Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Bush tax cut = deficit

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 19, 2012, 4:41 a.m. EST by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

In the summer of 2001 Alan Greenspan testified before Congress that, “We are on track to pay the debit off completely within 10 years.........the biggest economic threat facing America is that we will pay our debit off too quickly and then Washington might not spend the money wisely.” Now he used Greenspan speak but this is what he said, then we pasted the Bush tax cuts and the rest is history.

UPDATE here's the quote:

“The most recent projections from OMB and CBO indicate that, if current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach about $800 billion in fiscal year 2010, including an on-budget surplus of almost $500 billion. Moreover, the admittedly quite uncertain long-term budget exercises released by the CBO last October maintain an implicit on-budget surplus under baseline assumptions well past 2030 despite the budgetary pressures from the aging of the baby-boom generation, especially on the major health programs.

These most recent projections, granted their tentativeness, nonetheless make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach and, indeed, would occur well before the end of the decade under baseline assumptions. This is in marked contrast to the perception of a year ago, when the elimination of the debt did not appear likely until the next decade. But continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically, nonfederal) assets.

At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses now projected under current law imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. Such an accumulation would make the federal government a significant factor in our nation's capital markets and would risk significant distortion in the allocation of capital to its most productive uses. Such a distortion could be quite costly, as it is our extraordinarily effective allocation process that has enabled such impressive increases in productivity and standards of living despite a relatively low domestic saving rate.”

“Returning to the broader fiscal picture, I continue to believe, as I have testified previously, that all else being equal, a declining level of federal debt is desirable because it holds down long-term real interest rates, thereby lowering the cost of capital and elevating private investment. The rapid capital deepening that has occurred in the U.S. economy in recent years is a testament to these benefits. But the sequence of upward revisions to the budget surplus projections for several years now has reshaped the choices and opportunities before us. Indeed, in almost any credible baseline scenario, short of a major and prolonged economic contraction, the full benefits of debt reduction are now achieved well before the end of this decade--a prospect that did not seem reasonable only a year or even six months ago. Thus, the emerging key fiscal policy need is now to address the implications of maintaining surpluses beyond the point at which publicly held debt is effectively eliminated.”

Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan Current fiscal issues Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives March 2, 2001

274 Comments

274 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Then Obama signed for the Bush tax cuts again too.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026069-503544.html

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

and that was sad...

[-] 3 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

................ but supports the idea that BOTH parties have the same agenda - taking care of the wealthy that pay for their campaigns. Huge circle jerk !!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

But Bill didn't, and Hillary would not have been so easy, and Gore would have kick ass, yes with Obama we have the weakest of the bunch, but still light years better than Romney.

[-] 0 points by takim (23) 2 years ago

if you're a fan of statism ( fascism) obama is the guy for you.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Ah yes, statism, with just a hint of corruption and a teaparty garnish. Ummmm! Fascism casserole, with 4 and 20, R)epelican'ts baked into a pie. Let's do lunch?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

420, will there be enough pie for you too?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

In the sky. There will be Lucy and pie in the sky, with diamonds

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

diamonds break light into a million different paterns, that only mad men see

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Is dat de defracking dat da done did? No wonder everyone is so upset. It's a case of alliteration in bad taste.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Government of the 1% leaves a bad taste in your mouth like over priced car insurance…

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Doesn't sound like The United States of America.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

hey here's one,

COBs, Children of Billionaires, COB, Child of Billionaire

The Kings of Tomorrow,(or today?)

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Cobs used to something corn grew on. Who knew?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Labels seem to be working good for "them" maybe we need a few, lately I've been calling for the 99% inheritance tax? That's another I think could catch on.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Pray tell; compare contrast Romney/Obama tell me which should I choose?

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So am I to conclude that you can find no difference between the two then?

Or is it that you feel those that support OWS should not influence the next election in any way?

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

In 1993 the 103rd balanced the budget, but you may not think that is imporant. You should listen to this:

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-05-07/thomas-mann-and-norman-ornstein-its-even-worse-it-looks

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Republicans aren't either. they're even worst, nothing better happens with the GOP around.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

see the link below a couple of guys have new book out on this, we really do have to kill the GOP if we want to move forward

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28497) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I saw them on the PBS news hour. They were very excited to get the word out.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I'll see if it's online, I missed it, they make a good case.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28497) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

It was last week thur or fri. More of these types of segments are starting to get air time.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago
[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28497) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

More good food for thought.

[-] 0 points by Craiggiedangit (99) 2 years ago

A balanced budget is not important. Are you familiar with Modern Monetary Theory? A balanced budget is nothing more than a disaster waiting to happen, a precursor to a recession.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

yes I am familiar with the current attempt to ensalve Americans forever, I oppose it.

If a balance budget is not important than you won't mind if we pay for everyone's health care do you?

[-] 1 points by Craiggiedangit (99) 2 years ago

Of course not. Why would you think that?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Did not control the Senate. A majority today means nothing. I think you can make your point without abandoning truth.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

yes they did

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

The Dems did in fact control the senate, house and presidency, as corium states.

http://wiredpen.com/resources/political-commentary-and-analysis/a-visual-guide-balance-of-power-congress-presidency/

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Subtract Nelson, Lincoln, Pryor, and you can't overcome filibuster.

[-] -3 points by takim (23) 2 years ago

if you don't know, you're too stupid to vote,............but being that stupid identifies you as a democrat.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

In name only, DINO. Like Nelson NB.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Too late, Nixon and the (R)epelican'ts already did that.

Damn, you should be paying more attention, or were you not born yet, and just ate up all the propaganda they could feed you?

[-] 3 points by TheirLyingPropaganda (54) 2 years ago

Spot on -

The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy plus the war in Iraq plus the war in Afghanistan plus the giveaway donut hole drug benefit money going largely to the One Per Centers in the drug industry (including their lobbyists) resulted in Trillions of new spending.

See also

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/30/1000924/-Debt-ceiling-follies:-how-we-got-here

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Gotta admit, that set the standard. Is that really the RIGHT way?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Thanks...and go Kos!

[-] 3 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 2 years ago

~Good Post, factsrfun ~


-November 3, 2011 REPORT-

::::::::280 Most Profitable U.S. Corporations Shelter Half Their Profits from Taxes::::::::

http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2011/11/corporate_taxpayers_corporate_tax_dodgers_2008-2010.php

“These 280 corporations received a total of nearly $224 billion in tax subsidies,” said Robert McIntyre, Director at Citizens for Tax Justice and the report’s lead author. “This is wasted money that could have gone to protect Medicare, create jobs and cut the deficit.”

  • 30 Companies average less than zero tax bill in the last three Years, 78 had at least one no-tax year.

  • Financial services received the largest share of all federal tax subsidies over the last three years. More than half the tax subsidies for companies in the study went to four industries: financial services, utilities, telecommunications, and oil, gas & pipelines.

  • U.S. corporations with significant foreign profits paid tax rates to foreign countries that were almost a third higher than they paid to the IRS on their domestic profits.

(((Check Out the Special Report Landing Page Here))) http://ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/

(((Full Report Here))) http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf

(((Read CTJ Press Release With Key Findings Here))) http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersPR.pdf


[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Thanks for the links and info, corporations being complex creatures provide at least two advantages to those wishing to make off with the treasury, their size allows them to take advantage of the complexity of the tax code, which they help create with their lobbyist. The other advantage is if they get it wrong and get “caught” no one goes to jail, unlike with personal taxes (I know enforcement is terribly lax for tax cheats), but the point is with a corporation you can shield the actual people involved 99% of the time.

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Good Post! If American corporations were made to pay taxes would help too.

REVEALED: The 30 American Companies That Paid Less Than $0 In Income Tax Over The Last 3 Years

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-30-american-companies-that-paid-less-than-zero-income-tax-from-2008-2010-2011-11#ixzz1mHCykaGw

Cheers :)

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Hey thanks again Sparky, your doing good reseach, it's important work.

[-] -1 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

Why don't you go to the property tax rolls online for the city where you live and just sift through the commercial property records and business personal property valuation records. You'll see a lot of big company names in there unless you live in a small town. I live in Dallas, I looked up just Exxon's real property holdings here and it was over $120 million in valuation, equating to about $4 million in local property taxes. One company in one town. How many individual's property taxes does that entail you think? I figure somewhere between 1000-1500 people. One company, one town. The other thing you fail to realize, it's pretty hard to "make" them pay a lot of taxes. People pay taxes, corporations don't. You'll just see little blurbs in your local newspaper about how such and such company is raising their prices for such and such a reason. They won't say, of course, that it's because of their increased income tax bills, they'll pawn it off on something else. But don't be fooled into thinking they'll just eat the cost.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

is this why the FOX people always point out that everyone pays taxes, whenever somebody says half of Americans don't, no wait a minute that's what they say everyday, and refuse to even acknowledge property tax, but hey if you couldn't twist stuff around any way you want it you wouldn't be conservative

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

You assume that we are just going to keep buying their shit every time that they raise prices. WE have the final say over which companies get OUR money. They need us to buy, buy, buy or else they fail, so they have to get a price that the market will bear or else they'll be priced out of business.

