***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[gwap]

you can tell who really reads into the actual issues....

insults like "those liberals... lefties.. etc" show how brainwashed blc02 and that other guy are...

the republican party is dead... true conservatives need to form a new party and drop the dead ideologies that were built in their name.

 

[gry60]

you can tell who really reads into the actual issues....

insults like "those liberals... lefties.. etc" show how brainwashed blc02 and that other guy are...

the republican party is dead... true conservatives need to form a new party and drop the dead ideologies that were built in their name.

This.

Not only are they ignorant and proud of it, they usually are the first to use personal attacks when they get proven wrong.

 

[blco02]

you can tell who really reads into the actual issues....

insults like "those liberals... lefties.. etc" show how brainwashed blc02 and that other guy are...

the republican party is dead... true conservatives need to form a new party and drop the dead ideologies that were built in their name.

I'm not a republican. How many times on here have I stated that I'm a conservative? Atleast 5-6.

But to say the GOP is dead shows how misinformed you really are. They hold the house, the senate, majority of governerrships, state legislatures, etc. Obama has been a disaster for elected Dems across the country. The gop is in the best position in terms of elected candidates nationwide since the 20's.

"There were 60 Democrats in the Senate if you count the two independents who caucused with the party and 257 House members. Today, there are 46 members of the Senate Democratic caucus and 188 Democrats in the House.
It’s even worse at the state level.

Republicans now hold 31 governorships, nine more than they held when Obama was inaugurated, and a lot of these are in purple and deep blue states.

In 2009, Democrats were in full control of 27 state legislatures, while Republicans held full power in 14.
Today, Republicans hold full control of 30 state legislatures and Democrats hold full power in just 11. In 24 states, Republicans control the governorship and both houses of the legislature.

“It’s almost a crime,” Democratic Party Vice Chair Donna Brazile told Politico. “We have been absolutely decimated at the state and local level.”

http://redalertpolitics.com/2015/08/24/obama-will-leave-democratic-party-worst-shape-since-1920s/

 

[cl-1b]

This.

Not only are they ignorant and proud of it, they usually are the first to use personal attacks when they get proven wrong.

You clearly didn't know who tax worked. I screamed "marginal" a ton of times, before I had to break now the numbers for you.

And you're the one deflecting now, with this Medicare thing. Go check the last page, I already stated the Medicare tax is 1.45%

Plus your 43% number is still no where to be found

-You were wrong, I clearly proved it, now you want to dip and dive around that fact.

I correctly stated how marginal taxation worked, and I correctly stated the payroll taxes. So unless you can refute anything I said on those matters, I don't think we have anything left to talk about

If your self employed you pay both, no?! What are you talking about? you asked where the rate was and i brought that to you. 39.6+2.9=42.5, excuse me for rounding up. 

 

[rexanglorum]

Supple side policies can work under certain circumstances. Your top marginal tax rate is very high, capital is heavily taxed, business taxes are high and unemployment is low and wages have been increasing for a long time and yet GDP is flat and inflation is creeping up because the economy is innervated and there are too many dollars chasing too few goods. Give me that situation, I would say that taxes on investment and production should be lowered and the Central Bank should probably rise interest rates.

As of right now, the US Economy is facing exactly the opposite situation. This country is very friendly for capital and yet labor is struggling. We need wages to increase, we need much more demand. We need to use public spending and pursue a demand side policy.

Paul Krugman said that the standard economic trade off between equality and growth has been inverted. Inequality is so great right now that as we address inequality, we would also increase growth and reduce unemployment. I agree.

 

[RustyShackleford]

This.


Not only are they ignorant and proud of it, they usually are the first to use personal attacks when they get proven wrong.

You clearly didn't know who tax worked. I screamed "marginal" a ton of times, before I had to break now the numbers for you.


And you're the one deflecting now, with this Medicare thing. Go check the last page, I already stated the Medicare tax is 1.45%


Plus your 43% number is still no where to be found


-You were wrong, I clearly proved it, now you want to dip and dive around that fact.


