Did I hear BHO say tax cut this morning?

[airdvr 210]

Holy crap Lucky! I thought those were a bad idea.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[lawrocket 3]

I didn't hear that.

Is he doing it because of poll numbers? Since the administration's economic policy has either been one of incompetence or malfeasance (I cannot decide which one) only the poll numbers is theonly answer that makes sense to me.

Any administration yes-men have any ideas?

Side note - this is a sign that he'll get a second term. The dems will be voted out of Congress. This admin and Congress are as image-poor as the first two years of Clinton. The only difference is that this president and Conress got more done - meaning greater long term harm.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Holy crap Lucky! I thought those were a bad idea.

Holly crap airdvr, love the reference. How can I avoid a comprehenisve answer with such a great lot of info?

With you usual nothing info, all I can infer is that he is referring to < 250 AGI keeping the Bush tax cuts, therest will revert to Clinton era 40% top brkt. If you decide to write a cogent thread, LMK and I will be glad to answer.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I didn't hear that.

Probably because it isn't true.

Quote

Is he doing it because of poll numbers? Since the administration's economic policy has either been one of incompetence or malfeasance (I cannot decide which one) only the poll numbers is theonly answer that makes sense to me.

Then what makes sense about your assertion of incompetent fisccal policy? You think inheriting a 3.4% increase in unemployment THE YEAR PRECEEDING HIS TAKING OFFICE to stop the bleeding after 9 months and then drop it .5% and stable is incompetence? Hate to hear your idea of his predecessor.

You think inheriting 4 of 5 Q' negative GDP, -7% the Q prior to his taking office, then flipping it in no time and posting massive + numbers is incomptence? Hate to hear your idea of his predecessor.

You think inheriting a tanking DJIA and then flipping it to hold >10k is incompetence? Hate to hear your idea of his predecessor.

You think inheriting a crashed and dying banking, mortgage, housing and auto industries and then saving them all to now trun profits is incompetence? Hate to hear your idea of his predecessor.

Quote

Any administration yes-men have any ideas?

I just posted them, let me hear your best retort.

Quote

Side note - this is a sign that he'll get a second term. The dems will be voted out of Congress. This admin and Congress are as image-poor as the first two years of Clinton.

And yet even after the witchhunt/impeachment (conviction according to Belgian) he left with > 50% approval and left a 236B surplus, balanced the budget and stopped 12 years of 250B/yr average debt increase. Wow, don't you hate poor images? Shows you how image-stupid Americans are. Look at fascist Ronny's image as he lefft, he was a God image wise. Now we see his disaster, so do what you wish with your image argument.

Quote

The only difference is that this president and Conress got more done - meaning greater long term harm.

So raising tax top brkt 9% wasn't a big deal under CLinton? And they will return and live on in a few months; is that doing nothing? College tax credits, HIPPA, 6 million new jobs created under 1st 2 years of Clinton - 22M in all 8 years, largest econmic expansion in US history, poverty drop and on and on and on. http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/additional.html

Tell us about Bushy, oh please, please, please. And you were saying Clinton got less done? Hmmm, love to hear your idea of what getting a lot done, could it be getting a lot of debt created from a great economy? Nice......

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Holy crap Lucky! I thought those were a bad idea.

This what you were trying to mummble out:

“That’s why we need to take further steps to create jobs and keep the economy growing, including extending tax cuts for the middle class and investing in the areas of our economy where the potential for job growth is greatest.”


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews_excl/ynews_excl_pl3551

Pls do us a favor and have an idea of what you are referring to next time.

[airdvr 210]

We all get the 'extending tax cuts like it was my idea' bullshit from Barry. I was eluding to the other cuts he's talking about.

You should read all of what you link to.

Quote

At least in one area, the prospect of more common ground exists: the administration appears poised to embrace some business-oriented tax cuts. According to a recent report in the Washington Post, the administration may advocate making permanent the tax credit that businesses receive when they invest in research and development activities. The president has long called for the credit — which was first passed in 1981 and extended 13 times before expiring at the end of 2009 — to be made permanent. (Any extension likely would be made retroactive to the beginning of 2010.) It’s a popular tax break with business — especially high-tech companies — which makes it a winner on both sides of the political fence.

