Seriously, look at the numbers and the facts and stop making dogmatic statements without facts! The reality is under clinton unemployment was at approximately 5% due to reagans term in which he reduced unemployment and reduced inflation(which is insanely high right now) through, among other things, tax cuts! At 5% everyone talked about how great the economy was but they forget that there were several drops in the stock market that were bigger than the great depression. However, clinton did what was right which was what was done in the 1920's when there was a crash bigger than the one in the great depression.......he did nothing! The economy recovered on its own with little actual impact! As soon as bush got in office everyone talked about how bad the economy was because of 5% unemployment not realizing nothing changed. At the end of bush's term he did damage things with bailouts and such. Of course we got more of the same with obama and things have crumbled under his direction! He has the same policies as FDR who actually made the depression great! Look at the UCLA study. Look at the facts! Why is it that places like oklahoma where the taxes are low and there is little government envolvement we have sustained or grown our economy but in states like california or NY or Michigan which have high taxes and policies like what the feds have and are passing they are crumbling? How can you ignore such blatant evidence and abandon the facts for dogmatic statements?
Look at the communist contries that control thier economies like ours is attempting to do. Look at the countries that "redistribute the wealth". There economies still don't come close to the wealth of the poor in this country during a recession!

Quote

46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.


'80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.


'Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.


'The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)


'Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.


'97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
'78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.


'62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.


'89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

We became rich through freedom not communism or marxism which is exactly where the feds are going. They like murders such as Mao and Chavez! Do you not see what is wrong with that?
They have abandoned the constitution long ago despite the fact that the constitution is what made this country the great country it was. It was why people from all over the world came here! It was freedom that drew people from everywhere and made us all rich! How can people have a car and TV and not consider themselves rich when they could be walking miles with a bucket to get water like they do in other countries!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

It's a bad analogy, because dinner at a restaurant is not typically priced variably, according to income. I two people pay different prices, they get different meals, i.e. they don't own equal shares of their dinner. A refund should be given according to the amount of equity owned in the dinner (pre-consumption).

his analogy was exactly that - a "buffet" where each paid differently for the same thing

looks like you agree completely with Ron

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

looks like you agree completely with Ron

I'm not sure how you would reach that conclusion based on my posts. Perhaps you missed the part where citizens have equal equity in their government regardless of how much they paid, and a fair distribution of government's liquid assets, based on equity, would not provide money relative to taxes paid, but rather relative to equity of government, i.e. equally per capita.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Lucky... 0]

Let me preface this post by saying how desperate you are by correcting spelling. I type fast, this is not a legal doc or a term paper, there are going to be a couple as with other people. From a person such as you who used to make many, spell checking doesn't put more merit in your posts, it doesn't replace citing some objective source to support your argument. Not to mention I typed, "indust" as an abreviation for industrial, it wasn't an error. Must suck to not be able to create an argument and be relegated to grammar nazi.

Quote

That is the standard according to YOU, not everyone else.

No, the world creates a standard by following a trend that is virtually excusive. An aberration is that; not providing universal care is going against a world standard.

Quote

If you can't see that... then it is pretty clear you will not be able to stop it... and I have no desire to get into 3rd grade pissing contests.

IOW's, I'm not and you can't muster an argument or even fake it; we all have seen it for a long time.

Quote

No, we were not FOUNDED on those... Quit trying to make up facts.

We were not founded on the practice of slavery, antimiscegenation and no women's rights? Was it a hobby then? BTW, for a grammar Nazi I would think you would quote people using standard rules of quoting, but I guess the rules are different for you.

Quote

Oh.... YOU can used biased sites and make up data, but I can only use cites YOU approve of?

Illustrate my citations as biased, hell, you won't even address them. What data did I make up? Come on, Rushy, have you no argument?

Quote

CRA for one.

Expound, CRA did what and when? What did it muchk up? Can you make a complete argument for once?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

It hasn't. Refute this data in this argument. You made an assertion somewhere that giving money to the rich creates growth, I refuted it as compared to both Reagan and GWb in contrast with Clinton. It's right here, go get and quit living on your alleged former victories that never were.

