Comments
5,061 - 5,080 of 8,365 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago

“Marble Man”

Since: Jul 11

Destin, FL

#5311 Oct 17, 2012
DapperDave wrote:
<quoted text>
The link cites the source of the charts statistics as "the calcuation from Republican Senator Jeff Sessions' staff".
...a statistical calculation that has NEVER before been used by ANY previous administration or Senate Budget Committtee.
This is the brainless blather you chose to present to us?
ROTFMLAO!!!
Next you'll be telling us that many left-handed, non-coffee drinkers are out of work.
Every time I visit topix I find more of your deranged brayings and preposterous citings of specious information sources. Your idiocy seems to be increasing in leaps and bounds.
You are one of those being graded on the "curve" in the Tampa Indoctrination District".
dumbass

Lakeland, FL

#5312 Oct 17, 2012
what kinda name is wassup anyways lol ... politics ..you can never be right
wow

Stephenville, TX

#5313 Oct 17, 2012
no ending the war is point less in 2 years the terroist will be back and takeing american lives we dident get rid of the taliban all the people who died in the middel east lost there live for nuthing
wtf

Stephenville, TX

#5314 Oct 17, 2012
he worte a letter before the fist american soldiers got to iraq and talk about how we fild in iraq hes a real patriot good for him ryan is the only one in this election that is sounding educated
dftba

Stephenville, TX

#5315 Oct 17, 2012
im not going to pay for my sadly my goverments depts they say the rich needs to pay more there rich and they can give all the money to the goverment as they want
dftba

Stephenville, TX

#5316 Oct 17, 2012
free insurens why do i have to pay for poor peoples insurance i give to chitey but come on now americans on averge but why is obama treating us like we have to be told what to do with my money i make it i want to spend it
dftba

Stephenville, TX

#5317 Oct 17, 2012
i ment to say americans make the most money on averge
Obskeptic

Southfield, MI

#5318 Oct 18, 2012
Manup wrote:
<quoted text>But the moderator also said Romney was arguing semantics. He was being critical about the time that Obama called Libya a terrorist attack.
The "moderator" also interrupted Romney 28 times, and the president just 9 times. No bias there at all. Not only did she interrupt during that answer, she helped the president lie. The government knew in the first few hours what was happening. The president and his handlers decided to lie about it. I find it ironic that back in the day, it was Hillary that was demanding from Nixon "what did you know, and when did you know it?" about Watergate, and now fast forward and here she is with her president, and none of those answers matter to her or the press. The hypocrisy and double standards that exist in the democrat party is incredible.
blahblahblah

Mount Morris, MI

#5319 Oct 18, 2012
All I'm saying is that they should bring Bill Clinton back!
To The Point

United States

#5320 Oct 18, 2012
Manup wrote:
<quoted text>Since 1980, we have cut taxes a lot, then raised them, then cut them. Did the cuts result in economic growth? Did the increases result in a recession? In 1980, Reagan cut taxes, or the top tax rate from 70% to 50%, and then later, to 28%. Bush then raised taxes, and this is top tax rates, to 31%. The top corporate tax rate qas cut in 1987 from 46% to 40% and the next year to 34%. Conservatives say that the economy boomed as a result, however, this is more inaccurate rhetoric passed on as fact. What actually happened waa government deficits and the resulting accumulated debt exploded, qhile our defunded government has since been unable to maintain the infeastructure and public structures (laws, courts, regulations, protections, schools, etcedera) that keep our economy competitive and our standard of living high. In 1981, Carter's last budget year, the on-budget tax receipts were $469 billion qhich was a 16% increase over the prior year. In 1982 tax receipts were $473.3 billion, down to 1.1% over 1981, and the on-budget deficit shot up to $120 billion. That qas an increase of 62%in a single year. In 1983 it got even worse, receipts dropped 4.4% to $453.2 billion, creating a deficit of $208 billion, an increase of 73%. So in just two years following Reagan's cuts in 1980 our debt increased by $328 billion. Because of this, in 1984 Congress passed the Deficit Reduction Act, the largest increase in history. Tax receipta then CLIMBED to $500.3 billion, a 10.4% increase, and the deficit shrank about 11% to $185 billion. Then in 1985 Congress passed the Gramm-Rudmann-Hollings Anti-Deficit Act, and in 1985 tax receipts were $548 billion, a 9.5% increase. However, interest on the debt and huge military spending, for whatever reason, increased the deficit to $221 billion, an increase of 19%. Historically, lowering taxes doesn't improve the economy. Maintaining a strong middle class, which is Obama's plan, and ending unneccesary tax breaks for those who do not need them is his proposal.
Dude, you're missing the point and it's simple math. You put more money BACK in my pocket and I will either SPEND it or INVEST it. In either case, whether it's for a business or personal income, the government gets to take taxes off of either. That's the bottom line.

But you're missing some very important historical information in your little data there. So let me help you out.

Kennedy had sweeping tax cuts during his term. After his cuts, the government saw an increase of 62% in income from taxes (people were spending and investing).

When Reagan cut taxes, the government revenue grew by 99.4% during the 80's and the average gross GDP grew 3.8% year over year compared to 2.8% from 1974 - 1981. On top of that the economy was 1/3 larger than when Reagan took office and had created 17 MILLION jobs!

When George W. Bush passed tax cuts and then 2 years later cut capital gains taxes, this ALSO led to a period of sizable economic growth (well, until the housing crisis in 2008, but you won't hear Obama say that!). Before the tax cuts GDP was growing at 1.7% and after the cuts it was 4.1%. Before the tax cuts the economy lost 267K jobs and after it gained 307K (first 6 quarters). And even better, after the capital gains tax reduction, the revenue to the government from capital gains more than doubled.

And then lets not forget the 7 states that have NO personal income taxes. From 2000 to 2009, the average state and local revenue growth of the nine states with no personal income taxes was 81.53%. By contrast, average revenue growth in the nine states with the highest personal income tax rates (those being OH, ME, MD, VT, NJ, CA, OR, HI and NY) was 44.88%.

Dude, you have RECORD BREAKING Debt, RECORD BREAKING amount of people on food stamps, RECORD BREAKING spending. You simply can NOT tax and spend our way out of this hole! This is not rocket science!
man down

Alpharetta, GA

#5321 Oct 18, 2012
To The Point wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, you're missing the point and it's simple math. You put more money BACK in my pocket and I will either SPEND it or INVEST it. In either case, whether it's for a business or personal income, the government gets to take taxes off of either. That's the bottom line.
But you're missing some very important historical information in your little data there. So let me help you out.
Kennedy had sweeping tax cuts during his term. After his cuts, the government saw an increase of 62% in income from taxes (people were spending and investing).
When Reagan cut taxes, the government revenue grew by 99.4% during the 80's and the average gross GDP grew 3.8% year over year compared to 2.8% from 1974 - 1981. On top of that the economy was 1/3 larger than when Reagan took office and had created 17 MILLION jobs!
When George W. Bush passed tax cuts and then 2 years later cut capital gains taxes, this ALSO led to a period of sizable economic growth (well, until the housing crisis in 2008, but you won't hear Obama say that!). Before the tax cuts GDP was growing at 1.7% and after the cuts it was 4.1%. Before the tax cuts the economy lost 267K jobs and after it gained 307K (first 6 quarters). And even better, after the capital gains tax reduction, the revenue to the government from capital gains more than doubled.
And then lets not forget the 7 states that have NO personal income taxes. From 2000 to 2009, the average state and local revenue growth of the nine states with no personal income taxes was 81.53%. By contrast, average revenue growth in the nine states with the highest personal income tax rates (those being OH, ME, MD, VT, NJ, CA, OR, HI and NY) was 44.88%.
Dude, you have RECORD BREAKING Debt, RECORD BREAKING amount of people on food stamps, RECORD BREAKING spending. You simply can NOT tax and spend our way out of this hole! This is not rocket science!
good info, but ur going to confuse womanup with the facts.
Sharpshooter

Irving, TX

#5322 Oct 18, 2012
DapperDave wrote:
<quoted text>
The link cites the source of the charts statistics as "the calcuation from Republican Senator Jeff Sessions' staff".
...a statistical calculation that has NEVER before been used by ANY previous administration or Senate Budget Committtee.
This is the brainless blather you chose to present to us?
ROTFMLAO!!!
Next you'll be telling us that many left-handed, non-coffee drinkers are out of work.
Every time I visit topix I find more of your deranged brayings and preposterous citings of specious information sources. Your idiocy seems to be increasing in leaps and bounds.
What a stretch! Please, by all means, take another shot, you missed with the first one.
Mike

Buffalo, NY

#5323 Oct 18, 2012
Obama is horrible. The debt is HUGE, prices are skyrocketing, there are no jobs, he tries to please certain minorites.(blacks, ilegals, gays)He isn't smart. He is screwing with the military.( He DIDN'T KILL OSAMA!)Also, as far as I'm consernd, he isn't even an American, He is not just a horrible president, but a horrible man.
Manup

Philadelphia, PA

#5324 Oct 18, 2012
To The Point wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, you're missing the point and it's simple math. You put more money BACK in my pocket and I will either SPEND it or INVEST it. In either case, whether it's for a business or personal income, the government gets to take taxes off of either. That's the bottom line.
But you're missing some very important historical information in your little data there. So let me help you out.
Kennedy had sweeping tax cuts during his term. After his cuts, the government saw an increase of 62% in income from taxes (people were spending and investing).
When Reagan cut taxes, the government revenue grew by 99.4% during the 80's and the average gross GDP grew 3.8% year over year compared to 2.8% from 1974 - 1981. On top of that the economy was 1/3 larger than when Reagan took office and had created 17 MILLION jobs!
When George W. Bush passed tax cuts and then 2 years later cut capital gains taxes, this ALSO led to a period of sizable economic growth (well, until the housing crisis in 2008, but you won't hear Obama say that!). Before the tax cuts GDP was growing at 1.7% and after the cuts it was 4.1%. Before the tax cuts the economy lost 267K jobs and after it gained 307K (first 6 quarters). And even better, after the capital gains tax reduction, the revenue to the government from capital gains more than doubled.
And then lets not forget the 7 states that have NO personal income taxes. From 2000 to 2009, the average state and local revenue growth of the nine states with no personal income taxes was 81.53%. By contrast, average revenue growth in the nine states with the highest personal income tax rates (those being OH, ME, MD, VT, NJ, CA, OR, HI and NY) was 44.88%.
Dude, you have RECORD BREAKING Debt, RECORD BREAKING amount of people on food stamps, RECORD BREAKING spending. You simply can NOT tax and spend our way out of this hole! This is not rocket science!
Exactly rhe premise behind Obama's proposals. Only instead of putting more money back into the hands of those who already have ir, he wants to raise taxes to lower the deficit pit money into the pockets of the neglected middle class, who have historically footed the bill for everything. A viable middle class will spend more, patronizing the smaller and larger businesses, thereby also increasing the revenue earned by those businesses and pwrmitting them to invest, hire, or, and this is a stretch, perhaps BOTH. When Kennedy rook office in 1961, the economy was experiencing frequent downturns -- 1954, 58, and 60 were all recessionary years. Marginal tax rates were extraordinarily high, ropping out at 91%. No one had before pais such a rate, however, as tax revenue relative to gross domestic priduct vividly shows: Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and Harry Truman recorded the forth and second lowest ratios of the 12 postwar presidents. It appears that the Kennedy tax cuts did the economy well with the debt to GDP ratio falling to 37.6% in 1970 from 49.3% in 1964. However, Reagan's cuts took a different turn of events. His 1981 tax cur took effect over three years, with rate reductiona of 10 percent in each of the first two years and 5 percent in the third year. The top rate was, as I said, lowered to 50% from 70%. After the first year of the tax cut, 1982, the economy fwll into a recession, with the GDP dropping 1.9% and unemployment averaging 9.7%. By 1984, the reduction of inflation and the full effect of the tax cuts had produced a GDP geowth rate of 7.2%. Ao it might appeae to have been a good thing, so as it is touted by the repubs at every turn, but the "point" that you are missing is the fact that despite GDP growth, the debr kept climbing. From 1981 to 1989, the debt to GDP ratio increased every year, to 53.1% of the GDP from 32.5%. Talk about eating up your profits. Don't you see...Dude? The GDP growth you're claiming in the Reaganomics era was consumed by more than half by the national debt.
Manup

Philadelphia, PA

#5325 Oct 18, 2012
man down wrote:
<quoted text>
good info, but ur going to confuse womanup with the facts.
I believe you are the one who is confused. But don't go potty just yet, I'll speak a little slower for you.

“Marble Man”

Since: Jul 11

Destin, FL

#5326 Oct 18, 2012
Welfare spending jumps 32% in four years.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/...

“Marble Man”

Since: Jul 11

Destin, FL

#5327 Oct 18, 2012
Weekly applications for U.S. unemployment benefits jumped 46,000 last week to a seasonally adjusted 388,000, the highest in four months.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49460659

“Marble Man”

Since: Jul 11

Destin, FL

#5328 Oct 18, 2012
Another DOE-Backed Solar Company Goes Bankrupt.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/another-d...

“Marble Man”

Since: Jul 11

Destin, FL

#5329 Oct 18, 2012
President Obama’s Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president...
Manup

Philadelphia, PA

#5330 Oct 18, 2012
By 2001, when Bush took office, the GDP had waned to a sluggish 1.1% At the same time, the debt to GDP ratio was steadily declining, to 56.4%(THAT'S F,I,F,T,Y S,I,X point F,O,U,R per-cent for you womanup) in 2001 from 67.1 percent in 1995. Unemployment stood at 4.7 percent. So there goes your argument for tax cuts. Historically, when tax cuts are implemented, the national debt will climb, despite a rising GDP. You have to look at the debt to GDP ratio to really make a convincing argument for cutting taxes, and neither you or Romney have one. With a high national debt, the GDP rate has to be significantly high, some would say impossibly high, to avoid being consumed by the national debt. The Bush tax cuts were meant to reignite growrh without harming the U.S. fiscal position or employment, but the GDP only grew on an average of 2.7% from 2002 to 2006. The bias of the tax cut toward the wealthy--unlike middle class taxpayers who tend not to spend tax cut proceeds, caused this modest growth response. As a result, a $128 billion surplus in 2001 (pay attention womanup, I'm going to use alot of numbers) turnrd into a $157 billion deficit the next year. The shortfall (sound familiar?) grew to $378 billion in 2003 and then to $412 billion in 2004. Deficits then declined the next three years before soaring again in 2008and 2009. But the debt to GDP ratio continued upward every year of Bush's presidency, to 85.2% in 2009 from 56.4% in 2001. This shows that historically, on avwragw, there being always exceptions, tax cuts do nothing to boost the economy in the long ryn as a whole because.whatever growth feel you have gained is overshadowed and consumed by the national debt.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atlanta Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Statue of William Tecumseh Sherman Peachtree Plaza 40 min Yankees Rule 51
Uber in Atlanta..Are you an uberX driver? Is it... (Nov '13) 45 min Otter 39
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 1 hr Aryan Barbarian 18,854
This years winner of the Darwin Award is: 3 hr Rhett Butler 2
Stop Taxing God's Chosen.... 6 hr Richie rich 2
Joan Rivers hospitalized in critical condition 9 hr LOL LOL 5
Cops Just Want To Shoot You 9 hr U Fool 2
•••

Air Quality Alert for Fulton County was issued at August 28 at 1:41PM EDT

•••

Atlanta News Video

•••
Atlanta Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Atlanta Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Atlanta People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Atlanta News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Atlanta
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••