Moreover, the betting in Washington is that the president will propose a payroll tax holiday, something that’s also being debated by his economic team, according to the Post. The advantage of a break in payroll taxes is that it’s a bold statement and comparatively straightforward. It’s inexpensive to administer. It can be done quickly. And it’s easy for everyone to see why it would help bolster the economy: What would your paycheck look like if your payroll taxes weren’t withheld? And how much cheaper would it be for an employer to bring on a new employee if it, too, skipped payroll taxes for a while? Nice, huh.

Either way Lucky your boy is talking tax cuts. Still think he's doing a great job?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

We all get the 'extending tax cuts like it was my idea' bullshit from Barry.

It is his idea, his veto or signing power.

Quote

I was eluding to the other cuts he's talking about.

You should read all of what you link to.

I did, you should actually post a link to make us think you know what you're talking abiout instead of subsequent posters to your link.

Quote

At least in one area, the prospect of more common ground exists: the administration appears poised to embrace some business-oriented tax cuts. According to a recent report in the Washington Post, the administration may advocate making permanent the tax credit that businesses receive when they invest in research and development activities. The president has long called for the credit — which was first passed in 1981 and extended 13 times before expiring at the end of 2009 — to be made permanent. (Any extension likely would be made retroactive to the beginning of 2010.) It’s a popular tax break with business — especially high-tech companies — which makes it a winner on both sides of the political fence.

Moreover, the betting in Washington is that the president will propose a payroll tax holiday, something that’s also being debated by his economic team, according to the Post. The advantage of a break in payroll taxes is that it’s a bold statement and comparatively straightforward. It’s inexpensive to administer. It can be done quickly. And it’s easy for everyone to see why it would help bolster the economy: What would your paycheck look like if your payroll taxes weren’t withheld? And how much cheaper would it be for an employer to bring on a new employee if it, too, skipped payroll taxes for a while? Nice, huh.

Quote

Either way Lucky your boy is talking tax cuts. Still think he's doing a great job?

Well then sounds like you've become an Obama fan; you can't keep riding both sides of teh fence; slamming him for raising taxes and then praising him for cutting them.

Truth is, the cuts he's talking are miniscule compared to letting the income tax go back up to 40% and the death tax go from 0% to 55% in a few months. You're decrying 3% and ignoring 97%.

BTW, the cuts he's talking about control a very small % of taxpayers, when I say that it might affect the majority of people, probably does, but affects a puny minority of tax revenue - the important thing.

Moreover, raising taxes directly brings in more revenue, but more importantly it forces corporations to reinvest their profits to avoid taxes, creating growth which creates increased revs and less unemployment.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

The tax cuts will affect those making 40k/yr gross and less, the group that pays <3% of all income tax. So you see, to argue that these people are even an influence to the overall picture is irrelevant.

http://www.jct.gov/x-32-08.pdf

As you can see on page 18 the vast lion's share fo taxes come from individual and corporate income taxes; 59%. The employment tax should be broken down to reveal all the many sources: Unemp, SS, Medicare/medicaide, etc, etc.

So to focus on the largest source of tax revenue is the most prudent. Most employment taxes are earmarked to pay for SS/Medicaire, unemp, etc so they cannot be tampered with too much. Income taxes go to the general fund, so they can be altered.

As for Obama doing a great job, you have yet to comment on all the points I've made about the turnaround in the stock market, GDP, Unemp rate and so many others. So let's hear your position on what he inherited and how fast the turnaround was and then go from there. Right now you're having an argument with yourself as you refuse to address my points.

[hwt 0]

Quote

As for Obama doing a great job, you have yet to comment on all the points I've made about the turnaround in the stock market, GDP, Unemp rate and so many others. So let's hear your position on what he inherited and how fast the turnaround was and then go from there. Right now you're having an argument with yourself as you refuse to address my points.