[-] 0 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

Correct. The "out of business" or "not in business in the first place" would apply very well. Now you're catching on. I'm trying to put this on as elementary level as I can so that all you folks will understand. Let's say you you want to sell lemonade in front of your house, and you know that generally a cup of lemonade will sell for $.50 each, and that's what "the market will bear". Now, you price what your costs are going to be, the lemonade, the cups, water, any advertising you did to get people to come to your stand, permit to the government you had to pay to get a license to sell it, and it comes to $.40 for each, leaving you with a $.10 profit on each cup, or 25%. Are you going to factor in paying 35% of this $.10 profit, in order to reach an actual "net" figure that you will walk back into your house with, or are you going to just say you made $.10, and forget about the $.035 that you gave to the government? I think you'll figure it in, and if the amount of money you can make selling lemonade is not worth the effort of selling it, you won't sell the lemonade to start with. The number of businesses that would never even get off the ground because of high taxes and government regulation is a figure that cannot be proved, much like Obama's "saved or created" jobs figures, intentionally so.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I got an ideal, let's let you keep the first $50,000 tax free so you can keep going till things take off, tax at 35% after that till one Million dollars then 90% after that, so no body who ain't rich is haveing to pay high taxes, just till we get this debt paid.

[-] 0 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

They raise their prices, of course, because they're greedy bastards! Look at the price of gas with such low demand. You also forgot to mention that Exxon receives HUGE tax subsidies. You sure won't change my mind with this so called logic.

[-] 0 points by takim (23) 2 years ago

the oil companies don't recieve subsidies. they are using the tax code to take legal deductions. nothing different from what obama did with the tax free gift of $48,000to his kids, just on a larger scale.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

How much money does the U.S. government give oil, gas and coal companies?

Estimates of the value of U.S. federal subsidies to the domestic oil and gas industry alone (not coal) range from “only” $4 billion a year, to an amazing $41 billion annually. One recent comprehensive study of U.S. energy subsidies identified $72.5 billion in federal subsidies for fossil fuels between 2002-2008, or just over $10 billion annually.

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

[-] -1 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

Business is a zero sum game. The sooner you realize that faceless corporate entities are not really funding taxes, even though they may pay some, they factor every single dollar of them into their business plans, future purchases of companies, etc. because they have to in order to calculate if the investment is worth doing. Much like you starting a business and determining what all your costs are going to be and what you can sell a product for, then what you have to pay for licenses and taxes, and see if it is worth doing to start with. They do the same. If they can't make a significant amount of money doing it, they won't. And we'll all be worse off because of it.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

wait till I tell the guys on Wall Street, it's a "zero sum" game, do you even have any ideal what you are talking about?

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Definition of 'Zero-Sum Game' A situation in which one participant's gains result only from another participant's equivalent losses. The net change in total wealth among participants is zero; the wealth is just shifted from one to another.

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/z/zero-sumgame.asp#ixzz1sDwb5zdR

In the example of oil companies, they receive the gains and stick the American people with the losses!! Hence the wealth is shifted from the people to the oil companies. Subsidies are corporate welfare.

[-] 0 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

The people get the gas. But I agree they don't need subsidies.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

“The most recent projections from OMB and CBO indicate that, if current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach about $800 billion in fiscal year 2010, including an on-budget surplus of almost $500 billion. Moreover, the admittedly quite uncertain long-term budget exercises released by the CBO last October maintain an implicit on-budget surplus under baseline assumptions well past 2030 despite the budgetary pressures from the aging of the baby-boom generation, especially on the major health programs.

These most recent projections, granted their tentativeness, nonetheless make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach and, indeed, would occur well before the end of the decade under baseline assumptions. This is in marked contrast to the perception of a year ago, when the elimination of the debt did not appear likely until the next decade. But continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically, nonfederal) assets.

At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses now projected under current law imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. Such an accumulation would make the federal government a significant factor in our nation's capital markets and would risk significant distortion in the allocation of capital to its most productive uses. Such a distortion could be quite costly, as it is our extraordinarily effective allocation process that has enabled such impressive increases in productivity and standards of living despite a relatively low domestic saving rate.”

“Returning to the broader fiscal picture, I continue to believe, as I have testified previously, that all else being equal, a declining level of federal debt is desirable because it holds down long-term real interest rates, thereby lowering the cost of capital and elevating private investment. The rapid capital deepening that has occurred in the U.S. economy in recent years is a testament to these benefits. But the sequence of upward revisions to the budget surplus projections for several years now has reshaped the choices and opportunities before us. Indeed, in almost any credible baseline scenario, short of a major and prolonged economic contraction, the full benefits of debt reduction are now achieved well before the end of this decade--a prospect that did not seem reasonable only a year or even six months ago. Thus, the emerging key fiscal policy need is now to address the implications of maintaining surpluses beyond the point at which publicly held debt is effectively eliminated.”

Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan Current fiscal issues Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives March 2, 2001

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

The whole concept of paying off the national debt in a fiat based monetary system is ludicrous and a political ploy. Federal spending equals private sector savings. A balanced budget in this system would be the worst option. If we were running a gold standard the size of the debt would vastly more critical.

There as always been debt since the founding of America, except for a brief spell under Andrew Jacksons presidency - about six months.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

This is exactly what concerned Greenspan, he felt that the loos of ability of the very wealthy to, first off, offset risk with government bonds was a problem, he was willing to say out loud, buried within that, what he wouldn't say is that if the rich can't buy bonds then they have less control over the government, they need the government to own them money so they can dictate policy. This was what had the GOP so scared in 2001, they were afraid we would pay off the mortgage and be free of the control that owning money to someone gives them. Well I say raise the rate to 90% and let them pay the debt they ran up.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Passtime was absent when the brains came out,

He was busy in back, punchin babies out.

Now he can’t tell the difference between the Ds and Rs

And his mommy makes sure he has his knack sack on.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Some people have questioned this, how do I get the old congressional transcripts?

[-] 1 points by Progression (143) 2 years ago

Ahh... the lovely Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. As if it wasn't enough for corporations to exploit tax loopholes to dodge paying their fair share. And they claim OWS to be full of self entitled individuals... that is hilarious. Another reason why there is an increasing amount of hostility towards corporations.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Yo what gives? You make sense, you've been here awhile, but your count is low. I'd love to hear more of your thoughts.

[-] -1 points by aflockofdoofi5 (-8) 2 years ago

Easy enough to destroy another liberal lie:

<<<However, a Washington Times article counters "the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to the New York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”" [26]<<

The Bush tax cuts spurred the largest tax revenue gain in history and even the liberal New York times was shocked.

Bush wins, Factsrfun loses. Again.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Oh so we must have zero debt now, wait that's not right, how did this happen?

Oh we cut taxes did we?, yes that always does causes debt to up.

But that was way back when the Iraq War couldn't possibly cost more than a billion, we all know how that turned out, of course the fatcats always rush in to cash out when we cut capital gains, funny thing isn't that suppose to cause people to invest? Of course the revenue plummets after the gold rush, and that's why the debt is out of hand, but to figure all this out you do have to have a brain, and I realize that is asking a lot of you.

Hoo-Rah!!

Schooled like a child,

wearing frilly panties that the little boys see,

calling you a sissy cause your sister won the bet!

Life must suck for you....

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

"for the wealthy" is a lie......ALL marginal rates were lowered.......and they increased revenue to the treasury.....

[-] 2 points by Progression (143) 2 years ago

Why does the tax cuts disproportionately benefit the wealthy then?

http://www.epi.org/publication/the_bush_tax_cuts_disproportionately_benefitted_the_wealthy/

[-] 1 points by conservativemajority (-30) 2 years ago

Because they pay more taxes, no shit. If you cut taxes, the more you pay, the more you benefit.

But those tax cuts also let many drop entirely off the rolls. I hope the cuts do expire, for everyone. It'll be fun watching you libtards next year lose the tax cuts you convinced yourselves never happened.

[-] -2 points by RayLansing (99) 2 years ago

I sure won't miss the disproportionate Bush tax cuts or your cum guzzling of the 1%.

[-] 2 points by conservativemajority (-30) 2 years ago

I hope they do expire, for everyone. A lot of middle class and lower people are absolutely going to pee themselves next January when the tax cut you leftists tell them never happened, goes away. Many of these people are going to get rudely welcomed back to not only higher rates, but the very idea of paying taxes.

[-] -2 points by RayLansing (99) 2 years ago

Whats that sound? Oh conservativemajority is guzzling the cum of the 1% again! Where in my post did I tell them it never happened? Do you have reading comprehension difficulty? Gee I sure hope the 1% compensate you for guzzling their cum so hard over the internet.

[-] -1 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 2 years ago

Psst, here's a secret: Because income tax rates apply, get ready, to income. Your 5th grade math teacher is ashamed of you.

[-] -1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

gremlins laughing

[-] -2 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 2 years ago

Yeah, I know, it's really obvious. Funny how many liberals are puzzled by the math. Tax rates apply to income. The higher the income, the greater the dollar amount change for a given change in tax rate. It's obviously more complicated than the typical liberal can handle.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

My math teacher told me 31% was more than 15% why do people who make 20 million paying 15% and people who make 100,000 are paying 31%?

[-] -3 points by conservativemajority (-30) 2 years ago

It is more, congratulations on that. Honest to God, you find this to be confusing or are you deliberately being obtuse? Different types of income have different rates. This is news, I guess.

I guess you'd be happy too if municipals would be taxable. Fine, make them taxable, have municipalities pay higher rates, tax them, and then have investors land right back where they started from on an after-tax basis. I guess stupid fucks like you would be happy, but that's no surprise I suppose.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

LOL oh my god how funny, bait and switch!

You claim making more means you pay more, I say; it isn't so and you duck out the back door, what a hoot you are!!

[-] -1 points by conservativemajority (-30) 2 years ago

Tax rate x what's taxed = tax paid. Let's just let that sink it for a second.

For a given change in rate, those with more exposed to the tax experience more of a change in tax paid. This one completely bamboozled leftists before, but to get a tax cut, get ready, you need to pay taxes. Seriously, it's true.