I correctly stated how marginal taxation worked, and I correctly stated the payroll taxes. So unless you can refute anything I said on those matters, I don't think we have anything left to talk about

If your self employed you pay both, no?! What are you talking about? you asked where the rate was and i brought that to you. 39.6+2.9=42.5, excuse me for rounding up. 

Once again, you can't add a marginal tax rate and a flat tax rate.

I already showed with the math that 39.6 is not your total tax burden on the income side of things.

 

[cl-1b]

Once again, you can't add a marginal tax rate and a flat tax rate.

I already showed with the math that 39.6 is not you total tax burden on the income side of things.

So just stop famb. You're only digging the hole deeper

i understand what you are trying to say. but the rate is still 39.6% at the top. you can't continue to argue that it doesn't exist 

 

[cl-1b]

who do you think puts a slight dent in the debt of this country? people that are taxed on 15k worth of earnings or people that make millions? 

 

[RustyShackleford]

Once again, you can't add a marginal tax rate and a flat tax rate.


I already showed with the math that 39.6 is not you total tax burden on the income side of things.


So just stop famb. You're only digging the hole deeper

i understand what you are trying to say. but the rate is still 39.6% at the top. you can't continue to argue that it doesn't exist 

I have never once argued that.

I have argued you interpretation of that numbers mean is wrong.

Which is clearly was. You were confidently mocking me when you thought you were right.

You could concede that maybe you weren't explaining yourself the best, but to argue that I'm in some way wrong about anything I have said on the matter is just not true.

 

[RustyShackleford]

who do you think puts a slight dent in the debt of this country? people that are taxed on 15k worth of earnings or people that make millions? 

-Giving tax cuts to the top earners is what made our debt explode in the first place. Go look up what Bush's tax cuts did.

-No one is putting a dent in anything right now.

-And by your logic, shot earners should be taxed more. Because taxing them will generate more revenue, allowing us to put the greatest "dent" in the debt.

 

[blco02]

Allowing people to keep more of their own money is not the problem. Tax revenue to the government went UP during the bush years, not down. It was reckless spending like the prescription drug act and Medicare part D under bush that was the problem. And yes, the wars contributed.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Allowing people to keep more of their own money is not the problem. Tax revenue to the government went UP during the bush years, not down. It was reckless spending like the prescription drug act and Medicare part D under bush that was the problem. And yes, the wars.

Not so fast tio.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/sessions-wrong-on-bush-tax-cuts/

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...rategist-christie-tax-revenues-rose-after-bu/

Economist William Gale at the Tax Policy Center said for those reasons, 2000 could be a fair benchmark, untouched by both recession and tax cuts.

Doing so presents a very different picture. In short, federal revenues were below 2000 levels (after adjusting for inflation) until 2006. They outpaced fiscal year 2000 collections for a bit, then fell again in 2008. The same pattern roughly holds if you use 2001 as the starting point.

What’s that all mean? When you adjust for inflation, the 47 percent revenue growth from 2003 to 2007 becomes 28 percent. And if you start the clock in 2001, revenue growth drops to 4 percent. By 2009, of course, the numbers look even worse.

Here’s another way to look at it, using data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Over Bush’s two full terms, federal revenues dropped 13 percent.

Accounting for economic growth

Not adjusting for inflation and cherry-picking the time period are two problems in Christie’s calculation. So is not factoring in a rising population (more people, means more taxpayers, more goods and services sold, etc.).

Economists such as Gale say a better way to put federal revenues into context is by comparing them to the Gross Domestic Product.

Through that lens, federal revenues as a share of the economy fell and never reached their 2001 level through Bush’s two terms.

Our ruling

Christie said that government revenues increased after the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Christie is cherry-picking his start and end dates and making flawed calculations to support his point.

Data shows, and experts agree, that a complete picture of the Bush tax cuts shows that revenues initially went down, then up, then down again. Measured against the size of the economy, federal revenues at the end of Bush’s term were smaller than when he took office.

Christie’s statement has some superficial accuracy but a more complete picture shows that he has omitted many details that would lead to a different conclusion. We rate this claim Mostly False

When you adjust for inflation and growth, actually they didn't. You regurgitating a talking point, and not including important details

Bush's tax cuts decreased revenues from that they would have been if they left them alone.