______________________________________________
well, i will address your points on gdp and unemployment.
1st quarter was revised to 2.7% (3rd revision)
3rd quarter down to 1.7 %
and unemployment just rose to 9.6%
that means GDP is dropping and unemployment is rising. hardly anything to boast about .
http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/q1-2010-gdp-3rd-revision-27

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

As for Obama doing a great job, you have yet to comment on all the points I've made about the turnaround in the stock market, GDP, Unemp rate and so many others. So let's hear your position on what he inherited and how fast the turnaround was and then go from there. Right now you're having an argument with yourself as you refuse to address my points.

______________________________________________
well, i will address your points on gdp and unemployment.
1st quarter was revised to 2.7% (3rd revision)
3rd quarter down to 1.7 %
and unemployment just rose to 9.6%
that means GDP is dropping and unemployment is rising. hardly anything to boast about .
http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/q1-2010-gdp-3rd-revision-27

And as long as you can live in your microcosmic world then all is well.

- Feb 08 to Feb 09 unemp rose 3.4% in just that one year, meaning it was picking up steam hardcore. It rose about 2% more to 10.1 and then receeding and is stable at 9.5, 9.6.

Also, let's not forget that if the D's did as the R's want and chop unemp benefits the unemp rate would be way lower, probably in the 8% range, so the D's are cutting their own throats by helping people. Also, the census jobs ended so the numbers should be even higher, so apparrently the jobs Obama's policies are creating are offsetting a lot of these census losses; 114,000.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) de-
clined by 323,000 over the month to 6.2 million.

So there was good and bad news, very mixed for August. The good thing is that there weren't major changes even with teh 114k lost census jobs.

Here's the graph, mark late Jan 09 and see what he inherited vs did with it: http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000

So, with what he inherited, has he done poorly? This could have been in the mid teens by now if the moronic tax cutter had his way, the guy who's advisor said we were all just whiners.

- The GDP was 4 of 5 Q's negative, as Obama inherited it. Since then it has flipped huge, the biggest turnaround in US history I believe. Here's the graph: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm

Please explaion what's wrong with that. He took a 4th Q 2008 GDP shrinkage of -7% and flipped it + in 6 months. See, with microcosmic data interpretation all is posible, you can take any issue and focus on 1 tiny, specific area and find success. With data interpretation, to be honest you must use a large sample size and also interpret how the data became what it is. Taht means no taking policies from 20 years ago and claim they made the change unless you have real solid case for it.


So take these graphs and show us how bad a job Obama has done with his economic policies.

[mnealtx 0]

Ah, yes... anything good, economy-wise is all due to BHO...anything bad, he 'inherited'.

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

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Well then sounds like you've become an Obama fan; you can't keep riding both sides of teh fence; slamming him for raising taxes and then praising him for cutting them.

That sounds like the same side of the fence. Here's your napkin.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Ah, yes... anything good, economy-wise is all due to BHO...anything bad, he 'inherited'.

Basically, yes. All you can do is what you guys do to FDR and say he prolonged the GD. When a pres inherits a POS that is still descening, he has a fair period of time before he owns it. According to the socipaths tho, he owned it 2 weeks into his presidency. Try as you will, your party fucked this up, as with Reagan, Harding Coolidge, etc and we are once again fixing it.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Well then sounds like you've become an Obama fan; you can't keep riding both sides of teh fence; slamming him for raising taxes and then praising him for cutting them.

That sounds like the same side of the fence. Here's your napkin.

Oh, I'm sorry, you must have missed this:

And as long as you can live in your microcosmic world then all is well.

- Feb 08 to Feb 09 unemp rose 3.4% in just that one year, meaning it was picking up steam hardcore. It rose about 2% more to 10.1 and then receeding and is stable at 9.5, 9.6.

Also, let's not forget that if the D's did as the R's want and chop unemp benefits the unemp rate would be way lower, probably in the 8% range, so the D's are cutting their own throats by helping people. Also, the census jobs ended so the numbers should be even higher, so apparrently the jobs Obama's policies are creating are offsetting a lot of these census losses; 114,000.

http://www.bls.gov/...lease/empsit.nr0.htm

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) de-
clined by 323,000 over the month to 6.2 million.