But that's not what leftists expect. Maybe that's just another reason to ramp up educational spending on math classes. LOL.

[-] -1 points by Progression (143) 2 years ago

Psst, here's a secret: It doesn't change the fact that the tax cuts disproportionately benefit the wealthy. Logic is obviously more complicated than your typical wingnut brain can handle.

[-] 0 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

So if taxes are raised, or the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, can we say that the tax increases disproportionately benefit the poor and middle class? You seem to not be logical. You seem to be saying that disproportionately benefitting the wealthy is bad, disporportionately benefitting anyone other than the wealthy is good. You want things disproportional, don't you?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Who told you life was fair? I just want this thing paid, and I know where the money is.

[-] 0 points by RayLansing (99) 2 years ago

"So if taxes are raised, or the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, can we say that the tax increases disproportionately benefit the poor and middle class?"

Yes, I can say the expiration of Bush tax cuts would disproportionately benefit the poor and middle class.

"You seem to be saying that disproportionately benefitting the wealthy is bad, disporportionately benefitting anyone other than the wealthy is good."

That's the way it should be. You sure want to guzzle the 1%'s cum don't you?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

but here is where this led to, while fairness may be nice to talk about, the truth is life is not fair, but we need to keep the GOP from messing it up if we do ever get this tthing fixed again

http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-do-we-stop-this-from-happening-again/

[-] -3 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 2 years ago

They also allowed many people to slide off the tax rolls entirely. That was a bad idea. We have way too many people that are now unhinged from the cost or efficiency of government. To them, it's just a source of stuff. So, when you ask them if they want a bigger government, they immediately agree. To them, it's free. It was a bad move for democracy.

[-] 0 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 2 years ago

This is biarre budget stuff - obviously the Elites are afraid of budget surpluses, maybe because good things might happen for the 99%??

Thats quite a conversation here. A Converweirdsation.\ Is that some kinda RW troll posting the name calling and non-replies?The "Liberals are dumb" stuff? Rilly, grab a thought buddy.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

"Are you looking at me?'

You hit on it though, governmental debt is a tool to control the only monster the wealthy fear the only kid on block as big as them, the government, they seek to kneecap the government so it will not be a threat to them, that's why they went crazy in 2001 when we were actually paying down the debt.

[-] 2 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 2 years ago

It is hard to imagine that Clinton had eliminated deficits and was, as you say, paying down the debt. And it has happened with every change of party since 1964 - Dems reduce it, Reps ratchet it up DESPITE THEIR HOWLING for the opposite. Yes, even Ray-gun.

Republicans, the party of total hypocracy - fiscal, religious, whatever

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I don't know why we do not see the clips of the GOP running all over Washington crying out about how Washington was taking in too much money, I remember hearing it all summer long and every time I did, I cringed even then before it all went to hell, and the sad thing is every Republican out there would do it again, none of them has said maybe we should of paid down a little more before we started adding to it again.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The repubs do ratchet up the deficit/debt because their diabolical plan is to then scream that we must cut the pgms of the 99%.(ss, medicare, welfare, pell grants EPA etc)

It's been repub plan for 30 years and it is called "starve the beast".

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (28497) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

That is good advice. Even if it comes from a guy who likes to mess with peoples minds.


[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3000) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 4 minutes ago

VQ. I don't want people ganging up on you any more than I want you being divisive. I would greatly appreciate if you could exchange your divisive comments for policy information. Substance not rhetoric. I promise, you will get a lot more respect from most of us. Include corroborating links and documents. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I am not interested in his advice. I seek & accept advice from people that I respect. He accused me of being divisive! He didn't say what was divisive! I don't know what he was talkin about!

Karlin mentioned a finding that repubs ratchet up the deficit/debt. I offered him my knowledge on why that is. Do you disagree on why the repubs have done this?

Do you disagree with Karlins findings? 'cause it is my experience that they have. Reagan, and Bush increased the deficit, Clinton cut it.

Did you tell Karlin that he should speak differently. Is it somehow open season on telling Victor how to speak!

I'm a 49 year old man! my parents are dead! I listen to no one! Have I done something wrong? He mentioned repubs. I responded. Am I not allowed to say repubs?. Is this site now a protect repub site?

Can we please move from the part of our show where VQ is told how to speak. If I am rude, obscene, insulting, I should be reprimanded. I haven't been in this comment.

And I was not talkin to Richard or you DK. Am I being surveilled?

What was divisive in my comment DK?

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

I listen to no one!

50% of the problems we face are because our culture. Change means Everyone. Learning to share space with diversity is the first step. Something required to sustain civilization is civility, even with those you disagree with. You cannot complain that people are singling you out while you single others out, such as republicans. Every time you say anti-dem, you accusing them of being a republican, as if to be an insult by brand.

I have tried several times to be civil with you but you call me an anti-dem when I don't walk in lock step. After the third try with you, I decided you needed pressure. You are entitled to your beliefs. You are not entitle to tell others with different beliefs that they do not belong here, or to personally attack them because they see things differently.

If you are not willing to make concessions, don't expect it from anyone else.

[-] 1 points by flip (6815) 2 years ago

i listen to no one - are you quoting someone or is that your assinine comment? well it is pretty clear where that got you. much of the problem is the system madison designed to undermine democracy and the corporate state nexus that has grown to dominate that system is most of the rest - culture - well once again we disagree

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I will deal with you and your friends who coordinate your attacks on my with ease.

You cannot stop me! I have the truth on my side! And I know I stand with and for the 99%.

I will be civil as long as you are. Today you and your friends made a massive move against me and you have failed!

I think you and your friends should stop harassing me. If you do not I will meet the challenge with strength of moral certitude.

HA!

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

I did not coordinate any attacks. If you want to know why it seemed that way, people are susceptible. Period. So even if you don't see the effect your attitude has on others, you now have seen the effect my attitude had on others. You and I have the same power to influence. Take care and responsibility with that power, is all I ask.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You need to stop asking anything of me. You have made it clear we are not friends but enemies! I am not your child. I will do as I please as long as I don't break the forum rules or hurt anyone. The mods can police me as well as my own moral compass.

Please refrain from personal attacks.

Peace, and good luck with all your good efforts.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28497) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I am not going to go into reviewing your comments to say what was good or what was bad or what could have been better. You make a lot of good points on comments that I have seen - that being said - we have talked about this before.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I'm not tryin to be divisive. Rich doesn't like it because it is unflattering to repubs. I didn't bring up repubs. I just offered an observation. And Rich did not say specifically what he objected to.

thx, I'm watchin Bill now!

[-] 3 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

VQ. I don't want people ganging up on you any more than I want you being divisive. I would greatly appreciate if you could exchange your divisive comments for policy information. Substance not rhetoric. I promise, you will get a lot more respect from most of us. Include corroborating links and documents.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Please stop harassing me. I will debate the way I see fit. You are not an authority. You are not my father. I have not asked your advise nor will I. If you want to discuss the issue on the thread in a respectful way I welcome that. If you want to tell what I can or cannot say, or if you think you can tell me how to discuss the issue that will not be welcome

I am not looking for your respect or your friends who continually gang up on me. Because I am only interested in the respect of people I respect.

I believe I know better than you the best way to debate. I believe I made my point regarding the right wing plan to "starve the beast". You disagree?

Surprise surprise.

Do you disagree with Karlins finding that repubs have ratcheted up the deficit/debt? You didn't criticize him for not having links though right? Just me you and your friends harass. Only I am singled out. Why because my arguments are not valid? NO! because I don't put links? NO!

Because I am right! Because I challenge anti dem partisanship continually and you can't stand it.

LMFAO

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 2 years ago

Yikes! it looks like I got away easy and VQkag got the flak for me... But really, it is the bickering on the small stuff that makes us forget the big picture, and that we, the 99%, will have to stick together to make a difference. [not that we all have to agree, but lets debate nicely]

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I have been relentlessly attacked by our resident closet republicans all day (and before). You comment about repub debt irresponsibility was not what they wanted to hear. I liked it. & commented. They pounced.

You are welcomed here. feel free to express your opinion. I need all the help I can get.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

There you go again refering to anti establishment occupiers (the majority of them are, whether you like it or not) as Republicans.

Stop calling people who want change Republicans and maybe you wont have the entire forum insulting you.

But thats your goal isnt it? Get everyone all riled up.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I am a registered independent, I support the dem agenda, I know the dems are better than repubs.

I support replacing pro 1% conservatives with pro 99% progressives, & protest, pressure, agitate for change that benefits the 99%.

I am entitled to my opinion. I will express it and everyone is free to decide for themselves.

You seem like a republican to me. So I say that. You certainly attack me for my dem defense. And you only ever attack dems so isn't that clear?

You and your friends made a massive coordinated attack on me today because you are anti Dem, and I challenge you. We disagree, you attack!

Please refrain from personal attacks!

Peace and good luck in all your good efforts

[-] -2 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 2 years ago

Thank YOU, VQ. What are Republicans doing on the OWS forum anyhow, probably Trolls - but if thats what they want to do with their time then I will happily debate them with you VQ.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Please be careful. try to remain civil. And no outright campaigning

[-] 2 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 2 years ago

No worries about campaigning - I am no fan of either party, they both belong to the Elites, and being Canadian I have no vested interest there.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Excellent. Canada is where Occupy was hatched. And Quebec has had momentous student protests. How is that student protest going?

Here we need a growing massive movement to pressure all pols to pass progressive solutions that benefit the 99%.

Dems have been especially disappointing when they cave in and vote for conservative policies.

Peace, & Solidarity.

