PDA

View Full Version : Elections The biggest TAX INCREASE in American History... Barack Obama


recxjake
07-24-2008, 06:27 PM
1

irishjayhawk
07-24-2008, 06:28 PM
Opposed to CUT in taxes and a HEAVY INCREASE on spending. Hmmm.

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 06:31 PM
--FIRST!!!

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center just revised their tax reports (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411741_updated_candidates.pdf) (pdf) and mentioned that McCain's tax proposals would have a net cost of $7 trillion over the next ten years, whereas Obama's tax proposals would have a net cost of $2.7 trillion over the next ten years.

DONE!!!

What's the record time for disproving a recxjake thread!? DID I BREAK IT!?

irishjayhawk
07-24-2008, 06:32 PM
I'm glad you took the time to watch it...

It's a 9 minute video... and probably the best, true information on tax policy I have ever watched.

Just because I haven't watched it doesn't mean I can't offer commentary based on your title.

irishjayhawk
07-24-2008, 06:37 PM
ROFL

Jake hates Obama. Jake is conservative. Jake likes Bush Tax Cuts. Jake makes topic calling Obama the biggest TAX INCREASE (emphasis Jake's). Thus, Jake implies that a tax increase is something he disagrees with and that others should be scared of.

I can't make the statement based on that pretty logical train of thoughts.

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 06:40 PM
I propose we start a new DC ritual.

Every time Jake starts a thread, it's a sprint to see who can disprove the premise of his thread first. Over time we can see who can set the record for fastest debunking.

The debunking HAS TO meet most folks' standards, though. Jake sympathetics not included.

Who's in?

Adept Havelock
07-24-2008, 06:45 PM
--FIRST!!!

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center just revised their tax reports (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411741_updated_candidates.pdf) (pdf) and mentioned that McCain's tax proposals would have a net cost of $7 trillion over the next ten years, whereas Obama's tax proposals would have a net cost of $2.7 trillion over the next ten years.

DONE!!!

What's the record time for disproving a recxjake thread!? DID I BREAK IT!?

I propose we start a new DC ritual.

Every time Jake starts a thread, it's a sprint to see who can disprove the premise of his thread first. Over time we can see who can set the record for fastest debunking.

The debunking HAS TO meet most folks' standards, though. Jake sympathetics not included.

Who's in?

Sorry, but there's really no prize for fishing with depth charges. :p

I see he's back to cut and paste again, after a couple of efforts at formulating his own ideas ended badly.

Probably for the best.

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 06:46 PM
Sorry, but there's really no prize for fishing with depth charges. :p
Well ****.

Adept Havelock
07-24-2008, 06:48 PM
Well ****.

LMAO

Aside from the fish, that is. :shrug:

Fish all you want, but it looks too scrawny and pathetic to fillet and fry to me.

beer bacon
07-24-2008, 07:12 PM
I don't make anything near $250,000/year, so I will actually be paying less in taxes.

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 07:18 PM
McCain's going to raise taxes anyway.

So what exactly are you complaining about?

Messier
07-24-2008, 07:18 PM
I find it rather funny that you two joke about such a disturbing topic.... YOU will PAY MORE in TAXES! I can't figure out why people would want to vote themselves higher taxes...


I think it's funny that you are so disturbed by higher taxes. As if that's the worst thing you can imagine.

I'll say this, I don't care what McCain says, both candidates will raise taxes.

SBK
07-24-2008, 07:19 PM
I don't make anything near $250,000/year, so I will actually be paying less in taxes.

F my boss, F my company, who needs jobs!!!:cuss:

HolmeZz
07-24-2008, 07:19 PM
Do you own stock? Because if you do... like the other 100 million Americans... You will be paying more in taxes... ie... Capital Gains

I don't know why you continue pedalling this falsehood. Obama said the capital gains increase will be directed towards high-end investors. Not your small investors.

beer bacon
07-24-2008, 07:27 PM
The best way to help our economy is to gradually destroy the middle class, while the rich become the ultra rich, and the lower class grows. Wait, that is the best way to make us into a third world country.

Frankie
07-24-2008, 07:44 PM
The biggest TAX INCREASE in American History... Barack Obama

As you have resumed your role as the Planet's RWNJ water carrier and soundbite conduit, let me point out something here. Your man has replaced a substantial surplus he inherited with one of the worst deficits in American history. We owe China and other countries a shameful amount of debt. And during his regime (yes I said regime) oil companies and other chosen companies have had record profits. How exactly are we to pay for all this? Even if he is raising taxes (which if you examine the structure of the proposed tax program should not effect you and I much) it is time everyone joined in the payoff. When the flood hits, the community goes sandbagging without complaining that their labor has increased. What's the difference here?