Quit playing the victim and pls,pls address this data and don't respond with Heritage Republican sites and the like.

You cant just state something as fact without with no information!

Quote

The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts generated strong economic growth. The 2003 cuts, however, were more effective at creating economic growth because Congress designed them expressly for that purpose. They worked better because they increased the incentives to generate new income by accelerating the phase-in of the 2001 reduction in marginal income tax rates, and by reducing rates on capital gains and dividends, lowering the cost of capital which is critical for economic recovery and growth.
Lower income tax rates generally promote growth, but since the 2001 cuts were phased in over several years, they did not kick in quickly enough to change the behavior of workers, businesses, and investors to help boost the ailing economy, so growth remained sluggish. The 2001 cuts also increased the Child Tax Credit from $500 to $1,000 a child. Although a large tax cut from a revenue perspective, the increase in the Child Tax Credit did nothing to increase growth-promoting incentives. Recognizing that the slow phase-in of rate reductions was not generating economic growth, Congress accelerated the rate reductions to increase the incentives to work, save, and invest during the 2003 cuts.
The 2003 tax cuts also lowered rates on capital gains and dividends, generating strong growth by decreasing the cost of capital, which caused investment to increase.[15] More investment meant that more money was available for start-up capital for new businesses and for existing businesses to expand operations and add new jobs. The rate cuts on capital gains and dividends also unlocked capital trapped in investments that paid lower returns than otherwise could have been earned if the tax did not exist. This generated economic growth by allowing capital to flow freely to its most efficient use.
The increased incentives to save and invest, coupled with an acceleration of the cuts on marginal income tax rates, were a major reason economic growth picked up steam almost immediately after the 2003 tax cuts:
The passage of [the 2003 tax cuts] started a different story. In the first quarter of that year, real GDP grew at a pedestrian 1.2 percent. In the second quarter, during which [the 2003 cuts were] signed into law, economic growth jumped to 3.5 percent, the fastest growth since the previous decade. In the third quarter, the rate of growth jumped again to an astounding 7.5 percent.[16]
Unfortunately, President Obama and Congress plan to increase the income tax rates and taxes on capital gains and dividends. This would reverse the beneficial effects of the 2001 and 2003 cuts and further slow economic growth during this severe recession.[17]

Quote

Raising the top two income tax rates will negatively impact almost three-fourths of all economic activity created by small businesses.
Small businesses are a vital component of the economy. They create jobs for millions of Americans and are a major factor driving economic growth.
Evaluating tax policy on the number of small businesses that pay the top two rates is not the proper way to determine the impact of raising those rates. What is important is how much small-business income is subject to the top two rates. This measures the extent to which the top two rates affect the economic activity that small businesses create.
Using this more accurate metric, it is clear that the top two rates have an enormous impact on small businesses. According to the Treasury Department, 72 percent of small business income is subject to those rates.[18]
The amount of small business income subject to the top two rates is high in relation to the number of businesses that pay the rates because these businesses are the most successful. As a result they employ the most people and generate the most economic activity.
Raising rates on these successful businesses would damage the economy at any time, but doing so now will only cost more people their jobs. Highly successful small businesses faced with higher tax rates will cut back on plans to expand, hire fewer workers, and lower wages for current workers at a time when the economy desperately needs them to expand and create more jobs.
Higher rates also discourage would-be entrepreneurs from entering the market.[19] This will negatively affect long-term economic growth because businesses that otherwise would have been created and added jobs to the economy will never get off the starting blocks.

