Thank You President Obama!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from AlleyCatBruin. Show AlleyCatBruin's posts

    Thank You President Obama!


     
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BetheKoolaid. Show BetheKoolaid's posts

    Re: Thank You President Obama!

     
    Whoops....why no mention the $700 billion is transferred to ObamaCare?
     
    Maybe because The [Un]Affordable Care Act  is massively unpopular and toxic to voters?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from AlleyCatBruin. Show AlleyCatBruin's posts

    Re: Thank You President Obama!

    In Response to Re: Thank You President Obama!:
      Whoops....why no mention the $700 billion is transferred to ObamaCare?   Maybe because The [Un]Affordable Care Act  is massively unpopular and toxic to voters?
    Posted by BetheKoolaid


    It seems to me that its only "massively unpopular" with the Faux News crowd. I can't imagine a family with no health insurance not liking the Affordable Healthcare Act.  Only Tea Baggers would consider affordable healthcare to be "toxic".
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BetheKoolaid. Show BetheKoolaid's posts

    Re: Thank You President Obama!

    I guess the majority of the American people are the "Faux News crowd" and "Tea Baggers" ...

    Monday, August 13, 2012

    "Most voters still want to see President Obama’s health care law repealed, and a plurality believes repeal would be good for the economy.

    The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% of Likely U.S. Voters favor repeal of the national health care law, while 38% are opposed. This includes 46% who Strongly Favor repeal and 29% who Strongly Oppose it."

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from AlleyCatBruin. Show AlleyCatBruin's posts

    Re: Thank You President Obama!

    In Response to Re: Thank You President Obama!:
    Bambi cuts 700 bil from medicare and its a good thing? My mother and father in laws have never voted republican in their lives (mid 80's).  They are now. Amazing how if a republican cuts that blessed third rail, he wants to kill old people, but if a dem does it, its for "savings". The Saran Wrap dems.  You can see right through them, and they will cling to ANYTHING
    Posted by GreginMeffa


    Bambi cuts 700 bil from medicare and its a good thing?
    ===
    It's a drop in the bucket compared to what Lyin' Ryan wants to do. But you already knew that, right? LOL
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Thank You President Obama!

    In Response to Re: Thank You President Obama!:
    In Response to Re: Thank You President Obama! : Bambi cuts 700 bil from medicare and its a good thing? === It's a drop in the bucket compared to what Lyin' Ryan wants to do. But you already knew that, right? LOL
    Posted by AlleyCatBruin



    Really?  a drop in the bucket?  Do you have trouble with spatial relationships as well?
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimedfred. Show jimedfred's posts

    Re: Thank You President Obama!

    The desire of some that others should financially support them or pay their bills is boundless. One who pays a combined federal & state income + payroll tax of $ 22,000 states that someone else paying a total of $ 114,000 isn't paying their FAIR SHARE .
    Did the second person get to drive on the roads more often, or receive better defense from terrorists ?
    Unless you advocate unpaid forced labor by doctors and nurses , there is a cost to health care which needs payment. I recall no section nor clause in our Constitution giving one citizen the right to another's labor , assets or time.

    Perhaps people should only expect access to goods and services they themselves have earned ?
     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from vtfanofcs. Show vtfanofcs's posts

    Re: Thank You President Obama!

       Medicare is not nearly paid for by payroll taxes and premiums alone.  General Revenue is paying a more and more to cover Medicare . I would be worried if I was a senior about the Romney/Ryan plan to cut revenue.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimedfred. Show jimedfred's posts

    Re: Thank You President Obama!

    In Response to Re: Thank You President Obama!:
       Medicare is not nearly paid for by payroll taxes and premiums alone.  General Revenue is paying a more and more to cover Medicare . I would be worried if I was a senior about the Romney/Ryan plan to cut revenue.
    Posted by vtfanofcs

    What could possibly make you thnk they plan to cut REVENUE ?  My understanding is they plan to cut RATES.
    What is more important, the percentage RATE at which an income category is taxed, or the dollar amount of REVENUE received by the U.S. Treasury ?

    Or have you forgotten the increases in revenue resulting from tax rate cuts by Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton for capital gains, and Bush II ?
    Remember, it was your guy Zero-bama who told TV intervewer he was in favor of raising rates even if revenues went DOWN, in the interests of "fairness".
    Historically Marxists are okay with economic misery as long as it's equally shared. ( Except for the elite nomenklatura , that is. Which may be why Presidents and Congressmen exempted themselves and certain favored groups from Obamacare ?)
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from vtfanofcs. Show vtfanofcs's posts

    Re: Thank You President Obama!

