Lucky...

No, she's not a witch, not anymore than Larrry Craig was a homosexual; it's all smoke and mirrors, that and a LW/RW conspiracy.

Finally you make sense. Finally, a 1-liner. Thx for contributing, we're all the better for it.

Really? The Great Depression occurred under Harding, Coolidge and Hoover, was fixed under 20 years of FDR and Truman. The debt crisis of the 80's occurred under mostly Reagan, but the rate of damage was highe runder GWHB in spite of the fact that he made small changes to try to reverse it. The debt mess was stopped under Clinton. The mortgage meltdown oiccurred under GWB, now Obama has to fix it. So I don't see your, "they both do it" secenario. I know, 100 years of the same usual sociopaths doing the same things. And then we can talk NIXON: The media is our enemy ( repeat several times), college professors are our enemy (repeat several times). Other tna Eisenhower and GHWB, your party has been shit since Teddy, 100 years ago. You can play these vague game and throw your hands in the air as I bring hard data and evets that, to an objective person, yields that these events happened during and as a cause of that sociopathic party. See, this is why I do silly things like posts data and you do brilliant thinsg like tell me to take the blinders off. See, if you outright lie, then your guy looks brilliant and you appear to be on top of the data. Kinda like lawrocket telling us the 1997 capital gains tax cut of 8% was a major tax cut. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms Job growth under: Reagan: 16.1M GHWB: 2.6M Clinton: 22.7 GWB: 1.1 16M is a far cry from 20M and both Bush's didn't create 4M, let alone the 10M you assigned to the sociopathic one. Oh and Clinton produced 22.7M jobs and I bet the wages were higher too, let me check.....Ah yes, as I suspected; wages blew up big time under Clinton, were modest under Reagan and dismal under your other hero. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/W209RC1?cid=110 So let's recap: Clinton produced more jobs and the wages were extremely higher versus your ill data that was incorrect anyway. You guys are so fun to beat up on and then watch you say, "so, that doesn't matter." Easy... -3.1M and he's still ranked above Reagan and of course GWB (I'm ranked higher than GWB). I guess if you look past the fact that the unemp rate increased 3.4% from fed 08 to Feb 09 then it really all is Obama's fault. I mean he saved the auto industry, he and GWB saved the banks, Obama made them pay it back or act responbsibly so many have paid it back under Obama and he and his stimulus has flipped teh dead GDP, cut the skyrocketing unemp rate and is now creating jobs, even in light of teh census workers jobs ending. Again, if you want to downplay the 2nd worst economy, not to mention 2 BS wars that Obama inherited, then you can also do whatever else you want. If you want to be honest and realize that Obama has an abortion to deal with, then you have started to look at obvious, moot issues. Reagan inherited a lame economy and high intrates, he made his own recession by allowing Volkers to contract the money supply versus other means that wouldn't just starve out the littl guy like that fucking corpo-fascist pig did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States 1980 recession 1980Jan–July 1980 066 months (July 1980) 02.2−2.2% The NBER considers a short recession to have occurred in 1980, followed by a short period of growth and then a deep recession. Unemployment remained relatively elevated in between recessions. The recession began as the Federal Reserve, under Paul Volcker raised interest rates dramatically to fight the inflation of the 1970s. The early '80s are sometimes referred to as a "double-dip" or "W-shaped" recession.[29][40 Early 1980s recession 1981July 1981 – Nov 1982 161 year 4 months 0121 year 10.8 10.8% (Nov 1982) 02.7−2.7% The Iranian Revolution sharply increased the price of oil around the world in 1979, causing the 1979 energy crisis. This was caused by the new regime in power in Iran, which exported oil at inconsistent intervals and at a lower volume, forcing prices up. Tight monetary policy in the United States to control inflation led to another recession. The changes were made largely because of inflation carried over from the previous decade because of the 1973 oil crisis and the 1979 energy crisis.[41][42] So the senile one created his own recession by allowing Volker to do what he wanted, but he inherited the economy sluggish but not in recession.

I know, we should just cut taxes and nix this silly HC thing, only certain people need it after all.