Quote

High tax rates in the 1990s were a contributing factor to the 2001 recession and returning to those rates will damage the already severely weakened economy.
The economy boomed during the 1990s for a number of reasons. One key factor was an advance in information technology. Computers, cell phones, the Internet, and other technological advances made businesses more efficient. This increased profits and wages and created numerous new jobs.
The 1997 tax cut that lowered tax rates on dividends and capital gains from 28 to 20 percent was also a major factor helping fuel the economic growth of this period. It strengthened the already strong gains from the technology boom. The impressive growth of the S&P 500 index after its passage is testimony to that fact. In the year before the tax cut, the S&P 500 index increased by 22 percent. In the following year, it increased by more than 40 percent.
The economic benefits of the technological advances and lower taxes on investment were strong enough to overcome the negative impact of the higher income tax rates and the economy exhibited impressive growth--initially. Even though the economy overcame high income tax rates temporarily, it was not strong enough to resist their negative pull forever:
A contributing factor to the 2001 recession was the oppressively high levels of federal tax extracted from the economy. In the 40 years prior to 2000, federal tax receipts averaged about 18.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). In 1998 and 1999, the tax share stood at 20.0 percent, and in 2000, it shot up to tie the previous record of 20.9 percent set in 1944.[13]
Taxes were high because the top income tax rates were 39.6 percent and 36 percent--the same rates President Obama and Congress now target.
The economy is in a much more precarious position now than it was in the 1990s. In June 2009 alone the economy lost 467,000 jobs.[14] With no new innovations like those that created economic growth in the 1990s on the horizon to jump-start growth today, the economy simply cannot afford tax policies that will destroy more jobs and make it more difficult for the economy to recover.

Seriously, look at the numbers and the facts and stop making dogmatic statements without facts! The reality is under clinton unemployment was at approximately 5% due to reagans term in which he reduced unemployment and reduced inflation(which is insanely high right now) through, among other things, tax cuts! At 5% everyone talked about how great the economy was but they forget that there were several drops in the stock market that were bigger than the great depression. However, clinton did what was right which was what was done in the 1920's when there was a crash bigger than the one in the great depression.......he did nothing! The economy recovered on its own with little actual impact! As soon as bush got in office everyone talked about how bad the economy was because of 5% unemployment not realizing nothing changed. At the end of bush's term he did damage things with bailouts and such. Of course we got more of the same with obama and things have crumbled under his direction! He has the same policies as FDR who actually made the depression great! Look at the UCLA study. Look at the facts! Why is it that places like oklahoma where the taxes are low and there is little government envolvement we have sustained or grown our economy but in states like california or NY or Michigan which have high taxes and policies like what the feds have and are passing they are crumbling? How can you ignore such blatant evidence and abandon the facts for dogmatic statements?
Look at the communist contries that control thier economies like ours is attempting to do. Look at the countries that "redistribute the wealth". There economies still don't come close to the wealth of the poor in this country during a recession!

Quote

46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.


'80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.


'Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.


'The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)


'Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.


'97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
'78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.


'62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.


'89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

We became rich through freedom not communism or marxism which is exactly where the feds are going. They like murders such as Mao and Chavez! Do you not see what is wrong with that?
They have abandoned the constitution long ago despite the fact that the constitution is what made this country the great country it was. It was why people from all over the world came here! It was freedom that drew people from everywhere and made us all rich! How can people have a car and TV and not consider themselves rich when they could be walking miles with a bucket to get water like they do in other countries!

This is a convoluted pile of shit. If you have an assertion ot respond to, pls do. You have all kinds of numbers as data, but no source. Again, SORT IT OUT BY EACH ASSERTION OR A SMALL GROUP OF ASSERTIONS, IT'S A JUMBLKEFUCK OF A MESS. I REALLY DO WANT TO ADDRESS IT, BUT I CAN'T MAKE SENSE OF IT. OBVIOUSLY IT'S A CUT-N-PASTE, BUT IT DOESN'T ADDRESS ANY POINT OR CITE ITS SOURCE- SORT IT OUT.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>They seem to forget that we fought a tiddly little war about 150
>years ago over claiming the labor of others . . .

Exactly. A public option for health care is just like slavery.

No wonder no one takes the GOP seriously any more.

So, who's going to provide this 'right' mandated commodity when there's not enough doctors, Bill?

More evasion from the left - no wonder they've never been taken seriously on rights issues.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

no wonder they've never been taken seriously on rights issues.

The Warren Court was the most rights-oriented era in the last 100 years, probably since Woman suffrage or the Lincoln era. Altho Eisenhower appointed him, he was very liberal. The left is about personal rights. I think you're confusing corporate privilege with personal rights.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The left is about personal rights.