HolmeZz
07-24-2008, 07:46 PM
ROFL

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WpSDBu35K-8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WpSDBu35K-8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

OBAMA: So the general principle of raising taxes on higher-income Americans like myself, and providing relief to those who haven't benefited as much from this new global economy, I think, is a sound one. And keep in mind on all of these proposals, what I have said is, let's make sure that we define the well-off so that we're not hitting the middle class. I generally define well-off as people who are making $250,000 a year or more, and that means, for example, if we raise the capital gains tax, I would exempt people who are essentially small investors, and really capture the -- those who have done very, very well over the last two decades.

Messier
07-24-2008, 07:59 PM
Lower Taxes = MORE REVENUE...


Proponents of tax cuts often claim that “dynamic scoring” — that is, considering tax cuts’ economic effects when calculating their costs — would substantially lower the estimated cost of tax reductions, or even shrink it to zero. The argument is that tax cuts dramatically boost economic growth, which in turn boosts revenues by enough to offset the revenue loss from the tax cuts.

But when Treasury Department staff simulated the economic effects of extending the President’s tax cuts, they found that, at best, the tax cuts would have modest positive effects on the economy; these economic gains would pay for at most 10 percent of the tax cuts’ total cost. Under other assumptions, Treasury found that the tax cuts could slightly decrease long-run economic growth, in which case they would cost modestly more than otherwise expected. (http://www.cbpp.org/7-27-06tax.htm)

The claim that tax cuts pay for themselves also is contradicted by the historical record. In 1981, Congress substantially lowered marginal income-tax rates on the well off, while in 1990 and 1993, Congress raised marginal rates on the well off. The economy grew at virtually the same rate in the 1990s as in the 1980s (adjusted for inflation and population growth), but revenues grew about twice as fast in the 1990s, when tax rates were increased, as in the 1980s, when tax rates were cut. Similarly, since the 2001 tax cuts, the economy has grown at about the same pace as during the equivalent period of the 1990s business cycle, but revenues have grown far more slowly. (http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm)

Some argue that, even if most tax cuts do not pay for themselves, capital gains tax cuts do. But, in reality, capital gains tax cuts cost money as well. After reviewing numerous studies of how investors respond to capital gains tax cuts, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that “the best estimates of taxpayers’ response to changes in the capital gains rate do not suggest a large revenue increase from additional realizations of capital gains — and certainly not an increase large enough to offset the losses from a lower rate.” That’s why CBO, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the White House Office of Management and Budget all project that making the 2003 capital gains tax cut permanent would cost about $100 billion over the next ten years.


www.cbpp.org/press-myths.htm

tiptap
07-24-2008, 08:19 PM
I find it rather funny that you two joke about such a disturbing topic.... YOU will PAY MORE in TAXES! I can't figure out why people would want to vote themselves higher taxes...

I feel responsibility for paying the deficit that the Republicans left us. I voted for Clinton knowing I would be paying higher taxes.

I have noted the studies before. Both, those that see their taxes going to worthy causes and those that give to charities, derive a similar satisfaction in seeing good done by their money. The difference is that the taxation method, once the needs have been determined, see a more fair distribution of payment and more adequately addresses the real cost of the need.

So that is why liberals will tolerate the higher taxes. We will do everything legal to minimize those obligations. But we aren't afraid to pay for what we want. (And just so you understand a great deal of that is for the War the Republicans wanted.)

VAChief
07-24-2008, 08:23 PM
Lower Taxes = MORE REVENUE...

How is that strategy working for GM?

2bikemike
07-24-2008, 09:15 PM
I feel responsibility for paying the deficit that the Republicans left us. I voted for Clinton knowing I would be paying higher taxes.

I have noted the studies before. Both, those that see their taxes going to worthy causes and those that give to charities, derive a similar satisfaction in seeing good done by their money. The difference is that the taxation method, once the needs have been determined, see a more fair distribution of payment and more adequately addresses the real cost of the need.

So that is why liberals will tolerate the higher taxes. We will do everything legal to minimize those obligations. But we aren't afraid to pay for what we want. (And just so you understand a great deal of that is for the War the Republicans wanted.)

Its pretty nieve to think that any more taxes will eliminate the deficit. Those bastards in Washington will spend every penny they get their hands on and then some.

SBK
07-24-2008, 09:19 PM
How is that strategy working for GM?

GM doesn't get paid the same way the government does.

Taxes reduced, economy grows, larger tax base, more revenue for government.

Taxes raise, economy shrinks, smaller tax base, less revenue.

History plays this out.....Besides, the answer to our budget problems isn't revenue, it's spending. Lower spending is the only way to fix it.

2bikemike
07-24-2008, 09:23 PM
I don't know why you continue pedalling this falsehood. Obama said the capital gains increase will be directed towards high-end investors. Not your small investors.