I gotta run to work, had to make 2 coments: 1) Yes, Democratic Congress spending overshadowed receipts - link. Nice Mike, Heritage and it isn't a data transcription from US Gov, it is their calculation, IOW's, their interpetation. Get real. 2) Nice to see you avoid your talking point about the 97 Cap Gains tax cuts being a major tax cut. As you see I provided a CBO statement/link stating Cap gains taxes = 2-3% of all taxes. And to cut 8% off or almost a third, or however you wanna look at it at most makes the 8% chop a .8% effect, perhaps as little as a .24% effect. I'll give you 1% for teh sake fo argument; so how's that for a major tax cut? Right, you still haven't given me a major tax cut that has done some benefit, just hazards. Stay in denial and I'll be home later to address the rest.

Who brought in efficienty? Not even a good strawman. The very rich have beancounters tell them what to invest, how much etc. That's their right and I would do it too if I were rich. Giving them more what? More tax relief? Collectively the bottom 50% of all taxpayers pay < 3% of all income taxes, so why should they pay less? Furthermore, they do better as taxes are raised for all, so raising taxes does bring this guy more. If had been more honest you would have transposd the 2 sites I posted in this passage: - http://en.wikipedia.org/...merican_middle_class -

Only part of the stimulus was spent, it flipped the GDP in record time and curbed skyrocketing unemployment; AKA no big deal in your terms. Not only that but the stimulus wasn't for people in poverty, it went to home buyers, auto buyers and other programs for already productive people, it wasn't garden variety welfare as you think it is.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/16/four-million-americans-poverty-one-year Yea, people living in tents here are just winers, as McCain's aise said; I see where they support their electorate and vice versa. Really? Explain how teh country does better under periods of higher stealing, worse under lower stealing? Other than your wild-ass opinion/ideology, what supports that? And is it ok if we cut military spending? Agreed.

Really? The Great Depression occurred under Harding, Coolidge and Hoover, was fixed under 20 years of FDR and Truman. The debt crisis of the 80's occurred under mostly Reagan, but the rate of damage was highe runder GWHB in spite of the fact that he made small changes to try to reverse it. The debt mess was stopped under Clinton. The mortgage meltdown oiccurred under GWB, now Obama has to fix it. So I don't see your, "they both do it" secenario.

And spoiling a lot of democratic incumbents. Well, we'll show that R's and L's are interchangeable if that happens. I mean Tea Baggers are generally Libertarians, so we'll see your Republican twins vite for you under the guise of, "better them than a Dem."

I stopped ready anything Lucky posted a long time ago. There are not enough hours in the day to bother trying to read any of it. Scrolling through his posts and ignoring everything he writes is the way to go. And yet another who is unable to address the issues. How does it feel to acquiesce? Thx for contributing and cheerleading the other guy that can't address.

OK and that is completely irrelevant? You don't like what they say, so you ignore them as irrelvant? That makes no sense. Why not post counter data from a real realiable, dynamic source then? Not RW fringe site in disguise. Right, the Heritage Foundation. WHo's more objective in a mater like that? You might find teh data errant, but not biased, so show me their errors. I've read you drag on for posts now about who is wrong, so whois right? Is it your favorite RW rag? Or perhaps you can extrapolate raw data. Love to read it.

You've just become as relevant as skipbelt. Just drop a few words not pertinent to the thread and run your ass off. There's a ton of data, I'll take your running as an aquiescence.

Or maybe Hoover's tax hike had nothing to do with the "recovery" that came when FDR took office. Might want to look up the word "evidence" before you start your next thread. Might wanna look up, 'cut-n-run' to desccribe your protocol. See, sweetpea, there is no mountain of evidence that can make you see the light, esp when you don't bother addressing any of it. Just pure coincidence that these data repaired as these tax increases/deals came into pay....yea . Just coincidence when the dirty, fascist, corrupt pig Reagan chopped taxes Harding-style thatthe debt ran thru teh roof....yea. Yet you offer no contrary data/ev. At least lawrocket and Mike try the .24%er route. It was desperate, but at least they try. You just run-run-do-run-run away.

OK and all of political science, which fed taxes are, are a bastard science since you can't run the test over and over again, testing one inependent variable at a time. But it's all we have and to throw our arms in the air and say, 'who the fuck knows, my diddy said to cut taxes so let's do it' is just ridiculous. We take the best data we can and interpret what we can. When we see repeating trends we then draw conclusions and all I see is that bad economic times are preceeded by tax cuts, better eco times are preceeded by tax increases. WHat's tax reform to you, tax cuts and spending cuts for all but the programs you want? Face it, we will have massive military and social spending all our lives; get used to it. What we need to do is balance the budget by raising taxes and making the uber rich reinvest their money or lose it. Who's they? The CBO, nonpartisan Tax Policy Center and Greenspan? They have more experince than all the Lush Rimjobs in the world. To just say, 'I'm mad as hell and I can't take it anymore' is lame. We take objective experts, all the data we can muster and draw conclusions/ get advisement and move from there. We have to use some data/advice, so what's wrong with these? Who's better? HAnnity? Heritage Foundation? Let's be imperical about it, address some issues; apathy and corruption got us here, let's not dig deeper with more of the same.

LOL, pised because I'm inundating you with the painful truth?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gdp20-40.jpg GDP hit the toilet in 1929; Black Tuesday. GDP started fell at an almost horizontal rate in mid 32 as Hoover signed the big tax increase and opened programs. GDP rose dramatically as FDR opened new programs; New Deal, raised taxes again, etc. A 4-year straight gain persiod of massive, consecutive gains under his New Deals and tax increases. http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html Unemployment lags as it tanks and in recovery, so you see here it started to repair after the tax increases and New Deals. DJIA tanked and then recovered as the tax increase was signed http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EDJI+Interactive#chart1:symbol=^dji;range=my;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined My, you are old. He did too little too little, too late. The Bonus Army, Hoovervilles; he was regarded as a lame duck for letting it fix itself as the neo-cons now want. Of course it intensified in severity until he raised taxes and started programs, but the people had decided he let it get too bad and tossed him. Ironically Garner, FDR's VP candidate, called Hoover a Socialist for raising taxes. That's just politics as usual, but FDR did the right thing from the start and Hoover did the wrong thing until the end, kinda like MLK vs Malcolm X. FDR never gave up 100 electoral votes in all 4 election wins and is now considered the #1 pres of all time. Teddy Roosevelt is #2, I guess the Siena Group weighs heavily on consumer protection and holding corporations accountable, both these gems were the anti-Reagan and honorable presidents from oppossing parties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States In summary, his actions at the end weren't realized as successful until he was long gone and he did wait too long to do the right thing, which equates to doing the wrong thing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews_excl/ynews_excl_pl3604 But isn’t it bad to raise taxes in a recession? If stimulating the economy is the goal, there are more effective ways of doing so. Extending all of the Bush tax cuts would have a small bang for the buck in terms of stimulus, the equivalent of a 10- to 40-cent increase in Gross Domestic Product for every dollar spent, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Why? As the CBO notes, most Bush-tax-cut dollars go to higher-income households, and these top earners don't spend as much of their income as lower earners. The CBO recently examined 11 potential stimulus policies; of those, extending all of the Bush tax cuts tied for the lowest bang for the buck. Letting the high-income tax cuts expire and using the money for aid to the states, extending unemployment insurance benefits, and tax credits that aid job creation all scored higher. Dollar for dollar, each of these measures would have about three times the impact on GDP as continuing the Bush tax cuts. So much for the rich spending money and stimulating the economy; we knew all along that was BS. Will raising the top tax rates hurt small business? One of the most common objections to letting the cuts expire for those in the highest tax brackets is that it would hurt small businesses. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) recently said that allowing the cuts to lapse would amount to "a job-killing tax hike on small business during tough economic times." This claim is debatable. Less than 3 percent of tax returns reporting small-business income are filed by taxpayers who fit Obama’s definition of a “high-income” taxpayer. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, small-business income makes up a majority of the income for about 40 percent of households in the top bracket and a third of households in the second-highest bracket. Based on this analysis, if the objective is to help small businesses, continuing the Bush tax cuts on high-income taxpayers isn't the way to go. Moreover, much small-business income is taxed at low or zero rates right now. Small business also fully deduct wage payments, so a higher tax rate should not impact their choice of hiring people. As well, Greenspan has already said that tax cuts don't pay for themselves and that they s/b reserved once the economy improves. As I wrote and cited in another thread, the CBO establishes capital gains taxation at 2-3% of all federal tax revenues. So is the CBO, nonpartisan Tax Policy Center and Greenspan all wrong? Is this a misinformation conspiracy? Come on, kids. As an added note, let's look at the Great Depression, Hoover did nothing for 2 1/2 years after Black Tuesday, finally he raised income taxes 260% in one act as well as doubled other taxes and the healing began. So to all the people who claim that tax hikes in bad times are a bad idea, history is not your friend.

It would be too much to ask for a citation I'm sure, it would take honesty to post that. I'm pretty sure that's accurate. The Dems are in charge so they can push their earmarks more effectively. That's why the R's want power back. They want to get back to subsidizing the wealthy at our expense. You see, spending money to build a bridge or a fire department is "pork" in their eyes, even though it actually gives us something here in the US that is tangible and of benefit to society. On the other hand, throwing cash out of the back of a truck in a war zone (a war of choice mind you) or failing to hold polluters accountable by "shaking them down" for money to cover their damages, is "necessary top-down-job-creating-stimulus investment in our future". There ya GO - Lucky has a groupie now! He's making substantive points on his own, that's not a groupie. You are a groupie, you make no points, just tag along like Rush.

"You keep using that whord. I do not think it means what you think it means." Whord, or Lucky, or Go? You just add absolutley nothing to the thread. Look at people who make substantive responses and try to be like them.

First, here's a tutorial on capital gains tax from teh CBO: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3856&type=0 Pls, don't try to the courtroom theatrics here, esp with unproven theory that higher taxes on the rich means they always pay much more. Truth is, they usually have bean counters tell them what they need to invest to avoid taxation, hence more investment = more growth, less unemployment. True. Tax cuts hurt teh poor. Wrong, the MC, wherever you place them, pay very little of the taxes too. The chart shows the MC at 30 - 55k household income. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class Now, what taxes do they pay? http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html If you are in the 32k AGI brkt and below, meaning you gross probably as much as that 55k amount with a house and 2 kids, you pay 3% of all income taxes, so your middle class attempt has once again failed in your attempt to say that this group pays most of the taxes, thereforetax cuts help them. Wrong, tax cuts means the rich can pull their money out with less tax penalty. High taxes mean mean the rich must reinvest for a writeoff or lose it in teh form of taxation. Now no one likes the idea of having most of their asset value wrapped up in investments, but it beats paying 70% to the gov, paying 28% is worth liquidating and paying the fee. The rich aren't here to hire people cause they feel compelled to be a good American, they listen to their bean counters and act accordingly. When taxes are low, liquidate and bring your cash to safety. A very obscure tax, but we should have had import tarrifs attached to counter that. Also, that tax was imposed during the GHWB recession as I recall, so people weren't buying a lot of big ticket items anyway. Really? People making 55k employ us? You're thinking upper MC, don't confuse the two. And besides, raising taxes forces them to reinvest their profits, maybe not fair in your world, but it works vs your theory of low taxes and the subsequent fiscal disasters that follow. Wait, you just said the MC do, to a large extentt employ us. Make up your mind. Hey,. it's your masochistic fantasy; do as you wish. Taxes don't punish the wealthy, they force then to reinvest their profits like a real American would want to do, right? You employ sociopathic principles of 'fuck those w/o HC and then whone because I call you on it; get over it and quit posturing. Right and low taxes allow for profit taking, high taxes demand reinvestment, so it depends upon your paradigm which way is best for you, we know which works best for the system. Wasn't that a wonderful time for elitist, fascist corporate pigs? I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986 it's humaity gives me shivers al lover: The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15% since many lower level tax brackets were consolidated, and the upper income level of the bottom rate was increased from $5,720/year to $29,750/year. This package ultimately consolidated tax brackets from fifteen levels of income to four levels of income. [1] This would be the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly. No elitist sociopaths here, move along. Also, you claim the 1986 TRA increasd revs? http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebt.html GRAPH #2. I don't see it, the graph doesn't really change direction from 1984 to 1988, if anything it dips in 1986 and REVS NEVER CAME CLOSE TO OUTLAYS; THE DEFICIT WAS STILL ON THE TOILET (red line on bottom). Yet another unsubstantiated point from you. Actually they dropped to 16% in 2003-4. http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/current-tax-receipts There were factors such as 911, dot.com bubble that contributed for sure. Even with 911 we never had 2 consecutive Q's of negative growth. Not sure of your point of talking GWB tax cuts in teh 2-3 years preceding the tanking of revs. It kinda supports my case, but tehre was a lot of transition so it's hard to appoint a lot of blame at one element. Not smart to cut taxes amid a war that has coost well over 1 Trillion $ to date. What pulled us out of the 2004 low was the housing mess we have today. We injected stimulus thru our banks into mortage false appreciation and there was cash everywhere. Of course low taxes required low int rates to stimulate the economy and they stayed too long, creating a false appreciation frenzy. I see, an article written in May 2007 that tries to analyze revenues in as recent as 2007 is best said here in teh article: Total federal revenues grew by about $625 billion, or 35 percent, between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2006. CBO's analysis of that increase in revenues since 2003 is necessarily preliminary because relevant data are not yet fully available. So they admit they don't really have data to make an analysis. Now, there was a bost in revs from all the stolen house money, that is true. The keyword I've used is, SUSTAINED and you seem to miss it. Look at the graph: http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/current-tax-receipts See how brief the success is until it turns into the 2nd worst fiscal disaster we've ever enjoyed? That isn't success and the disaster was more sustained than was the brief growth spurt that was a reaction to all the money floating around. Kinda like winning the lottery vs going to college and getting a career and putting the money together. But just like Reagan's debt nightmare, I see you consider GWB's total collapse as success too. Don't be so mean, I'm like lawrocket, that hurts my feelings. Show me how you connect the dots between the tax cuts that were done during the tanking of the country and for 2-3 years later, then all of the sudden they come to work.. I mean there s.b some kind of immediacy if the tax cuts were to be credited for recovery, right? Why a 2-3 year lapse? Maybe the tax cuts prolonged the agony. But I think it's common knowledge the housing frenzy pulled us out of the 2003-4 gutter and threw us back in in 2007 until now. Show me how. Cutting taxes allows for profit taking with little penalty. High taxes requires reinvestment of loss. You assume that 1T willbecome 2T; a huge leap. 30% of 2T yields profit taking and revs will temorarily rise, but then fall flat, a great illustration is found in the graph: http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/current-tax-receipts Look atthis graph again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States See the table in teh lower left corner? Taxes were cut from 94% to 82% and the post war drought was on. Then taxes were jumped back to 91% in 1951 and look at this chart again: http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/current-tax-receipts An amazing period of growth. Look at the same graph and see in Carter's years how he sustained revenue groth thruoghout his term, it fell as Reagan chopped taxes. Rhetoric. You actually *TRIED* to be empirical for a moment, then it's back to neo-con as usual. Again, Mr. Esquire neo-con, it doesn't have to be extremes, it can be that the rich hang on to their asset, but they have to reinvest most of their profits which in turn creates jobs; win-win. I don't see the data but I assume you're right. Amazing what 30 years of mostly corpo-fascist policy has done; made it worse than the GD in ways. Really? Don't tell that to FDR. Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poverty_59_to_05.png Looks like Clinton's policy worked well versus your last Nazi. So you're saying it took 3 years for the 2001 tax cuts to finally work? Riiiight, as I see your sliding scale is working well. The 2004 gains were as a result of the frenzy of money floating around from the housing mess. Yes, GHWB and Clinton both cut the military and raised taxes, altho modestly and the result was a great economy, deficit fallen. So what did these do to enhance growth? Your guess. Right, so rich people who get fre HC should pay; is that bad from Mr pay for your own HC? Is that bad? And with all that revenues exceded outlays; so what's the problem? I see, you want to attribute the 5% tax cut of GWB to growth 3 years later, but this tax increase gain is mysterious to Clinton's gains . I think what made the 90's great were these things: - GHWB's 1990 tax increase - GHWB's military contraction/base closure - Clinton's 1993 tax increase - Clinton's base closures/contraction - The Dot.com boom Just as what made the 2001-present such a mess were: - GWB's tax cuts - 911 - Dot.com bust - Low interest rates leading to artificial house appreciation - Deceptive lending/borrowing - Katrina - 2 unneeded wars Now these could have been mitigated by having a competent leader in place, but we were gonna suffer bad times anyway, it would have been nice to not have such a moron as pres, I'm sure you agree. Yes, it was a deal for things like the sociopaths resisting to give him min wage increases, etc. Assuming your numbers are correct, they are misleading. In 1993 the unemp rate was 7% that he inherited from 12 years of RW politics. The deficit was 290B in 1992. Granted GHWB made puny strides to be less like your hero, fascist Ronnie, but they were small strides. The economy was flat but the recession had ended as Clinton took office, as he raised taxes immed the numbers turned more postive, but it took time to quash the deficit, create growth, kill unemp, etc. So his first term was spent restructuring the base, his second he had unemp down and was able to bear the fruits of his growth. There were no relevent changes to the tax cose after 1993. The cap gains argument from you and Mike is lame. Cap gains are insignificant to the big tax picture. Here's that CBO site: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3856&type=0 Capital gains taxes often garner policy attention that is disproportionate to their importance in generating federal revenues. One reason is that the realization of gains is very sensitive to capital gains tax rates, leading to speculation that changes in rates--and the alleged failure to take into account their effect on taxpayers' willingness to sell assets--explain how revenue forecasters have been surprised by movements in tax receipts. Another reason is that gains are a way in which earnings are paid to investors, prompting the idea that well-designed changes in the gains tax rate can significantly influence economic growth, with potentially large feedback effects on revenues. This revenue and tax policy brief outlines the basics of capital gains taxation in the context of estimating individual income tax receipts. This should put to rest how insignificant cap gains tax rates are eitehr way: Individual income tax receipts from capital gains realizations normally make up about 4 percent to 7 percent of individual income tax revenues (see Table 1); they are usually between 2 percent and 3 percent of total receipts. So please make a valid, relevant argument. Are you shocked, the late 90's were about an employee's market; they could command what they wanted. The insignificant cap gains tax cut of a measly 8%, in an area that accounts for only 2-3% of all tax receipts anyway, did nothing to change the economy. I wonder what the 9% income tax increase, as well as other tax increases in 93 garnered in the way of revs from 93 until GWB cut them? Whatever was done in 93 was it for Clinton, it was gridlock after that. And there were no relevant tax changes after 1993, unless you consider changing by 8% the part that accounts for 2-3% of all tax revenue . I'm sure you'll say that. That's like saying if you're chute is loaded 2:1, putting on 2-3% or 5 lbs of fat is going to drastically change flight characteristics. I'm sure you'll say that. They were slight changes for the most part anyway, but to affect by 8% an area that accounts for 2-3% of all taxes is just lame and abstract and per the CBO too much attention is paid to cap gains tax anyway, you have just become irrelevant in your debate. No, that with spending cuts caused the deficit to fall every year of Clinton's terms, not teh ,ast 4, all 8. There were no relevant changes in 1997, unless 8% of 2-3% is relevant. .08 x .03 = .0024 or .24% WOW, that saved us all I'm a believer It really had no impact. And as far as investment, when taxes are lowered, it allows you to pull out with less penalty, so it would advocate pull out of investments. You can invest where you want at any time anyway, that is just a bizzare thing to say. Taxation doesn't control investment areas; you pull 100k out of Boeing and put it in Apple; that happens w/o penalty IN ANY TAX RATE ENVIRONMENT. No, because income taxes, personal and business, account for over 1/2 of all fed revs, cap gains taxes account for 2-3% of all revs. How long are you going to beat that lame drum? HUH? How is profit taking reduced under lower taxes; that's when you profit take when the penalty is lessened. Bizzare logic. When taxes are high, you leave your investments in or move them around, don't cash them out. - Then explain how under Eisenhower, we had the cold war, Korean war, nuclear buildup and the debt fell 3 of Eisenhower's 8 years. - Explain how in 1969 when VN spending and CW spending was high with the tax increases right before then that receipts exceeded outlays. - Explain how under Reagan with the same high spending but low taxes outlays hammered receipts and the debt soared. And subsequent to the 93 tax cut that had been cutting the deficit from 93 on, creating jobs, creating growth. Don't be a 3 percenter, but esp don't be 8% of a 3 percenter, or a .24%er.

Just because I own that opinion doesn't mean the DNC does. We will lose seats, it's almost an automatic. You gotta be joking me, this isn't even as reliable as a RW rag, this is a guy with a site and his biased BS and you find it noteworthy???? …I am a thirty something radiologist and entrepreneur, living in the Central Ohio. I am married with two children. I consider myself a conservative, though I am moderate (or Libertarian) on many inssues. I think I am more a pragmatist that an idealogue, but certainly I can sometimes be idealistic. What a joke. Why do I waste my time discussing grown up issues with a person who references fringe BS and considers them mainstream? As time has gone fwd GWB has fallen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States Dude You are so far left the main stream looks extreme right to you sheeesh Thx for the 1-liner, the world is a better place for it. Sorry Truth hurt? But your views are so extreme they are not worth replying to Not working again today? Actually I have the flu, thx for caring. And thx for your immense contributions to my thread.

And you're a fucking lawyer? I don't know what area you practice in, but generally you ahve to grow a thick skin. Truth is you would rather pretend to have your feelings hurt than to defend tax cuts where there is no data to show they do good things. As I have said many times, it creates an escape for people who don't want to address teh issues. Bullshit, it all speaks for itself. I've posted this data umpteen million times, here goes again: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/MarginalIncomeTax.svg/500px-MarginalIncomeTax.svg.png The 2 times when taxes were chopped huge, 1920's Harding/Coolidge 73% to 25% and 1981 Reagan 70% to 28% the results were the Great Depression and massive debt accrual respectively. Wealth was redistributed the the most wealthy in both cases, or as you call it; heaven on earth. Both times it took tax increases to recover. Hoover sat there for 2 1/2 years and then raised taxes 260% from 25% to 63% on June 6, 1932 and GHWB/Clinton raised them 12% over teh next 4 years after the senile fascist turd left. See, I can't help myself, there's your escape to feel hurt and refuse to further answer. Anyway, our best fiscal years were under high taxation, 1940s' - 1960's. And spending was very high during these times, we started to encounter tough times as the top marg brkt was chopped in teh 70's, disaster in the Reagan years when we revisited the GD year's tax brackets. Cry me a fucking river, I insult the ideology, which is very supportable, not the person. I'm not crying. Far from it. I'm trying not to laugh because you are presenting it from a self-anointed position as the speaker of the truth (HALLELUJAH!) who fails to indicate any grasp that reasonable minds may differ. Exactly, this allows you an escape from having to SHOW US ONE FUCKING MAJOR FED TAX CUT THAT HAS HELPED.[\reply] Helped what? Helped me? Helped my employees? Helped my retirement? Helped the poor? Helped the deficit? "Helped what?" I've asked you that before and you didn't answer it. And your failure to comprehend that help for one implicates harm for another demonstrates the rampant confusion that you have between subjective feeling and objective reality. further, it is an indication of your inability to view the interests of those whom you deem unworthy. By calling them Republiturds, you have a much easier time destroying people, businesses and families. It's not what your use of these terms says about republicans but rather what it says about you. Volumes. I'm too busy wiping my ass. I'll start a thread and be completely w/o any hurty words for those with sensitivity issues and we'll see the usual suspects running teh same usual way. Just admit it's part of your ideology and you're sticking to your story w/o deliberate thought. REVENUES NEVER MET THE GROTESQUE FEDERAL SPENDING UNDER REAGSN - FUCKING NEVER AND YOU CALL IT A WIN? That's what I'm talking about; you celebrate disasted for the country as long as a few can win. BTW, that tax act was the final chop from 38% to 28%. Look at the debt accrual under your boys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms Look at the 3rd chart/graph down: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms Clinton raised taxes / cut soending and receipts exceeded outlays the last 3 years of his term. Reagan and his brilliance never really came close to receipts meeting outlays; IOW's, he couldn't buy his way out of it. Truman chopped taxes from 94% to 82% at the end of WWII. As with post-war economies, there was a recession anyway so he soon raised taxes back to 91% where they stayed all of Eisenhower's terms. So that increase aided Eisenhower to have teh debt fall 3 of hos 8 years. In 1968 and 69 taxes were raised from 70 to 77%, as you can see on the graph and in the data set http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States The debt fell under these taxes in 1969. Altho during Clinton's years the debt never fell, the deficit fell every year from 290B GHWB's last year to just 33B Clinton's last year, 8 years later. Again, fell each and every year. If the trend had continued, the debt would have fallen the next year but GWB gave away the surplus and cut taxes; we know what happened. We also know that Clinton raised teh top brkt 9% in 93 right after he entered office. In 97 I want to say under Clinton and 4 years after his tax increase revs beat outlays, held there until your hero took office. http://www.econdataus.com/outdoc10.html - - - - - - - - - - - OUTLAYS AS A % OF GDP: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/outlays-per-gdp.php As you can see, the worst since WWII were the Reagan years, the best the Eisenhower years followed by the Clinton years. This graph shows us the 1950's, 1969 and Clinton's years. OK, that is rhetoric. What is being implemented specifically? Yea, I say Obama should just let all tax cuts expire, he's trying to help teh little guy tho. No, that's just to shut the rich whiners up. Besides, taxes for the 3% ers mean virtually nothing either way, so it's impact would be minimal and I don't wanna be accused of being a hypocrite, so raise them across the board. WOW! So now you ARE saying that the "Clinton Show me what you're talking about via data/ev otehr than RW rag. Is that better? Feelings doing ok? HUH? All you can do is look for something taht isn't said. See, that is lawyering brilliance, I'm over here getting hung up on irrelevant things like objecctive data. Yes, the longest growth period in US history and you act as tho it's bad????? WTF? How mnay times do I have to teach you guys it's been 20 months? He sin't pres as he's elected in Nov. Also, I was talking Clinton's growth period and you know it. Obama's policies are a lot like Clinton's. No way, the young vote will come out in 2012, not 2010 unfortunately and reelect him. Youth are tired of crusty old WASP maggots tying to cut education funding and sending them to war in the name of patriotism. Neither you nor I are young anymore. I do not speak for youth, nor do you. I speak for myself only. It's actually refreshing. So Clinton's first 2 years with a Dem congress where he raised taxes 9% top brkt which laid the base for a hugely sucessful presidency weren't good? Glad you speak for all people in the US. http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm So the R's ran the House from 95 to 05, they got nothing done under Clinton, shut the country down due the them not sending Clinton an acceptable budget and it was basiclly 6 years of gridlock under Clinton, 4 years of tax cuts, massive spending and massive debt accumulation under GWB; you must be proud. Hey, you just said it was a good thing people were allegedly fed up with the status quo and that it was great that the R's ran the House for the first time since teh 50's; make up your mind. I see you agree that a D House wouldhave been better in teh GWB years, maybe the people were right back in the 50's forward. Yep and taxes stayed at 40% top brkt cause Clinton wouldn't cave, the deficit continued to fall. Oh, as in under HArding/Coolidge? Not such a brilliant assertion, counselor. They stayed out of teh bank collapse, welfare and all of that. Then when FDR came in he enacted the banking holiday, interceded in the banking operations and things were far better. No, he already did it in 93 with his tax increase, so the last 6 years were just reeling in the profits from that, fending off the R's and getting nothing NEW done, just living off what was done in 93. What happened in the last 6 years of Clinton? Small tax cuts in 97 as an exchange to appease congress, but nothing major either way. The 104th-106th congress got very little done, we had gridlock. The 103rd congress was great.

Just because I own that opinion doesn't mean the DNC does. We will lose seats, it's almost an automatic. You gotta be joking me, this isn't even as reliable as a RW rag, this is a guy with a site and his biased BS and you find it noteworthy???? …I am a thirty something radiologist and entrepreneur, living in the Central Ohio. I am married with two children. I consider myself a conservative, though I am moderate (or Libertarian) on many inssues. I think I am more a pragmatist that an idealogue, but certainly I can sometimes be idealistic. What a joke. Why do I waste my time discussing grown up issues with a person who references fringe BS and considers them mainstream? As time has gone fwd GWB has fallen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States Dude You are so far left the main stream looks extreme right to you sheeesh Thx for the 1-liner, the world is a better place for it.

Exactly, this allows you an escape from having to SHOW US ONE FUCKING MAJOR FED TAX CUT THAT HAS HELPED.[\reply] I've phrased teh question a million times. Here we go again. No, not helped the rich, fascist pigs, but helped the poor, the MC, the middle-upper class. Lowered the debt or at least stopped the increase. In general, overall economic betterment is the best way to state it. So let me hear your abstract BS like, 'It ehlped therich, they hired people, bal, bullshit, bla. After a maj fed tax cut, show me where, in most/all areas of the economy, indicators as well, were benefitted by the cut. I hope that clears it up, I'm sure it won't so you will continue to run. I didn't address your post from yessterday @ 2 pm, a few hours ago and you're doing the victory dance? What a joke. I addressed this question I line up, if you need more clarification I can go even further. Basic economic indicators are here but not limitied to: - Deficit - Debt - income - GDP - Unemp rate - Market performance (sustained) - Ability to go to college - Overall helthcare availability Higher taxes increase growth, keep the debt down and demand reinvestment over profit taking, that is determinable by objective data, yours is a flowery pile of shit that is just opinion-based. No, I want that when you and your lawfirm grosses 2M in a given year that you either reinvest a lot of it, expanding, hiring people, etc or give it to the gov so they can. You want to profit take and suck teh blood out of it then throw it away.