Like the Civil Rights Act, maybe? Oh, wait...that was the right, sorry.

Quote

I think you're confusing corporate privilege with personal rights.

You'd be wrong - but that's nothing unusual for you.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Ion01 1]

[13]J. D. Foster, "The Tax Relief Program Worked: Make the Tax Cuts Permanent," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2145, June 18, 2008, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2145.cfm.

[14]Press release, "The Employment Situation: June 2009," U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, July 2, 2009, p. 1, at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf (July 29, 2009).

[15]N. Gregory Mankiw and Matthew Weinzierl, "Dynamic Scoring: A Back-of-the-Envelope Guide," NBER Working Paper No. 11000, December 2004, pp. 15-16, at http://www.nber.org/tmp/8655-w11000.pdf (July 20, 2009). (Later published in Journal of Public Economics (September 2006).)

[16]Foster, "The Tax Relief Program Worked: Make the Tax Cuts Permanent."

[17]Curtis S. Dubay, "The Economic Impact of the Proposed Capital Gains Tax Increase," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2418, April 29, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm2418.cfm, and Curtis S. Dubay, "Obama's Dividend and Capital Gains Tax Hike Would Hurt Seniors," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2433, May 11, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm2433.cfm.

[18]U.S. Department of Treasury, "Treasury Conference on Business Taxation and Global Competitiveness," July 23, 2007, p. 15, at http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/07230%20r.pdf (July 15, 2009).

[19]William M. Gentry and R. Glenn Hubbard, "'Success Taxes,' Entrepreneurial Entry, and Innovation," National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 10551, June 2004, at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=556538 (June 15, 2009).

Here are the cites. Just call them republican and pretend that changes the facts.

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

[13]J. D. Foster, "The Tax Relief Program Worked: Make the Tax Cuts Permanent," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2145, June 18, 2008, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2145.cfm.

[14]Press release, "The Employment Situation: June 2009," U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, July 2, 2009, p. 1, at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf (July 29, 2009).

[15]N. Gregory Mankiw and Matthew Weinzierl, "Dynamic Scoring: A Back-of-the-Envelope Guide," NBER Working Paper No. 11000, December 2004, pp. 15-16, at http://www.nber.org/tmp/8655-w11000.pdf (July 20, 2009). (Later published in Journal of Public Economics (September 2006).)

[16]Foster, "The Tax Relief Program Worked: Make the Tax Cuts Permanent."

[17]Curtis S. Dubay, "The Economic Impact of the Proposed Capital Gains Tax Increase," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2418, April 29, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm2418.cfm, and Curtis S. Dubay, "Obama's Dividend and Capital Gains Tax Hike Would Hurt Seniors," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2433, May 11, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm2433.cfm.

[18]U.S. Department of Treasury, "Treasury Conference on Business Taxation and Global Competitiveness," July 23, 2007, p. 15, at http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/07230%20r.pdf (July 15, 2009).

[19]William M. Gentry and R. Glenn Hubbard, "'Success Taxes,' Entrepreneurial Entry, and Innovation," National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 10551, June 2004, at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=556538 (June 15, 2009).

Here are the cites. Just call them republican and pretend that changes the facts.

Nothing from Foster and/or the Heritage Foundation can be considered unbiased.

Heritage's data claiming to show revenue increases consistently ignore inflation.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,426]

>So, who's going to provide this 'right' mandated commodity when there's
>not enough doctors, Bill?

No one! It's JUST LIKE SLAVERY. No one supports slavery, so there's no reason to have such a mandated commodity. Right?

Now run along and claim that Obama is just like Hitler.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Like the Civil Rights Act, maybe? Oh, wait...that was the right, sorry.

The civil rights act of 1964? Is that what you were referring to? That was LBJ and the heavily Dem congress.

Quote

You'd be wrong - but that's nothing unusual for you.

And once agin you have no real comment, typical.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Now run along and claim that Obama is just like Hitler.

I didn't say that, Bill - but then again, you've never had a problem with putting words in other's mouths, now have you?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Like the Civil Rights Act, maybe? Oh, wait...that was the right, sorry.