So there was good and bad news, very mixed for August. The good thing is that there weren't major changes even with teh 114k lost census jobs.

Here's the graph, mark late Jan 09 and see what he inherited vs did with it: http://data.bls.gov/...eries_id=LNS14000000

So, with what he inherited, has he done poorly? This could have been in the mid teens by now if the moronic tax cutter had his way, the guy who's advisor said we were all just whiners.

- The GDP was 4 of 5 Q's negative, as Obama inherited it. Since then it has flipped huge, the biggest turnaround in US history I believe. Here's the graph: http://www.bea.gov/...l/gdp/gdp_glance.htm

Please explaion what's wrong with that. He took a 4th Q 2008 GDP shrinkage of -7% and flipped it + in 6 months. See, with microcosmic data interpretation all is posible, you can take any issue and focus on 1 tiny, specific area and find success. With data interpretation, to be honest you must use a large sample size and also interpret how the data became what it is. Taht means no taking policies from 20 years ago and claim they made the change unless you have real solid case for it.


So take these graphs and show us how bad a job Obama has done with his economic policies.


Now keep being the good little neo-con, unable to address issues and we won't think differently of you.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Ah, yes... anything good, economy-wise is all due to BHO...anything bad, he 'inherited'.

Basically, yes. All you can do is what you guys do to FDR and say he prolonged the GD. When a pres inherits a POS that is still descening, he has a fair period of time before he owns it. According to the socipaths tho, he owned it 2 weeks into his presidency. Try as you will, your party fucked this up, as with Reagan, Harding Coolidge, etc and we are once again fixing it.

Speaking of 'microcosmic worlds' and all...we already knew that you think Obama can do no wrong - but it's nice to see you admit it.

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

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ah, yes... anything good, economy-wise is all due to BHO...anything bad, he 'inherited'.

Basically, yes. All you can do is what you guys do to FDR and say he prolonged the GD. When a pres inherits a POS that is still descening, he has a fair period of time before he owns it. According to the socipaths tho, he owned it 2 weeks into his presidency. Try as you will, your party fucked this up, as with Reagan, Harding Coolidge, etc and we are once again fixing it.

Speaking of 'microcosmic worlds' and all...we already knew that you think Obama can do no wrong - but it's nice to see you admit it.

I see, you don't want to discuss the issues either, Mikeee. I posted a bevy of data, why not just address it, unless it makes your point less viable?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ah, yes... anything good, economy-wise is all due to BHO...anything bad, he 'inherited'.

Basically, yes. All you can do is what you guys do to FDR and say he prolonged the GD. When a pres inherits a POS that is still descening, he has a fair period of time before he owns it. According to the socipaths tho, he owned it 2 weeks into his presidency. Try as you will, your party fucked this up, as with Reagan, Harding Coolidge, etc and we are once again fixing it.

Speaking of 'microcosmic worlds' and all...we already knew that you think Obama can do no wrong - but it's nice to see you admit it.

I see, you don't want to discuss the issues either, Mikeee. I posted a bevy of data, why not just address it, unless it makes your point less viable?

Because it isn't applicable to the subject of the thread, like usual when you go off on one of your "Obama is terrific and I want to have his baby" love-fests - it's like trying to talk sense into rhys on a WTC thread; it ain't gonna happen and for the same reasons.

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

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Ah, yes... anything good, economy-wise is all due to BHO...anything bad, he 'inherited'.

That's how it's always been...

untill we realize it's us against them...wait, i'll just shut up.

we have no chance...the human mind is that of a sheep...only God can help us now.

(I must be all crazy n' shit)



Mo drama anyone?

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ah, yes... anything good, economy-wise is all due to BHO...anything bad, he 'inherited'.

Basically, yes. All you can do is what you guys do to FDR and say he prolonged the GD. When a pres inherits a POS that is still descening, he has a fair period of time before he owns it. According to the socipaths tho, he owned it 2 weeks into his presidency. Try as you will, your party fucked this up, as with Reagan, Harding Coolidge, etc and we are once again fixing it.

