New CBO numbers: Obamacare will cost the US 2.5 million jobs

Ronnie had been a union boss, he knew how to slap them in line. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Ole Ronnie put a few dollars one pocket and then took a few dollars from the second pocket and they were happier than pigs in shit.

Ole Ronnie put a few dollars one pocket and then took a few dollars from the second pocket and they were happier than pigs in shit.






Originally Posted by WTF

after he posted 10% unemployment for 10 consecutive months, he told them they HAD pockets

I have an assignment for you, dickbrain. List every year capital gains taxes were cut over the past four decades. Then look up the change in federal revenues generated by this tax a year later. Originally Posted by lustylad

Unable to provide a link, are ya?

You are mixing up Federal tax rate with all tax receipts. Originally Posted by WTF

You can't answer the question or admit you are an inconsistent dolt - so now you try to deflect and claim you were really talking about the MIX rather than the overall level of taxes?

What's your point, dipshit? Do you even know or are you just trying to avoid looking like an idiot?

You're on record as saying "taxes were to (sic) high" when Reagan took office. Let's be specific. Which taxes were "to (sic) high" when Reagan started but NOT too high when Bush took office? I already showed you that the overall federal tax burden was virtually the same in 2001 as it was in 1981.

That is what I hate about Reagan...not his policy so much but that he fooled you dumb fucks into believing that lower taxes always bring in higher tax revenue. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the Laffer Curve. Originally Posted by WTF

Let's see... Federal tax revenues in 1980 were $517 bn. Eight years later they were $909 bn. Looks like revenues went up as rates went down, doesn't it? But hey, I would never make the claim that lower tax rates ALWAYS bring in higher revenues. Neither would Art Laffer. So who are these "dumb fucks" you are referring to? Never mind, fagboy. Since you seem to be an expert at understanding the Laffer Curve, why don't you go ahead and explain it to us correctly?

Go ahead, I'm listening...

Ronnie threw the idiots a meatless bone, and while they were busy slobbering all over their feet he stuck 7 tax increases up their ass and they never knew it... they still love him Originally Posted by CJ7

Ole Ronnie put a few dollars one pocket and then took a few dollars from the second pocket and they were happier than pigs in shit.





Originally Posted by WTF

Hahaha... that clever ole Ronnie... a meatless bone, huh?

Question for yinz - are you saying Ronnie snookered everyone into thinking he was reducing their taxes when in reality he ended up raising them, net/net? Care to back that up with some facts and data?

P.S. Be careful CBJ, you already had your ass handed to you before on this.

Unable to provide a link, are ya? Originally Posted by Doove

Now listen dimdoove, don't you butt in here. I gave CBJ an assignment so let HIM do it. This is his big chance to rehabilitate himself. No one wants to look stupid all the time, so he hasn't been chiming in much lately whenever we talk economics. If he can do a good job, we may give him back an ounce of credibility.

How's the assignment coming along, CBJ? Almost done?

You're on record as saying "taxes were to (sic) high" when Reagan took office. Let's be specific. Which taxes were "to (sic) high" when Reagan started but NOT too high when Bush took office? Originally Posted by lustylad

I think it was up to 39% when Clinton left office.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news...axes/index.htm
As a result of the 1981 and 1986 bills, the top income tax rate was slashed from 70% to 28%.

Let's see... Federal tax revenues in 1980 were $517 bn. Eight years later they were $909 bn. Looks like revenues went up as rates went down, doesn't it? But hey, I would never make the claim that lower tax rates ALWAYS bring in higher revenues. Neither would Art Laffer. So who are these "dumb fucks" you are referring to?
... Originally Posted by lustylad

Tea Turkeys that's who.


The Laffer Curve in a nutshell. 100% tax rate will result in zero tax revenue and a 0% tax rate will result in zero tax revenue. The Clinton rates seemed to be at a sweet spot. But as you know (if you understand the Laffer Curve) that number is elastic.

I think it was up to 39% when Clinton left office.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news...axes/index.htm


The Clinton rates seemed to be at a sweet spot. But as you know (if you understand the Laffer Curve) that number is elastic. Originally Posted by WTF

Then how come the economy tanked in the Spring of 2000? BEFORE Bush was elected.

LexusLover, I have a question for you. When your tax dollar and my tax dollar goes to help senior citizens (people over age 65) pay for medications that can't afford on their own (Bush - Medicare Part D prescription drug plan) is this Socialism? The estimated cost by the CBO is 800 billion. Do you support this legislation? If you do does that make you a socialist? Does it make Bush a socialist? Bush signed the bill into law. Originally Posted by flghtr65

#1: Over the years ... long years those same "senior citizens" paid taxes and contributed to a fund, plus they pay for the medicare on a monthly basis .. just like you do for health insurance ... are you a socialist because you get health insurance and get meds YOU COULDN'T PAY FOR OTHERWISE .....

