Phoney baloney - right wing lies

[Duff Miver]

"Tax cuts will create jobs"

GW Bush enacted across the board tax cuts, and unemployment went through the roof.

"The federal g'mint has raised taxes too high"

Federal taxes are lower than they have been since 1949

"Cutting corporate taxes will create jobs."

Corporate taxes are lower than they have been since 1945, but corps aren't creating new jobs.

maybe doggie, Maggot, ssd or azbob will show where I'm wrong. opcorn2

 

[Skulnik]

:facepalm:

The government?s surpluses during FY1998-FY2001 reduced debt held by the public by
$448 billion. The debt holdings of government accounts grew by $853 billion over
the same period. The total net change raised total federal debt by $405 billion

 

[Skulnik]

Should anyone listen to a word from Nancy Pelosi about deficit reduction? On Jan. 4, 2007, the Pelosi?s first day as Speaker, the national debt was $8,6 trillion The day she handed over the gavel on Jan. 5, 2011, the deficit $14.01 trillion, an increase of over $5 trillion.


"After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new deficit spending,? -Nancy Pelosi January 4, 2007


:0074

 

[Duff Miver]

Hey, skulnutz,

You keep posting the same crappo about the national debt. Please explain why it matters how much the national debt is. What difference does it make to you?


Uhhhh......duhhhhh.... is not an answer.

 

[Lumi]

muffins answer...

Teabaggers

 

[ssd]

Are u SURE that taxes are lower now than they were in 1949? Taking into consideration all the new taxes that are in existence now that were not in 1949?

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/CutYourTaxes/HiddenTaxesYouPayEveryDay.aspx

Otherwise, here is my response:

President Bush signed the first wave of tax cuts in 2001, cutting rates and providing tax relief for families by, for example, doubling of the child tax credit to $1,000.

At Congress? insistence, the tax relief was initially phased in over many years, so the economy continued to lose jobs. In 2003, realizing its error, Congress made the earlier tax relief effective immediately. Congress also lowered tax rates on capital gains and dividends to encourage business investment, which had been lagging.

It was the then that the economy turned around. Within months of enactment, job growth shot up, eventually creating 8.1 million jobs through 2007. Tax revenues also increased after the Bush tax cuts, due to economic growth.

In 2003, capital gains tax rates were reduced. Rather than expand by 36% as the Congressional Budget Office projected before the tax cut, capital gains revenues more than doubled to $103 billion.

The CBO incorrectly calculated that the post-March 2003 tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion. Revenues for 2006 came in $47 billion above the pre-tax cut baseline.

Here?s what else happened after the 2003 tax cuts lowered the rates on income, capital gains and dividend taxes:

GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1%.
The S&P 500 dropped 18% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32% over the next six quarters.
The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.

The timing of the lower tax rates coincides almost exactly with the stark acceleration in the economy. Nor was this experience unique. The famous Clinton economic boom began when Congress passed legislation cutting spending and cutting the capital gains tax rate.

 

[Duff Miver]

Are u SURE that taxes are lower now than they were in 1949? Taking into consideration all the new taxes that are in existence now that were not in 1949?

What the fuck is the problem with you and facts? Here, from the Tax Policy Center. See the title - Federal Tax Revenues? That doesn't just mean income tax. It's just like the one I showed you above - Total Federal Receipts. Sheesh.

 

[Duff Miver]

Are u SURE that taxes are lower now than they were in 1949? Taking into consideration all the new taxes that are in existence now that were not in 1949?

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/CutYourTaxes/HiddenTaxesYouPayEveryDay.aspx

Otherwise, here is my response:

President Bush signed the first wave of tax cuts in 2001, cutting rates and providing tax relief for families by, for example, doubling of the child tax credit to $1,000.

At Congress? insistence, the tax relief was initially phased in over many years, so the economy continued to lose jobs. In 2003, realizing its error, Congress made the earlier tax relief effective immediately. Congress also lowered tax rates on capital gains and dividends to encourage business investment, which had been lagging.

It was the then that the economy turned around. Within months of enactment, job growth shot up, eventually creating 8.1 million jobs through 2007. Tax revenues also increased after the Bush tax cuts, due to economic growth.

In 2003, capital gains tax rates were reduced. Rather than expand by 36% as the Congressional Budget Office projected before the tax cut, capital gains revenues more than doubled to $103 billion.

The CBO incorrectly calculated that the post-March 2003 tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion. Revenues for 2006 came in $47 billion above the pre-tax cut baseline.

Here?s what else happened after the 2003 tax cuts lowered the rates on income, capital gains and dividend taxes:

GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1%.
The S&P 500 dropped 18% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32% over the next six quarters.
The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.

The timing of the lower tax rates coincides almost exactly with the stark acceleration in the economy. Nor was this experience unique. The famous Clinton economic boom began when Congress passed legislation cutting spending and cutting the capital gains tax rate.

All that blather is no more significant than the rooster believing the sun comes up because he crows. You have shown no causal relationship between some selected numbers.

Now about your claimed Constitutional expertise......

 

[azbob]

The real tax rate is about 50%.

In the 1940's, what was the rate on gasoline, air travel, inheritance, cigarettes, the water bill, rent, the sales tax for the city you live in, the sales tax for the county you live in, the sales tax for the state you live in, car registration fees, capital gains, hotel tax and fees, etc. etc. etc.

Anyone with a brain and a broad view understands that the true tax rate goes far beyond the income tax.

On top of all that, now the Gov of California is providing tax dollars to illegals to go to college.

Pathetic.

 

[Duff Miver]

The real tax rate is about 50%.

In the 1940's, what was the rate on gasoline, air travel, inheritance, cigarettes, the water bill, rent, the sales tax for the city you live in, the sales tax for the county you live in, the sales tax for the state you live in, car registration fees, capital gains, hotel tax and fees, etc. etc. etc.

Anyone with a brain and a broad view understands that the true tax rate goes far beyond the income tax.

On top of all that, now the Gov of California is providing tax dollars to illegals to go to college.

Pathetic.

Try to pay attention, the asbob. I specifically said Federal Tax. Nothing more. In 1940 the top Federal tax rate was 81%, more than twice what it is today.

I seriously doubt the total tax rate is 50% as you claim, the asbob, but I'm tired of doing homework for you dolts who pull imaginary numbers out of your ass. Do your own homework.

But even if it is 50%, so what? Look at the tax rates of other advanced countries which have better health care, better education and a better standard of living than we do. What are their tax rates?

Do you live in California? If not, then it's none of your business what they do. If you do live in California, then go ahead, cast your one vote for what you want, but in the end, you're going to get what the majority want. If the majority want to bend you over and put it to you, well, grease up, because that's called "Democracy".

 

[THE KOD]

Wednesday, July 27, 2011


Voters are more convinced than ever that most congressmen are crooks.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 46% of Likely U.S. Voters now view most members of Congress as corrupt. That?s up seven points from June and the highest finding yet recorded. Just 29% think most members are not corrupt, and another 25% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Similarly, a whopping 85% of voters think most members of Congress are more interested in helping their own careers than in helping other people. That?s a record high for surveys stretching back to early November 2006. Only seven percent (7%) believe most of the legislators are more interested in helping others.

These findings come at a time when voter approval of the job Congress is doing has fallen to a new low. Just six percent (6%) of voters now rate Congress' performance as good or excellent. Sixty-one percent (61%) think the national legislators are doing a poor job.

While some believe that people hate Congress in general but love their own representative, just 31% believe their own representative is the best person for the job. Most think it?s at least somewhat likely that their own representative trades votes for cash.

Most voters don't care much for the way either party is performing in the federal debt ceiling debate. The majority of voters are worried the final deal will raise taxes too much and won't cut spending enough. Just 23% of Adults are at least somewhat confident that U.S. policymakers know what they?re doing when it comes to addressing the nation?s current economic problems.

Thirty-eight percent (38%) of voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats when it comes to handling the issue of government ethics and corruption. But nearly as many (35%) trust Democrats more. Voters trust the GOP more on nine of 10 issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports including the economy, taxes, health care and national security.


Voters under 50 believe much more strongly than their elders that most members of Congress are corrupt. Union members share that view more than those who are not unionized.

Investors are less likely to believe most congressmen are corrupt that non-investors are.

For now, most voters would opt for a congressional candidate who balances spending cuts with tax hikes to lower the federal debt over one who?s totally opposed to any tax increases.

Just before last November?s elections, 52% of voters said most members of Congress get reelected not because they do a good job representing the folks at home but because election rules are rigged to their benefit. Only 17% felt incumbents get reelected because they do a good job representing their constituents, while 31% were undecided. These findings were consistent with previous surveys.

......................................................................
:facepalm:

Its hard to believe that only 50 % of Americans think that Congress is corrupt.

what does it take for us to do something about this shit that has been going on for 50 years

 

[THE KOD]

Congressional members net worth up 3669 percent



In the information overload that has become our every day, worrisome world, it is often difficult to see the forest for the trees.

This video may explain the hubris of constant political distractions keeping us from the truth. It is the bottom line of the Truth For Our Times:

View ?The List? that we speak of in ?The Video Congress Does Not Want You To See?.

Many have had the sneaking suspicion that our elected ?leaders? in Congress are not going to Washington D.C. to represent us but for their own personal gain. This video may just validate that assessment!:scared

Using the net worth data compiled by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics we found a disturbing trend.

The analysis of the information in this video has not been seen by anyone; not on Fox News and not on CNN. You have not read about this in the Wall Street Journal.

To see if your elected representative is on the list, please go to Government Gone Wild

__________________________________________________________________


Almost 4 thousand percent increan in net worth ?

Uh lets think how they could possible do this on their salary ?

Can you say lobby payments

Can you say corrupt fawkers

how stupid are we and continue to be.......

List , Lists , we dont need no fawking lists.

they are all in it with their hands out and in the American peoples pockets.

 

[ssd]

My sole purpose Muff is too annoy you.

It appears that I am doing my job.


Gas tax is a federal tax, by the way.

And the charts that you have posted say federal tax revenue as a % of gdp.

I have not done the homework on it but what are the dollars collected from 1940 as compared to the dollars collected today?


If you want to argue %, you will also find that defense spending (as a % of GDP) is below it's historical average of 5.2% while ENTITLEMENT spending has now increased to a whopping 10.6% of GDP.

As for facts, I posted a whole set of facts in regards to the Bush tax rates and you never said a word. Interesting......


Keep believing the liberal lies, Muff and that Keynesian economics says that the way out of debt is to issue more debt. Must make perfect sense to you.

 

[Duff Miver]

My sole purpose Muff is too annoy you.

If that's your sole purpose, you lead a very petty life.

It appears that I am doing my job


No more than the average teabagger., although I should refer to them in the future, more accurately, as the Taliban wing of the Republican party.


Gas tax is a federal tax, by the way.

No shit. And there are State fuel taxes too.

And the charts that you have posted say federal tax revenue as a % of gdp.


Yes. Can you think of a more meaningful way to relate one decade to another, allowing for population growth, inflation, changing costs of raw materials and production?

I have not done the homework on it but what are the dollars collected from 1940 as compared to the dollars collected today?

If you are interested you can, as they say, look it up. I haven't a clue, since it's meaningless.


If you want to argue %, you will also find that defense spending (as a % of GDP) is below it's historical average of 5.2% while ENTITLEMENT spending has now increased to a whopping 10.6% of GDP.

So what? We spend a much greater part of our national GDP on the military than any other civilized country; too much. We could accomplish legitimate self defense with 2% of GDP, maybe less. Of what value is military spending to kill citizens of a country which never attacked us, and did not have the means to threaten us. I guess you're too young to remember Viet Nam where we pissed away 58,000 young men and suffered another 350,000 casualties for no purpose other than killing some brown people who were no threat to us, but certainly you can remember Iraq.

I'm not sure what you include in your definition of "entitlement". If you mean Medicare/Aid, Social Security, free education and the like, we should be spending more. Our education sucks hind tit among civilized countries, and our medical care is unavailable to many.

As for facts, I posted a whole set of facts in regards to the Bush tax rates and you never said a word. Interesting......

What you posted were facts which you tried to correlate to one another in order to prove an assumption you made in advance of looking at the facts. Your cause/effect reasoning with those facts is about as sound as saying "My dog dislikes radishes, so it rained yesterday". Two facts, but not in any way causal.


Keep believing the liberal lies, Muff and that Keynesian economics says that the way out of debt is to issue more debt. Must make perfect sense to you.


I believe facts, and conclusions which can be drawn from them through sound reasoning. It's called "the scientific method". You should try it sometime. Keynes? Sorry, I've never read his work. Another unfounded assumption on your part.

....

 

[Lumi]

Try to pay attention, the asbob. I specifically said Federal Tax. Nothing more. In 1940 the top Federal tax rate was 81%, more than twice what it is today.

I seriously doubt the total tax rate is 50% as you claim, the asbob, but I'm tired of doing homework for you dolts who pull imaginary numbers out of your ass. Do your own homework.

But even if it is 50%, so what? Look at the tax rates of other advanced countries which have better health care, better education and a better standard of living than we do. What are their tax rates?

Do you live in California? If not, then it's none of your business what they do. If you do live in California, then go ahead, cast your one vote for what you want, but in the end, you're going to get what the majority want. If the majority want to bend you over and put it to you, well, grease up, because that's called "Democracy".

You certainly ran your man pleaser when it came to California voters and Prop 8.

Stay out of it Sally :SIB

 

[marine]

Duff Miver,since we're on a fact checking roll here I thought I'd point out another make believe "fact" you present:

So what? We spend a much greater part of our national GDP on the military than any other civilized country;
In 2009:
The US spent 4.7% of its GDP on military/defense.
Saudi Arabia spent 11.2%
United Arab Emriates spent 6.7%
Israel spent 6.3%

I'm pretty sure those are civilized countries

 

[THE KOD]

Duff Miver,since we're on a fact checking roll here I thought I'd point out another make believe "fact" you present:

So what? We spend a much greater part of our national GDP on the military than any other civilized country;
In 2009:
The US spent 4.7% of its GDP on military/defense.
Saudi Arabia spent 11.2%
United Arab Emriates spent 6.7%
Israel spent 6.3%

I'm pretty sure those are civilized countries

................................................................

Post the GDP of these countrys

That should tell us something

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"Tax cuts will create jobs"

GW Bush enacted across the board tax cuts, and unemployment went through the roof.

"The federal g'mint has raised taxes too high"

Federal taxes are lower than they have been since 1949

"Cutting corporate taxes will create jobs."

Corporate taxes are lower than they have been since 1945, but corps aren't creating new jobs.

maybe doggie, Maggot, ssd or azbob will show where I'm wrong. opcorn2

Best thing to do is ignore you- as it gets old exposing your- yep graphs from sodahead.com. and other liberal sites--unless you plan to rewrite history and delete all gov stats-
--a prudent person can look a one basic gov table and make logical decision. Now you be a good little liberal trooper and continue your efforts to to try and steer people away from obvious--but you can't rewrite history--yet!



<TABLE style="MARGIN-TOP: 0px" class=regular-data><THEAD><TR><TH scope=row>Year</TH><TH scope=col>Jan</TH><TH scope=col>Feb</TH><TH scope=col>Mar</TH><TH scope=col>Apr</TH><TH scope=col>May</TH><TH scope=col>Jun</TH><TH scope=col>Jul</TH><TH scope=col>Aug</TH><TH scope=col>Sep</TH><TH scope=col>Oct</TH><TH scope=col>Nov</TH><TH scope=col>Dec</TH><TH scope=col>Annual</TH></TR></THEAD><TBODY><TR class=odd><TH scope=row>2001</TH><TD>4.2</TD><TD>4.2</TD><TD>4.3</TD><TD>4.4</TD><TD>4.3</TD><TD>4.5</TD><TD>4.6</TD><TD>4.9</TD><TD>5.0</TD><TD>5.3</TD><TD>5.5</TD><TD>5.7</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR class=even><TH scope=row>2002</TH><TD>5.7</TD><TD>5.7</TD><TD>5.7</TD><TD>5.9</TD><TD>5.8</TD><TD>5.8</TD><TD>5.8</TD><TD>5.7</TD><TD>5.7</TD><TD>5.7</TD><TD>5.9</TD><TD>6.0</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR class=odd><TH scope=row>2003</TH><TD>5.8</TD><TD>5.9</TD><TD>5.9</TD><TD>6.0</TD><TD>6.1</TD><TD>6.3</TD><TD>6.2</TD><TD>6.1</TD><TD>6.1</TD><TD>6.0</TD><TD>5.8</TD><TD>5.7</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR class=even><TH scope=row>2004</TH><TD>5.7</TD><TD>5.6</TD><TD>5.8</TD><TD>5.6</TD><TD>5.6</TD><TD>5.6</TD><TD>5.5</TD><TD>5.4</TD><TD>5.4</TD><TD>5.5</TD><TD>5.4</TD><TD>5.4</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR class=odd><TH scope=row>2005</TH><TD>5.3</TD><TD>5.4</TD><TD>5.2</TD><TD>5.2</TD><TD>5.1</TD><TD>5.0</TD><TD>5.0</TD><TD>4.9</TD><TD>5.0</TD><TD>5.0</TD><TD>5.0</TD><TD>4.9</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR class=even><TH scope=row>2006</TH><TD>4.7</TD><TD>4.8</TD><TD>4.7</TD><TD>4.7</TD><TD>4.6</TD><TD>4.6</TD><TD>4.7</TD><TD>4.7</TD><TD>4.5</TD><TD>4.4</TD><TD>4.5</TD><TD>4.4</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR class=odd><TH scope=row>2007</TH><TD>4.6</TD><TD>4.5</TD><TD>4.4</TD><TD>4.5</TD><TD>4.4</TD><TD>4.6</TD><TD>4.7</TD><TD>4.6</TD><TD>4.7</TD><TD>4.7</TD><TD>4.7</TD><TD>5.0</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR class=even><TH scope=row>2008</TH><TD>5.0</TD><TD>4.8</TD><TD>5.1</TD><TD>4.9</TD><TD>5.4</TD><TD>5.6</TD><TD>5.8</TD><TD>6.1</TD><TD>6.2</TD><TD>6.6</TD><TD>6.8</TD><TD>7.3</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR class=odd><TH scope=row>2009</TH><TD>7.8</TD><TD>8.2</TD><TD>8.6</TD><TD>8.9</TD><TD>9.4</TD><TD>9.5</TD><TD>9.5</TD><TD>9.7</TD><TD>9.8</TD><TD>10.1</TD><TD>9.9</TD><TD>9.9</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR class=even><TH scope=row>2010</TH><TD>9.7</TD><TD>9.7</TD><TD>9.7</TD><TD>9.8</TD><TD>9.6</TD><TD>9.5</TD><TD>9.5</TD><TD>9.6</TD><TD>9.6</TD><TD>9.7</TD><TD>9.8</TD><TD>9.4</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR class=odd><TH scope=row>2011</TH><TD>9.0</TD><TD>8.9</TD><TD>8.8</TD><TD>9.0</TD><TD>9.1</TD><TD>9.2</TD><TD></TD><TD>
</TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

In the future- you need to address any rhetoric to those you identify with--I no longer have the time nor the inclination-- Keep grovling for that gov tit-higher taxes-and carrying on that family tradition--:kiss:

 

[Duff Miver]

Duff Miver,since we're on a fact checking roll here I thought I'd point out another make believe "fact" you present:

So what? We spend a much greater part of our national GDP on the military than any other civilized country;
In 2009:
The US spent 4.7% of its GDP on military/defense.
Saudi Arabia spent 11.2%
United Arab Emriates spent 6.7%
Israel spent 6.3%

I'm pretty sure those are civilized countries

Saudi and the UAE are hardly civilized countries. They are absolute Monarchies, dictatorships really. Democracy and civil rights do not exist.

Israel's military expenditures are mostly money we give them. It isn't as though they spend their money.

 

[marine]

Saudi and the UAE are hardly civilized countries. They are absolute Monarchies, dictatorships really. Democracy and civil rights do not exist.

Israel's military expenditures are mostly money we give them. It isn't as though they spend their money.

Because they do not live the same way we do does not make them any more or less civilized than the United States.

Wow, talk about a smug little boy. They don't live the same as us, so they are not civilized like us. Do you think they all live in caves and communicate with each other by grunting?