Speaking of 'microcosmic worlds' and all...we already knew that you think Obama can do no wrong - but it's nice to see you admit it.

I see, you don't want to discuss the issues either, Mikeee. I posted a bevy of data, why not just address it, unless it makes your point less viable?

Because it isn't applicable to the subject of the thread, like usual when you go off on one of your "Obama is terrific and I want to have his baby" love-fests - it's like trying to talk sense into rhys on a WTC thread; it ain't gonna happen and for the same reasons.

Sure it is, and teh thread author brought us there asking if Obama was doing a great job. I answered by example and both you and he are running. Mike, we can all see you guys running, but if it makes you feel better to think we don't see it, great.

I addressed teh tax issue, no one has responded to that.



AIRDVR: Either way Lucky your boy is talking tax cuts. Still think he's doing a great job?

ME: Well then sounds like you've become an Obama fan; you can't keep riding both sides of teh fence; slamming him for raising taxes and then praising him for cutting them.

Truth is, the cuts he's talking are miniscule compared to letting the income tax go back up to 40% and the death tax go from 0% to 55% in a few months. You're decrying 3% and ignoring 97%.

BTW, the cuts he's talking about control a very small % of taxpayers, when I say that it might affect the majority of people, probably does, but affects a puny minority of tax revenue - the important thing.

Moreover, raising taxes directly brings in more revenue, but more importantly it forces corporations to reinvest their profits to avoid taxes, creating growth which creates increased revs and less unemployment.

http://www.ntu.org/...ys-income-taxes.html

The tax cuts will affect those making 40k/yr gross and less, the group that pays <3% of all income tax. So you see, to argue that these people are even an influence to the overall picture is irrelevant.

http://www.jct.gov/x-32-08.pdf

As you can see on page 18 the vast lion's share fo taxes come from individual and corporate income taxes; 59%. The employment tax should be broken down to reveal all the many sources: Unemp, SS, Medicare/medicaide, etc, etc.

So to focus on the largest source of tax revenue is the most prudent. Most employment taxes are earmarked to pay for SS/Medicaire, unemp, etc so they cannot be tampered with too much. Income taxes go to the general fund, so they can be altered.

As for Obama doing a great job, you have yet to comment on all the points I've made about the turnaround in the stock market, GDP, Unemp rate and so many others. So let's hear your position on what he inherited and how fast the turnaround was and then go from there. Right now you're having an argument with yourself as you refuse to address my points.



All I talk about are tax issues here, Mike. What are you not seeing? Youy've never been great at honestly refuting points, but you have always been able to read.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

All I talk about are tax issues here, Mike.

And usually incorrectly.

Quote

What are you not seeing?

You answering his question honestly rather than evading it. The fact that you're not excoriating Obama for proposing tax cuts while saying how horrible the Reagan/Bush tax cuts are shows your hypocrisy.

Quote

Youy've never been great at honestly refuting points, but you have always been able to read.

Oh, absolutely....I've always been able to read...and *always* more honest than you in posting, Mr. Hoover-killed-12-million, Debt-numbers-are-1980-dollars, edit-posts-after-they're-replied-to-to-completely-change-them.

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

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

All I talk about are tax issues here, Mike.

Quote

And usually incorrectly.

Says the n eo-con but is unable to address any of this:

Well then sounds like you've become an Obama fan; you can't keep riding both sides of teh fence; slamming him for raising taxes and then praising him for cutting them.

Truth is, the cuts he's talking are miniscule compared to letting the income tax go back up to 40% and the death tax go from 0% to 55% in a few months. You're decrying 3% and ignoring 97%.

BTW, the cuts he's talking about control a very small % of taxpayers, when I say that it might affect the majority of people, probably does, but affects a puny minority of tax revenue - the important thing.