    In Response to Re: Thank You President Obama!:
    In Response to Re: Thank You President Obama! : What could possibly make you thnk they plan to cut REVENUE ?  My understanding is they plan to cut RATES. What is more important, the percentage RATE at which an income category is taxed, or the dollar amount of REVENUE received by the U.S. Treasury ? Or have you forgotten the increases in revenue resulting from tax rate cuts by Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton for capital gains, and Bush II ? Remember, it was your guy Zero-bama who told TV intervewer he was in favor of raising rates even if revenues went DOWN, in the interests of "fairness". Historically Marxists are okay with economic misery as long as it's equally shared. ( Except for the elite nomenklatura , that is. Which may be why Presidents and Congressmen exempted themselves and certain favored groups from Obamacare ?)
    Posted by jimedfred

      You are crazy if you don't think keeping the Bush tax cuts and adding a further 25% cut in income tax rates won't cause revenue loss.
      Trickle down fairy dust economics has already proven to be a failure.  The Republicans turned a surplus into a massive deficit following this practice.    How'd those Bush tax cuts work out.(They are still in effect right now)
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimedfred. Show jimedfred's posts

    Re: Thank You President Obama!

    Deficits come from SPENDING more than one takes in. During Reagan's terms revenues increased but majority Democratic Congresses spent the increase plus even MORE.
    G.W. Bush frittered away revenue on Medicare "D" plan, No Child Left Behind Federal education spendng , and continuing unnecessary wars after primary objectives ( regime destruction ) had been accomplished.

    A growing economy yields increasing revenues while a more efficient and incentive laden tax code will yield more revenue even with reduced rates.
    This program has worked every time it's been tried, starting with Treas. Sec'ty Mellon and running through JFK, Reagan, Clinton, and especially G.W.Bush's cuts.....which saved us from economic catatastrophe which otherwise would have resulted from the combnation of the lingering dot-com crash and 9-11's effects on demand.
    Ideology and naivite' do not excuse failure to recognize factual empirical evidence. Those who will not learn from history will continue voting Democrat...or worse.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from JimfromFlorida. Show JimfromFlorida's posts

    Re: Thank You President Obama!

    700 billion cut and they call it cutting waste and fraud????
     How do we know it was waste and fraud?
    If it is how did they do it so fast after allowing it to go on for  so so many years?

    You do realize that starting Jan 1st every real estate transaction will have a 3.9% tax that goes to Obama care.
    Please explain how real estate transactions tie into Health care????

    You do know that nearly every tax cut has resulted in higher revenues

    The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates

    By Daniel Mitchell, Ph.D.
    August 13, 2003

    There is a distinct pattern throughout American history: When tax rates are reduced, the economy's growth rate improves and living standards increase. Good tax policy has a number of interesting side effects. For instance, history tells us that tax revenues grow and "rich" taxpayers pay more tax when marginal tax rates are slashed. This means lower income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden - a consequence that should lead class-warfare politicians to support lower tax rates.

    Conversely, periods of higher tax rates are associated with sub par economic performance and stagnant tax revenues. In other words, when politicians attempt to "soak the rich," the rest of us take a bath. Examining the three major United States episodes of tax rate reductions can prove useful lessons.

    1) Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue.

    The tax cuts of the 1920s

    Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

    According to then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:

    The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.

    The Kennedy tax cuts

    President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

    According to President John F. Kennedy:

    Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

    The Reagan tax cuts

    Thanks to "bracket creep," the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

    According to then-U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), one of the chief architects of the Reagan tax cuts:

    At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production.

    2) The rich pay more when incentives to hide income are reduced.

    The tax cuts of the 1920s

    The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.

    The Kennedy tax cuts

    Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.

    The Reagan tax cuts

    The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.

    Harmful Spending & Complexity

    Lower tax rates are important, but they are not the only critical issue. Both the level of government spending and where that money goes are very important. And even when looking only at tax policy, tax rates are just one piece of the puzzle. If certain types of income are subject to multiple layers of tax, as occurs in the current system, that problem cannot be solved by low rates. Similarly, a tax system with needless levels of complexity will impose heavy costs on the productive sector of the economy.

    This WebMemo is excerpted from the author's, Daniel J. Mitchell's, Backgrounder, The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates, published July 19, 1996. The original publication, found here, contains footnotes and numerous charts.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimedfred. Show jimedfred's posts

    Re: Thank You President Obama!

    Thank you  Jim From Florida for providing sourced & attributed facts to support my own poorly documented contentions.

    Btw, where in Fla ?  Spent time living in Suwannee R. valley west of Gainesville, then 5 years in Kissimmee / Orlando areas myself. Loved Cocoa Beach, Clearwater Bch.-Treasure Island areas as well as Sanibel. Attended many ST games in Kiss, Haines Cty, Lakeland etc.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from AlleyCatBruin. Show AlleyCatBruin's posts

    Re: Thank You President Obama!