The civil rights act of 1964? Is that what you were referring to? That was LBJ and the heavily Dem congress.

Yup...that heavily Dem congress that held it in committee hoping it would die...then filibustered it for almost 2 months. The bill that Exalted Cyclops Byrd filibustered against for over 14 hours straight.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Like the Civil Rights Act, maybe? Oh, wait...that was the right, sorry.

The civil rights act of 1964? Is that what you were referring to? That was LBJ and the heavily Dem congress.

Yup...that heavily Dem congress that held it in committee hoping it would die...then filibustered it for almost 2 months. The bill that Exalted Cyclops Byrd filibustered against for over 14 hours straight.

ALL the Southern Dems in the Senate voted against it.

"The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 recorded that in the
Senate, only 69 percent of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for
the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82 percent of Republicans (27 for,
6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the act.
[...] In the House of Representatives, 61 percent of Democrats (152
for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103
Southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80 percent
(138 for, 34 against) voted for it."


Of course, LBJ was quite correct when he said the Dems would lose the south for a generation (being that a generation is a subset of 2 generations). All the bigots became GOP and the GOP took the south for two generations.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Like the Civil Rights Act, maybe? Oh, wait...that was the right, sorry.

The civil rights act of 1964? Is that what you were referring to? That was LBJ and the heavily Dem congress.

Yup...that heavily Dem congress that held it in committee hoping it would die...then filibustered it for almost 2 months. The bill that Exalted Cyclops Byrd filibustered against for over 14 hours straight.

ALL the Southern Dems in the Senate voted against it.

"The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 recorded that in the
Senate, only 69 percent of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for
the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82 percent of Republicans (27 for,
6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the act.
[...] In the House of Representatives, 61 percent of Democrats (152
for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103
Southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80 percent
(138 for, 34 against) voted for it."


Of course, LBJ was quite correct when he said the Dems would lose the south for a generation (being that a generation is a subset of 2 generations). All the bigots became GOP and the GOP took the south for two generations.

\

Yes, of COURSE they did, John - they just jumped ship and went over to the side of the aisle that overwhelmingly (82% Senate, 80% House) voted for something they were vehemently opposed to.

Bullshit.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Now run along and claim that Obama is just like Hitler.

I didn't say that, Bill - but then again, you've never had a problem with putting words in other's mouths, now have you?

look, both of them are short guys with dark greasy hair and stiff posture

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Lucky... 0]

It's still a jumbled pile of shit. WHat you've given me is a bibliography with no excerpt where you make a point. Either you guys lay a Bib and nothing else, or you lay opinions with no ref / bib.

MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT, THEN CITE YOUR REFERENCE; YOU NEED BOTH. You have to both make a point and then suppoert it, not just provide some source and have me guess what you point might have been. I realize you don't want to spend the amount of time necessary, so then just pass on by.

Also, you would laugh if I posted Moveon, so don't be ridiculous and give me Heritage; it's a blatant joke. Most of what I see form them are hypotheticals IF Obama had done this or IF he hadn't done that.

[13] [17] are out, I wouldn't even cite Moveon, don't feed me Heritage gargbage.

[14] Looks interesting, make an assertion, possibly post a quote from them and I would love to read it.

[15] is a 77-page paper, why don't I just read it all to find your point. As for the authors:

- Gregory Mankiw, former Chairman of George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors, 2003-2005. Economics professor at Harvard.

- Matthew Weinzierl is a conservative Chrsitian Harvard Economics Ph.D.

[16] There's not even a link.

[18] Be interested in this one, make a point.

[19] All that is is a link to an article you can buy - you have to be shitting me.


Do you understand what it is to make an argument? All you do is post other people's arguments and don't even take an abstract. Idealy it would be your argument, make a claim like tax cuts didn't work under Reagan, post tax receipts as raw data under Reagan vs Clinton or another admin that raised taxes and make your point.

But if your going to *steal* someone else's idea, you have to make a point, not declare tehir word god. I can find eons of PhD's who conflict, so expert testimony is bullshit and we all know it, in court, in economics, etc. It's all agenda-driven, so make a point and let's see how it works out, noit some 77-page drivel.