THE POLITICAL ARENA!!! Political Gladiators Inside!!

[songsmith]

1) What is there about "unemployment does not affect wage data" that you do not understand? Sure, UC is taxable, but it is not wages. Or perhaps you just don't know the difference between wages and taxable income?

Gotcha. UC is taxable, but it's not subject to tax rates. You pay taxes on it, but you don't pay taxes on it. Crystal clear. Obviously, in your mind, wages and tax rates are the same thing. I'm not going to define TAX RATES again for you, you're joe-ing out on me again. Either you or Joe is wrong.

Or perhaps if you cannot say what you mean, you cannot mean what you say?

You comprehend what I say, you just can't agree, because it proves you wrong. Nice stick-to-it-iveness, that's always worked for Joe, too.

, A & B & C) The lower tax rate, the 15% capital gains rate and all the loopholes have been around for more than 10 years.

The capital gains tax rate was dropped to 15% in 2003. The capital gains tax has been in effect for a long time, but only since 2003 has it been the majority of executive compensation, hence my assertion that the executive elite pay less tax by rate than the working class. The capital gains tax rate is less than it was under Reagan, BTW, when it was 28%.

You're really starting to intellectually bore me. I'm starting to think you're all hat and no cattle. Tippity-tap, tippity-tap, and still no real reply to the question, where are the extreme taxes that the rightwing told us would happen in early 2009?

[lonewolf]

1) What is there about "unemployment does not affect wage data" that you do not understand? Sure, UC is taxable, but it is not wages. Or perhaps you just don't know the difference between wages and taxable income?

Gotcha. UC is taxable, but it's not subject to tax rates. You pay taxes on it, but you don't pay taxes on it. Crystal clear. Obviously, in your mind, wages and tax rates are the same thing. I'm not going to define TAX RATES again for you, you're joe-ing out on me again. Either you or Joe is wrong.?

*lonewolf snaps at the utter and complete nonsense*

NO! YOU DENSE FUCKING IDIOT. Your articles cite TAX RATES as a percentage of WAGES dropping faster than WAGES. UC is not part of the data contained in WAGES. You cannot grasp simple differences in numerical data sets. Then you make unfounded opinions based on these faulty assumptions.

UC and WAGES are both TAXABLE INCOME

UC is not WAGES. UC is not contained in the WAGE data cited in the articles. If that is not simple enough for you, I can't help you.

[lonewolf]

, A & B & C) The lower tax rate, the 15% capital gains rate and all the loopholes have been around for more than 10 years.

The capital gains tax rate was dropped to 15% in 2003. The capital gains tax has been in effect for a long time, but only since 2003 has it been the majority of executive compensation, hence my assertion that the executive elite pay less tax by rate than the working class. The capital gains tax rate is less than it was under Reagan, BTW, when it was 28%.

You're really starting to intellectually bore me. I'm starting to think you're all hat and no cattle. Tippity-tap, tippity-tap, and still no real reply to the question, where are the extreme taxes that the rightwing told us would happen in early 2009?

Ok, one of them was not 10 years, it was 9. My bad. That doesn't change the point of my post (which is conveniently missing) that tax revenues reached all time highs (even when adjusted for inflation) AFTER these rates were changed.

How do you account for that?

[jetcitywoman]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/governmen ... 7.html?l=1

Don't know about anyone else but this doesn't set well with me.

[Banned]

NO! YOU DENSE FUCKING IDIOT.

First nomination for Post of the Year! Truer words were never typed.

[songsmith]

You don't get a vote, pud-stain. The grown ups are talking.

[songsmith]

*lonewolf snaps at the utter and complete nonsense*

NO! YOU DENSE FUCKING IDIOT. Your articles cite TAX RATES as a percentage of WAGES dropping faster than WAGES. UC is not part of the data contained in WAGES. You cannot grasp simple differences in numerical data sets. Then you make unfounded opinions based on these faulty assumptions.

UC and WAGES are both TAXABLE INCOME

UC is not WAGES. UC is not contained in the WAGE data cited in the articles. If that is not simple enough for you, I can't help you.

YOU MYOPIC PSEUDO-INTELLECTUAL NIMROD. What the fuck difference does it make if both are taxed? If UC is taxed at a lower rate than wages, THAT ONLY PROVES MY POINT that taxes are low, so pull your thumb out of your ass, and tell me:
Where are the high taxes that we were warned of?

[Banned]

You don't get a vote, pud-stain. The grown ups are talking.

We are all patiently waiting for you to grow up. We know you are depressed that your growth spurt is delayed by about 30 years. Must cost a lot in big boy pull up pants. You'll have to ask your dad when you start to grow hair in strange places, if that ever happens to you. Keep hoping and changing, its worked so well for the economy.

[songsmith]

Ok, one of them was not 10 years, it was 9. My bad. That doesn't change the point of my post (which is conveniently missing) that tax revenues reached all time highs (even when adjusted for inflation) AFTER these rates were changed.

How do you account for that?

Easily. Gains in efficiency in all forms of business due to the use of new technologies like the computer (which exploded in utilization at that time), massive advances like pull-inventories (also aided by new tech), and increases in efficiency by making one worker do work that was formerly done by many more. These factors, combined with flat salaries for workers and a move away from traditional pensions to more profitable 401k accounts, increased profits for business. Lower top tax rates allowed the elite to gamble more because they had a lot of free money now, and bubbles began happening.
PS, you're still not accounting for all that growth during times when the top rate was 70% or above... how could that possibly happen?

Let me save you alot of dance steps:
There was no increase in taxes under Obama, as promised. The rightwing media, and it's mushy-headed adherents, were WRONG.

[lonewolf]

Ok, one of them was not 10 years, it was 9. My bad. That doesn't change the point of my post (which is conveniently missing) that tax revenues reached all time highs (even when adjusted for inflation) AFTER these rates were changed.

How do you account for that?

Easily. Gains in efficiency in all forms of business due to the use of new technologies like the computer (which exploded in utilization at that time), massive advances like pull-inventories (also aided by new tech), and increases in efficiency by making one worker do work that was formerly done by many more. These factors, combined with flat salaries for workers and a move away from traditional pensions to more profitable 401k accounts, increased profits for business. Lower top tax rates allowed the elite to gamble more because they had a lot of free money now, and bubbles began happening.

Excellent analysis of why we had a boom during the late 90s as evidenced by the technology stock bubble that I dodged. It has very little to do with tax revenues during the 2000s, but keep trying. Give you a hint...what was the next bubble that I dodged by cashing out?

[songsmith]

Excellent analysis of why we had a boom during the late 90s as evidenced by the technology stock bubble that I dodged. It has very little to do with tax revenues during the 2000s, but keep trying. Give you a hint...what was the next bubble that I dodged by cashing out?

I knew you'd like the chance to tell us how you were smarter than everyone else. I got my internet stock at a little over $3, and it split the last time at $90. I cashed out in 1999. I must have a little know-how, too.
It still explains why revenue increased, more profits equals more revenue at tax time, it was much more difficult pre-Bush for megacorps to not pay taxes. I also forgot the introduction of the greatest human invention since the wheel, the internet. Nobody even gets up from their desk to fax anymore, it's all very streamlined and efficient... and cheap. Cheaper labor equals more profits, ask any CEO.

[lonewolf]

Excellent analysis of why we had a boom during the late 90s as evidenced by the technology stock bubble that I dodged. It has very little to do with tax revenues during the 2000s, but keep trying. Give you a hint...what was the next bubble that I dodged by cashing out?

I knew you'd like the chance to tell us how you were smarter than everyone else. I got my internet stock at a little over $3, and it split the last time at $90. I cashed out in 1999. I must have a little know-how, too.
It still explains why revenue increased, more profits equals more revenue at tax time, it was much more difficult pre-Bush for megacorps to not pay taxes. I also forgot the introduction of the greatest human invention since the wheel, the internet. Nobody even gets up from their desk to fax anymore, it's all very streamlined and efficient... and cheap. Cheaper labor equals more profits, ask any CEO.

Made $87 did ya? Who was your broker?

Since you can't figure out what the main driver behind tax revenues really is, I'll have to tell you.

The only chart that closely correlates to tax revenue is GDP. Different tax rates come and go, but a GDP chart hugs tax revenue charts like a grizzly bear.

By the same token, the only chart that has a close correlation to the government deficit is government spending. I wonder why that is?

[Hawk]

Of all the Republican cantidates John Huntsman seems (to me) to be the most sincere and honest one of the whole bunch. Why isn't he doing better ?

I saw his speech after the New Hampshire primaries and one of the first things he said was that he wanted term limits for congress. I'm not the kind who would vote for a single "plank" but if I thought he could somehow make term limits happen, I would vote for him.

[lonewolf]

Of all the Republican cantidates John Huntsman seems (to me) to be the most sincere and honest one of the whole bunch. Why isn't he doing better ?

I saw his speech after the New Hampshire primaries and one of the first things he said was that he wanted term limits for congress. I'm not the kind who would vote for a single "plank" but if I thought he could somehow make term limits happen, I would vote for him.

The superpacs have already decided that Romney is their man.

Huntsman will be on the short list for VP

I'm completely opposed to term limits--it only serves to remove one more liberty without any real benefit. The big money would just decide who they wanted next and make it nearly impossible for a patriot to emerge. I am all for pension limits though. Very low pension limits. I also like the the idea of a blind trust for all elected members of the federal government, not just the President.

Besides, wouldn't it be more effective to put voting rights limits on the idiots who keep voting them back in?

"That's a joke son."

[songsmith]

Made $87 did ya?

Per share. I had a few shares, too. But, boo-hoo, I had to pay capital gains tax on that, woe is me, I could have created jobs in India, too!

[songsmith]

Huntsman is something that modern conservatism now hates and derides: moderate. The word, "moderate" has become a pejorative over the last half-year or so, and is really a common catch-phrase on whack-a-media.
It's one thing to call an extremist extreme, but to imply that a lack of extremism is detrimental? That speaks volumes about how the right is now functioning.
I'd say that Huntsman would make a good VP running mate for Romney, but I'd be happier if it were the other way 'round.

[lonewolf]

Huntsman is something that modern conservatism now hates and derides: moderate.

You should go ahead and use the term "neocon". Its OK. I can't think of a more suitable name and your left-wing nutcase friends will understand what you are talking about.

True conservatism died some time during the latter half of the 20th century. Probably about the time when they joined the liberal progressives and threw the Constitution on the fire.

[songsmith]

No, YOU'RE a neocon, Huntsman is a moderate Republican, when compared to the others. From the opposing team's endzone, the 50-yardline looks pretty far away.
True conservatism died when the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated. Prior to that, one's opinion theoretically had to withstand scrutiny from anyone. Since then, your opinion has been commoditized and prescribed to you, and it's socially unacceptable inside the rightwing culture to question it.

[lonewolf]

No, YOU'RE a neocon, Huntsman is a moderate Republican, when compared to the others. From the opposing team's endzone, the 50-yardline looks pretty far away.

Such 2 dimensional thinking.

I'm neither. I'm up in the hockey scorebox above the rink watching you defend the liberal goal.

You only perceive me as neocon because EVERYTHING that is NOT left-wing progressive liberalist is neocon to you. You seem receptive to the guy at center ice with the puck (Huntsman). You should beware of him. His only intention is to skate toward your goal and try to shoot the puck down your throat.

The political spectrum is more like a 3-D sphere, not a 2D football field.

[lonewolf]

YOU MYOPIC PSEUDO-INTELLECTUAL NIMROD.

Who you calling MYOPIC?

I had Lasik surgery.

[Merge]

Huntsman is something that modern conservatism now hates and derides: moderate. The word, "moderate" has become a pejorative over the last half-year or so, and is really a common catch-phrase on whack-a-media.
It's one thing to call an extremist extreme, but to imply that a lack of extremism is detrimental? That speaks volumes about how the right is now functioning.
I'd say that Huntsman would make a good VP running mate for Romney, but I'd be happier if it were the other way 'round.

I'm a moderate conservative, as there are things that the Democrats do that I agree with. My issue with the "extremist" label is when someone criticizes our President they're called an extremist or a racist. Disagreeing with some of his policies makes me neither of those things, just like questioning Bush didn't make someone unpatriotic.

[Banned]

"President Obama Thursday quietly notified Congress that the government needs another $1.2 trillion to continue operating.

That’s both irresponsible and unpatriotic of him.

How do I know? A presidential candidate named Obama told me."

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/0 ... patriotic/

[f.sciarrillo]

"President Obama Thursday quietly notified Congress that the government needs another $1.2 trillion to continue operating.

That’s both irresponsible and unpatriotic of him.

How do I know? A presidential candidate named Obama told me."

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/0 ... patriotic/

Oh boy, another trillion in debt. Yeah!

[lonewolf]

Maybe we should change the national anthem to Sixteen Tons

[songsmith]

"President Obama Thursday quietly notified Congress that the government needs another $1.2 trillion to continue operating.

That’s both irresponsible and unpatriotic of him.

How do I know? A presidential candidate named Obama told me."

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/0 ... patriotic/

Ronald Hussein Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times. George Hussein Bush Jr. raised the debt ceiling 7 times.
Are we really re-litigating the events of last summer AGAIN? Shall we Youtube every candidate on their promises and such, because I bet Ronald Hussein Paul sent out a few newsletters that he regrets...