Bush Tax Cuts: The Results are In

[Rohirrim]

Since the Republicans, and their presidential candidates, are all big supporters of the Bush tax cuts (Pawlenty wants even more), maybe it's time to see how they've turned out?

What they find is unevenly distributed benefits. The percentage increase in after-tax income tilts greatly in favor of those making over $1 million, for one, especially when compared to Americans making between $40,000-$50,000. And at a time when the country is sunk in $14.3 trillion worth of debt, it's adding vastly to deficit, too. Indeed, the cost of the upper-income tax cuts is roughly equal to the Social Security shortfall in that span, CBPP says.

Criticism of the tax cuts has not died, either. In a blog post this week, Roger Hickey, co-founder of the Economic Policy Institute, for example, called the cuts "another experiment in conservative voodoo economics." And even some of those who've benefited most from the cuts now view them unfavorably, specifically the roughly 200 "Patriotic Millionaires" that recently wrote a letter to Congressional Republicans asking that their taxes be raised to help deficit reduction, rather than relying alone on cuts in government spending.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/08/how-bush-tax-cuts-economy_n_873245.html#s289287&title=Effect_On_AfterTax

Ooops! Looks like another Bush uber-fail.

[TailgateNut]

...and I was beginning to believe the fairy tale that those tax cuts would stimulate the economy. In reality the only thing being stimulated are the billfolds of the ueber-wealthy.

[jhns]

Yeah, those republicans are failures! Wait, Obama gave everyone the same tax cuts... Hmmm....

[Smiling Assassin27]

Same crap, different day.

Trotting out the same tired and incomplete argument must be a cry for help.

[TailgateNut]

Same crap, different day.

Trotting out the same tired and incomplete argument must be a cry for help.


as in "tax cuts will stimulate the economy"!

[Rohirrim]

Same crap, different day.

Trotting out the same tired and incomplete argument must be a cry for help.

Nothing more inspiring than a true believer. ;D

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Yeah, those republicans are failures! Wait, Obama gave everyone the same tax cuts... Hmmm....

And he was an asshole for doing that too

[sirhcyennek81]

WOnder if HuffPo got a memo. "Prez in trouble, attack 8 year old tax cuts. Blame Bush."


:Broncos:

[55CrushEm]

What a surprise. A left wing website, citing a left wing think tank....and that left wing founder of the think tank doesn't believe that tax cuts help grow GDP.

I'm shocked!

In short, another failed Keynesian believer poo-poos tax cuts. Same ol', same ol'.......

[Rigs11]

Yeah, those republicans are failures! Wait, Obama gave everyone the same tax cuts... Hmmm....

Umm yeah he had to compromise with those republican'ts otherwise the middle class would have gotten screwed. by the way where are the jobs?

[Rigs11]

What a surprise. A left wing website, citing a left wing think tank....and that left wing founder of the think tank doesn't believe that tax cuts help grow GDP.

I'm shocked!

In short, another failed Keynesian believer poo-poos tax cuts. Same ol', same ol'.......

tell us which sites you approve of, dispute the figures, or STFU

[TonyR]

..."your basic supply-side pixie dust plan, sprinkling massive windfall gains on the rich, not bothering to make the numbers add up and assuming implausibly high economic benefits will result."

[55CrushEm]

tell us which sites you approve of, dispute the figures, or STFU

I'll STFU when you dispute the endless posts I've put on the WPR forum. I've cited MANY stats, figures, etc. and whenever I do.....you clam up tighter than a nun's vagina.

Go f yourself, Rigs....you self-absorbed POS.....or start taking a look at all the data, articles I've provided and tell me what's wrong with it.

Or start with something basic like this. I've asked at least 5 times for someone to tell me how RAISING TAXES HELPS SPUR GDP GROWTH.....and everyone avoids it like the plague. You know why? Because IT DOESN'T!

Oh wait.....I'm sure you'll ask Captain Cartoon to bail you out of this.

[jhns]

Umm yeah he had to compromise with those republican'ts otherwise the middle class would have gotten screwed. by the way where are the jobs?

So Bush does tax cuts and they are all on him but Obama does tax cuts and they are blamed on republicans? Interesting theory.

You guys should stop calling yourselves republicans and democrates and start calling yourselves "I'm too dumb to think for myself"...

[alkemical]

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTAIHR4FzKc5pPuHRi5pcBOwrzzqqO4I HgLmL1niTZBJnsc1sic

[Rigs11]

I'll STFU when you dispute the endless posts I've put on the WPR forum. I've cited MANY stats, figures, etc. and whenever I do.....you clam up tighter than a nun's vagina.

Go f yourself, Rigs....you self-absorbed POS.....or start taking a look at all the data, articles I've provided and tell me what's wrong with it.

Or start with something basic like this. I've asked at least 5 times for someone to tell me how RAISING TAXES HELPS SPUR GDP GROWTH.....and everyone avoids it like the plague. You know why? Because IT DOESN'T!

Oh wait.....I'm sure you'll ask Captain Cartoon to bail you out of this.

Wow must of hit a nerve.which sites do you approve of professor?you know so you don't turn into a pansy when I post some links.

[RunSilentRunDeep]

I liked my tax cut even though I'm not a millionaire. But I have yet to gain a single thing from the three trillion dollars Obama has spent.

And for the record. I think Bush was an idiot for TARP, and Obama is a idiot for doubling and tripling down on many of Bush's mistakes.

[TonyR]

I think Bush was an idiot for TARP...

TARP has actually been a fairly large success.

[RunSilentRunDeep]

TARP has actually been a fairly large success.

How so? Saving poorly run businesses while the top brass continue to loot the companies doesn't qualify as a success to me. But then, I never but into the "too big to fail" BS or the "commerce could cease" nonsense.

[55CrushEm]

Wow must of hit a nerve.which sites do you approve of professor?you know so you don't turn into a pansy when I post some links.

Nice deflection. I've explained too many times how tax cuts (for EVERYONE) help stimulate GDP growth. Either you're not smart enough to understand it, or you choose to ignore it, cause it doen's fit your agenda.

I think the latter.

Again, talk to me when you want to dispute it. Last time.....HOW DO TAX INCREASES HELP GROW GDP?

I suspect I'll be waiting on that answer for a LONG time.

[*WARHORSE*]

ZZZZzzzzzzzz............

[Rigs11]

Nice deflection. I've explained too many times how tax cuts (for EVERYONE) help stimulate GDP growth. Either you're not smart enough to understand it, or you choose to ignore it, cause it doen's fit your agenda.

I think the latter.

Again, talk to me when you want to dispute it. Last time.....HOW DO TAX INCREASES HELP GROW GDP?

I suspect I'll be waiting on that answer for a LONG time.

Tax rates were at their highest in the 50's, yet the gdp was at almost 4%. How do you eplain this?the bottom line is that tax revenue and growth have little to do with each other. if you tell me which sites you approve of nancy I can post some links.

[Rigs11]

So Bush does tax cuts and they are all on him but Obama does tax cuts and they are blamed on republicans? Interesting theory.

You guys should stop calling yourselves republicans and democrates and start calling yourselves "I'm too dumb to think for myself"...

wow. Are you pretending to be this stupid?

1.Bush's tax cuts were passed in 01, and 03, while the repubs held the house and senate

2.when the tax cuts were set to expire last year, the repubs controlled the house and threatened to vote down tax cuts for the middle class unless the cuts were also continued for the wealthy.

[jhns]

2.when the tax cuts were set to expire last year, the repubs controlled the house and threatened to vote down tax cuts for the middle class unless the cuts were also continued for the wealthy.

What a great excuse! "The tax cuts are killing us! We couldn't stop them because the middle class would have $20 less to spend a year!"

[bronco militia]

two presidents, two tax cuts, both parties had their shot in congress, both increased spending.

wierd....

[55CrushEm]

Tax rates were at their highest in the 50's, yet the gdp was at almost 4%. How do you eplain this?the bottom line is that tax revenue and growth have little to do with each other. if you tell me which sites you approve of nancy I can post some links.

Tax rates are ONE factor in GDP growth. Are you arguing that high taxes were the reason for the high GDP growth? If so, please explain how that works.

Your "argument" would be like me saying, "I was at the Broncos game. The Broncos won. So they won because I was there."

I'll help you out (again). GDP is the measurement of products and services produced. The only way to increase production, is to increase purchasing (companies won't produce if nobody is buying). Well, how do you get people buying more goods and services? By taxing them MORE?!?! NO! Increase people's disposable income by LOWERING their taxes....it's like a pay raise for crying out loud. When people have more money, they'll spend more. It's not that difficult.

You can't honestly tell me that you'll increase this buying/selling activity by taxing people more......it does not work.

As for corporation, yes.....reduce their taxes too. AND get rid of the loopholes. Corporations will then have more money to reinvest and GROW their businesses.....and the result will be hiring more people. You won't get businesses to hire more people by taxing them more.

JFK believed in tax cuts too.....was he an idiot?

[55CrushEm]

two presidents, two tax cuts, both parties had their shot in congress, both increased spending.

wierd....

Yup. That's why I couldn't stand Bush....and particularly Karl Rove. Bush was a big government spender with an "R" by his name. And Rove was the one that told him to "outspend" the Dems, so that they couldn't attack him as being uncompassionate.

Fat f'er.

[alkemical]

two presidents, two tax cuts, both parties had their shot in congress, both increased spending.

wierd....

I know, right?!

[bombquixote]

Political arguments on this board are like watching dogs bark at each other across a fence. Ya'll are much better at football analysis.

[alkemical]

Political arguments on this board are like watching dogs bark at each other across a fence. Ya'll are much better at football analysis.

I thought it was more like two TV's facing each other. Dogs at least communicate.

[Rigs11]

What a great excuse! "The tax cuts are killing us! We couldn't stop them because the middle class would have $20 less to spend a year!"

are you drunk?

[jhns]

are you drunk?

Nope, I just live in reality.

[Rigs11]

Tax rates are ONE factor in GDP growth. Are you arguing that high taxes were the reason for the high GDP growth? If so, please explain how that works.

Your "argument" would be like me saying, "I was at the Broncos game. The Broncos won. So they won because I was there."

I'll help you out (again). GDP is the measurement of products and services produced. The only way to increase production, is to increase purchasing (companies won't produce if nobody is buying). Well, how do you get people buying more goods and services? By taxing them MORE?!?! NO! Increase people's disposable income by LOWERING their taxes....it's like a pay raise for crying out loud. When people have more money, they'll spend more. It's not that difficult.

You can't honestly tell me that you'll increase this buying/selling activity by taxing people more......it does not work.

As for corporation, yes.....reduce their taxes too. AND get rid of the loopholes. Corporations will then have more money to reinvest and GROW their businesses.....and the result will be hiring more people. You won't get businesses to hire more people by taxing them more.

JFK believed in tax cuts too.....was he an idiot?

Load of crap, who's to say that companies wont just pocket the extra money?Companies are sitting on 1.3 trillion right now.Where are the jobs? Bush cut taxes back in 03 and these cuts have been in place since then. Again where are the jobs?

[Rigs11]

Nope, I just live in reality.

reality called and asked that you check your figures. $20?

[Hercules Rockefeller]

2.when the tax cuts were set to expire last year, the repubs controlled the house and threatened to vote down tax cuts for the middle class unless the cuts were also continued for the wealthy.

That is flat out wrong. The tax cuts were extended in the House on Dec. 16, 2010. It was still Speaker Pelosi on that day, not Speaker Boehner.

[jhns]

reality called and asked that you check your figures. $20?

So I exaggerate some. I'm not far off on what they are for the lower end that are single though.

I just looked up the actual savings. The higher end gets about $20 a week for people making around $1,000 a week(this is the lower end of middle class). You are telling me people wouldn't be able to survive if these cuts went away? That is pretty dumb logic. If the cuts are doing as much damage as you guys claim, there is no excuse for Obama extending them. Not even when you make **** up to argue.

[Crushaholic]

The Bush tax cuts happened in June 2001...

...and then...9/11 and the Iraq and Afghanistan war...

...and then...bailouts...

My point is that they were never allowed to work the way they were designed...

[Rigs11]

So I exaggerate some. I'm not far off on what they are for the lower end that are single though.

I just looked up the actual savings. The higher end gets about $20 a week for people making around $1,000 a week(this is the lower end of middle class). You are telling me people wouldn't be able to survive if these cuts went away? That is pretty dumb logic.

wow if only you shared this kind of compassion for the uber wealthy..:spit:woult they be able to survive?

[Rigs11]

The Bush tax cuts happened in June 2001...

...and then...9/11 and the Iraq and Afghanistan war...

...and then...bailouts...

My point is that they were never allowed to work the way they were designed...

incorrect, 2001 and 2003.thats right tax cuts at a time of war.

[jhns]

wow if only you shared this kind of compassion for the uber wealthy..:spit:woult they be able to survive?

What?

[Rigs11]

That is flat out wrong. The tax cuts were extended in the House on Dec. 16, 2010. It was still Speaker Pelosi on that day, not Speaker Boehner.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/us/politics/02cong.html?ref=politics

[Rigs11]

What?

your asnine assumption that the middle class can afford to live without the extra money but the rich can't.

[55CrushEm]

Load of crap, who's to say that companies wont just pocket the extra money?Companies are sitting on 1.3 trillion right now.Where are the jobs? Bush cut taxes back in 03 and these cuts have been in place since then. Again where are the jobs?

Which part is the load of crap? That tax cuts stimulate spending? That companies will hire more?

What do you think most small business owners aspire to be? That's right....LARGE business owners.

How does one make his business bigger? That's right....by producing (and selling) more of their goods or services.

How does that business produces more of those goods/services? That's right...by HIRING more people!!!!!!! Again, businesses will only grow, people will only buy more, and more hiring will take place only when TAX BURDENS ARE REDUCED.

Companies won't just "pocket the extra money" because, as I've said, most business continually try to GROW their business. You can't GROW your business without REINVESTING the money.

[jhns]

your asnine assumption that the middle class can afford to live without the extra money but the rich can't.

Again, what? When did I say the rich can't? I said to get rid of all tax cuts if that is the only option(because you claimed Obama couldn't just stop them for the rich) because everyone can live without them. I talked specifically about the group you were concerned with....

Obama has no excuses. The republicans and democrats have done the exact same thing as each side claims the other one is screwing up. It doesn't make any sense.

Again, you should all just drop these labels of republican and democrat. Again, call yourselves, "I'm too dumb to think for myself."

[broncswin]

Yes...now I can say I posted in the dumbest fing thread I have ever opened on the OM...that is saying something.

[Kaylore]

You guys are hilarious. It could be ten years after the fact with Obama's crappy policies and you'd still be blaming Bush. I think I actually read someone try and argue that reason Obamonomics wasn't working was because it wasn't liberal enough. Despite him continually hemorrhaging socialist academics from his economic team as their promises come to naught, you all still insist this will work.

This next election there will be three candidates: Obama, the Republican nominee and George Bush. Even if Bush "ruined everything" (and he didn't) it's an indictment on Obama's poor leadership and lackadaisical management style that have created an environment for stagflation.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/us/politics/02cong.html?ref=politics

So where in that article does it say the Republicans controlled the House at that point? That seems to be an article about Republican Senators. Also, you'd think the House Dems would stand on principle and pass their own tax extension legislation without caving to a massive Senate minority.

It's still hilarious that in a chamber with the likes of Collins, Snowe, Brown, Murkowski, etc., the Dems couldn't pick off 2 votes.

[Chris]

A prominent Chinese diplomat told Fareed Zakaria that he thought the US were "morons" (exact word) for the tax cuts.

[Rigs11]

You guys are hilarious. It could be ten years after the fact with Obama's crappy policies and you'd still be blaming Bush. I think I actually read someone try and argue that reason Obamonomics wasn't working was because it wasn't liberal enough. Despite him continually hemorrhaging socialist academics from his economic team as their promises come to naught, you all still insist this will work.

This next election there will be three candidates: Obama, the Republican nominee and George Bush. Even if Bush "ruined everything" (and he didn't) it's an indictment on Obama's poor leadership and lackadaisical management style that have created an environment for stagflation.

it has been ten years since the tax cuts were put in place, and the results are laughable. yet the right was ripping obama for not being able to fix the economy after his first year. double standard don't you think?my question to you is would we be in a better place with Mccain/palin?

[Kaylore]

So where in that article does it say the Republicans controlled the House at that point? That seems to be an article about Republican Senators. Also, you'd think the House Dems would stand on principle and pass their own tax extension legislation without caving to a massive Senate minority.

It's still hilarious that in a chamber with the likes of Collins, Snowe, Brown, Murkowski, etc., the Dems couldn't pick off 2 votes.

Exactly. Both houses, a super majority in the Senate and the White House and Obama wasn't able to get enough support for his agenda?

That's either a failure of leadership or a failure of ideas. Either way, if I was a Democrat I would be pretty pissed off at my party's lack of production.

At what point are the Republicans not to blame? The Dems make it sound like Republicans always get their way and everything wrong is their fault. By their own argument they are empty suits.

[pricejj]

EVERYONE who pays taxes gets a tax cut, middle class included. Make the "Bush Tax Cuts" permanent to decrease the size of the ever-expanding, ever-encroaching federal government.

I'm happy to be saving around $1000 in FIT taxes this year, used it to see my family in TX.

More CLASS WARFARE from the Democrats.

Divide the people, and ultimately attempt to conquer and enslave the people, to gain wealth and power.

[Garcia Bronco]

Just understand that the bush tax cuts cut taxes for 100 percent of the tax paying public.

[DenverBrit]

Without tax cuts for the billionaires, how are they expected to maintain??


http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/2193/slide_2193_28375_large.jpg

[TailgateNut]

Nice deflection. I've explained too many times how tax cuts (for EVERYONE) help stimulate GDP growth. Either you're not smart enough to understand it, or you choose to ignore it, cause it doen's fit your agenda.

I think the latter.

Again, talk to me when you want to dispute it. Last time.....HOW DO TAX INCREASES HELP GROW GDP?

I suspect I'll be waiting on that answer for a LONG time.


They sure the **** have yet to stimulate any ****ing growth, beside the national debt and the bank accounts of the wealthy. I guess that's the growth you are speaking of.

[TailgateNut]

Tax rates are ONE factor in GDP growth. Are you arguing that high taxes were the reason for the high GDP growth? If so, please explain how that works.

Your "argument" would be like me saying, "I was at the Broncos game. The Broncos won. So they won because I was there."

I'll help you out (again). GDP is the measurement of products and services produced. The only way to increase production, is to increase purchasing (companies won't produce if nobody is buying). Well, how do you get people buying more goods and services? By taxing them MORE?!?! NO! Increase people's disposable income by LOWERING their taxes....it's like a pay raise for crying out loud. When people have more money, they'll spend more. It's not that difficult.

You can't honestly tell me that you'll increase this buying/selling activity by taxing people more......it does not work.

As for corporation, yes.....reduce their taxes too. AND get rid of the loopholes. Corporations will then have more money to reinvest and GROW their businesses.....and the result will be hiring more people. You won't get businesses to hire more people by taxing them more.

JFK believed in tax cuts too.....was he an idiot?

:spit: That sure hasn't happened. I guess we should keep cutting taxes until the nation goes bankrupt from interest on the debt.

BTW: that teenie weenie tax cut the middle and lower class is receiving isn't making up for the rising cost of consumables

[TailgateNut]

Just understand that the bush tax cuts cut taxes for 100 percent of the tax paying public.

:spit:

[That One Guy]

:spit: That sure hasn't happened. I guess we should keep cutting taxes until the nation goes bankrupt from interest on the debt.

BTW: that teenie weenie tax cut the middle and lower class is receiving isn't making up for the rising cost of consumables

It sounds like we can all agree that whether they are good or bad, the excuse that the Obama defenders are using for why he extended the cuts is a silly one.

[TailgateNut]

It sounds like we can all agree that whether they are good or bad, the excuse that the Obama defenders are using for why he extended the cuts is a silly one.


My issue with Obama is that he has no ****ing balls!

[ghwk]

My issue with Obama is that he has no ****ing balls!

Seal Team 6, so he has at least 1 ball. LOL

[ghwk]

Tax rates are ONE factor in GDP growth. Are you arguing that high taxes were the reason for the high GDP growth? If so, please explain how that works.

Your "argument" would be like me saying, "I was at the Broncos game. The Broncos won. So they won because I was there."

I'll help you out (again). GDP is the measurement of products and services produced. The only way to increase production, is to increase purchasing (companies won't produce if nobody is buying). Well, how do you get people buying more goods and services? By taxing them MORE?!?! NO! Increase people's disposable income by LOWERING their taxes....it's like a pay raise for crying out loud. When people have more money, they'll spend more. It's not that difficult.

You can't honestly tell me that you'll increase this buying/selling activity by taxing people more......it does not work.

As for corporation, yes.....reduce their taxes too. AND get rid of the loopholes. Corporations will then have more money to reinvest and GROW their businesses.....and the result will be hiring more people. You won't get businesses to hire more people by taxing them more.

JFK believed in tax cuts too.....was he an idiot?

Man that crap sounds like a quote right out of a college business text book discussing economic theory not economic reality. A corporation may do that only if there is a business advantage to do so. A corporation just as likely may also horde the cash to build reserves, buy back stock with it, set more aside to cover debt, purchase another company and lay a bunch of people off to name a few. None of those are job creators.

[TailgateNut]

Seal Team 6, so he has at least 1 ball. LOL


Ok, I'll give him a half a ball for that, but he should have come in swinging.

Reversing Bushs' assinine policies, tax cuts, corporate bail outs, Iraq debacle, and started criminal proceedings against all of the BushCo Clan!

[Rohirrim]

I'm not interested in blame. What does concern me is that the Republican party ignores evidence to the contrary. Tax hikes are an integral part of getting us out of this hole, and yet they continue to preach that more tax breaks will do the trick. We now know that the Bush tax cuts did nothing more than pad the bank accounts of the already rich. Ideology won't get it done. We need reality.

[maher_tyler]

It's always someone elses fault!!

[ghwk]

Ok, I'll give him a half a ball for that, but he should have come in swinging.

Reversing Bushs' assinine policies, tax cuts, corporate bail outs, Iraq debacle, and started criminal Clan!

Only half a ball? The dude can't even bust his nut with that! ROFL!

[Rigs11]

Man that crap sounds like a quote right out of a college business text book discussing economic theory not economic reality. A corporation may do that only if there is a business advantage to do so. A corporation just as likely may also horde the cash to build reserves, buy back stock with it, set more aside to cover debt, purchase another company and lay a bunch of people off to name a few. None of those are job creators.

hence the 1.3 trillion they are sitting on. the right just doesn't get it.

[bowtown]

It's always someone elses fault!!

If TheDave would come back, I'd probably just blame him.

[Crushaholic]

If TheDave would come back, I'd probably just blame him.

At least, he would make a list...

[ghwk]

hence the 1.3 trillion they are sitting on. the right just doesn't get it.

The effing banks got themselves solvent again then rewarded themselves with pay raises and bonuses with Taxpayer TARP money and neither party has the balls to go after thier puppet masters. _i_O_i_

[Kaylore]

I'm not interested in blame. What does concern me is that the Republican party ignores evidence to the contrary. Tax hikes are an integral part of getting us out of this hole, and yet they continue to preach that more tax breaks will do the trick.
And Democrats won't acknowledge spending cuts are another key part of fixing things.

[enjolras]

And Democrats won't acknowledge spending cuts are another key part of fixing things.

Citation please? Because I can certainly find plenty of cases where Obama has said exactly that.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Since the Republicans, and their presidential candidates, are all big supporters of the Bush tax cuts (Pawlenty wants even more), maybe it's time to see how they've turned out?

What they find is unevenly distributed benefits. The percentage increase in after-tax income tilts greatly in favor of those making over $1 million, for one, especially when compared to Americans making between $40,000-$50,000. And at a time when the country is sunk in $14.3 trillion worth of debt, it's adding vastly to deficit, too. Indeed, the cost of the upper-income tax cuts is roughly equal to the Social Security shortfall in that span, CBPP says.

Criticism of the tax cuts has not died, either. In a blog post this week, Roger Hickey, co-founder of the Economic Policy Institute, for example, called the cuts "another experiment in conservative voodoo economics." And even some of those who've benefited most from the cuts now view them unfavorably, specifically the roughly 200 "Patriotic Millionaires" that recently wrote a letter to Congressional Republicans asking that their taxes be raised to help deficit reduction, rather than relying alone on cuts in government spending.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/08/how-bush-tax-cuts-economy_n_873245.html#s289287&title=Effect_On_AfterTax

Ooops! Looks like another Bush uber-fail.

Facts such as the above are especially ironic when you consider all the right-wing goobers who have been whining about deficits (deficits they suddenly discovered after GeeDubya left office.)

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Facts such as the above are especially ironic when you consider all the right-wing goobers who have been whining about deficits (deficits they suddenly discovered after GeeDubya left office.)

That'd be a great argument if SS was funded by income taxes, and not payroll taxes.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And Democrats won't acknowledge spending cuts are another key part of fixing things.

How about cutting our overblown defense spending?

Righties would rather cut programs that help the most vulnerable members of society (while leaving massive government subsidies for big business untouched.)

[baja]

wow. Are you pretending to be this stupid?

1.Bush's tax cuts were passed in 01, and 03, while the repubs held the house and senate

2.when the tax cuts were set to expire last year, the repubs controlled the house and threatened to vote down tax cuts for the middle class unless the cuts were also continued for the wealthy.

Cheap oil & that is back when we still made shiit.

Plus it was a lot easier to rape mother earth for raw materials back then.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

That'd be a great argument if SS was funded by income taxes, and not payroll taxes.

That wasn't the point.

The observation was simply that the cost of the Bush tax cuts were roughly equal to the aforementioned SS shortfall.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

That wasn't the point.

The observation was simply that the cost of the Bush tax cuts were roughly equal to the aforementioned SS shortfall.

Bull****. You can call it an observation all you want, but all that was was an attempt to mislead people who don't know that income taxes do not fund SS. It's an apples and oranges comparison.

And btw, you called it a "fact" in your initial post. So try again.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

EVERYONE who pays taxes gets a tax cut, middle class included. Make the "Bush Tax Cuts" permanent to decrease the size of the ever-expanding, ever-encroaching federal government.



Hilarious!

Funny - never heard any complaints about this from people like you when Bush was in office.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bull****. You can call it an observation all you want, but all that was was an attempt to mislead people who don't know that income taxes do not fund SS. It's an apples and oranges comparison.

Holy crap!

The power of the average right-wingnut to see things that aren't there is mind-boggling. :crazy:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And btw, you called it a "fact" in your initial post. So try again.

It is a fact that the cost of the Bush tax cuts for the super-rich was roughly equal to the SS shortfall during that same span.

Sorry such facts are inconvenient for trickle-down true believers like you.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Holy crap!

The power of the average right-wingnut to see things that aren't there is mind-boggling. :crazy:

The statement that the upper bracket cuts are equivalent to the SS shortfall is a non sequitur. That is a 100% misleading statement because one doesn't fund the other.

Maybe you weren't bright enough to realize that income taxes don't fund SS until it was pointed out to you, I don't know. But try again. The ad hominem really isn't strengthening your original "fact."

[Hercules Rockefeller]

It is a fact that the cost of the Bush tax cuts for the super-rich was roughly equal to the SS shortfall during that same span.

Sorry such facts are inconvenient for trickle-down true believers like you.

And income taxes don't fund SS, so it's 100% irrelevant. Apples and oranges.

Sorry you didn't know that before you stuck your toe in the water.

Try again.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The statement that the upper bracket cuts are equivalent to the SS shortfall is a non sequitur. That is a 100% misleading statement because one doesn't fund the other.

Maybe you weren't bright enough to realize that income taxes don't fund SS until it was pointed out to you, I don't know. But try again. The ad hominem really isn't strengthening your original "fact."

Nowhere in the article does the author claim that SS is funded by income taxes.

For you to suggest otherwise is intellectually dishonest (not that this should be a surprise to anyone here.)

The comparison was merely to give the reader an idea re: the cost of Bush's tax cuts for the super-rich. Period.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The ad hominem really isn't strengthening your original "fact."

Your straw man argument isn't strengthening your case for trickle-down economics.

[Jetmeck]

maybe you should wake the **** up. The cookie jar was opened many many years ago when there was a ss surplus. The politicians took it for other things. It all goes in one pot now and are you really so freakin ignorant to argue that a few rich people need their tax cut more than millions need ss or medicare or health care. The majority rules and this BS of government catering to the rich few is about to come crashing down on your head.

[That One Guy]

Hilarious!

Funny - never heard any complaints about this from people like you when Bush was in office.

Your default response doesn't apply there considering he wasn't a member back then.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Your straw man argument isn't strengthening your case for trickle-down economics.

Please link to any post I've made in this thread about trickle-down economics in general, or something that strengthens my supposed case for trickle-down economics.

Sorry, I've discussed the Democratic majorities that were in Congress when the tax cuts were extended and pointed out the non sequitur comparing the SS shortfall to an income tax cut.

Until you can link to any post I've made about trickle-down economics in this thread, the last thing you should probably be doing is calling someone intellectually dishonest or claim they're making straw man arguments.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Your default response doesn't apply there considering he wasn't a member back then.

I said "people LIKE you."

Selective attention is a b*tch, eh?

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Nowhere in the article does the author claim that SS is funded by income taxes.

For you to suggest otherwise is intellectually dishonest (not that this should be a surprise to anyone here.)

The comparison was merely to give the reader an idea re: the cost of Bush's tax cuts for the super-rich. Period.

For anyone to make the comparison is to make a non sequitur. Hell, you even make my point by claiming it's an attempt to show the "cost" of the tax cuts. It doesn't matter what the SS shortfall is, because an income tax rate increase won't reduce the shortfall, nor will an income tax cut increase the shortfall.

The point of any statement like that is to leave the reader with the impression that if the Bush tax cuts had not taken place, there would not be a SS shortfall, even though income taxes do not fund SS.

I've never suggested the author makes that claim that the income taxes fund SS either. Please understand my argument before you actually attempt to call someone intellectually dishonest. It's a non sequitur comparison. Do you understand what a non sequitur is?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Please link to any post I've made in this thread about trickle-down economics in general, or something that strengthens my case for trickle-down economics.

"In this thread," eh?

I see what you did there. Ha!

Sorry, I've discussed the Democratic majorities that were in Congress when the tax cuts were extended and pointed out the non sequitur comparing the SS shortfall to an income tax cut.

Until you can link to any post I've made about trickle-down economics in this thread, the last thing you should probably be doing is calling someone intellectually dishonest or claim they're making straw man arguments.

You didn't simply point out what you believed to be a non-sequitur: you claimed the author was trying to deliberately deceive people who didn't know SS was taken from payroll taxes - not income taxes (who the hell are these people, anyway? Trust fund babies who have never earned a pay check?)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

maybe you should wake the **** up. The cookie jar was opened many many years ago when there was a ss surplus. The politicians took it for other things. It all goes in one pot now and are you really so freakin ignorant to argue that a few rich people need their tax cut more than millions need ss or medicare or health care. The majority rules and this BS of government catering to the rich few is about to come crashing down on your head.

The problem is that most of the Bush Youth have no memory of that time in history.

That's why it was so easy for a new snake oil salesmen on the block (read: GeeDubya) to hoodwink them with the same old trickle-down fairy tales.

[BroncoLifer]

I'm not interested in blame. What does concern me is that the Republican party ignores evidence to the contrary. Tax hikes are an integral part of getting us out of this hole, and yet they continue to preach that more tax breaks will do the trick. We now know that the Bush tax cuts did nothing more than pad the bank accounts of the already rich. Ideology won't get it done. We need reality.

You're missing this part:
I'm not interested in blame. What does concern me is that the Democrat party ignores evidence to the contrary. Spending reductions are an integral part of getting us out of this hole, and yet they continue to preach that more spending will do the trick. We now know that the Obama "stimulus" did nothing more than pad the bank accounts of the politically connected and increase our debt. Ideology won't get it done. We need reality.

As usual, your analysis only extends a short distance.

[ant1999e]

More CLASS WARFARE from the Democrats.

Divide the people, and ultimately attempt to conquer and enslave the people, to gain wealth and power.

This is it bro. Make people dependent on entitlements that way you keep them and their votes under your finger.

“When the people find they can vote themselves money; that will herald the end of the republic.” Benjamin Franklin

[Jetmeck]

You're missing this part:
I'm not interested in blame. What does concern me is that the Democrat party ignores evidence to the contrary. Spending reductions are an integral part of getting us out of this hole, and yet they continue to preach that more spending will do the trick. We now know that the Obama "stimulus" did nothing more than pad the bank accounts of the politically connected and increase our debt. Ideology won't get it done. We need reality.

As usual, your analysis only extends a short distance.

Complete lack of common sense ! This is why we can't get a damn thing done in Washington. People just like you.............clueless !

Because we all know the needs of the few outweight the needs of the many ? Right sure thats right, isn't it ?

Obama spending money trying to clean up the freakin mess Bush left him, spending money on the economy. Bush spent money on wars, the rich and corporate welfare. Do you really want to run with this ?

[TailgateNut]

All of the Bush Children are almost here to defend the catalyst of the issue we are currently facing (massive debt, deregulation which caused the housing bubble and caused the bubble to burst, a gazillion dollar war based on lies, ignorance and deception, tax cuts while on a GOP spending spree, no regulation of medical insurers and providers which has resulted in astronomical costs )

Heil to the Bush Youth! You make your daddy proud as he and his cohort (Devil Boy/Cheney) sit in the lap of luxury reaping favors$$$ for their hand in steering the funds to those who could care less about this country as a whole.

[gunns]

You guys are hilarious. It could be ten years after the fact with Obama's crappy policies and you'd still be blaming Bush. I think I actually read someone try and argue that reason Obamonomics wasn't working was because it wasn't liberal enough. Despite him continually hemorrhaging socialist academics from his economic team as their promises come to naught, you all still insist this will work.

This next election there will be three candidates: Obama, the Republican nominee and George Bush. Even if Bush "ruined everything" (and he didn't) it's an indictment on Obama's poor leadership and lackadaisical management style that have created an environment for stagflation.

I do believe that environment of stagnation began before Obama was even elected. Who knows what will happen 10 years down the road, maybe we will still blame Bush for what's going on, but 2 1/2 years after, I think the economy disaster which started to bloom in 2008 can justifiably still be blamed on Bush. I think that's what puzzles me more than anything, where were all you Bush apologists when Bush was in office and there was no one else to blame?

As far as taxes, just make it fair. It is not, based on the percentage the upper crust pays of the percentage they are supposed to.

[BroncoLifer]

Complete lack of common sense ! This is why we can't get a damn thing done in Washington. People just like you.............clueless !

Because we all know the needs of the few outweight the needs of the many ? Right sure thats right, isn't it ?

Obama spending money trying to clean up the freakin mess Bush left him, spending money on the economy. Bush spent money on wars, the rich and corporate welfare. Do you really want to run with this ?

Congratulations for one of the most incoherent responses I've ever received.

[elsid13]

That'd be a great argument if SS was funded by income taxes, and not payroll taxes.

Herc,

There is indirectly linkage to income tax reveunes and SS. When there is not enough revenue, the US government sell T-Bond to pay for expenditures and by law the Social Security Trust purchase most of those issuance (because of credit rating and interest). Right now about 58% of our debt is held by SST. So you are right that right that payroll taxes are prime suppliers SS, but because SST holds so much of US debt there are secondary problems for not having enough revenues on hand to pay back interest payments and ensure those T-bonds still hold value when SST redeems them.

And just cutting NPR and EPA aren't going to solve the debt problem, even Greenspan has come out and said that we should let the Bush tax cut expire.

[baja]

My friend in Playa de Carman, Mexico had lunch with Karl Rove last week, so much for the travel advisory to Mexico. Just thought I'd throw this out there.

[TailgateNut]

As usual, your analysis only extends a short distance.



I'd venture to say that you're in first, or first runner up for that award.

[TailgateNut]

Herc,

There is indirectly linkage to income tax reveunes and SS. When there is not enough revenue, the US government sell T-Bond to pay for expenditures and by law the Social Security Trust purchase most of those issuance (because of credit rating and interest). Right now about 58% of our debt is held by SST. So you are right that right that payroll taxes are prime suppliers SS, but because SST holds so much of US debt there are secondary problems for not having enough revenues on hand to pay back interest payments and ensure those T-bonds still hold value when SST redeems them.

And just cutting NPR and EPA aren't going to solve the debt problem, even Greenspan has come out and said that we should let the Bush tax cut expire.


A "day" late and 14trillion dollars short.

[El Minion]

Happy 10^th Birthday, Bush Tax Cuts! (http://www.slate.com/id/2296578/)

You've been a failure in every conceivable way.

By Annie LowreyPosted Wednesday, June 8, 2011, at 6:56 PM ET

The massive Bush tax cuts mark their 10^th birthday this week. Sadly, despite my best efforts to find something redeeming about them—honest!—there is little to celebrate. By nearly all of the metrics set out by President Bush himself, the cuts were a colossal failure.

In 2001, the Bush administration inherited a few years' worth of budget surpluses, so it decided to cut income tax rates, double the child-care credit, and sharply reduce the levies on investment income. The economy then slowed, even entering a brief recession (http://www.nber.org/cycles/july2003.html). As a form of stimulus, the administration doubled down, expanding and hastening the 2001 changes. Bush promised that the tax cuts (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/04/20010416-4.html) would do a whole lot more than put money in people's pockets—which, in fact, they did. He said they would "starve the beast," forcing Congress to reduce the size and scope of government. He promised they would increase the prosperity of all Americans. He also vowed (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/04/20010416-4.html): "Tax relief will create new jobs. Tax relief will generate new wealth. And tax relief will open new opportunities."

OK, a pitter-patter of applause for what the tax cuts did do effectively: Cut taxes and reduce overall payments to Uncle Sam. Low-income families benefited from the child-care credit jumping from $500 to $1,000. High-income families benefited from the top marginal rate falling. Billionaires benefited from lightly taxed dividend income. And government receipts, in turn, dropped.

But the benefits mostly accrued to the rich, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The think tank reports (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=1860) that between 2001 and 2008, the bottom 80 percent of filers received about 35 percent of the cuts. The top 20 percent received about 65 percent—and the top 1 percent alone claimed 38 percent.

What about the president's claims? Take his pledge that the cuts would spur job growth. To be fair, we'll ignore employment changes during 2008, the year the Great Recession seized the economy (http://www.nber.org/cycles/sept2010.html). During the 2001 to 2007 business cycle, America's economy enjoyed 52 straight months of job growth. But it was sluggish—in fact, the slowest rate of jobs growth (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/02/pdf/picker_jobs.pdf) on record since World War II, and just one-fifth the pace of the 1990s.

Then there's wealth. Put simply, the aughts were a decade of income stagnation: The tax cuts failed to bolster most taxpayers' earnings, even before the recession hit.Median real wages actually dropped from 2003 to 2007. Household income from business-cycle peak to business-cycle peak declined for the first time since tracking started in 1967. As documented by my colleague Timothy Noah in his series "The United States of Inequality (http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026/)," this did not hold true for the nation's billionaires and millionaires. Garden-variety high-wage earners saw their income go up (http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp195). And incomes for the top 1 percent skyrocketed (http://elsa.berkeley.edu/%7Esaez/saez-UStopincomes-2007.pdf). For some people, obviously, the cuts "generated new wealth," in the president's phrase. But overall, inequality got worse.

That leads to the third metric: Did the cuts "open new opportunities"? It's a vague phrase, but one way to measure it is to look at job growth—and there's nothing to see there. Another way would be to say that the cuts benefited "job creators" (to use the current en vogue phrase (http://www.majorityleader.gov/Jobs/HRP_JOBS.pdf)), like the nation's start-up businesses. But the number of private-sector jobs (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cewbd.pdf) created by young companies fell during the Bush administration.

Unfortunately, the tax cuts never translated into robust economic growth, either. Indeed, the aughts saw the worst growth since World War II. From 2001 to 2007, annual GDP growth averaged just 2.4 percent per year, lower than in any other postwar business cycle. The contrast is starker still when judging against the previous decade. In real terms, GDP grew half as much from 2001 to 2010 as from 1991 to 2000.

There is another metric that Bush set out for the tax cuts: Did they succeed in helping to create a smaller government? Again, the answer is no. Events beyond Bush's control necessitated the Afghanistan war. He later decided to invade Iraq, and pushed through unpaid-for domestic expansions of government, like Medicare Part D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,_Improvement,_and_Moder nization_Act). Deficits and government spending (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1950_2015&view=1&expand=&units=p&log=linear&fy=fy12&chart=F0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s) as a share of GDP grew during the Bush administration.

OK, a final attempt at celebration. Did the tax cuts stimulate the flagging economy in the early aughts? Sort of. Tax cuts give a mild boost to the economy, but not a big one. "After the tax rebates in 2001, 2003, and 2008, households [spent] between 25 and 67 cents more for each dollar of tax cut," William Gale of the Tax Policy Center writes (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/09/27/tax-cuts-the-trickle-down-argument/the-least-effective-stimulus). That makes tax cuts "a relatively weak way to help the economy compared to increases in government purchases, for which each dollar of increased deficit turns into an additional dollar of spending."

So, to recap: The Bush tax cuts were followed by low GDP growth, negative median wage growth, and little job growth. Even before the Great Recession, growth in the Bush business cycle was the weakest since World War II. And the cuts cost about $2.6 trillion between 2001 and 2010,according (http://www.epi.org/page/-/EPI_PolicyMemorandum_184.pdf?nocdn=1) to the Economic Policy Institute—adding to a debt future generations of taxpayers will pay for, plus interest.

By Bush's own metrics, then, the tax cuts were a failure. But perhaps that is because Bush chose such absurd metrics and made such silly promises about tax cuts' economic omnipotence in the first place. To state the obvious, tax cuts are not magic. They can help a strong economy get stronger or help a weak economy pick up some steam. They also have a direct impact on the government budget. But they cannot goose employers into adding millions of jobs, pay for themselves, and arrest the growth of government, all while delivering everyone cupcakes. So perhaps the best we can say about the Bush tax cuts is that they did exactly what we should have expected them to do.

[elsid13]

Herc,

There is indirectly linkage to income tax reveunes and SS. When there is not enough revenue, the US government sell T-Bond to pay for expenditures and by law the Social Security Trust purchase most of those issuance (because of credit rating and interest). Right now about 58% of our debt is held by SST. So you are right that right that payroll taxes are prime suppliers SS, but because SST holds so much of US debt there are secondary problems for not having enough revenues on hand to pay back interest payments and ensure those T-bonds still hold value when SST redeems them.

And just cutting NPR and EPA aren't going to solve the debt problem, even Greenspan has come out and said that we should let the Bush tax cut expire.


A "day" late and 14trillion dollars short.

No ****. I still blame him as part of the problem for this whole mess, his policies and personal intervention prevented regulation of the whole divided swaps.

[BroncoLifer]

I think that's what puzzles me more than anything, where were all you Bush apologists when Bush was in office and there was no one else to blame?.

A lot of us were unhappy with his spending ways but is is true that many others chose to look the other way, just as many on the Left choose to selectively ignore some of Obama's faults. It's human nature and no different from some of the attitudes seen on this board in Shanahan and McDaniels threads.


As far as taxes, just make it fair. It is not, based on the percentage the upper crust pays of the percentage they are supposed to.

A reasonable approach but what is fair? For instance, do you also think it fair that (roughly) 50% pay zero in income tax yet get to choose what everyone else has to pay? Is that a wise system? I could possibly support higher taxes if everybody had to pay something and if all of it went towards the debt and not -as I suspect it would be --just more spending.

[BroncoLifer]

I'd venture to say that you're in first, or first runner up for that award.

Just when I thought we'd found some common ground (illegal immigration), you go and write that.....

[Mr.Meanie]

Which part is the load of crap? That tax cuts stimulate spending? That companies will hire more?

What do you think most small business owners aspire to be? That's right....LARGE business owners.

How does one make his business bigger? That's right....by producing (and selling) more of their goods or services.

How does that business produces more of those goods/services? That's right...by HIRING more people!!!!!!! Again, businesses will only grow, people will only buy more, and more hiring will take place only when TAX BURDENS ARE REDUCED.

Companies won't just "pocket the extra money" because, as I've said, most business continually try to GROW their business. You can't GROW your business without REINVESTING the money.

Speaking as someone who has owned a number of businesses, just because a small business owner wants to expand and hire people doesn't mean it's possible. Even if payroll taxes were completely eliminated, many small businesses couldn't hire more people.

What makes it possible is demand from consumers. If I create a business selling something people aren't buying, no tax break in the world is going to make it a viable business. And on the other side, when there is a lot of demand for a product, payroll and income taxes are not going to prevent the owner from expanding their business.

The "build it and they will come" argument is completely backwards.

[Houshyamama]

ZZZZzzzzzzzz............

This.

To channel Jim Lahey, it's 2 different shi*t shake flavors arguing over who tastes better.

[gunns]

A reasonable approach but what is fair? For instance, do you also think it fair that (roughly) 50% pay zero in income tax yet get to choose what everyone else has to pay? Is that a wise system? I could possibly support higher taxes if everybody had to pay something and if all of it went towards the debt and not -as I suspect it would be --just more spending.

There's always been and always will be those who don't pay, the elderly (although many still do), the truly disabled, and the lazy good for nothing leeches on society. I'm talking about those who do pay the taxes. The upper crust pays 31% of the 39% they are suppose to in taxes. The middle class averages 95% of the 25% they are supposed to pay. For a person making $1,000,000 that's about 13% of their income. For the person making $50,000 it's about 24% of their income. I fail to see the fairness there. And please don't ANYONE come back and make an ass of themselves by saying they create the jobs. Most don't.

[55CrushEm]

Speaking as someone who has owned a number of businesses, just because a small business owner wants to expand and hire people doesn't mean it's possible. Even if payroll taxes were completely eliminated, many small businesses couldn't hire more people.

What makes it possible is demand from consumers. If I create a business selling something people aren't buying, no tax break in the world is going to make it a viable business. And on the other side, when there is a lot of demand for a product, payroll and income taxes are not going to prevent the owner from expanding their business.

The "build it and they will come" argument is completely backwards.

Dude, if you create a business building something that people aren't buying....then you'll be out of business.

[Mr.Meanie]

Dude, if you create a business building something that people aren't buying....then you'll be out of business.

My point is small business people only become big business people when the market is demanding their products like crazy. Not because they got their taxes cut and went and hired people. I can't think of any scenario where taxes has influenced decisions I've made (or anyone else for that matter) on whether to grow or not.

I agree with your other point though... more money in the hands of the largest body of consumers (lower/middle class) encourages spending and can boost the economy.

[55CrushEm]

Man that crap sounds like a quote right out of a college business text book discussing economic theory not economic reality. A corporation may do that only if there is a business advantage to do so. A corporation just as likely may also horde the cash to build reserves, buy back stock with it, set more aside to cover debt, purchase another company and lay a bunch of people off to name a few. None of those are job creators.

What crap? Are you suggesting that if we tax companies MORE, that THAT will entice them to create more jobs?

Again, can anyone explain how RAISING taxes helps to stimulate economic growth?

And so what if a company buys back stock to boost EPS for its shareholders? That is their perogative. But any intelligent board of directors wouldn't sock ALL their cash reserves into that. You still need profits and cash to grow the business....and if you DON'T grow your business...you'll have pissed off shareholders.

[Rohirrim]

If you set up a tax codes and regulations that reward work, entrepreneurship and the creation of new technologies, that's where people will apply their efforts. If you set up a tax code and regulations that reward market manipulation, overseas investment, the hiding of assets and capital withholding, then that's what you'll get. Simple ****, really.

We should jack the capital gains tax to 75%, but allow those who invest in American businesses and create jobs generous breaks. You'd see that money flowing back into this country pretty damned quick.

[rugbythug]

If you set up a tax codes and regulations that reward work, entrepreneurship and the creation of new technologies, that's where people will apply their efforts. If you set up a tax code and regulations that reward market manipulation, overseas investment, the hiding of assets and capital withholding, then that's what you'll get. Simple ****, really.

We should jack the capital gains tax to 75%, but allow those who invest in American businesses and create jobs generous breaks. You'd see that money flowing back into this country pretty damned quick.

That would destroy the housing market. Bad houses would never be flipped.

[Dukes]

Obama spending money trying to clean up the freakin mess Bush left him, spending money on the economy. Bush spent money on wars, the rich and corporate welfare. Do you really want to run with this ?

Barry got us out of Iraq and Afghanistan?

[TonyR]

The massive Bush tax cuts mark their 10^th birthday this week. Sadly, despite my best efforts to find something redeeming about them—honest!—there is little to celebrate. By nearly all of the metrics set out by President Bush himself, the cuts were a colossal failure.

One simple article destroying every argument the righties made in this thread. Good find.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And just cutting NPR and EPA aren't going to solve the debt problem, even Greenspan has come out and said that we should let the Bush tax cut expire.

If that statement doesn't convince the trickle-down Kool-Aid chuggers then nothing will.

[brncs_fan]

This thread (and the 400 just like it) has inspired me to write a short story chronicling the debate between two posters. Name shave been changed to protect the delusional

Act I: Internet Forum

Steve: Here, I have posted an article here that was found on the internet the shows the Current/Former President is a doofus. I love it because it backs up 100% what I have been saying all along and I love articles that support my opinion without taking into account anything else that could be said on the matter.

Aaron: I do not like your article because it comes from a website which I do not find to be credible because it flies in the face of 99% of what I believe and so therefore it must be discredited as swiftly as possible using the most juvenile of terms.

Steve: Obviously you would disagree because you could not possibly understand things at the level that I understand them because you are unintelligent and lacking moral character and conviction. And you hate puppies.

Aaron: Tell me about one occasion where I slandered puppies or in any way may a physical attack towards a puppy. You can’t find one instance.

Steve: I don’t need proof. Who needs proof when you have the internet? The real story is that you hate puppies because you are a Green and you think that all the money should go to kittens instead. You think that kittens will provide economic growth and bring an end to world hunger? I don’t think so my friend.

Aaron. Well what are puppies anyways? Nothing unless you are a Yellow and then you think they will cure cancer and end pollution.

Steve: See I knew you were a puppy hater. I have tricked you into admitting it with my superior intellect and brawn. I shall now lump you with the rest of the people that I disagree with, namely the other Greens, and I shall cast you off as an ignoramus and laugh at you hysterically whenever I see you and gloat over my victory!

Aaron: Whatever. You are an idiot and you shall be disregarded by me and I shall call you names as well so that others will disregard what you have to say as weel.

Steve: You misspelled well

Aaron: ^$#& off!

Curtain closes. End of Act I

[Garcia Bronco]

:spit:

Then you don't understand the bush tax cuts.

[GreatBronco16]

This thread (and the 400 just like it) has inspired me to write a short story chronicling the debate between two posters. Name shave been changed to protect the delusional

Act I: Internet Forum

Steve: Here, I have posted an article here that was found on the internet the shows the Current/Former President is a doofus. I love it because it backs up 100% what I have been saying all along and I love articles that support my opinion without taking into account anything else that could be said on the matter.

Aaron: I do not like your article because it comes from a website which I do not find to be credible because it flies in the face of 99% of what I believe and so therefore it must be discredited as swiftly as possible using the most juvenile of terms.

Steve: Obviously you would disagree because you could not possibly understand things at the level that I understand them because you are unintelligent and lacking moral character and conviction. And you hate puppies.

Aaron: Tell me about one occasion where I slandered puppies or in any way may a physical attack towards a puppy. You can’t find one instance.

Steve: I don’t need proof. Who needs proof when you have the internet? The real story is that you hate puppies because you are a Green and you think that all the money should go to kittens instead. You think that kittens will provide economic growth and bring an end to world hunger? I don’t think so my friend.

Aaron. Well what are puppies anyways? Nothing unless you are a Yellow and then you think they will cure cancer and end pollution.

Steve: See I knew you were a puppy hater. I have tricked you into admitting it with my superior intellect and brawn. I shall now lump you with the rest of the people that I disagree with, namely the other Greens, and I shall cast you off as an ignoramus and laugh at you hysterically whenever I see you and gloat over my victory!

Aaron: Whatever. You are an idiot and you shall be disregarded by me and I shall call you names as well so that others will disregard what you have to say as weel.

Steve: You misspelled well

Aaron: ^$#& off!

Curtain closes. End of Act I



LOL

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This is it bro. Make people dependent on entitlements that way you keep them and their votes under your finger.


Wow. :oyvey:

No matter how many times this right-wing canard is discredited, people like you continue to repeat it.

Amazing how you can live in a world where it doesn't matter whether your perceptions and your claims have any basis in reality or fact.

[Arkie]

We've never brought in much more than 2.5 trillion in tax revenue. We need to cut at least a third in spending before we can realistically talk about raising taxes to balance the budget.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_TsYRUtwyVtA/S8U0yCBWGBI/AAAAAAAAAec/tw48NxggNDE/s1600/us-government-spending-versus-revenue.jpg

[DarkHorse30]

Blame-bu$hites and the lefty media sluts can't get enough of themselves.

Drill, baby drill.......

it's the economy, stupid.....Yeah, I'm talking to you, B'HO. Worst underemployment since the great one is on your watch, einstein.

.

[Rohirrim]

That would destroy the housing market. Bad houses would never be flipped.

Trust me. Nothing could do anything more to the housing market in the U.S. It's already rubble.

[That One Guy]

I said "people LIKE you."

Selective attention is a b*tch, eh?

You don't know how the guy felt at the time, what he did, or if he even had an opinion. Your retort to him was one of which you had absolutely no justification.

Again, your standard response doesn't apply. Come up with something new.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You don't know how the guy felt at the time, what he did, or if he even had an opinion. Your retort to him was one of which you had absolutely no justification.

Again, your standard response doesn't apply. Come up with something new.

Good grief, just give it up already!

Go back and read his original post.

It couldn't be more obvious which side he's on.

[Agamemnon]

This thread (and the 400 just like it) has inspired me to write a short story chronicling the debate between two posters. Name shave been changed to protect the delusional

Act I: Internet Forum

Steve: Here, I have posted an article here that was found on the internet the shows the Current/Former President is a doofus. I love it because it backs up 100% what I have been saying all along and I love articles that support my opinion without taking into account anything else that could be said on the matter.

Aaron: I do not like your article because it comes from a website which I do not find to be credible because it flies in the face of 99% of what I believe and so therefore it must be discredited as swiftly as possible using the most juvenile of terms.

Steve: Obviously you would disagree because you could not possibly understand things at the level that I understand them because you are unintelligent and lacking moral character and conviction. And you hate puppies.

Aaron: Tell me about one occasion where I slandered puppies or in any way may a physical attack towards a puppy. You can’t find one instance.

Steve: I don’t need proof. Who needs proof when you have the internet? The real story is that you hate puppies because you are a Green and you think that all the money should go to kittens instead. You think that kittens will provide economic growth and bring an end to world hunger? I don’t think so my friend.

Aaron. Well what are puppies anyways? Nothing unless you are a Yellow and then you think they will cure cancer and end pollution.

Steve: See I knew you were a puppy hater. I have tricked you into admitting it with my superior intellect and brawn. I shall now lump you with the rest of the people that I disagree with, namely the other Greens, and I shall cast you off as an ignoramus and laugh at you hysterically whenever I see you and gloat over my victory!

Aaron: Whatever. You are an idiot and you shall be disregarded by me and I shall call you names as well so that others will disregard what you have to say as weel.

Steve: You misspelled well

Aaron: ^$#& off!

Curtain closes. End of Act I

^This post right here?

Yeah it was pretty good...

[Meck77]

You guys are hilarious. It could be ten years after the fact with Obama's crappy policies and you'd still be blaming Bush. I think I actually read someone try and argue that reason Obamonomics wasn't working was because it wasn't liberal enough. Despite him continually hemorrhaging socialist academics from his economic team as their promises come to naught, you all still insist this will work.

This next election there will be three candidates: Obama, the Republican nominee and George Bush. Even if Bush "ruined everything" (and he didn't) it's an indictment on Obama's poor leadership and lackadaisical management style that have created an environment for stagflation.

Its a never ending blame game. The real problem is people do not accept personal responsibility for themselves and aren't taking care of their kids. Simple and true.

[alkemical]

Its a never ending blame game. The real problem is people do not accept personal responsibility for themselves and aren't taking care of their kids. Simple and true.

This is a human condition, and it doesn't apply to one segment of society. But, i forgot, it's YOUR fault. :D

[TailgateNut]

Its a never ending blame game. The real problem is people do not accept personal responsibility for themselves and aren't taking care of their kids. Simple and true.


Personal responsibility didn't cause us to engage in a gazillion dollar war while lowering the tax burden. It also didn't cause the artificial inflation/valuation of real estate.

[TonyR]

Personal responsibility didn't cause us to engage in a gazillion dollar war while lowering the tax burden. It also didn't cause the artificial inflation/valuation of real estate.

Yup. Start an unfunded (not to mention unnecessary) war, pass unfunded Medicare Plan D, and then enact tax cuts which largely favor the wealthy. But it's all Obama's fault...

[jhns]

Yup. Start an unfunded (not to mention unnecessary) war, pass unfunded Medicare Plan D, and then enact tax cuts which largely favor the wealthy. But it's all Obama's fault...

Again, Obama passed the exact same tax cuts. Obama sent more troops to war than what were there when he started. He also went to waelr with a third country... Obama has upped the spending. Obama has done everthing that Bush did. Why is it that people like you jump to defend him, while crying about Bush? You are really showing that you are too dumb to think for yourself. Either both are **** ups or both are doing it right...

[TailgateNut]

Yup. Start an unfunded (not to mention unnecessary) war, pass unfunded Medicare Plan D, and then enact tax cuts which largely favor the wealthy. But it's all Obama's fault...


It's as if some of these Bush apologists were just born yesterday and have no clue as to the effect of cutting taxes while spending billions, and that's not even considering the long term costs of reconstruction and taking care of the thousands of maimed and disabled soldiers for the rest of their lives.

IMO nothing short of putting those assclowns Bush and Cheney in prison is acceptable!

[jhns]

IMO nothing short of putting those assclowns Bush and Cheney in prison is acceptable!

The opinion of an uneducated clown...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yup. Start an unfunded (not to mention unnecessary) war, pass unfunded Medicare Plan D, and then enact tax cuts which largely favor the wealthy. But it's all Obama's fault...

And leave us not forget: The court-appointed fraud inherited a budget surplus.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

And leave us not forget: The court-appointed fraud inherited a budget surplus.

...only because Clinton was forced to operate under the "pay as you go" plan that was implemented under.....you got it......Bush Sr.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

...only because Clinton was forced to operate under the "pay as you go" plan that was implemented under.....you got it......Bush Sr.

That's a huge oversimplification which, even if correct, doesn't negate my point, i.e., that GeeDubya inherited a surplus.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

...only because Clinton was forced to operate under the "pay as you go" plan that was implemented under.....you got it......Bush Sr.

BTW, Bush Sr. also said that invading and occupying Iraq would be a bad idea.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

That's a huge oversimplification which, even if correct, doesn't negate my point, i.e., that GeeDubya inherited a surplus.

It may be a simplification, but it's a fact. Bush Sr. implemented the plan, which lasted through Clinton's administration and expired when Bush Jr took office.

My point is simply that Clinton should not get credit for something he had no control over. He would have very likely sent us into great debt if he had the opportunity. Additionally, his fiscal policies are also party responsible for the mess we're in now.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It may be a simplification, but it's a fact. Bush Sr. implemented the plan, which lasted through Clinton's administration and expired when Bush Jr took office.

My point is simply that Clinton should not get credit for something he had no control over. He would have very likely sent us into great debt if he had the opportunity. Additionally, his fiscal policies are also party responsible for the mess we're in now.

That's too funny. ROFL!

If you ask the average right-winger, Bush Sr. (or the GOP Congress) should receive all the credit for the successes of the Clinton years, and Clinton is responsible for all of the failures of the Bush II years.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It may be a simplification, but it's a fact. Bush Sr. implemented the plan, which lasted through Clinton's administration and expired when Bush Jr took office.

My point is simply that Clinton should not get credit for something he had no control over. He would have very likely sent us into great debt if he had the opportunity. Additionally, his fiscal policies are also party responsible for the mess we're in now.

You really believe Bush 41's plan was the only step taken toward paying down the debt and creating a surplus during the Clinton years?

You must not have been paying very close attention during those years.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

That's too funny. ROFL!

If you ask the average right-winger, Bush Sr. (or the GOP Congress) should receive all the credit for the successes of the Clinton years, and Clinton is responsible for all of the failures of the Bush II years.

Ha, no I don't think it's that simple. I have a soft spot for George Jr, but I don't agree with all of his fiscal policies.

Keep in mind I said, "part of the blame" goes to Clinton's fiscal policies. I didn't say all of the blame.

What baffles me is the legislator who is really to blame for not doing something to prevent the housing meltdown goes largely without blemish.

http://i830.photobucket.com/albums/zz221/RooneyCase/Mothers%20Day%20Fathers%20Day/barney_frank.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What baffles me is the legislator who is really to blame for not doing something to prevent the housing meltdown goes largely without blemish.

http://i830.photobucket.com/albums/zz221/RooneyCase/Mothers%20Day%20Fathers%20Day/barney_frank.jpg

Another swing and a miss.

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html

[Arkie]

Another swing and a miss.

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html

Fannie and Freddie are moral hazards when they insulate private lenders from risk.

Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don't lend money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

Another swing and a miss.

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html

So, when he was getting paid by Fannie Mae while in office it wasn't a conflict of interest?

When he said nothing was wrong with Fanny Mae the year before the meltdown it wasn't a result of his conflict of interest?

Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac backing adjustable rate mortgages to high risk borrowers was obviously a big part of the meltdown. If this yahoo didn't know something was coming then he was incompetent.....of course that's what I'm essentially saying anyway, that he was incompetent.

[sirhcyennek81]

And leave us not forget: The court-appointed fraud inherited a budget surplus.


Not spending money you borrow in the first place is not a surplus.


:Broncos:

[Inkana7]

Barry got us out of Iraq and Afghanistan?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/19/iraq-last-combat-troops-leave

[Cito Pelon]

Tax cuts get politicians elected. It's a tried and true formula for election success. Throw in some rhetoric about "national security", "support our troops", "secure our borders", "grow the economy", "reduce the deficit", and you have the job.

Trouble is, once in, they can't seem to cut spending no matter who got elected. Too much infighting, too little compromise.

[That One Guy]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/19/iraq-last-combat-troops-leave

50k troops from that article... I believe I saw 47k troops in a very recent article. Afghanistan is threatening to revolt if we don't change our policies. Our politicians and Iraqi politicians are both starting to drop nuggets saying the US could stay longer - including some that say indefinitely.

Take that in consideration with the fact that the Iraq withdraw timeline was approved under Bush... and... what has he done, again?

[ZONA]

Umm yeah he had to compromise with those republican'ts otherwise the middle class would have gotten screwed. by the way where are the jobs?

The jobs? Hahahah, that's funny. The jobs keep going overseas. You give the super wealthy tax cuts and what do they do, hire more workers overseas.

I don't care if you are left or right. Giving rich people more only leads to them taking it and wanting more. It's called GREED and it's been around since the dawn of man. I'll argue with anybody that there have been more wars and battles due to greed then religion.

I honestly don't even think most of the modern Republican politicians believe that tax cuts to the wealthy are smart. But it's a core party belief that has been hard to get rid of so they have no choice but to adopt it.

[ZONA]

incorrect, 2001 and 2003.thats right tax cuts at a time of war.

War? I remember reading about those in history. This guy wanted to conquer those guys and these guys didn't like those guys and so they had a battle.


Now days, it's more like, let's make some fake documents to make or guys believe we have to fight. Then let's borrow some money from China so we can go blow up everything in Iraq. Then we can borrow more money from China to fix everything. Give the contracts to our own companies at the tax payers expense. I'll tell you, it's a sick MF who will think up **** like that and get our troops killed for their own profit. And back home you have people kissing their asses because they're nothing but war mongers who if they really had to go to battle themselves, would piss their pants.

[chadta]

That's too funny. ROFL!

If you ask the average right-winger, Bush Sr. (or the GOP Congress) should receive all the credit for the successes of the Clinton years, and Clinton is responsible for all of the failures of the Bush II years.


why not you seem to think bush Jr is responsible for the failures of the obama years.

Besides most of the people that dont see that policy changes take years before you actually feel the effects also think you can raise the taxes on corporations without it having a negative effect on jobs or prices.

[misturanderson]

why not you seem to think bush Jr is responsible for the failures of the obama years.

Besides most of the people that dont see that policy changes take years before you actually feel the effects also think you can raise the taxes on corporations without it having a negative effect on jobs or prices.

If that were the case, shouldn't giving tax breaks to corporations have the opposite effect? That is essentially what this article is saying, the tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations did not improve job creation, and I don't know about you, but I never saw any lowering of prices of goods and services as a result. Corporations save that money to increase their profit margins, they don't use it exclusively for growth and they sure as hell would never pass the savings on to the consumer.

If corporations cut jobs and raise prices due to re-institution of taxes that were in place 10 years ago, it's only because they are protecting their profit margin, not because they have to.

[chadta]

If that were the case, shouldn't giving tax breaks to corporations have the opposite effect? That is essentially what this article is saying, the tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations did not improve job creation, and I don't know about you, but I never saw any lowering of prices of goods and services as a result. Corporations save that money to increase their profit margins, they don't use it exclusively for growth and they sure as hell would never pass the savings on to the consumer.

If corporations cut jobs and raise prices due to re-institution of taxes that were in place 10 years ago, it's only because they are protecting their profit margin, not because they have to.

of course they did, corporations are in business to make money, any cost added to the bottom line is simply passed along, and any cost removed improves the bottom line. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

[Jetmeck]

why not you seem to think bush Jr is responsible for the failures of the obama years.

Besides most of the people that dont see that policy changes take years before you actually feel the effects also think you can raise the taxes on corporations without it having a negative effect on jobs or prices.


8 years of TOTAL FREAKIN FAIL AT ANYTHING THE DUMB BASTARD TOUCHED which bleed into what Obama had to deal with. Compare the great hand that Bush was dealt compared to the disaster Obama was given to do deal with. The **** was and is still rolling downhill from the good ole boy people like you put in twice.

Considering what Bush spent money on and what Obama is spending money on like trying to fix Bush's ****ups and healthcare for all the people instead of tax cuts for a few rich people and corps
I don't believe you even have a dog in this race and if you Bush supporters actually had any common sense you would realize and at least give the SMART BLACK GUY time to mop up Bush's disaster and try to fix things instead of blaming him after only two years and the disaster he was left with.

[Requiem]

why not you seem to think bush Jr is responsible for the failures of the obama years.

Besides most of the people that dont see that policy changes take years before you actually feel the effects also think you can raise the taxes on corporations without it having a negative effect on jobs or prices.

Take some time to research the residual effects of policy in governance. Might do you some good.

[chadta]

I don't believe you even have a dog in this race

I stick my nose in here for the same reason you guys stuck your collective noses in the middle east, it effects me, most of the crap we make or asemble in canada gets sold to you guys, so when you screw thigns up it makes it worse for me too.

you Bush supporters actually had any common sense you would realize and at least give the SMART BLACK GUY time to mop up Bush's disaster and try to fix things instead of blaming him after only two years and the disaster he was left with.

Never said i supported bush, the guy was a retard, but for months leading up to the last election all you left wing pinkos did was talk about how much better it would be once obama got in, hows that worked out for ya ?

PS being able to read off a teleprompter does not make you smart

[baja]

I stick my nose in here for the same reason you guys stuck your collective noses in the middle east, it effects me, most of the crap we make or asemble in canada gets sold to you guys, so when you screw thigns up it makes it worse for me too.



Never said i supported bush, the guy was a retard, but for months leading up to the last election all you left wing pinkos did was talk about how much better it would be once obama got in, hows that worked out for ya ?

PS being able to read off a teleprompter does not make you smart

Oh he's smart enough all right, he's just not a leader. I believe leaders and decided at a very early age and it's not something you pick up later.

Tebow is a leader and I bet he was since he was a young child.

Obama is not! Even with all his pretty ideas.

[baja]

You become a leader when you accept that mantle to your core.

[mhgaffney]

I stick my nose in here for the same reason you guys stuck your collective noses in the middle east, it effects me, most of the crap we make or asemble in canada gets sold to you guys, so when you screw thigns up it makes it worse for me too.



Never said i supported bush, the guy was a retard, but for months leading up to the last election all you left wing pinkos did was talk about how much better it would be once obama got in, hows that worked out for ya ?

PS being able to read off a teleprompter does not make you smart

I am on the left -- and I never supported Obama.

Our political culture is terminally dysfunctional. There is no way for the popular will to be reflected in an election. The system is too corrupt.

I'll go further. It's worse than corrupt, it's evil. We are ransacking the planet -- in a desperation effort to insure permanent US hegemony. The American people have never ratified this game plan. The US Congress never passed a declaration of war. When we attacked Libya, recently, Obama did not even go to Congress for permission, after the fact.

The US presidency has become a dictatorship. Clowns on the OM do not get that we live in a police state. But the evidence is everywhere.

In short, we are between a rock and a hard place.

[Arkie]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/19/iraq-last-combat-troops-leave

The families of these fallen soldiers don't agree that the Iraqi war ended before that article was written.

8-Jun 1 Pfc. Matthew J. England, 22, of Gainesville, Mo., died June 8, in An Najaf province, Iraq, when enemy forces attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device. He was assigned to the 3rd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Hood, Texas.
6-Jun 5 Spc. Emilio J. Campo Jr., 20, of Madelia, Minn.;
Spc. Michael B. Cook Jr., 27, of Middletown, Ohio;
Spc. Christopher B. Fishbeck, 24, of Victorville, Calif.;
Spc. Robert P. Hartwick, 20, of Rockbridge, Ohio; and
Pfc. Michael C. Olivieri, 26, Chicago, Ill. died June 6 in Baghdad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked their unit with indirect fire. They were assigned to the1st Battalion, 7th Field Artillery Regiment, 2nd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, Kan.
22-May 2 Sgt. 1st Class Clifford E. Beattie, 37, of Medical Lake, Wash., and
Pfc. Ramon Mora Jr., 19, of Ontario, Calif. died May 22 in Baghdad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked their unit with an improvised explosive device. They were assigned to the 1st Battalion, 63rd Armor, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, Kan.
29-Apr 1 Pfc. Robert M. Friese, 21, of Chesterfield, Mich., died April 29 in Al Qadisiyah province, Iraq, of injuries sustained when enemy forces attacked his unit with a rocket propelled grenade. He was assigned to the 1st Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Hood, Texas.
27-Apr 1 Spc. Andrew E. Lara, 25, of Albany, Ore., died April 27, of a noncombat related incident, in Babil province, Iraq. He was assigned to F Company, 145th Brigade Support Battalion, attached to the 3rd Battalion, 116th Cavalry Regiment.
22-Apr 2 1st Lt. Omar J. Vazquez, 25, of Hamilton, N.J.; and
Pfc. Antonio G. Stiggins, 25, of Rio Rancho, N.M. died of wounds suffered April 22, in Numaniyah, Iraq when insurgents attacked their unit with an improvised explosive device. They were assigned to the 2nd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Hood, Texas.
19-Apr 1 Petty Officer 3rd Class Micah Aaron Hill, 27, of Ralston, Neb., died April 19 as a result of a non-combat related incident. Hill was assigned to the USS Enterprise as a machinist’s mate. Enterprise is currently deployed to the 5th Fleet area of responsibility conducting operations in support of Operation New Dawn.
10-Apr 1 Sgt. Vorasack T. Xaysana, 30, of Westminster, Colo., died April 10 in Kirkuk, Iraq, of injuries sustained April 9 in a non-combat related incident. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 12th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, Fort Hood, Texas.
5-Apr 1 Spc. Gary L. Nelson III, 20, of Woodstock, Ga., died April 5 in Mosul, Iraq, of injuries sustained from a non-combat related incident. He was assigned to the 6th Squadron, 8th Cavalry, 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, Third Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, Ga.
4-Apr 1 Capt. Wesley J. Hinkley, 36, of Carlisle, Pa., died April 4 in Baghdad, Iraq, as a result of a non-combat related incident. He was assigned to the 3rd Special Troops Battalion, 3rd Sustainment Brigade, Fort Stewart, Ga.
3-Apr 1 Sgt. Jorge A. Scatliffe, 32, of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, died April 3 in a non-combat related incident at Mosul, Iraq. He was assigned to the 27th Brigade Support Battalion, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.
2-Apr 2 Staff Sgt. Quadi S. Hudgins, 26, of New Orleans, La.
Sgt. Christian A. S. Garcia, 30, of Goodyear, Ariz. died April 2 of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked their position with indirect fire in Babil, Iraq.
21-Mar 1 Cpl. Brandon S. Hocking, 24, of Seattle, Wash., died March 21 in As Samawah, Iraq, when enemy forces attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device. He was assigned to the 87th Combat Sustainment Support Battalion, 3rd Sustainment Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, Ga.
16-Mar 1 Senior Airman Michael J. Hinkle II, 24, of Corona, Calif., died March 16 due to a non-combat related incident in Southwest Asia. He was assigned to the 28th Communications Squadron, Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D.
17-Feb 1 Airman First Class Christoffer P. Johnson, 20, was killed on February 17 while on security patrol at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. He was assigned to the 423rd Security Forces Squadron, Royal Air Force Alconbury, England while supporting Operation New Dawn.
17-Feb 1 Airman 1st Class Corey C. Owens, 26, of San Antonio, Texas, died Feb. 17 due to a non-combat related incident at Al Asad Air Base, Iraq. He was assigned to the 47th Security Forces Squadron, Laughlin Air Force Base, Texas.
15-Feb 1 Spc. Lashawn D. Evans, 24, of Columbia, S.C., died Feb. 15 in Baghdad province, Iraq, in a non-combat related incident. He was assigned to the 1st Attack Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Aviation Regiment, Combat Aviation Brigade, 1st Infantry Division,Fort Riley, Kan.
17-Jan 1 Maj. Michael S. Evarts, 41, of Concord, Ohio, died Jan. 17, in Tikrit, Iraq, in a non-combat related incident. He was assigned to the 256th Combat Support Hospital, Twinsburg, Ohio.
15-Jan 3
Sgt. Michael P. Bartley, 23, of Barnhill, Ill.
Spc. Martin J. Lamar, 43, of Sacramento, Calif. died Jan. 15 in Mosul, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an Iraqi soldier from the unit with which they were training shot them with small arms fire. They were assigned to the 1st Squadron, 9th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.

Spc. Jose A. Torre, Jr., 21, of Garden Grove, Calif., died Jan.15 in Baghdad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit with a rocket-propelled grenade. He was assigned to the Special Troops Battalion, 2nd Advise and Assist Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, Kan.

2-Jan 2 Sgt. Jose M. Cintron Rosado, 38, of Vega Alta, Puerto Rico; and
Spc. Jose A. Delgado Arroyo, 41, of San Juan, Puerto Rico died Jan. 2 in Taji, Iraq, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked their unit with an improvised explosive device. They were assigned to the 1013th Engineer (Sapper) Company of the Puerto Rico Army National Guard, Aguadilla, Puerto Rico.

2010
8-Dec 1 Pfc. David D. Finch, 24, of Bath Springs, Tenn., died Dec. 8 in Wasit province, Iraq, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit using small arms fire. He was assigned to the 2nd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Hood, Texas.
21-Nov 1 Sgt. David J. Luff Jr., 29, of Hamilton, Ohio, died Nov. 21 in Tikrit, Iraq, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit with small arms fire. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.
19-Nov 1 Staff Sgt. Loleni W. Gandy, 36, of Pago Pago, American Samoa, died Nov. 19 in Balad, Iraq, in a non-combat related incident. He was assigned to the 103rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command, Des Moines, Iowa.
24-Oct 1 Pfc. David R. Jones Jr., 21, of Saint Johnsville, N.Y., died Oct. 24 at Baghdad, Iraq, of injuries sustained in a non-combat incident. He was assigned to the 2nd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Hood, Texas.
16-Oct 1 Pfc. Dylan T. Reid, 24, of Springfield, Mo., died Oct. 16 in Amarah, Iraq in a non-combat related incident. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 8th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colo.
24-Sep 3
Spc. Marc C. Whisenant, 23, of Holly Hill, Fla., died Sept. 24 in Kuwait of injuries sustained in a military vehicle roll-over. He was attached to the Florida National Guard's 1st Battalion, 124th Infantry Regiment, Miami, Fla.

Spc. John Carrillo Jr., 20, of Stockton, Calif. and
Pfc. Gebrah P. Noonan, 26, of Watertown, Conn. died Sept. 24 in Fallujah, Iraq, of injuries sustained Sept. 23 in a non-combat incident. They were assigned to 3rd Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, Ga.

16-Sep 1 Sgt. John F. Burner III, 32, of Baltimore, Md., died Sept. 16, in Iskandariya, Iraq, in a non-combat related incident. He was assigned to the 63rd Signal Battalion (Expeditionary), 35th Signal Brigade, Fort Gordon, Ga.
15-Sep 1 Senior Airman James A. Hansen, 25, of Athens, Mich., died Sept. 15 of wounds suffered during a controlled detonation at Joint Base Balad, Iraq. He was assigned to the 46th Operations Support Squadron, Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.
7-Sep 2 Sgt. Philip C. Jenkins, 26, of Decatur, Ind. and
Pvt. James F. McClamrock, 22, of Huntersville, N.C. died Sept. 7 at Balad, Iraq, of wounds suffered in a shooting incident in Salah ad-Din province. They were assigned to the 1st Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Stryker Advise and Assist Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.
22-Aug 1 Sgt. Brandon E. Maggart, 24, of Kirksville, Mo., died Aug. 22 at Basrah, Iraq, of wounds sustained when insurgents attacked his unit using indirect fire. He was assigned to the 5th Battalion, 5th Air Defense Artillery Regiment, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Wash.

[El Minion]

One simple article destroying every argument the righties made in this thread. Good find.

How about a graph?

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Workers’ share of national income plummets to record low (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110614/bs_yblog_thelookout/workers-share-of-national-income-plummets-to-record-low)
By Zachary Roth

Over the last decade, the share of U.S. national income taken home by workers has plummeted to a record low.

Check out the chart below, compiled by the Labor Department, and posted this week by conservative writer David Frum (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/yblog_thelookout/bs_yblog_thelookout/storytext/workers-share-of-national-income-plummets-to-record-low/41856864/SIG=11uo5k4re/*http://www.frumforum.com/incredible-shrinking-workers-income). It shows that the decline began with the brief recession that followed 9/11 in 2001. But it continued even as the economy picked up again, and got even worse once the Great Recession hit. In the weak recovery since then, workers' share of income just kept on falling.

http://mit.zenfs.com/102/2011/06/shrinkingworkers.jpg

Why are workers taking home such a reduced share of the pie? Opinions differ, but many experts think that the trend has to do with a number of factors, including a decline in the bargaining power of labor, and increased competition from foreign workers. Similarly, over the last year or so, U.S. companies have made record profits (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/news/yblog_thelookout/bs_yblog_thelookout/storytext/workers-share-of-national-income-plummets-to-record-low/41856864/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101210/bs_yblog_thelookout/record-corporate-profits-not-producing-jobs), while unemployment has stayed high and wages have barely risen.

The chart jibes with other data, which show that since the 1980s, income for the richest 1 percent of Americans has exploded (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/news/yblog_thelookout/bs_yblog_thelookout/storytext/workers-share-of-national-income-plummets-to-record-low/41856864/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110223/ts_yblog_thelookout/separate-but-unequal-charts-show-growing-rich-poor-gap), while hardly budging at all for everyone else.

Still, there's little sense that either Obama administration or Congress plan to do much about this growing inequality. Indeed, any serious action to boost the economy and cut unemployment now seems to be off the table (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/news/yblog_thelookout/bs_yblog_thelookout/storytext/workers-share-of-national-income-plummets-to-record-low/41856864/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110613/bs_yblog_thelookout/will-white-house-jobs-councils-recommendations).