That’s been tried before, Teach. Huckabee did it in Arkansas for all of his Liberal critics that DEMANDED higher taxes to pay for the things they wanted the state to fund. In the entire time he was in office, that fund got less than $1,000 sent to it.

Liberal a generous (and brave and tolerant) ONLY when it costs them nothing to be that way.

Why would they? Why would anyone choose to pay taxes unless they have to? Everyone is greedy, but liberals embrace that fact and choose to make it mandatory.

But if conservatives didn’t want higher taxes, all they have to do is contribute more of their wealth to the deficit. I mean, they did vote in the administration which started us down this high deficit path, only fair that they cover some of the costs.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

You can’t even see how STUPID you are!

Only if you take it out of context. Which you keep trying to do.

More personal attacks, when called out for taking quotes out of context. Only topped by gfchicago like botting everything to prevent them from being moderated.

But if conservatives didn’t want higher taxes, all they have to do is contribute more of their wealth to the deficit.

That’s legal right now, DB. Citizens are permitted to paying high taxes to the IRS and refusing a refund.

I’ll await for that long list of liberals who voluntarily overpay their taxes.

And that is NOT what we are discussing, Danny. But you already know that.

You and your ilk want to raise taxes to pay for more of your social engineering. Mandatory taxes shoudl be for Constitutionally mandated services and expences.

If you want more condom machines in gay bars, YOU PAY FOR IT!

And you ONLY want to cut the military, Danny.

Stop demanding we raise taxes and cut the military so that gay bars can have free condoms.

But I thought we were cutting all non-constitutionally mandated spending?

Oh right, right wing logic. Keep spending for constitutional mandates and other things we think are important.

Defense spending is constitutionally mandated.

What part of invading another country is part of defense?

Were we invaded by Iraq, Afghanistan, or Cuba? Nope. Did they launch any attacks at us? Nope. Have we captured Osama bin Laden? Nope. Have we established a successful democracy in Iraq? Nope. Have we established a successful democracy in Cuba? Nope.

Has any part of our foreign military policy made us safer and contributed to the defense of our nation? Nope.

So again, what part of this spending was for defense?

You do realize that when we went to war with Japan, Germany declared war on us?

Vietnam was another war we lost, that introduced another communist regime.

Tripoli was to rescue Americans. Once rescued, it exposed flaws in the Tripoli regime, which allowed the rightful ruler to regain control. Cuba, Afghanistan, and Iraq didn’t have deposed rulers and captured Americans.

If you believe we’re safer because we took the fight to the terrorists, then you are far to delusional to be playing on a computer.

“Did they launch any attacks at us? Nope.” Liar! Gitmo is a result of the Spanish American War. Iraq was in response to violations of a cease fire among which were attacks on US aircraft. And if you don’t understand why we’re fighting against Afghanistan, you’re too stupid to be let out of your padded cell.

If that country is the agressor, Danny. Guess you didn’t do so well in Social Studies.

What part of invading another country is part of defense?

See Section 8, the power to declare war, dumbass!

Voluntarily overpay so the wealth will get their taxes cut more, and we’ll send more troops overseas to die in pointless wars?

The wealthy don’t get their taxes “cut more” because you overpay. Their deductions are constant.

Typical lib, full of shit then runs away when faced with facts. Fiza did the very same thing before he crawled away to his little rock then came back under pseudonyms.

*YAWN!*

Somebody tell the local elementary school that one of their crybabies is accessing the Internet again.

Ooo, name calling now.

Wow, did you figure out that all by yourself or did you get help from your local NAMBLA group, fiza?

You have to have facts to burst bubbles, Dippy. And your facts don’t support your argument as well as you’d like. And we’ve all shown you how.

Hey, you folks on the left are pushing for the higher taxes, why not pay your fair share? Stand up for your beliefs, Danny, pay more in taxes to deal with the deficit that your party pushed to historic highs.

In case you missed it, Danny, Conservatives railed against Bush and Republicans during those years for spending too much. Also, I remember you lefties whining about the deficit, too. Now, all of a sudden, the monstrous deficit created by YOUR party is OK, it’s just that people are not being taxed enough.

So, why shouldn’t liberals, who believe in paying higher taxes, be given an opportunity to contribute to deficit reduction? Man up, Danny! Take responsibility. Lord knows, your party and president don’t.

Because I won’t pay more because I figure it will be used to pay to try to overturn some government, give another bailout to wall street, or cut taxes on the wealthy more so they can make 7 figures while off shoring jobs.

The deficit and economic situation was caused by the policies of 2001-2007. Unless you believe like Stan that policies take effect immediately, at which point the deficit, 2001 recession, and 9/11 were all due to Republicans.

Then give me a time frame William. Step up, and give me a time frame. A consistent time frame.

Or keep running scared like you and the rest of your little buddies, changing time frames to fit your argument, so you don’t actually have to try to refute anything.

Running too I see. Pick a time period that economic policies have effect on. You claim that the Democratic congress was responsible for the recession, you’re picking immediate effects for policy. You’re also then picking Bush causing 9/11.

Pick wisely Kingfisher. And then be prepared to defend your pick and stick with it.

I think it takes 5 years. 300 million people, economy moves slow, and changes in GDP correspond with policy changes 5 years prior.

Your turn.

Than, by your own admission, the problem isn’t Bush’s fault.

Thank you.

The reason why you chose 5 years is simple, that’s the amount you calculated where you can blame Bush and exonerate the Democrats.

There is no supporting evidence to your “5 year” claim. Therefore, you are dismissed. 6 months to 1.5 years is more realistic.

Actually, 5 years proves that you’re dumb as shit. Obamacare is starting to affect the people NOW. Check out the latest from Boeing and McDonalds for more information.

If the Democrats were in power longer, you would have simply picked a larger number.

Then, by your logic, the stimulus is pointless because it will take 5 years to be effective. We cannot wait 5 years.

Thank you for proving, once again, that you’re nothing more than a hardcore liberal asskisser

No time frame William? Another big talking right winger too scared to stick by his guns and actually have to refute data, rather than just trying to change time of effect?

You’re not the pirate, you’re the parrot.

I pay my fair share, as defined by the government you voted in to power in 2001 and 2003. Considering I don’t have a kid, don’t use social security or medicare, have my own retirement fund, and don’t believe in our foreign engagements, seems what I pay is pretty fair.

Your turn parrot. Pick a time frame.

Because I won’t pay more because I figure it will be used to pay to…or cut taxes on the wealthy more so they can make 7 figures while off shoring jobs.

Thank you for proving your ignorance of economics once again.

Why would they? Why would anyone choose to pay taxes unless they have to? Everyone is greedy, but liberals embrace that fact and choose to make it mandatory.

So what you’re saying is, you’re trying to legislate morality. Awesome.

Of course I do, Danny. but you made no distinction in your pathetic screed.

Then why do you accept the fact that most Democrats are wealthy?

I know Republicans in Congress are wealthy too but you focus your attention only on the business world while ignoring the fact that your elected reps in Congress are living very well.

I simply said executives wouldn’t be lavished with high pay.

Then start by taking the pay form those “liberal executives.” That should be easy and you can show that it works.

Yes.

You know, Warren Buffet (the investor, not to be confused with his more respected brother Jimmy), was ranked one of the wealthiest people alive in 2010. He has donates heavily to the democrats.

How much money should he be allowed to keep?

There are liberal executives, Danny? How can that be since we’re told that liberals are for the “common man?”

I would be happy to instruct these “liberal executives” how to write a check to a charitable organization.

The fact that you accept the truth of “liberal executives” shows, once again, that wealth is acceptable to you as long as it is used only for your purposes.

And that’s why we want to re-elect Republicans? In the hope that Bush policies will produce different results?

As opposed to electing high spending Dems, and the ‘successes’ of their policies. And I don’t want Republicans I want Conservatives, You’ll find more those in the GOP than amongst Dems.

Danny, you lose, now go drink your Kool-Aid.
Try again.
Try harder.

Yup and every other govt employee making more than twice the national median wage, after benefits!!!!

Glad to know you know nothing about how much people actually get paid in our government at all levels. Their are too many taking 6 figure salaries with almost 6 figures of benefits annually.

The average pay for the nation’s 1.9 million federal workers is a little over $71,000, with the 372,041 federal workers in the Washington area earning an average of $94,047. The average salary for the nation’s 108 million private-sector workers is $50,028.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Federal-salaries-targeted-as-private-sector-pay-stagnates-8665856-79571487.html#ixzz12r3xOYP9

Right from your own article, DIPSHIT!! The only people that lose money working for the govt are licensed professionals.

You’re a fucking moron, Dany, almost of the examples in you second post show Fed employees making more than private employees with just a few exceptions: such as software Engineers!!!

“You can enter private industry with 1-3 years experience, the government has almost no entry level jobs.”

Bwahahahhahhaahhahaha so tell me how much experience education is required to work the USPS?? http://jobs.irs.gov/careers.html Even the IRS has jobs that would be considered ENTRY LEVEL!!!!!!!

Do you think before you post?

Glad to know you know nothing about how much people actually get paid in our government at all levels. Their are too many taking 6 figure salaries with almost 6 figures of benefits annually.

We don’t have on of the worst Public Education systems, health care systems, or transportation infrastructures, Dippy. So you just blew you’re whole rant right out the water.

“the growth seen under Clinton was a result of Republican policies 8 years prior”
Where did I say that Danny, WHERE?

Stop listening to the voices in your head, you idiot!

Why are you bringing up Clinton? Is there no Liberal Democrat you won’t defend?

Because I want you to pick a time frame and stick to it Stan. Do economic policies take 1 year to take effect? 3 years? 5 years? Or is it just immediate for Democrats, but 5 years for Republicans? Pick one Stan.

Or don’t. Because then I’ll actually be able to show you data that you can’t refute by trying to change time frames.

Keep running Stan, keep running.

Too scared to pick a time frame, have to use it as a crutch for defending arguments. Picking a time frame will mean you actually have to defend against the numbers across the board.

Run Stan run.

Run more Stan. I asked you to define the period. 1 year, 3 year, 5 years, I don’t care. Just pick one.

Or keep running. Then we’ll just know your another Koch bot feeding Fox talking points.

It’s too hard for you Stan, because you’re scared to lose your, change the time frames to suit your arguments defense.

Pick a time frame Stan. Policies take immediate effect, policies take 3 years, policies take 15 years. I don’t care. But pick one and stick to it.

I’m trying to define the rules, so that you can’t try to change them mid debate.

Of course, then you wouldn’t be able to debate.

Keep running Stan.

You continue to whine and blame us because you could not abide by the time frame YOU established.

No problem Danny. Once you go through puberty, you may return. Until then, RUN AWAY!

Because I want you to pick a time frame and stick to it Stan.

Why don’t you pick a time frame, Danny? That way we can show that you’re a liar once again because you’re blaming Bush for today’s mess.

By the way, the Democrats controlled Congress, starting in 2007.

Bonus question. Where does the Constitution mandate where all bills must originate?

More Right Wing Logic to the rescue!

You ignored the question, fiza. Run away, little children.

but Democratic policies are immediate, as long as there are no conflicting economic scenarios under those time frames.

Then why are you blaming Bush? You should be blaming Clinton instead.

PWNED!

Way to try to save yourself from your own cowardice!

(PWNED) * 2

You’ve got the patent on that technique, Danny.

Hey, what do you know, Republicans were in control of Congress throughout 6 of the 8 years of Bush’s presidency!

I’ll use your own words:

If jobs growth was so amazing, why was our economy hemorrhaging jobs in 2007, 2008, and 2009?

The Democrats controlled Congress in 2007 so, in your OWN WORDS, they’re responsible for hemorrhaging jobs.

You’re right, whats_up. 5.2% unemployment is far worse than the 10+% unemployment we have right now.

Since you blamed Bush, we’re blaming Obama.

PWNED!

Liar.

http://www.thesunsfinancialdiary.com/charts/january-unemployment-rate-76-chart-day/

Liar.

http://www.thesunsfinancialdiary.com/charts/january-unemployment-rate-76-chart-day/

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/whos-left-out-of-us-job-reports/

According to one government survey, the United States added 4.8 million jobs since the start of the Bush administration in January 2001. But wait. According to another government survey, the United States added 7.5 million jobs in the same period. Although job growth is anemic by either reckoning, the record is significantly worse if judged by the first survey.

FAIL wu, FAIL!!!! More than 1.5 times more than you claim and that’s the LOW estimate.

It’s still higher than WU claimed isn’t it Dippy, which was my whole point.

Please prove where the government mandated risky loans.

(Hint: You can’t, CRA provisions specify maintaining loan standards)

That isn’t CRA. That is a completely different act. It also doesn’t mandate risky loans. It merely says that Fannie/Freddie should have goals for serving urban areas. Buying risky loans was in opposition to CRA mandates, and was tolerated because everyone thought housing was going up, just like Wall Street.

Just like Right Wingers say, people should be responsible.

Fannie/Freddie should have said, as private companies with government mandates, we cannot meet those goals without compromising our standards on loans we purchased. However, since they were also tasked with making money for shareholders, they chose the profits of CDOs carrying subprimes over their mandate of lending only to credit worthy borrowers. Kind of like every other lender did as well. Which was then blessed by credit ratings agencies, and overlooked by regulatory agencies, since government regulations are evil.

Evidence that they set goal targets? Yes.
Evidence that they mandated reaching goal targets by lending to non-worthy borrowers? Nope.

Please link me to where it says if goal’s aren’t reached by lending to non-worthy borrowers, Freddie and Fannie will have their charter revoked.

Running around in circles, dodging the question in the middle.

Hey look at that, a Wall Street product lacking oversight while Republicans control the government.

Hey look at that the product has NEVER been regulated and was actually first sold in 1968, and STILL isn’t regulated!!!!!

Dippy not getting facts straight, EVAH!

FAIL

I hear that China has lower tax rates and lower debt than us, but is the only country to do so.

I do, but my post on the subject has been deleted three times so far. Waiting for number four.

No he didn’t.

Next lie.

Clinton was forced to do the one thing Bush didn’t; CUT SPENDING, after lowering taxes for 98.8 percent of all taxpayers!!!!

Uh he did lower taxes: In August 1993, Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which passed Congress without a Republican vote. It cut taxes for fifteen million low-income families, made tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses,[59] and raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers.[60] Additionally, through the implementation of spending restraints, it mandated the budget be balanced over a number of years.

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

Thanks for proving my point dumbass, your chart proves that taxes were cut. As the lowest tier married filing jointly 1992 paid 15% on income up to 35.8K. In ’93 they stayed in the 15% bracket until they made more than 38K. That’s a cut from 1992 tax rates for all people earning more than 35.8K but less than 38K!!!!!!

“…yet he produced 10 trillion more jobs.”

AAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Yes, Danny, Clinton produced 1,667 jobs for every man, woman, and child on the planet. I’m telling you man, those ’90s were a bi**h. We spent the entire decade doing nothing but working. No sleeping, no eating, nothing but working. That’s how we were able to do those 1,667 jobs.

What was the average unemployment rate under Clintoon, Dippy, all 8 years? What was the average under Bush?

“Clinton was 1% higher on unemployment at the lowest point in his term, yet he produced 10 trillion more jobs.”

10 TRILLION!!!! Bwahhahahahahahahahaahha and I’m making excuses? You’re literally making shit up!!!

Yeah, after you got caught in a lie.

We don’t have to correct our statements.

Guess that happens when you actually try to support your posts with something other than self-evident axioms and name calling.

Repeating your own lies isn’t support.

Keep lying, though. You’ll be in the minority.

With gridlock in Congress, the American people can move on with our lives.

Yet the Kennedy tax cut you seem bound and determined to spin as Keynesian success story did exactly what you’re objecting to.

A thing cannot simultaneously be and not be, Danny. either the policies the rest of us are advocating worked in the case of the Kennedy tax cut or the Kennedy tax cut didn’t work.

Danny,

1. The Laffer curve is a discussion of government revenue, not economic growth. A lower level of government revenue can still result from increased economic growth.
2. To talk about a rate as “above the curve” makes no sense. The curve itself reflects revenues at any given tax rate.
3. Actually, this:
http://www.unclefed.com/IRS-Forms/taxtables/2000_i1040trs.pdf
indicates that you are full of it with regard to rates.
4. Your claims only dodge my question. Kennedy’s tax cut was structurally not different from Bush’s. The bulk of the cut was simply not to low income earners. Hence, your claim to demand inspired growth under the Kennedy tax cuts is simply bizarre.
5. Actually, tax cuts do create economic growth. The extent of such growth may be debatable, but it is directional and the direction is in favor of growth. That’s Econ 101.

Deficits are the product of TWO factors, Tax rates and spending, they are dependent variables, deficits do not necessarily rise just because taxes are cut. Tax can produce record revenues as evidenced by the Bush tax cuts. If Bush hadn’t chosen to increase spending, but had held or lowered spending the Deficit would have remained the same or dropped. Possibly regaining the small Clinton surplus and being able to reduce the debt.

There I fixed it. And you still haven’t proven that tax cuts cause deficit spending.

Learn to analyze the individual situation, rather than just repeating “tax cuts create economic growth”

Because they do. Thank you for your admission.

still regurgitating your lies Stanley? What facts are those. Are you going to give us the same lame answer that they were friends and comrades? That has been looked into and answered.

David Duke. Bush. 2004.

Thanks for playing liar.

Actually it’s disqus it doesn’t like more than two links in a post, I’ve noticed that with some other things I’v posted.

So says the man who still thinks David Duke voted for Bush!!!

Oh right, zero.

Just like you.

Just like the link I provided showing that the government is the primary cause.

Now run back to your mommies.

They suffer from black and white tunnel vision around here. You get used to it after a while.

Corporations don’t use public garbage removal, they contract with other private companies to do that. And they pay taxes to use those roads, supply that electric, and use the courts just like you do, both the corporations and the employees/executives do. They do not use those resources anymore than you do. Especially since you buy the goods they sell.

Even if we could significantly raise revenues despite a failing economy and aging population it would at best delay the collapse rather than prevent it.

The socialist system we’ve built up is the problem. Properly funding it is merely one offshoot of that.

Increasing revenue to cover our unsustainable social welfare network amounts to taking up jogging to deal with your lung cancer. Yeah it’s a good idea in general but it won’t address the root issue.

Gotta love a parrot that can’t pick a time frame.

Notice the part where I say Carter (who was a Democrat) produced Reagan’s recession?

Nice narrow POV there parrot.

In 2006 we had a Republican president and a Republican Congress.

2006 election means they take office in 2007.

The economy was doing well until Jan 2007. Danny doesn’t like that.

You’re arguing against linking unemployment to tax rates, but then say cutting small business taxes produces employment?I usually focus on personal tax rates, since the main excuse used for not increasing personal income tax rates is that it will hurt small businesses. As you point out though, most businesses have their own tax rate, and benefit from corporate incentives, so raising personal income tax rates on high earners shouldn’t have an impact on small businesses.

Without knowing specifically how many businesses are subject to corporate vs personal incomes taxes makes either argument mute.

So why tax any person or entity that might create jobs? Which is the whole point. Unless you can prove that people over the 250K limit don’t create jobs why would you risk raising their taxes?

First thing is the years fall between the graph lines, in line with the data points.

LBJ’s surcharged expired midway through 1969. Why do we not see an immediate return to pre-1968 levels? Upon expiring, we see unemployment actually begin to climb.

1964, unemployment was already declining. Would it have been more or less without the taxes? I think less, but I think how it was enacted was the best example of how and when to enact a tax cut.

Ford’s cuts didn’t take place till 77, and weren’t cuts so much as an adjustment for inflation. Same rates, just different cut offs. There was also such discretization, that almost everyone was paying taxes. Same thing as with Kennedy, by then, the unemployment rate was declining.

We actually see unemployment dip then spike following Reagan’s tax cuts.

For Bush, we see unemployment increase in 2001, and decrease in 2003.

Overall, you can’t say that tax cuts are always good, or always bad. You have to evaluate them in terms of how the economy is doing, how much capital is available for investment, and where consumer demand is. Right now, I would advocate cutting taxes for most Americans (<95%), keeping them the same for a portion (95-97.5), and significantly raising them for the rest (97.5+), because we currently have excess capital and low demand.

Look at how tax rates changed in 1987. Then see the spike in 1992. 87+5 = 92.

I think he had three or four changes to the tax code in his presidency.

Well if you’re looking at a five year effect how did Reagan’s cuts raise unemployment, those would the result of Carter Policies!!!! Reagan’s cuts took effect in 1981 and unemployment spiked in ’82. 82-5 is 81 HOW??