#2: The concept of providing meds is to reduce high cost procedures by hopefully "curing" problems before they need surgery for instance ... or lengthy hospitalization. Some would call it "preventive medicine" .... which is why so often diabetics get "breaks' on their medications so that the high sugar levels don't destroy other organs that may have to be replaced by equipment.

But "we" weren't talking about Medicare were we? (You were and I don't know why!)

Medicare is not an "entitlement" ... neither is social security. They were paid for over the years.

Now, if you want to talk about Medicaid and "Disability" payments ... we can talk.

The people who don't "qualify" for private insurance under ACA ... ARE NOT ...

.. being signed up for MEDICARE .... so your example is .... shall we say .... LAME?

Then how come the economy tanked in the Spring of 2000? BEFORE Bush was elected. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Do you understand what the word
elastic means? BTW here is the answer to your question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession

As the Dot Com bubble occurred in the mid and late 1990s, assorted predictions that eventually the bubble would burst emerged frequently. Because of the October 27, 1997 mini-crash in the wake of the Asian crisis, the predictions about a future burst increased, causing an uncertain climate on economy during the first months of 1998, while the Federal Reserve raised interest rates six times between June 1999 and May 2000 in an effort to cool the economy to a soft landing. The actual burst of the stock market bubble occurred in the form of the NASDAQ crash in March 2000. Growth in gross domestic product slowed considerably in the third quarter of 2000 to the lowest rate since a contraction in the first quarter of 1991.[3]

#1:

Medicare is not an "entitlement" ... neither is social security. They were paid for over the years.
Originally Posted by LexusLover

But we have not paid in as much as we are taking out...that seems to be an ''entitlement".

There is no difference between someone taking out 40k of a program they put nothing into and a perso taking out 40k more than they put into the program. It is still a net loss of 40k per person. Yt you defend those that put in and take out more....yet slam those that can not afford to put anything in.

Legislation
Billions of Dollars

Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act

Highway Revenue Act of 1982
Social Security Amendments of 1983
Railroad Retirement Revenue Act of 1983
Deficit Reduction Act of 1984
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
Continuing Resolution for 1987
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
Continuing Resolution for 1988
Total cumulative tax increase

Do you understand what the word
elastic means? BTW here is the answer to your question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession

Growth in gross domestic product slowed considerably in the third quarter of 2000 to the lowest rate since a contraction in the first quarter of 1991.[3] Originally Posted by WTF

Are you stuck on Wiki as your source for life?

I know when the "dot com bubble" burst .. .... fabrication on the "soft landing" part.

In the ramp up to the 2000 election the administration DENIED any economic problems, touted the "surplus," and cooked the books at the BLS. It even continued after the election while the "count" and litigation was in progress. Clinton was livid about Cheney going on national TV and talking about an economic recession that had to be their #1 priority when they FINALLY took office. ....

"Raising interest rates to "cool" the economny" ..... the economy began the downturn in the Spring of 2000 .... the policies of the administration screwed the economy ... you said it.

So the recession Clinton-Gore DENIED was created by them to "cool" things off?

Here's the operative word for current events .. and future events .... CLINTON.

But we have not paid in as much as we are taking out...that seems to be an ''entitlement". Originally Posted by WTF

#1: Monthly income of mine goes into a "savings account" .. if and when I withdraw there will be more money in the account ... is that an "entitlement" (other than I am ENTITLED to the friggin $$ I EARNED)?

#2: I pay (and have for a long time) monthly health insurance premiums to a PRIVATE company. If I am diagnosed with cancer my MDA charges will exceed my premiums for the past 10 years by 10x's. Is that an "entitlement" ... (other than I am ENTITLED to the benefit of my friggin premiums I have been paying all these years)?

An "entitlement program" by common definition which has created enormous problems in our economic picture are the ones in which the person is "entitled" to benefits without paying a dime for them .... . Medicaid ... for instance. My FICA rates went up last year. Did yours? If that increase goes to supplement the program for which it is designed, then I don't have a problem. I don't want Congress (or the President) to take money for Social Security and Medicare and "borrow" it for some other political "cause" ... like Medicaid and Disability to someone who has engaged in a lifestyle (and continues to do so) that CREATES their inability to work and obtain insurance through their employment. There are 4th and 5th generation families living off the government tit and "playing" the system .. not contributing a dime back into the system. This fool in the WH is buying votes by handing out tax dollars.

Like Obaminable, you apparently want to forget about all those who have actually contributed financially to the system, and who should get back their investment, and hand the money over to people who haven't paid shit relatively speaking ..... you want to kill off the old people who have been paying into the system so they won't be a drain on the system to make it "better" for the young people coming along ................. then you gonna kill them off after they begin to be a drain on a system they did not support?

A problem you have, WTF, is modifying the meaning of words to fit your "argument"!

Doesn't work .. except on bimbos. It's like you changing the topic to fit your conclusions.

Here's the operative word for current events .. and future events .... CLINTON. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Why just an "operative word?"

Let's try the following "operative" phrase on for size!

In past ......and future elections.......the CLINTON's always trim the Shrub's.