Moreover, raising taxes directly brings in more revenue, but more importantly it forces corporations to reinvest their profits to avoid taxes, creating growth which creates increased revs and less unemployment.

http://www.ntu.org/...ys-income-taxes.html

The tax cuts will affect those making 40k/yr gross and less, the group that pays <3% of all income tax. So you see, to argue that these people are even an influence to the overall picture is irrelevant.

http://www.jct.gov/x-32-08.pdf

As you can see on page 18 the vast lion's share fo taxes come from individual and corporate income taxes; 59%. The employment tax should be broken down to reveal all the many sources: Unemp, SS, Medicare/medicaide, etc, etc.

So to focus on the largest source of tax revenue is the most prudent. Most employment taxes are earmarked to pay for SS/Medicaire, unemp, etc so they cannot be tampered with too much. Income taxes go to the general fund, so they can be altered.

As for Obama doing a great job, you have yet to comment on all the points I've made about the turnaround in the stock market, GDP, Unemp rate and so many others. So let's hear your position on what he inherited and how fast the turnaround was and then go from there. Right now you're having an argument with yourself as you refuse to address my points.

Quote

What are you not seeing?

Quote

You answering his question honestly rather than evading it. The fact that you're not excoriating Obama for proposing tax cuts while saying how horrible the Reagan/Bush tax cuts are shows your hypocrisy.

Cutting taxes, raising taxes, modifying taxes on the bottom 50%, bottom 75% means nothing as they pay almost nothing. Tax issues have to do with the group that pays almost all taxes and Obama will let these tax cuts expire. If you want to discuss the people who pay 3% of the total tax bill as being relevant to the entire tax issue then you have a good time, it just doesn't affect anything.

Quote

Youy've never been great at honestly refuting points, but you have always been able to read.

Quote

Oh, absolutely....I've always been able to read...and *always* more honest than you in posting, Mr. Hoover-killed-12-million, Debt-numbers-are-1980-dollars, edit-posts-after-they're-replied-to-to-completely-change-them.

Uh huh, you did try to slide in nominal GDP in place of the always-used real GDP, we all know that. The 12 million source I have repeatedly expressed that was a bad source and that no data exists as to teh number of Americans killed by Mikee's favorite sociopaths in the 1930's killed. Only desperate people bring up moot points almost a year later. I guess it beats addressing this:

Well then sounds like you've become an Obama fan; you can't keep riding both sides of teh fence; slamming him for raising taxes and then praising him for cutting them.

Truth is, the cuts he's talking are miniscule compared to letting the income tax go back up to 40% and the death tax go from 0% to 55% in a few months. You're decrying 3% and ignoring 97%.

BTW, the cuts he's talking about control a very small % of taxpayers, when I say that it might affect the majority of people, probably does, but affects a puny minority of tax revenue - the important thing.

Moreover, raising taxes directly brings in more revenue, but more importantly it forces corporations to reinvest their profits to avoid taxes, creating growth which creates increased revs and less unemployment.

http://www.ntu.org/...ys-income-taxes.html

The tax cuts will affect those making 40k/yr gross and less, the group that pays <3% of all income tax. So you see, to argue that these people are even an influence to the overall picture is irrelevant.

http://www.jct.gov/x-32-08.pdf

As you can see on page 18 the vast lion's share fo taxes come from individual and corporate income taxes; 59%. The employment tax should be broken down to reveal all the many sources: Unemp, SS, Medicare/medicaide, etc, etc.

So to focus on the largest source of tax revenue is the most prudent. Most employment taxes are earmarked to pay for SS/Medicaire, unemp, etc so they cannot be tampered with too much. Income taxes go to the general fund, so they can be altered.

As for Obama doing a great job, you have yet to comment on all the points I've made about the turnaround in the stock market, GDP, Unemp rate and so many others. So let's hear your position on what he inherited and how fast the turnaround was and then go from there. Right now you're having an argument with yourself as you refuse to address my points.

• Quote

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

All I talk about are tax issues here, Mike.

Quote

And usually incorrectly.

Says the n eo-con but is unable to address any of this:

Well then sounds like you've become an Obama fan; you can't keep riding both sides of teh fence; slamming him for raising taxes and then praising him for cutting them.