    In Response to Re: Thank You President Obama!:
       Medicare is not nearly paid for by payroll taxes and premiums alone.  General Revenue is paying a more and more to cover Medicare . I would be worried if I was a senior about the Romney/Ryan plan to cut revenue.
    Posted by vtfanofcs


    Oh yes, senior citizens and anyone approaching their 60's should be very worried about the Romney/Ryan plan.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimedfred. Show jimedfred's posts

    Re: Thank You President Obama!

    In Response to Re: Thank You President Obama!:
    In Response to Re: Thank You President Obama! :     Sourced from the Republican parties Heritage Foundation.  I bet Faux News concurs.  Add them together and they have less than zero credibility.
    Posted by vtfanofcs


    You might attempt reading some mainstream economic history , Treasury Department records , Bureau of Economic Statistics data, etc. before passing judgement.
    That is , IF in fact you CAN read ?
    Or comprehend words of more than three sylabylles ?
    I suggest anything by Milton Friedman, Amity Schlaes, Jude Wanniski, or Thomas Sowell for starters.
    Actual credibility derives from facts. Perceived credibility for progressives results from ideological blinders. Which of these displays more relevance in the actual material world ?
     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from vtfanofcs. Show vtfanofcs's posts

    Re: Thank You President Obama!

    In Response to Re: Thank You President Obama!:
    In Response to Re: Thank You President Obama! : You might attempt reading some mainstream economic history , Treasury Department records , Bureau of Economic Statistics data, etc. before passing judgement. That is , IF in fact you CAN read ? Or comprehend words of more than three sylabylles ? I suggest anything by Milton Friedman, Amity Schlaes, Jude Wanniski, or Thomas Sowell for starters. Actual credibility derives from facts. Perceived credibility for progressives results from ideological blinders. Which of these displays more relevance in the actual material world ?
    Posted by jimedfred


      Blah, Blah, Blah, you are a material girl. That's all I heard.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelldog1. Show kelldog1's posts

    Re: Thank You President Obama!



       RYANS STANCE ON MEDICARE AND THE GOPS FAILURE TO WALK BACK HIS RHETORIC, WILL ENSURE AN OBAMA VICTORY IN NOVEMBER  AND MUCH COMEDY DURING THIS POLITICAL SEASON!!!!

       PASS THE POPCORN!!
     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelldog1. Show kelldog1's posts

    Re: Thank You President Obama!

    In Response to Re: Thank You President Obama!:
    In Response to Re: Thank You President Obama! : You could be right. And if you are right we are only closer to financial and economic ruin because Medicare and the rest of the Ponzi Scheme social programs are breaking the bank. What is it  with you moonbats that you can't deal with math? Or don't want to?
    Posted by Newtster

    =======================================================


     THE ANSWER IS GROWTH MY FRIEND....GROWTH.

     HOW DO WE ACHIEVE THIS.....WELL..............

    LOOK AT THE  CURRENT YIELDS ON THE  10 YEAR TREASURY 1.8 % THE 30 YEAR IS AT 2.95%.

    THE HISTORIC RATE OF INFLATION IS AROUND 3.5 %

    SO MY ARGUMENT WOULD BE WE SHOULD BORROW NOW WHILE RATES ARE LOW (ESSENTIALLY BORROWING FOR ZERO). INVEST THAT MONEY INTO INFRASTRUCTURE AND EDUCATION....WHICH IS AN INVESTMENT IN THE FUTURE AND WILL MAKE AMERICA MORE COMPETITIVE AND EFFICIENT.

    IN OTHER WORDS PUT PEOPLE TO WORK!!!!

    ONCE WE HAVE ACHIEVED SOLID ECONOMIC EXPANSION THEN WE SHOULD SEEK TO REDUCE SPENDING.

    THIS LAST POINT IS WHAT THE GOP AND GW BUSH MISSED!

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimedfred. Show jimedfred's posts

    Re: Thank You President Obama!

    In Response to Re: Thank You President Obama!:
    In Response to Re: Thank You President Obama! :   Blah, Blah, Blah, you are a material girl. That's all I heard.
    Posted by vtfanofcs

    Your response just serves to illustrate my original point. Actual verifiable historical facts do not matter to those who allow themselves to be blinded by ideology.

    Progressive Playbook : Confronted by inconvenient facts, challenge the source and then deny the truth.When this fails, attempt to discredit the opponent with ad hominem attacks.When that fails , shout the other side down or otherwise censor their speech rights.
    You progressives are easily predictable and simple to defeat intellectually by any who've studied history. Your tactics may have worked in the Soviet Union, 1930's Germany, the U.S. prior to 1980 , and college campuses and civil rights organizations to this day......but in the arena of political & economic debate you've lost.
    Obama's failure plus his obstinate refusal to adjust or try new approaches exemplifies perfectly the Left's paucity of fresh ideas or even effective old ones.
    All the intellectual , moral, and political momentum has swung back to the RIGHT.
    This hopefully in time to save our great Republic.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share