He pissed away our opportunity to pay off our entire national debt, for pretty much nothing.

 

[blco02]

RustyShackleford you HAVE to stop believing Politifact. It's well known that they lean left.

"The second, and more critical conclusion from Table 1 is that the next four years of the Bush Presidency after the 2003 reduction in tax rates saw a 44% increase in Federal tax revenues from $1.782 trillion to $2.568 trillion. That’s correct – a 44% increase in revenues after the so-called “tax break for the wealthy.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway...s-by-wealthy-actually-increased/#35033b115570

 

[RustyShackleford]

RustyShackleford you HAVE to stop believing Politifact. It's well known that they lean left.

"The second, and more critical conclusion from Table 1 is that the next four years of the Bush Presidency after the 2003 reduction in tax rates saw a 44% increase in Federal tax revenues from $1.782 trillion to $2.568 trillion. That’s correct – a 44% increase in revenues after the so-called “tax break for the wealthy.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway...s-by-wealthy-actually-increased/#35033b115570

Dude you post right wing sources all the time. Hell you posted a Washington Times article in here already

At least I post reputable sources.

Plus, they cited sources for their claims. You can read those sources too. Unless you think the CBO and Brookings are bias too?

So it is a cop out from you to just dismiss them. I mean the main claim your article is making is being refuted.

You can't just look at the end points, see one number is higher, then claim that proves Bush's tax cuts increased revenue.

 

[blco02]

So Washington times and Forbes is not reputable but Politifact is?

 

[RustyShackleford]

So Washington times and Forbes is not reputable but Politifact is?

-It is definitely more than the Times. Brah the Times is a joke. I lived in Washington DC, not one takes that seriously compared to the Post.

Is a known bias right wing mag just like the NY Post.

-And Forbes is hit or misses. They have a ton of clearly bias right wing contributors. Hell the article you posted doesn't even provide sources to his claims

But you're welcome to refute anything in the Politifact article.

Plus the first article shows tax revenue went down, before they ticked back up again

-Your problem seems to be a bad understanding of economics also

 

[blco02]

The Washington Post is known as the Washington Compost it's so bad.

 

[RustyShackleford]

The Washington Post is known as the Washington Compost it's so bad.

Brah their are a ton of DMV residents on the board. Start a thread with a poll, guarantee hardly anyone would put the Times over the Post

The Post is a nationally respected paper. The Times is one level above tabloid

You just hating hearing opinion you don't agree with.

 

[blco02]

Brah their are a ton of DMV residents on the board. Start a thread with a poll, guarantee hardly anyone would put the Times over the Post

The Post is a nationally respected paper. The Times is one level above tabloid

You just hating hearing opinion you don't agree with.

No that's you. We've gone over this before how I read and watch more diverse opinions than you.

But enough bickering. Back to election talk.

Check this out. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...347b48-d327-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html

 

[RustyShackleford]

SMH. You watch CNN and Fox News

I read a ton of newspapers.

You like to bicker to deflect from the fact you couldn't disprove the Politifact article

Now you want to claim some shallow victory and says let's get back on topic

You haven't been able to form one cogent argument this entire time brag.

But whatever,

 

[blco02]

You know nothing about me. I watch all the stations, much more than those two. And read all the papers you do. And more. Plus I read tons of sites that aren't DNC and government approved.

Disprove my Forbes article playa

 

[cl-1b]

-Giving tax cuts to the top earners is what made our debt explode in the first place. Go look up what Bush's tax cuts did.

-No one is putting a dent in anything right now.

-And by your logic, shot earners should be taxed more. Because taxing them will generate more revenue, allowing us to put the greatest "dent" in the debt.

- first off your throwing around Bush like he's the only president that cut taxes. spending as much as bush did at the time because of war is more of a tax deferral situation. In hindsight you can obviously understand the TRUE cost of things at that time.

-This is my point. There has been almost 8 years of nonsense policies being put in place by a leftist with an agenda because of this obama care garbage with 20,000 pages of over-regulation that absolutely no one has read completely that has destroyed the medical field and breached personal bank accounts and privacy.. read if you don't believe me (government can have real time access to personal bank accounts and transfer funds from the accounts pages 58/59, tax is not tax page 203 line 14/15, cancer treatment will be RATIONED according to patients age page 272 sec. 1145, prohibition on hospital expansion pages 317/321, government decides which doctors can write end of life orders page 429 lines 13-25, and mentioned in there somewhere states that this bill doesn't apply members of congress, just to name a few). Im sure your familiar with it, i could go on and on about it. Don't get it twisted tho, I'm with providing our citizens health care, but at what expense?

And what else, almost 10 more trillion in debt added to the situation because of the HUGE spending measures and added poverty. Welfare is another huge problem stemming off of this, there are more welfare recipients then full time workers in this country. The average american without a college degree and even some with, have a very difficult time finding full time work in the greatest country on earth. 

-by my logic, you never heard me say what my logic is, so maybe wait for that to comment?

 

[RustyShackleford]

You know nothing about me. I watch all the stations, much more than those two. And read all the papers you do. And more.

Disprove my Forbes article playa

You sound like Lil kid arguing that they can beat me up.

I would love to hear the paper and magazines you read BTW. Srs. Since you apparently read all the ones I read, and more.

-My updated reading this is as follows

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

-Read the Economist, the Atlantic, Foreign Policy and Foreign Affairs cover to cover

-I skim through the New Yorker and New York magazine for articles as well (online too)

-I will read selected articles on topics from The Jacobin, The Nation, Mother Jones, Liberty Magazine and Reason.

-News papers I read NYT and Washington Post top articles

-Then I read top articles on Bloomberg and whatever on CQ Researcher that peaks my interest

-I read a lot of econ blogs. Krugman, Mankiaw, Econbrowser, Econ, Brookings, 538, FEE, NBER, and Econlib

-I don't watch pundits Fox, CNN (except for some of the investigative journalism stories) or MSNBC. That stuff is mostly noise

-I watch PBS (for Frontline), 60 minutes, Vice and Jon Oliver

So a lot my news sources are conservative/libertarian.

-------

Regarding the article, is making the claim I told you were faulty

First you have to adjust numbers for inflation.

Second I'm saying that tax revenue grew in spite of Bush's cuts, not because of it

When a Democrat goes on TV and talk about how Bill Clinton's policies were so good, that we ended up with a surplus, what is the top conservative argument against that?

That he was president during a time a great economic growth, and that anyone would have done well in that position. It was the economy booming not Clinton's policies

Well I'm arguing something similar. Tax Revenue was smaller relatively to GDP, so that is was economic growth and a widening of the tax base that caused the nominal increase in tax revenue.

But when you adjust for inflation, and look at it relative to overall growth, and consider revenue went down at first, then Bush tax policy looks ******.

And things would have been way better if he keep Clinton's tax policies

Now refute the Politifact article

 

[gwap]

 

just wanted to fact check your statements and this is the first issue i looked up..

 
We’re not sure how this particular claim came about, but it’s not the first time we’ve heard of problems the Affordable Care Act supposedly creates for those over the age of 75.

In 2012, we wrote about a bogus claim  that under the health care law “no one over 75 will be given major medical procedures unless approved by locally administered Ethics Panels.”

And the same email claiming that primary care physicians must admit patients to hospitals in order for Medicare to cover costs also says that, because of the ACA, “at age 76 when you most need it most, you are not eligible for cancer treatment.” That’s also not true.

That inaccurate claim was based on a misreading of H.R. 3200, an old House health care bill from 2009 that did not become law. David Kithil, a former judge in Burnet County, Texas, made the claim that cancer hospitals “will ration care according to the patient’s age” in a letter he had published in the River Cities Daily Tribune. He cited page 272 of the bill to support his claim about rationed cancer treatment

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/03/a-false-claim-of-a-medicare-change/

you've got to actually read the source material before you post claims in a thread.....

this is not a knock against the "right" or "conservatives"... i just wish you would actually read up on the issues you speak about 

instead of reposting misinformation just because it confirms your political opinion

at least CHECK THE ACCURACY OF WHAT YOU POST 

 

[mister friendly]

Isn't corporate welfare spending is larger than social welfare spending?