Except, he wasn't praising him for cutting them - he's asking you if you still think Obama is doing such a great job, since he's talking about cutting taxes instead of raising them.

Planning on answering sometime soon?

Quote

So to focus on the largest source of tax revenue is the most prudent.

Guess that why he's talking about cutting business taxes now, huh?

Quote

As for Obama doing a great job, you have yet to comment on all the points I've made about the turnaround in the stock market, GDP, Unemp rate and so many others.

That's right, we're not - because it's not applicable to the thread. Feel free to start yet another "Obama is wonderful and I want to have his love child" thread, however.

Quote

Cutting taxes, raising taxes, modifying taxes on the bottom 50%, bottom 75% means nothing as they pay almost nothing. Tax issues have to do with the group that pays almost all taxes and Obama will let these tax cuts expire. If you want to discuss the people who pay 3% of the total tax bill as being relevant to the entire tax issue then you have a good time, it just doesn't affect anything.

Ah, yes - more "news" from Biden and Pelosi, I see.

Link

Quote

The impact is far more severe than Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Biden suggest. In fact, the sound bite about 3% of small businesses, which has been picked up by numerous pundits, is one of the more misleading statements in the long history of economic propaganda.

The 3% figure, which is computed from IRS data, is based on simply counting the number of returns with any pass-through business income. So, if somebody makes a little money selling products on eBay and reports that income on Schedule C of their tax return, they are counted as a small business. The fact that there are millions of people in the lower tax brackets with small amounts of business income may be interesting for some purposes, but it is irrelevant for the assessment of the economic impact of the tax hikes.

The numbers are clear. According to IRS data, fully 48% of the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000 in 2007. That's the number to look at, not the 3%. Would Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Biden deny that the more successful firms owned by individuals in the top income-tax bracket are disproportionately responsible for investment and job creation?

It's clear that business income for large and small firms will be hit by the higher tax rates. And in point of fact, firms of all sizes contribute to the nation's prosperity. So it's a mistake to focus only on the impact of increased tax rates on small business. But will the higher rates actually cause a significant reduction in business activity?

Economic research supports a large impact. A pair of papers by economists Robert Carroll, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Harvey Rosen and Mark Rider that were published in 1998 and 2000 by the National Bureau of Economic Research analyzed tax return data and uncovered high responsiveness of sole proprietors' business activity to tax rates. Their estimates imply that increasing the top rate to 40.8% from 35% (an official rate of 39.6% plus another 1.2 percentage points from the restoration of a stealth provision that phases out deductions), as in Mr. Obama's plan, would reduce gross receipts by more than 7% for sole proprietors subject to the higher rate.

These results imply a similar effect on proprietors' investment expenditures. A paper published by R. Glenn Hubbard of Columbia University and William M. Gentry of Williams College in the American Economic Review in 2000 also found that increasing progressivity of the tax code discourages entrepreneurs from starting new businesses.

Because marginal tax rate increases impede long-run growth, they should be avoided in good times and bad. But now is a particularly inopportune time to raise rates, as small businesses are still struggling from the recession. According to the ADP National Employment Report for July, goods-producing small businesses have reduced their total payroll employment by 117,000 jobs since January of this year, and they were still posting declines in July.

Quote

Uh huh, you I did try to slide in nominal Real GDP in place of the always-used real nominal GDP I started the post with, we all know that.

Fixed that for you.

Quote

The 12 million source I have repeatedly expressed that was a bad source and that no data exists as to teh number of Americans killed by Mikee's favorite sociopaths in the 1930's killed. Only desperate people bring up moot points almost a year later.

Just like you keep bringing up your "Real GDP" lie.

Quote

I guess it beats addressing this:

Either way Lucky your boy is talking tax cuts. Still think he's doing a great job?

Indeed, I guess it does beat addressing that, after all your squalling about raising taxes.

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

• Quote

[Coreece 190]

Bla bla bla...

ha ha ha...

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[turtlespeed 226]

Mike . . . Please quit feeding the troll.

If we ignore him - he may go away.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[mnealtx 0]

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

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

. . .or at least st we won't have to skip the ENTIRE thread any more.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun