Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

[Frijoles]

SeasideSoon wrote:

<quoted text>Anyway, I've got a new Rosetta language to start on and Topix is very distracting, so I'm going to take a break for a few weeks.
Salaams, and Happy Veterans' Day to you'all!!

Just think of all the time you would save if you cut out cable news.

And the benefits to clear thinking to boot!

[Voluntarist]

former res wrote:

<quoted text>
The "job creators" (GOP code for "my rich friends") were not "killed" during the Clinton years.
In fact, most of us did pretty well.
Most small companies will not be affected my Obama's proposal.
Simply a return to the Clinton-era rates for those at the top.
You know, the good days, before that other president I'm not allowed to mention!
:))
The one nobody in Tampa mentioned; same as in 2008.

Job creators aren't always rich, most small businesses (the backbone of the country) are struggling between the federal and state governments.
If they want to increase tax revenue why don't they lower taxes?

[Frijoles]

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
Job creators aren't always rich, most small businesses (the backbone of the country) are struggling between the federal and state governments.
If they want to increase tax revenue why don't they lower taxes?

Because they tried that in the 80s under Reagan and it was a failure. Nice idea but the data does not pan out.

http://www.econdataus.com/taxcuts.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Anal...

[Frijoles]

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
Job creators aren't always rich, most small businesses (the backbone of the country) are struggling between the federal and state governments.
If they want to increase tax revenue why don't they lower taxes?

An interesting article last year in Business Week that questions whether small business are in fact the "backbone of the country". It makes a point that if you want more jobs, don't look to small businesses - instead look to corporations.

Rethinking the Boosterism About Small Business

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/rethinki...

[Frijoles]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012...

Which Polls Fared Best (and Worst) in the 2012 Presidential Race
By NATE SILVER
-----

The best: Investors Business Daily

The worst: Rasmussen and Gallup

[former res]

SeasideSoon wrote:

<quoted text>Are you telling me that Obama's drone strikes are free? Are you telling me that making an acceptance speech is a move to the center?? More action, less talk. WTH is Grove Norquist???
Actually the housing debacle caused by Barney Frank is close to being #1 cause of the deficit - all those bailouts. And then there's Solyndra and other failed tax-funded green energy companies. And now I heard that GM is going to get a pass on the rest of the money owed to the taxpayers.
I hope you noticed that I've been sensitive to your feelings and haven't mentioned Jimmy Carter.(maybe once - I'm not sure):)
Anyway, I've got a new Rosetta language to start on and Topix is very distracting, so I'm going to take a break for a few weeks.
Salaams, and Happy Veterans' Day to you'all!!

You really don't know who Grover Norquist is? Google him. Most of the GOP has taken his pledge. No balanced approach possible with the budget with this in place.

You don't recall Bush touting the "Ownership Society" where everyone should own a house?

Your supposed causes of the debt are very funny and based on emotion rathere than fact.

You may mention the Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter anytime you wish. Our military never fired a shot during his tenure.

Your neocon freinds would not appreciate that.

Enjoy your Rosetta stone program. It gets high marks.

A few annoying facts will follow re the Bush tax cuts.

Shalom

[former res]

Back in 2001, CRS said, the Congressional Budget Office projected gradually rising federal budget surpluses for the next decade. The tax cuts helped alter the outlook "dramatically," and the budget in 2002 recorded a deficit for the first time since 1997.

"The Bush tax cuts, with a $1 trillion 10-year price tag, contributed to this shift from budget surpluses to deficits," CRS said. Other contributors included the 2001 recession, the increase in defense spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

But the tax cuts "generated the largest 10-year increases in budget deficits," CRS said.

Estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation put the total cost for the tax cuts (including the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004) at more than the amount allocated to the Defense Department for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"This means that even with the spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the federal budget would have been in surplus in 2007 if the tax cuts had not been enacted, or if their costs had been offset," said a 2008 analysis from the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The CBO last year projected a decrease in deficits if the tax cuts expired, and said extending all of them permanently would cost $3.3 trillion over 10 years and increase deficits.

PolitiFact has previously examined assertions that tax cuts increase revenues by stimulating economic growth. We found that the Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been – even if they spur some economic growth.

"There's no clear relationship between taxes and economic growth," said Bob Williams of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. "Too many factors complicate the picture to draw clear conclusions about the taxes-growth relationship."

Our colleagues at FactCheck.org came to a similar conclusion.

Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office reported in March, "Relative to the size of the economy, federal revenues are currently at their lowest level in 60 years."

"There is no real dispute among economists that broad-based federal income tax cuts reduce revenue (except when tax rates are much higher than they are now)," said Alan D. Viard of the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "Revenue is lower than it would be without the Bush tax cuts -- liberal and conservative economists are in accord on this question."

Debate will go on about the effectiveness of tax cuts in stimulating growth. We won't enter it. But analysis backs up Kucinich in saying that the Bush cuts "helped to create a substantial part of the deficit."

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/201...

[former res]

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
Job creators aren't always rich, most small businesses (the backbone of the country) are struggling between the federal and state governments.
If they want to increase tax revenue why don't they lower taxes?

I know - that's my point.

You know this and I know this. Most small business would not be affected by a return to the Clinton tax rates at the highest bracket.

It's the GOP who is attempting to shift the tax burden back to the middle class.

Lowering taxes will increase the deficti. See my previous posting from Politifact.

Trickle down is a myth.

[Voluntarist]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
An interesting article last year in Business Week that questions whether small business are in fact the "backbone of the country". It makes a point that if you want more jobs, don't look to small businesses - instead look to corporations.
Rethinking the Boosterism About Small Business
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/rethinki...

Much of that article is about growth, the word "backbone " signifies strength, stability.

Small firms:
• Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.
• Employ half of all private sector employees.
• Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll.
• Generated 65 percent of net new jobs over the past 17 years.
• Create more than half of the nonfarm private GDP.
• Hire 43 percent of high tech workers ( scientists, engineers,
computer programmers, and others).
• Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises.
• Made up 97.5 percent of all identified exporters and
produced 31 percent of export value in FY 2008.
• Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large
patenting firms.
Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Census Bureau and Intl. Trade
Admin.; Advocacy-funded research by Kathryn Kobe, 2007
( www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs299.pdf ) and CHI Research, 2003
( www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs225.pdf );U.S. Dept. of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics.

[Voluntarist]

Small firms accounted for 65 percent (or 9.8 million) of the
15 million net new jobs created between 1993 and 2009.
Much of the job growth is from fast-growing high-impact firms,
which represents about 5-6 percent of all firms and are on
average 25 years old.
Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Business
Employment Dynamics; Advocacy-funded research by Zoltan Acs,
William Parsons and Spencer Tracy, 2008 ( www.sba.gov/advo/
research/rs328.pdf )

[Voluntarist]

former res wrote:

<quoted text>
I know - that's my point.
You know this and I know this. Most small business would not be affected by a return to the Clinton tax rates at the highest bracket.
It's the GOP who is attempting to shift the tax burden back to the middle class.
Lowering taxes will increase the deficti. See my previous posting from Politifact.
Trickle down is a myth.

Lowering tax rates is not about trickling down theory, its about increasing government revenue.
I suppose they should get rid of tax free week for shopping, it doesn't increase revenue for businesses.

[Voluntarist]

former res wrote:

Back in 2001, CRS said, the Congressional Budget Office projected gradually rising federal budget surpluses for the next decade. The tax cuts helped alter the outlook "dramatically," and the budget in 2002 recorded a deficit for the first time since 1997.
"The Bush tax cuts, with a $1 trillion 10-year price tag, contributed to this shift from budget surpluses to deficits," CRS said. Other contributors included the 2001 recession, the increase in defense spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Medicare prescription drug benefit.
But the tax cuts "generated the largest 10-year increases in budget deficits," CRS said.
Estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation put the total cost for the tax cuts (including the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004) at more than the amount allocated to the Defense Department for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"This means that even with the spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the federal budget would have been in surplus in 2007 if the tax cuts had not been enacted, or if their costs had been offset," said a 2008 analysis from the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
The CBO last year projected a decrease in deficits if the tax cuts expired, and said extending all of them permanently would cost $3.3 trillion over 10 years and increase deficits.
PolitiFact has previously examined assertions that tax cuts increase revenues by stimulating economic growth. We found that the Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been – even if they spur some economic growth.
"There's no clear relationship between taxes and economic growth," said Bob Williams of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. "Too many factors complicate the picture to draw clear conclusions about the taxes-growth relationship."
Our colleagues at FactCheck.org came to a similar conclusion.
Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office reported in March, "Relative to the size of the economy, federal revenues are currently at their lowest level in 60 years."
"There is no real dispute among economists that broad-based federal income tax cuts reduce revenue (except when tax rates are much higher than they are now)," said Alan D. Viard of the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "Revenue is lower than it would be without the Bush tax cuts -- liberal and conservative economists are in accord on this question."
Debate will go on about the effectiveness of tax cuts in stimulating growth. We won't enter it. But analysis backs up Kucinich in saying that the Bush cuts "helped to create a substantial part of the deficit."
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/201...

True or false , the social security trust fund was tapped to balance the budget?

[Frijoles]

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
Much of that article is about growth, the word "backbone " signifies strength, stability.
.

Kind of the same thing in my mind.

But lets amuse ourselves with your statement and accept the assumption. I would have to agree with Formers former post - I posted the basically the same thing.

Lets protect the middle class and raise taxes on those who can actually afford it.

If the rich could afford to throw their money into ill conceived and ill implemented Super-Pacs, then they can afford to pay a little more in taxes and help us little guys.

[former res]

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
Lowering tax rates is not about trickling down theory, its about increasing government revenue...

Kindly expalin this.

I've posted information today pointing to the Bush tax cuts being the single biggest cause of our current deficit.

What information do you have to back-up your claim?

Simply repeating it does not advance your statement.

Non-Fox viewers (like me) tend to appreciated facts over platitudes.

[former res]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
The most amazing part of this election to me, was the fact that Team Romney actually believed their hubris. I honestly thought they were just trying to spin it.

This Slate piece made the same point I was making.

The professional bean counters failed miserably.

I guess it's like Karl Rove. You believe what you want to.
For example, that climate change is a hoax.
Or that up is down. Scary.

__________

Why Romney Never Saw It Coming

He was the numbers guy. But in the end his numbers were all wrong.

By John Dickerson|Posted Friday, Nov. 9, 2012, at 9:15 PM ET


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politi...

[former res]

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
True or false , the social security trust fund was tapped to balance the budget?

Social Security is the least of our problems.

Are you trying to say W left us in better fiscal shape than Clinton did?

Are you side-stepping the point of the article? Yes, you are.

[Frijoles]

former res wrote:

<quoted text>
This Slate piece made the same point I was making.
The professional bean counters failed miserably.
I guess it's like Karl Rove. You believe what you want to.
For example, that climate change is a hoax.
Or that up is down. Scary.
__________
Why Romney Never Saw It Coming
He was the numbers guy. But in the end his numbers were all wrong.
By John Dickerson|Posted Friday, Nov. 9, 2012, at 9:15 PM ET
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politi...

Well, Romney always said (or implied) that he was going to run the country like a business, and it appears that he made good on that claim.

I think he would of done a better job if he ran his campaign(business) like an excercise in applied science, as the Democrats did, or as Nate Silver observed.

David Axelrod this morning on Cable (forget which program - it was on in the gym) basically :
"We went into election day with a knowledge of a small but comfortable lead thanks to our bright "kids" who had extensively analyzed the data beforehand. By 8:15 pm it was evident that the initial returns were strongly calibrated to our models, and that after that it was just going to be a matter of time until we reached the finish line...."

(tried to find this on link but couldnt yet)

[Frijoles]

former res wrote:

<quoted text>
Social Security is the least of our problems.
.

Most economists also say the debt issue is not a major threat (yet), and that we need to work on / preserve the recovery first.

[Voluntarist]

former res wrote:

<quoted text>
Social Security is the least of our problems.
Are you trying to say W left us in better fiscal shape than Clinton did?
Are you side-stepping the point of the article? Yes, you are.

No, social security was raided during Clinton that is the only reason why the budget was in excess.
Very simple, without harming the economy by tax increases, stop spending.
I got another one for you, stop the fiat inflation by derivatives.

[Voluntarist]

former res wrote:

<quoted text>
I know - that's my point.
You know this and I know this. Most small business would not be affected by a return to the Clinton tax rates at the highest bracket.
It's the GOP who is attempting to shift the tax burden back to the middle class.
Lowering taxes will increase the deficti. See my previous posting from Politifact.
Trickle down is a myth.

I trust more money in the hands of individuals than in the hands of government.