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 2 years ago

I and many others are starting to feel like we are part of something with the OWS movement - the lack of "defined doctrine" is helping that. It is difficult to get people to un-isolate themselves, but hey, who can deny they are "part of the 99%"? The government having moved away from being "by for and of the people" is helping us see the value in OWS too - we are not being represented, we are being governed and it doesn't taste good.

I didn't know that OWS was hatched in Canada, thats great, you made my day!

The student protests are in the province of Quebec, a distinctive society within Canada that is actually much much closer to the OWS movement than the rest of Canada is. I will refrain from putting labels on Quebec but lets just say they want their government policies to benefit the majority, the average person. They are less inclined to cater to the Elites than is the rest of Canada or than America is.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Sounds good man.

Solidarity

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I think Reagan did start out to "starve the beast" now I think they realize that they turn the entire country into indentured service, and make American nothing more than another "owned" asset to pass down to their offspring, establishing generational wealth forever. Otherwise know as Kingdoms.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Good perspective. I think in the end they will fail. But only if we grow a robust progressive protest movement that stays active and agitates all pols for the change that benefits the 99%.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I honestly don't know, when we speak of the 1%, we are talking about over a million families, and if we are to have equal opportunity the children of those million families will have to receive less advantage in life. People will not agree to that easily. For a while we will be able to point to social issues, environmental concerns and perhaps get some support but the rest must come from those willing to let their offspring compete in life and those are few indeed. (I will admit, my son has never had a "student loan" I didn't want him burdened with it.)

As the inequality grows and nothing has changed that since Reagan got it going in 1981 by busting the air traffic controllers and setting America on a new course where you earn the least your employer can get away with paying you instead of what most folks think you should be making, think air lines pilots, there was a time when we didn't think they should be getting food stamps, now we just want cheap tickets. BTW sure more people are getting food stamps because more jobs are paying that little these days. Unions raise wages we know that. But people are being told they should blame the union workers for their hard times, I remember a country not that long ago that did the same thing but they picked an ethic/religious group instead of "unions" but the tactics and goals are the same.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Nothing is simple. We must trust our instincts, moral compase, & ethical guide to guide us. That is all general stuff but there are no easy answers.

Stay strong.

[-] 0 points by Justoneof99 (80) 2 years ago

Look at the numbers and you will see that is actually Bush administration SPENDING, not tax cuts, that are responsible for the lion's share of the current budget deficit. Sadly, the Obama administration exacerbated the deficit problem with more reckless & unrestrained spending that has given us an unsustainable debt burden.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

“Love and Marriage, Love and Marriage, Go together like a horse and carriage, This I tell ya brother, you can't have one without the other. “

source: http://www.lyricsondemand.com/tvthemes/marriedwithchildrenlyrics.html

Maybe Greenspan was wrong, I mean he’s the one with the degrees and all, but it was that tax cut that turned things around. Either way have the Republicans signed any pledges that say if by some miracle we fix this thing, say we do it all by cutting spending, have they signed a pledge they won’t just cut taxes again?

[-] 1 points by Justoneof99 (80) 2 years ago

Don't we WANT taxes cut? I would rather have the 99%'ers hard-earned dollars in our control; not in the control of the government.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I want candy,

Ice cream cake,

I want it all and I can’t wait.

I want the people round the world,

Now step back from that pile of oil.

But most of all I want control

Of all the income in the world!

(through debt of course)

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Hades (-13) 2 years ago

So if the tax cuts are gone then no more deficit? Really?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

It's more like if we hadn't cut taxes in the summer of 2001 when the Republicans were running all over Washiongton crying that Washington was taking in too much money just because we had finially started to make headway, and none will say they won't do the same damn thing again if we fix it again for them like we did in 93, so I say let the 1% that gave them the money to run on in the first place pay the bill they ran up

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

(DEBT) "Debit" is an ATM thang.

Debt is not the problem ( see FDR debt, taxes and economy, anywhere ) it's Republicon and 1% sabotage that will be the problem, that has been the problem, and they don't care. Time for law enforcement!!!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

It is how the debt is used that matters.

Look at what Perkins said in "Economic Hitman" debt does have a propose, it allows you to "own" those who owe it.

The minions of the wealthy ran up this debt so that they would be able to tell the government what it could afford to do, thereby maintaining overall control for themselves.

In 1993, Clinton and the Ds set in motion a budget plan that threatened this control, Greenspan complained about it when he spoke of certain types of investments that were becoming scarce as a result of the government redeeming more bonds than they were issuing. In his 2001 testimony. Bondholders hold power, now we can do what the smaller countries cannot do, as was shown when the S&P gave us the downgrade, our bonds went up. We could fix this, by pulling the money out of the trust funds, and doing a “reboot” on the economy I don’t know if we will.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

OK fine we are being black mailed like we have PRACTICED on many third world countries. No Surprise. DUH!

Greenspan told his flunkies that FRAUD was not a crime.

Can you say Sabotage?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

That is what is going on I think, and hey don't get me wrong quoting Greenspan and all, I use their tools on them all the time, Greenspan is their hero not mine, I think he was lying when he said this and should go to jail, he just wanted the Bush tax cut to pass and would of said anything to have it done. But I do think we were way better off before we passed that pig of a bill and we might actually not have 15 trillion in debt now if we hadn’t.

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Can't cry over spilt milk (some indictments would be nice, though), we have a democracy to reclaim. These Cons have been plotting against it since our inception.

We have a class war we have been fighting the wrong enemy (each other) for, and we have domestic terrorists/saboteurs (Cons) we have been trying to work with. A fine mess....

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I know a way to fix it and let the ones reasonible pay the bill, the 99% inhertence tax, after the first 5 million that way no one goes hungery but those billionair that have been cooking this all up, well that's where the money to fix it is

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You hit that on the nail, from the very beginning there have always been those that preferred the King.

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Authoritarian Cons are still alive and well, Royal and Loyal!!

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

Our negligence let the Cons, who have plotted against our American experiment in democracy for the People since before its inception, snatch it up and turn it against us and for the 1% Plutocrats, their current day Kings.

We have a lot of waking up to do and a lot of work. We need to get the Cons and the money out ASAP!

First the Vote! A consistent lesser evil Vote will evolve to really good!!

Don't fall for the Cons con-job: both parties ARE NOT the same.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

If you've read my "bio" then you know that I believe the desire to lift up your childern, natural as it is, is at the root, it is what truely makes Kings, not a strong government that is responsive to it's people as some would have you believe.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Three words that does do, will do and says it all: Put People First.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I like it, good bumper sticker/button, and I think it's real important to have good ones of those, so this is sincere.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

(C) Copywrite

A little esoteric for now. But do the math, it's everything we need and death to appose.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

LOL

I love’em all, that’s why I set ‘em free.

But that don’t, bother me:

Cause people won’t pay, for what I say.

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Occupy Earth Day and Get Out the VOTE!!

[-] -1 points by Lucky1 (-125) from Wray, CO 2 years ago

So Obamas 5trillion addition to the deficet is due to the Bush tax cuts? Are you serious?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

They are still in place, aren't they? If we were paying zero in interest how different would that be, because we would have no debt if we had not "changed fiscal policies" it is hard to say what would or would not be, it is not hard to look back and see when it all went to shit, that's when we elected the Republican, the Republicans depend completely on America having no memory, certainly our media has none, not one Republican has been asked about those "Washington taking in too much money" days. You can see it in their convention they did not have the Veep or President from the last run or time in office, but the Ds had a good mix of both, the Rs run from their record and blame others for what happens while they are in office while claiming credit for stuff they fought against. Not one Republican voted for the last plan that balance the budget, and they are a roadblock to getting to another, If the GOP were to do this they would do it all with spending cuts, I hope that if the Ds have to do it alone again we do it with all tax increases.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

let the Bush tax cuts expire and everyone's taxes will go up. Fine by me. I will have less discretionary income & have fewer meals in restaurants, I can stand to lose a few pounds anyway so this will be a good thing.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

and we pay off the debt so people can get retirement checks, win win win I like it

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

who is "we" when 47% of the population have no federal income tax liability?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Well if there is any fairness the "we" who paid for the campaigns of the people who ran up the debt will have to pay it off, as I remember that's like the top .5% or something that has been funding these stupid campaigns sending these guys there, so I would say the top .5% could pay off the debt, as far as I'm concerned.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

how can that argument hold water when everyone over 18 gets to vote? ridiculous.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

in order to run you must get permission from the rich, what are you having trouble with? they ran it up, they should pay it, all they had to do was pull their support from any tax cuters and we would have no debt.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

Not true, look at all the third party candidates out there.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Doesn't change the fact, that if they had wanted to they could of pulled support for Reagan when he broke his promise to balance the budget, but instead they made him a saint, so hold them accountable for their actions, I say.

Third party is a 1% trap.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

what about the people who voted for Reagan who were not 1%? or any other candidate for that matter. you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You keep ignoring the first, most important "election" the one where the rich decide who to support, after that it’s just window dressing isn't it?

Let them pay the bill their guys ran up, when we get public funding for all elections then we will all be responsible, till then it would be immoral to take from people who didn’t really pick these guys, or lobby them, if the wealthy knew that they would have to pay the bills, they would be responsible about who they put up, as it is, they take the cash and leave us the bills.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

no - we all vote. we can vote for a third party candidate. If we go for the default candidates who's fault is that?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Yeah you can vote however you like, but the two people who have a shot are decided by the rich long before you vote, no reason they should not be held accounable for what they have done, they could of changed things any time they wanted to.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

"the two people who have a shot" why is it they have a shot and not the candidates with less money?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Do you need to go over this? really, OK it would be different if we band TV political ads but we don't, we should.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

exactly - so if we are foolish enough to vote based on ad money etc - then we get what we deserve.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

Still BULLSHIT.....

Deficits were going down prior to the democrat congresses beginning in 2007......

If the tax cuts were responsible for the deficit, as you contend....then they should have risen after the tax cuts were finalized......

But they didn't, they went down.....16% lower in FY2007 (500B) than in FY2004 (595B)...despite the tax cuts, wars, and Rx drug program........

Sorry......you're full of shit, as usual......

and that testimony was in early 2001, before the effects of the Dot-Com bubble, the Enron failure, and 9/11.......the climate in late 2001 was a polar opposite of that in early 2001.....

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Like Greenspan didn't know "shit happens"?

We fixed it , you broke it!

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

Date Debt Held by the Public Intragovernmental Holdings Total Public Debt Outstanding

03/30/2000 Not Available Not Available 5,788,541,874,357.52

08/22/2001 Not Available Not Available 5,779,164,972,811.46

Here we see at the end of President Bill Clinton’s presidency that public debt was stable for 15 months. It is your position that by picking dates it is easy to show this happening at any point. I have ask you to demonstrate this at any other time in the past 40 years, as I know it is a lie, and you have failed to do so. So you continue to call me a lair when there ample evidence that I am not so you continue to prove that you are.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

your dates not only span over two fiscal year budgets, but also span over two separate congressional sessions.......the 106th and the 107th congresses.......

Unfortunately for you, that is not how balanced budgets work, and that period was far from stable.......just because you can post a beginning and end date taht gives the appearance of stability doesn't mean that the facts support it..

at the end of fiscal 2000 in Sept of 2000 the debt was 5,674,178,209,886.86

So, your stability added 105 billion to the debt in less than a year.....although you try to paint a different picture........

and the debt at the beginning of FY 2000 in Oct of 1999 was 5,656,270,901,633.43

so the 106th congress and Clinton added 132 billion in debt in only 6 months from oct-march

Your cherry picking and faulty analysis is laughable....

I guess if the person who owned a used car that you purchased only drove it 100 miles 6 months before you bought it, and you only drove it 150 miles the nine months after you bought it you could claim it was barely used.....even if they beat the shit out of it prior to that six months and you did the same 9 months after.......

get your head out of your ass.....

Clinton didn't pass budgets anyway...he only signed the budget presented to him.....if anyone is responsible for your fallacious point it would be the republican congress...NOT Clinton....who, again, under a Democrat Congress had higher deficits than Reagan.....

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

money comes in, money goes out, when you have enough coming in you don't have to borrow, I know it’s too complicated for you to understand,

in 1993 Bill Clinton and the D's without a single Republican vote set in place the law that balanced the budget, you are trying like hell to hide from the truth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Tell me, how did it do that?

This should be good....

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You know those 15 months you don't like to think about, you really want to keep telling this lie?

I understand lies are all you got, after all the GOP really suck.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

you have demonstrated again and again a lack of knowledge, and difficulty researching data, your ignorance is getting to be rather boring...

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

please attempt to link the 1993 budget act and the Separate FY00 and FY01 budgets.......

Though.....don't forget the effect of :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Relief_Act_of_1997

as much as you would love to....

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

In 1994 the people punished the government for doing something good, so the 97 "relief" act was the result, a bad ideal, made worst in 2001.

The 1993 bill set the framework for all budgets during the Clinton years, everyone paying attention during that time, knows this, but you are so stupid, you don't even admit it was ever balanced, in spite of clear evidence to the contray, so the fact that you don't know shit, really need not be "proved"

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

The 1993 bill did no such thing.....and after FY95 the budgets were written by Republicans in the House, under Gingrich......it wasn't until AFTER the 1997 relief that the deficits dropped to the low of 17 billion (never was there a balance when you account for Social Security Surpluses that were spent and the SSTF issued IOU's as is ALWAYS the case with ANY surpluses in SSI collections......the Social Security Trust Fund is a big bag of IOU's...but since Social Security is not an "on budget" item...they can borrow against it and claim they "balanced" the budget.....

The fact that you don't know this, or are simple ignoring it is troubling, what is your purpose with this disinformation.....it doesn't change the reality, or the bankruptcy that is the federal budget......Obama has spent us into a lower credit rating for our bonds.......and outspent Bush43's entire administration in less than 4 years......and MOST of the spending of Bush43 came out of the Democrat Congress......the Democrats spent almost 3 to 1 more than the republicans did....and under Clinton Democrats spent twice as much.....

any attempt to portray Republicans as the bigger spenders is simply false and misleading, and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.....

There was no budget year with an overall balance, beyond an accounting gimmick of using Social Security revenue to misdirect that actual amount of spending.....

and the only one that was close, was a 17 billion dollar deficit.......under Republicans in congress......Clinton and Democrats in 93 and 94 (FY94-95) had two years of 281 billion Dollar deficits, more than all but a single year of Reagan's deficits...

You are trying to prove a false point, and will always fail...just like liberalism and socialist collectivism will always fail.....

You are a fool, and determined to remain a useful idiot of the liberal socialist big government machine......sad, very sad

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You are just lying some more and your lies are tiring if nothing else.

“(never was there a balance when you account for Social Security Surpluses that were spent and the SSTF issued IOU's as is ALWAYS the case with ANY surpluses in SSI collections......the Social Security Trust Fund is a big bag of IOU's...but since Social Security is not an "on budget" item...they can borrow against it and claim they "balanced" the budget.....”

BTW, you never closed the parenthesis are you getting upset?

Anyway yes this is the scam the GOP insisted on back in 86 when they created the Trust Fund, by having SS take in more than it needed with the tax increase, that’s why when they were reporting; what was it? about three years of surpluses, they were lying, just as they had been doing since the 80’s, in other words Reagan really is responsible for that one.

However for 15 months it really was balanced as demonstrated by the zero increase in public debt:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

Date Debt Held by the Public Intragovernmental Holdings Total Public Debt Outstanding

03/30/2000 Not Available Not Available 5,788,541,874,357.52

08/22/2001 Not Available Not Available 5,779,164,972,811.46

During this incredible time achieved only by the sacrifice of great American heroes, the budget really was balanced.

So now we are back to your lies, you see until you can say something without lying, there really is no point.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

NO offense, but no one pays close to that amount. Most of these big multinationals dont pay anything. And anyone in that bracket is going to have massive write offs.

The difference of 2% was nothing more to get the people to argue and stay ignorant to the bottom line- they are all screwing you, they just have different methods.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

What are you talking about?

None of this relates to the post as far as I can see.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

"Bush Tax Cuts = Deficit"

Try to put two and two together.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

In the summer of 2001 Alan Greenspan testified before Congress that, “We are on track to pay the debit off completely within 10 years.........the biggest economic threat facing America is that we will pay our debit off too quickly and then Washington might not spend the money wisely.” Now he used Greenspan speak but this is what he said, then we pasted the Bush tax cuts and the rest is history.

maybe you didn't read this part, see then we passed the tax cuts and now we are where we are

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

^ believes Greenspan....the one who pushed the cheap money after Glass Steagall was repealed.....hahahaha

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Not saying I believed him just saying that he said it, the reason he said it was to push through a tax plan that we could not really afford and that we should repeal now.

Do we agree on that?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

A 2% difference in the top bracket, which no one pays anyways, doesnt make one difference in the grand scheme of things.

Whether its 37 or its 39, it makes no difference. Cheap money bubble, which no one focused on, right before out huge entitlements start with the boomers, is the structural problem.

The Bush cuts were just more circus acts to keep those that pay attention divided and not talking about Bush real crime, his "Ownership Society".

There is only one other group that lends money to those they know cant pay it back....The mob.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You should at least take a glance at current events, say the last 20 years or so, either your a GOP hack, or very uninfromed.

[-] -2 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 2 years ago

Spending CUTs = balanced budget

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

so far only when combined with tax increases, happened in the 1950's and the 1990's

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion4 (70) 2 years ago

How about we TRY cutting FIRST and then if that doesnt work we can increase taxes? Let's start with something that does not require the working people to get hurt,,,,,, those that are actually PAYING taxes.

[-] 3 points by Faithntruth (997) 2 years ago

Dont forget that as the income drops for the majority the taxes collected on that income goes down as well, which further contributes to the deficit.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion4 (70) 2 years ago

Spending cuts first.

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 2 years ago

Start with military spending which was the largest single increase in national spending and I'll agree with you.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion4 (70) 2 years ago

OK,,, I agree too. I will support cuts in military if you will support cuts in welfare and social type programs. You OK with a this-for-that? Bet not.

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 2 years ago

Social programs have already been both cut and reformed. Social security age has increased, tuition grants reduced, rules implemented to restrict welfare, food stamp rules made stricter, food stamp money reduced, programs for homlessness, medical care, and education reduced, public sector pensions, pay and benefits reduced, and government jobs reduced.

Two notable exceptions: corporate welfare, like subsidies for oil companies that are making record breaking profits. Those programs that support a further reduction in personal freedoms like TSA, intelligence gathering, and border fences.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion4 (70) 2 years ago

I think you are wrong in most of your first paragraph. If I "gave" you $2 dollars a month for several months then the next years a started to give you $4 dollars a month for several months then I decided to give you only $5.50 a month for an increase, YOU would claim I CUT from your budget. NO social program has been cut,,, only the amount of the increases and you consider that a cut. Now, had I only given you $3.50 a month,, then that would be a cut.

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 2 years ago

Your argument is simplistic. You do not account for either inflation or increasing poverty population.

Lets say I give YOU that increase to $5.50, then tell you you have to share it with one of your neighbors as I charge you more for everything you need to survive.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion4 (70) 2 years ago

I dont need to account for any adjustments in inflation or population. If I had taken my example out one more step,, from $2 to $4 to $6 and agreed to give you $6.10 (bonus) rather than my $5.50 but your spending habits were far greater and in YOUR mind wanted $6.25 then you would still state I had cut you. Nobody ever wins when the math is not exact. $3.50 would be a cut,,, not $6.10. Just because you still have checks in the check book does not mean you still have money. Learn to balance a check book based on revenue.

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 2 years ago

You want the math to be exact, but dont want to account for reality of inflation and increasing poverty. Nuff said. Later.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The problem with that is we have been leading with tax cuts for decades the top rate has fallen from 90% to well less than 14% if you make 20 million a year for doing nothing, remember Rommey doesn't even know how the money is invested, so yeah before we lay off even more teachers I'm for a tax increase

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Sometimes it's good to look to the past to see how people reacted to similar situations. This is a good read:

America’s Most Egalitarian Banker

With our titans of high-finance now creating chaos and rewarding themselves with billions, we might do well to remember a time when someone with good sense — and a conscience — could actually lead America’s top financial institution.

By Sam Pizzigati

http://toomuchonline.org/americas-most-egalitarian-banker/

Cheers :)

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I remember watching Templeton? on Wall Street Week in the early eighties, I may just be fooling myself but I felt like he had a good "feel" about him, I haven't looked lately but if I did mutual’s I would still look at Templeton first, the concept of investing in and of itself, is not a bad thing, but we made too many "advisors" and they had to have something to do, so we got this mess. BTW the reason we got too many "advisors" is because we paid them too much, that happen because will let them set the price and told ourselves God was doing it, I know that's a lot but I got a feeling you can catch it all.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

I don't have a problem with investing. I have a problem with capitalism on the way up; and socialism on the way down. It creates moral hazard and huge bubbles that will eventually pop and leave us all at risk. I have a problem with too big to fail. I have a problem with the Fed's perpetual money printing, their bailouts, and their continued thievery. I also have a problem with the gang of thieves that run our government. We no longer have a democracy ........ or a representative republic ............................ we have a Kleptocracy !!

Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, (from Greek: κλέπτης - kleptēs, "thief"[1] and κράτος - kratos, "power, rule",[2] hence "rule by thieves") is a form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the wider population, often without pretense of honest service. This type of government corruption is often achieved by the embezzlement of state funds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy

Cheers ;(

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Thanks, hey check out my little paper on my "bio" page.

[-] 0 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

I personally would like to seem them go ahead and pass the Buffett tax so we can see what you guys will come up with next. I think the consensus is that it's going to get us about $5 billion a year, with a $1.4-$1.5 TRILLION dollar deficit, not debt, deficit. Hooray, problem solved. I'm thinking you surely have plans for everyone else.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I want to return to the tax rates of the fifties the country did great and we paid off our war debt, for whatever reason, lies, oil, or crazy we now have a big war debt to pay so we should roll up our selves like the greatest generation did, go to 90% for the really rich and pay this thing off, we were on track to in 2001 before the GOP messed it up back then in 93 it only took a small raise to do the job, now the amount we will end up having to raise taxes just keeps getting higher and higher, but don’t worry when enough people wake up we will come and take it all if we have to, I hope it doesn’t come to that.

[-] -1 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

Well, you finally admitted it. You will go to ANY lengths to redistribute wealth. You would I'm sure unlawfully, unconstitutionally jail people, or execute them if you had to. You are no better than the Nazis, except instead of Jews it is the "rich" that are your targets. If you could, you would give full support to dictatorial fiat declaring all "rich" people's property the property of the state. If you would just do a bit of research, just a modicum of research, you would see that the richest 1% make, in toto, roughly $1.3 trillion per year. The other 99% make roughly $6.4 trillion, and the vast majority of that 6.4 is from percentages 2 through 50. You have a $15.5 trillion dollar debt, and an annual deficit (or increase in that debt) of $1.3-$1.4 trillion. Your brilliant idea is that you're going to steal that $1.3 trillion from the rich, that they either give it to you willingly or you're just going to come and take it, whatever that means (as if they have it in their wallet). Can you tell me exactly how your going to "take it all"? I'd like to know.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

oh to answer your question you didn't check out the trust funds, plenty to pay the bill don't worry

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

This is got nothing to do with "redistributing" wealth this has to do with Personal Responsibility!

For the past bunch of decades the rich have been sending who they want to Washington, and paying them to borrow money from them so they could own this country forever, now the Democrats started to screw up their plan in 1993, but in 2001 they got it back on track, and now are on track to own the whole thing lock stock and barrel. It all depends on how many people buy either the “redistribution” bullshit and how many fall into the third party trap, but if enough hear the truth you guys are going to have to pay the bill that your guys ran up, at least I hope so.

[-] -1 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

I think you really believe all that, and that some small segment of the population is going to "pay the bill". Reality will sink in someday, and you'll be very depressed.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

it was a small segment that sent those guys to washington then lobbied for the taxes and the spending why shouldn't that segment be required to pay the bill they ran up

[-] 0 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

Who sent "those guys" to Washington? I believe it is us the taxpayers who do that.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

didn't you know? without money they can't run, and about .1% provide the money, they're the ones who picked them, and sent them

[-] -2 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

I guess that Organizing for America operation of Obama's is just chock full of those 1%ers.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

before "we" elect them "they" put them up, that's why I say hold them accountable, BTW the TEA party is just a mouthptece for the wealthy

[-] -1 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

So who put up Elizabeth Warren?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So do you know nothing about who funds the races or are you just here to lie?

Yes it would be better if Republican voters could be forced to pay the debt their tax cuts cause, but that's tough to do, the Ds had this thing fixed in 1993, till the GOP came along a screwed it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993

[-] 0 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

I agree that politicians are corrupted by special interest lobbying. But we elect the politicians, and keep sending most of them back election after election. We need to insist on better performance from our representatives, which the Tea Party is attempting to do, as well as other organizations on both sides. I still cannot wrap my head around the idea that the lack of confiscating money creates debt. The logical extension of this argument is that until you get 100% of everyone's income, they are getting a tax cut which is creating debt for the country. I mean, why should you let people keep 3% of their income when we've got bills to pay? As usual, it's the spending, stupid.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion4 (70) 2 years ago

How much in ACTUAL dollars does Romney pay and how much in ACTUAL dollars do YOU pay in taxes each year? I bet you both put your pants on at the same time. He picked his path in life and you picked yours. There is too much waste and fraud in YOUR MOTHER government. You are not interested in solving that because the liberal calculator you use to does not have a "WASTE" button on it.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

How quickly you guys make it personal, I remember that from 30 years back, the "your just jealous" that was part of what spurred me to make my first million, but that didn’t change my politics. I’ll let you know what I paid when I run for President. I did notice you didn’t brother to make any real points so I guess you’re done? Speaking of “waste” did anybody ever find that 9 billion dollars we lost in Iraq?

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

"my first million" Ok, 1%er, how much over and above your tax bill do you send in voluntarily? you clearly think the tax rules are unfair, so what are you doing about it that you can do about it, other than whining about it? No one is stopping you from sending in more than you are required to.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

If you've been reading at all you would know that I think people should follow the rules, I just think the rules have been tweak too far in one direction.

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

14% is on investment income from money that has already been earned and taxed.

I know, I know, this is way over your head. You can't think past "someone has more than me, WAAAAHHHH!!!"

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Show me money that hasn't "already been taxed".

[-] 2 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Another bullshit non-response. And you wonder why this occutard movement is so dead. it, like you, has the intellectual firepower of a doorknob.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You know sleezo, I just figured this out I get now, you’re special. OK here’s the problem you said 14% was fine because taxes had already been paid, implying that there was some other kind of money where taxes had not been paid where it was OK to charge higher taxes. So to prove your point you must not only describe what kind of money hasn’t paid tax but also why it should pay more. Now if you still don’t understand read this to your niece I’m sure she is very bright and will explain it to you.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I see you can't find any money that hasn't been taxed, proving that your bullshit is just that: bullshit.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

No Sleezo, it's capital GAINS, not capital previously earned that's taxed at CAPITAL GAINS rate. duh.

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

"Sleezo" ...ooooh, I get it! Wow, that's some deadly with you've got there, lefty.

And make up your mind. Is it "capitol," "capital," or "CAPITOL" (with the all-caps frenzy intact)?

"duh" indeed, dummy.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

since your no good at public policy, you could get a job as a spelchecker

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Thanks for helping out, but I think his head is full of concrete.

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

I can see that.

[-] -3 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

how incredibly stupid does one have to be to buy into lefty propaganda that claims the deficit is entirely due to the bush tax cuts?

these are the imbeciles who think time itself started in the year 2000.

bush's real failures are enough, why make stupid shit like this up?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

oh I see I had to all the way to the top to see what a clear concise point you had made....still don't see it guess you're just a shithead, so to answer, 99% on inheritance till the debt is paid in full, that is what I think is fair, ok maybe first 5 million or so first then it applies.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

boring and stupid...it's your destiny revealed

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

oh that really hurt...

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

only 2.8 trillion dollars of it so far

[-] -2 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Nice non-answer. Wow, you're not too predictable, are you?

Ever consider growing up? I got better responses from my 12 yr old niece defending her twitter addiction.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I do think you would be better off spending more time with your 12 year old niece, you proably feel smart when you talk to her.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

It's a lot more stimulating than talking to you. She has answers. You do not.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

At least their answers you can understand.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

i ca understand because she gives answers. More than I can say for you, Swervy McDuckanddodge.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You know sleezo, I just figured this out I get now, you’re special. OK here’s the problem you said 14% was fine because taxes had already been paid, implying that there was some other kind of money where taxes had not been paid where it was OK to charge higher taxes. So to prove your point you must not only describe what kind of money hasn’t paid tax but also why it should pay more. Now if you still don’t understand read this to your niece I’m sure she is very bright and wil explain it to you.

(I thought we had already gone over this)

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

btw, here is your flaw...

"implying that there was some other kind of money..."

wrong. making up conditions out of thin air is bullshit logic. poor attempt, but I see you learn from the lefty imbeciles on tv very well.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So we agree that all money has been taxed and should pay the same rates no matter how you make it, dividends, capital gains ect., since it is all the same right? Finally we can put that "it's already been taxed" crap to bed.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Wrong, but why let that stop you?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

what part do you disagree with? all money has already been taxed, right?

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Wrong.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Again we get back to that question you refuse to answer, what money has not been taxed already?

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

do you recall why you are asking?

you went overboard with a literal translation of money having been taxed or not to avoid discussing whether 15% tax on investment was reasonable given that the money invested was from income that was already taxed.

like most bullshitters, you didn't want to say what you thought was reasonable, so you went after this stupid what money isn't taxed stuff. . money coming off the printing press...that hasn't been taxed

there, little boy time has concluded. now, what do you think is reasonable for a granny who's thisclose to eating catfood despite having some of her own investment money supplementing her social security? how much more tax should this greedy racist wall st. elitist have to cough up so you can feel better about yourself by advocating bullshit economics and politics instead of actually helping someone yourself?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Hey did you ever find that money that had never been taxed?

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

you mean you think you had/have a point with that? funny.

sorry, kid, but glib talking points do not make a relevant position, despite them making up your failed leftist ideology.

enjoy may day. it's a huge success!

ows is dead. deal with it.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I guess you haven't, oh can we levy tax on the dividends from all the companies that haven’t paid tax in years?

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

More MSNBC talking points? Aren't about 1/3 to 1/2 of you clowns anarchists? Maybe you should try to sell your bullshit to fellow ows types who are diametrically opposed to your beliefs (how's that working out?) before running the talking points by the reality-based community?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So where is the reality in anything you said?

Do you deny that many companies pay no tax at all?

Or are facts something you just don't deal with?

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

You want me to explain reality to you? Ha!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

thought you had crawled away

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Just didn't see any trace in anything you have said, thought I might of missed something but I guess not.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

how would you recognize something you aren't familiar with?

1/3 or so aren't anarchists? anarchists and socialists aren't diametrically opposed on govt? silly talking points are a basis for discussion? really?

[+] -4 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

Actually....then we had a huge dip in the economy and consumer confidence due to the attacks of 9/11/01 and the DotCom/Enron Bubbles.....The revised marginal rates of Bush43 were not fully implemented until 2003, and from that point revenue INCREASED every year until FY2008 (the first year of democrat congressional control)

and.....yearly "actual" (not budgetary) deficits were nearly100 billion lower in FY2007 than the high in FY2004.....despite the tax cut, Rx drug program, and two wars.......

You might want to do a bit more research before posting nonsense.......

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Another spinner of statistics that cannot understand basic cause and effect.

As if all those tax cuts - about $2.8 trillion in lost revenue so far - have been a HUGE help.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I'll send your notes along to Mr. Greenspan it appears he didn't do very good research. Your general point that “s—t happens” is pretty much true, of course 9/11 didn’t bother Mr. Bush much as he didn’t even bother to bring the individual responsible to justice during his term. Economic cycles will come and go, that doesn’t change the fact that in the summer of 2001 the GOP was running all over Washington crying out that the government was taking in more than it needed just because we had started to pay a little on the debit, now there are those that feel we should give even more political power to those that took us in the wrong direction when were just beginning to move in the correct one, now that the situation is even worse. If we ever do start to pay down this debit what will keep the GOP from demanding more tax cuts as they did last time? We cut taxes when “government was taking in too much money” and now that we’re taking in too little they insist that we cut spending. I didn’t hear them saying we should adjust spending to take care of the “excess” back in 2001.

[-] -3 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

Well.....first, that testimony before congress was on January 25th of 2001...not in the summer, and long before the attacks of 09/11/01 the subsequent Dow crash (worst day/worst week in history) in late 2001, and before the lagging effects of the beginning of the recession starting with the crash of the NASDAQ in mid 2000, continuing until early 2003.....rebounding on the heels of the finalization of the Bush43 tax cuts...which increased federal revenues every years after implementation right through 2008 due to the money made available in the private economy because of the tax cuts and the stability of the pro-growth philosophy of the government..

As for "bringing to justice".....you liberal fools all like to tout the killing of Bin Laden like it was an isolated event, and you like to forget that much of the intelligence that led to his discovery came from those we captured in Iraq (that unnecessary war)...and without the YEARS of gathering the intelligence following leads, and boots-on-the-ground work, Obama wouldn't have been able to skate in and be presented with that simple decision....due to NO effort of his own....

You see...there is a fundamental difference between you libtards and we Republican constitutionalists....we see the government as more hindrance than help in most instances....we understand the leviathan of a centralized authoritarian state, and the effects that has on freedom and liberty of individuals......we believe in people.....that they have the necessary ability to make their own way through life without becoming wards of the centralized state....we believe in holding people responsible for the consequences of their decisions and bad behaviors, and that those consequences are the lessons that will prevent them from repeating the behaviors in the future.....So we believe in limiting the Federal Government in power and reach, we believe that it is not the job of government to provide for people the things they can, and should, provide for themselves......the role of government is to provide the required components of modern society...those equally accessible by ALL...(not provided by the labors of some for the benefit of others) like Roads, Schools, Public Services, Defense, Commercial Infrastructure like seaports and airports....and create an environment where opportunity is available, not where it is distributed, apportioned, or controlled.....but is AVAILABLE to those who rise to find it..........that is where the role ends, in our view....

You fools, however, think that government's job is to equalize the unequal effort and commensurate compensation provided for those efforts, by distributing the rewards inequitably to those who did not earn them....because of their "need" (which is created out of their behavior and decisions)...YOU think it is governments role to stifle commerce and block advancement at all cost so as not to allow one man to work a little harder, and in-turn earn a little more than another...who couldn't be bothered to even produce the effort required to live......

THAT is why we want taxes cut, to starve the tumor that the centralized government has become, and if it isn't stopped that tumor will destroy what is left of this country..

You are wrong about moving in the right direction.....things WERE moving in the right direction from 2003-2007, then the Liberal Democrats took over congress and promptly doubled the yearly deficit (which was trending down, up to that point, by 100 billion dollars yearly from the high) and upset the stability that the tax cuts and pro-commerce/pro-worker (not pro-loafer) philosophy that had existed prior to January 2007....and after the lag, in late 2007 the economic indicators began trending down......and what did the Dems do?

What we know worked, historically? Nope....they followed the failed playbook of FDR and spent money, hand over fist, and it had the same effect as FDR's dumb-ass attempt...it blew up the debt, and kept/pushed the economy down...then they did it again under Obama in 2009, promising that it would hold unemployment down below 8%......did it work? Nope.....Unemployment rose to over 10%, predictable...

If you call what has occurred over the last 3 years moving in the correct direction......you are more stupid than I could ever imagine...

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Name calling didn’t think you would go there so quickly, anyway I didn’t see you address the fundamental problem that Republicans always see tax cuts as the answer. We were in fact paying down the debit the Republicans went on a campaign to stop that and they did. We are on agreement that I did more or less accurately portray what Greenspan said and we did do a major tax overhaul demanded by Republicans and now we have a huge debit, seems undoing the last big thing we did right before things went bad would be the thing to do.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Hey just for fun, now that you've gone through how super duper great it was in the 2000's after that bigo tax cut why don't you go ahead and break down how terrible it was in 1990's after "The World's Largest Tax Increase".

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

had to re-register due to "democratic" censorship...

don't mistake the tax adjustment in 1990 and 1993 as the largest tax increase in history....

the top marginal rate in 1986 was 50%,

in 1987 it was 38.5%......

in 1988-90 it was 28%,

in 1991-1992 it was 31%,

and finally in 1993 it was 39.6%.....

so there was no stability in the rates, they were constantly changing, and the rate of 1986 was nearly the same as that of 1993 so it wasn't a real tax increase.....it was an adjustment

in 1981 the top rate was 70%, it didn't even come close to that......stability is a huge factor in economic activity...Reagan gave people hope and confidence, and then in 1995 the combination of Clinton and Gingrich/Republican Congress moving to the right had the same effect..

The problem with the economy isn't the possibility of taxes increasing back to the pre-Bush level of 39.6%, the problem is the stability of the current ideology that seeks to raise the rate, and the belief by those who run businesses and hire people that one increase wouldn't be enough.....

If they raised the top marginal wage income rate, and locked it in for 25 or 50 years that would also stimulate the economy due to the stability.....

although, an increase in capital gains would stifle investment and work in opposition to a rising economy by removing money from the system of emerging enterprises....

The deficits of 93-94 were 281 billion.....only 20 billion below Reagan's HIGHEST deficit year....and higher than the rest of Reagan's deficits......

From 1995-2007 there was the stability of Republican control of congress, and even with the capital losses of the Enron/DotCom Crisis (which exceeded in real dollars, the losses of the real estate crisis) and the attacks of 9/11, recovery was quick (less than 3 years from the low) and unemployment NEVER dropped below 7%.....

So, do you want to try again?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Ok so I’m getting it now, the problems we’re having now are the result of the instabilities created by the 2001 tax cut?

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

No, the problems we are having now were created by the instabilities created by the 2007 Democratic Congress, then Obama, and their massive amounts of increased federal spending, regulation, and encouragement of those who do not work through support and benefit......

necessity is the mother of invention, but there is no necessity if unemployment compensation is continued perpetually.....

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Yet the deficit increased before 2007, weird huh...,no I'm sure it was the instabilites caused by the 2001 tax cut the econmey was much stronger before that Hey I got it let's restore the rates to Ike's rates and put it in the law to never change them (I Like Ike)

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

actually the deficit did not increase before 2007, the real dollar deficits (which include off budget spending...not just "budget deficit") were down by 95 billion dollars per year by 2007 at 500 billion, from the high of 595 billion in 2004....then in FY08 (under a democrat congress) the deficit was 1.017 Trillion...

Feel free to have a look for yourself:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You metion a "high" in 2004 when I said it went up before 2007, well 2004 would be before 2007, and both are AFTER the 2001 tax cut seems like we've found the problem undo the 2001 tax cut pretty simple

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

in kindergarten economics, or a static economic model it might seem simple...

but, you forget the DotCom/Enron Crisis and subsequent recession from 2001-2003, and you forget the 8+ Million jobs created from 04-07........

what we need is for the government to spend less....THAT is pretty simple

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Do you really want to compare the job gains under Clinton vs. Bush? I think you have touched on one problem the GOP never passed kindergarten economics. First lesson don’t cut revenues when your in the red.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

you really have no clue.....but, why should I expect you to.....I'm sure you follow along like a good little drone........

Job growth began under Reagan and continued to rise until the early 2000's.....just because Clinton (who was constrained by a Republican Congress for 6 of his 8 years) happened to be lucky enough to be in the middle of that growth doesn't make him responsible for it......you lefties like to leave a lot of facts out of your arguments....but, like your username suggests...facts are fun...

got any other liberal nonsense you need refuted?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Coming full circle now as you continue to try and prove what is, isn't and what isn't, is. I love the way guys are always saying "All the good you do is our credit and all the bad we do is your fault." Here’s some facts:

DJIA: Reagan +238%, Clinton +325%, Bush -22%, Obama +154% (3years)

Here’s the dates, numbers used, 01/23/1981 (940), 1/20/1989 (2235), 01/23/1993 (3257), 01/19/2001 (10587), 01/23/2009 (8281), 01/26/2012 (12735).

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

Typical liberal "percentages" statistical manipulation......

Here are the facts, since you claim they are fun...from the US Statistical Abstract published by the Census Bureau.....A simple google search will take you right to it....you can observe the collected data of the USA all the way back to 1789......

from 1982 (after the first Reagan tax cut......the beginning of the recovery) there was only a single year, 1991, that the employed civilian labor force actually dropped (on the heels of the 1990 tax INCREASE...how peculiar?)......until 2002 (the middle of the recession generated by Enron-9/11-DotCom) when the number of employed decreased by 448k.....from that point it rallied and continued to rise, right through 2007 (when the Democrats took over Congressional Control) and from that point fell dramatically right up until January of 2011......

giving Clinton credit for what is clearly the continuation of Reagan's influence and policies is simply foolish, and considering Clinton had a Republican Congress pulling the strings for 6 years, even more foolish....

a 25 year rise with only two minor hiccups.....I bet BO would love to claim credit for something like that....unfortunately HIS policies are having the opposite effect......he is the new "Worst President Ever"

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Glad you brought up "Kenny boy Lay" a good example of what reducing regulations can accomplish.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

you should learn the difference between bad regulation and no regulation.

leftists LOVE to conflate the two, and it is a double lie. the first lie is assuming that more regulation is better (so silly and simple-minded). the second lie is the claim that there was no regulation.

going back on this thread, I notice how you avoid multiple paragraphs of facts and information that flattens your ridiculous position. your responses are childish little whimpers working on the empty notion that if you are asking questions (no matter how lame), you are "winning" the argument.

excellent example of how the left cannot compete with adults, reality, history, the greatness of our Constitution, reason or logic. the number of times you had the opportunity to change at least a miniscule portion of the dumb shit you believe is true, but failed, is astounding. you're wrong about almost everything but too stubborn and shallow-minded to recognize even ONE thing.

pathetic.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Ok so you've looked over theard, just so I'm clear you think the 2000's were better than the 1990's? or you buy this crap that all good flows from Reagan as far as the questions still waiting for this guy to answer one

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Comparing 2 decades...what are you, the editor of people magazine? real heady stuff there, champ. "all good flows from Reagan"? Wtf are you babbling about?

[+] -4 points by ssjkakkarotx (-77) 2 years ago

Yeah we should raise taxes like Illinois did. To the tune of 67% and yet they still are not crawling outta their hole. Raising taxes wont fix a spending issue. 1st and foremost we go through the budget and cancel a ton of worthless gov't funded projects. Like 3 million that went to UC Irvine to study video games. Shit like that needs to end , once that gets sorted out then come talk to me about raising taxes

[-] 0 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

I'll give you just a little taste of what government does. I'm in real estate and did a lease with the General Services Administration, who contracts for leases of space for government agencies. To make a long story short, as a landlord, you had to give the GSA guy (a guy in short sleeves with a couple of anchor tattoos on his forearms) a list of things you would provide to them at a fixed cost for the entire term of the lease (10 years). This included duplex outlets, lighting, carpeting, breakroom cabinetry, etc. The first ridiculous thing was when I quoted the cost for the duplex outlets, something like $40 apiece installed. He said that was too high, that he could only allot $36 apiece for them. Then (wink, wink) he told me he would "make it up to me on something else". So I give him a cost for some breakroom cabinetry for $1800 and he says he can allot $3000 for that (yea, taxpayer!). Then, we get done with the lease, and every year after that toward the end of the year, the lady at the local government agency office would call and order something, whether it be carpet, more cabinets, new lights, whatever. I'd ask her why she did that, because the space was built from scratch to start with, and she said she needed to spend her budget so that they wouldn't cut it the next year (double yea, taxpayer!). Usually amounted to a few thousand dollars a year, but this was for one office, in one town, for one agency of the government. She couldn't have cared less because it wasn't HER money. THAT is the problem with government.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Long story, but I guess your point is that no body who ever worked for IBM, went ahead and got that appetizer because it was on the company?

[-] 0 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

Unlike the government, IBM may include expense accounts for some of their employees, but they demand production from them to justify the expense. In any case, I am not funding this appetizer, and I don't have to buy IBM products.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

that was a good reponse thought we were in a different thread, but you can answer if you would like to, but my point is that there is graft in private business as well, people are people, do want to fix that by taking all the money from business too so there will be less graft?

Remember this is MY country your just visting if it's all about "ownership"

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

That must the problem with government no body is demanding that they do anything, it's like teaching our kids, building our roads, catching our criminals, resolving our disputes, and running the traffic lights, I mean the government don't do a damn thing, oh and I forgot protecting our boarders what a joke!! they really suck at that, yep government don't do a damn thing!

So it follows that people who work for the government sure as hell don’t deserve fun times like those that work for IBM.

But you know what gets me is the people who keep telling me that the people who run IBM are better with money than the government, yet IBM does a lot more of the party stuff, so if the government did more party stuff would it be better?

[-] -1 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

IBM produces a profit for its shareholders after all of these expenditures are taken into account. If the shareholders are unhappy with that profit, they can sell their stock. Our government produces a large turd with our tax dollars in the form of a huge deficit, made up partly by these idiots wearing chicken suits at conventions.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

sounds like opinion to me, the post office kicks UPS ass when it comes to pricing, and I would put Seal Team Six up against the best Blackwater has to offer, so I think your reports of turds is overblown, you didn't tell me anything about why you guys keep saying "the people" know better, but if the government acts like "the people" you get all bent out of shape

[-] -1 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

It's not an opinion that IBM makes money and the "turd" of a $1.4 trillion dollar annual deficit is produced by the government. It is also not opinion that the post service is not kicking anyone's ass, they're getting ready to cut back on service because they can't compete. I agree with you on Seal Team Six. I think we should keep funding these guys, but because the "government" has one success story doesn't a generalization make.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7071) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

the post is only in trouble because they fund their retirement better than IBM by far, and still kick UPS ass, I notice you didn't have anything to say about how much UPS charges to deliver a letter, yes the post office kicks their ass, if they raised prices to half of what UPS chrages, first off the righties would go crazy, and secondly they could all go to Vegas every week, I think they should just to show you free markets guys a thing or two about making money maybe if they the GOP in congress off their backs.

We woul;d have no debt at all except for the Bush tax cuts, so all we got to do is restore the top rate to 90% till we pay it off, no problem.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

"1st and foremost we go through the budget and cancel a ton of worthless gov't funded projects. Like 3 million that went to UC Irvine to study video games. Shit like that needs to end "

Agree. Cut this crap instead of cutting healthcare and wasting tax dollars on tax cuts for the rich...

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

funny how there was no liberal comment on this one......they love to ignore the failures of their ideas.....

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 2 years ago

Here is one - $3million is the smallest of potatoes. $3 TRILLION is a million such projects, yet I bet you cannot name 100 like "studying video games". Besides, video games are a major industry and a huge influence on the generations born after 1980. Some small potatoes spend looking at their effect on people might be worth every cent.

PS - I only hear of these so-called "silly research projects" from Tea Party and Rebublican types who are trying to blame the Democrats for the deficit [when the deficit was actually caused by massive government spending on military and banker mis-adventures]