I would like to know what his proposal his on Cap Gains what is the dollar amount that will be affected.? Is it if you sell more than X dollars worth of stock?

Also I am confused on his stance on Social Security. Doesn't he want to raise the cap from 102k to 250K?

SBK
07-24-2008, 09:25 PM
So Barack wins the election, inacts his capital gains tax only on "big time" investors.

What do the big funds do? Do they sit on their gains and return lower numbers to their investors because of a new law, or do they sell before the law is inacted? And if the big boys are all selling which way is the market going?

tiptap
07-24-2008, 09:26 PM
Its pretty nieve to think that any more taxes will eliminate the deficit. Those bastards in Washington will spend every penny they get their hands on and then some.

Except the deficit spending did end under Clinton. And so I expect the Democrats again will do what is necessary to right the ship. After all the combined deficits of the two Bushes and Reagan exceed all other Presidents COMBINED. I have NO confidence that Republicans think of government as anything more than their own charge account they get to spend when they are in power so that they don't have to pay for their personal wants.

Pitt Gorilla
07-24-2008, 09:36 PM
GM doesn't get paid the same way the government does.

Taxes reduced, economy grows, larger tax base, more revenue for government.

Taxes raise, economy shrinks, smaller tax base, less revenue.

History plays this out.....Besides, the answer to our budget problems isn't revenue, it's spending. Lower spending is the only way to fix it.Awesome. Reduce taxes to zero and then, by your logic, we'll have infinite revenue!!1

whatsmynameagain
07-24-2008, 09:44 PM
The top 5% wealthiest americans pay 50% of all taxes. How many people are these tax hikes really going to hurt?

2bikemike
07-24-2008, 09:48 PM
Except the deficit spending did end under Clinton. And so I expect the Democrats again will do what is necessary to right the ship. After all the combined deficits of the two Bushes and Reagan exceed all other Presidents COMBINED. I have NO confidence that Republicans think of government as anything more than their own charge account they get to spend when they are in power so that they don't have to pay for their personal wants.

I think Clinton lucked into a remarkable economy that was on fire. More Millionaires were created in that span of time. Of course we all know it came to a screeching halt as he was leaving office. I don't think we will see anything like that happen in a long long time if ever. The terrorist attack of 2001 did nothing to help matters along. It would have been interesting to see what Bush's tax cuts would have accomplished had 9/11 not happened along with the War on Terror.

That all being said. I would much rather the Govt. cut their spending than to take in more money. I don't want to pay anymore into Social Security. A defunct system that will probably not be there for me. It is time we ween ourselves off of that system and move in another direction.

BTW I max out my Social Security contributions every year around Oct. Nov. I am far from rich. I do buy and sell stocks in an effort to better my financial status for retirement and frequently get slammed by Capital Gains.

SBK
07-24-2008, 09:58 PM
Awesome. Reduce taxes to zero and then, by your logic, we'll have infinite revenue!!1

It's easier to bury your head in the sand and dream of taxing other people than it is to see how things actually work when applied isn't it?

VAChief
07-25-2008, 05:20 AM
I think Clinton lucked into a remarkable economy that was on fire. More Millionaires were created in that span of time. Of course we all know it came to a screeching halt as he was leaving office. I don't think we will see anything like that happen in a long long time if ever. The terrorist attack of 2001 did nothing to help matters along. It would have been interesting to see what Bush's tax cuts would have accomplished had 9/11 not happened along with the War on Terror.

That all being said. I would much rather the Govt. cut their spending than to take in more money. I don't want to pay anymore into Social Security. A defunct system that will probably not be there for me. It is time we ween ourselves off of that system and move in another direction.

BTW I max out my Social Security contributions every year around Oct. Nov. I am far from rich. I do buy and sell stocks in an effort to better my financial status for retirement and frequently get slammed by Capital Gains.

So the 90's happened by chance, and everything after 9/11 regarding the economy was unavoidable? I would acknowledge that to a degree. But it is little like a baseball hitter who never gets a hit saying, "there just not falling in for me." At first it is okay, but if it continues for 8 weeks you do something different or find someone else who can get it done.

2bikemike
07-25-2008, 07:23 AM
So the 90's happened by chance, and everything after 9/11 regarding the economy was unavoidable? I would acknowledge that to a degree. But it is little like a baseball hitter who never gets a hit saying, "there just not falling in for me." At first it is okay, but if it continues for 8 weeks you do something different or find someone else who can get it done.

No I think Clinton just happened to be in office during an incredible time in our economy. That economy would have sky rocketed with or without Clinton.

I think 9/11 and the WOT has had a huge impact on our economy. Bush did not have any control on 9/11 but has had control over the WOT. He does not however have any control over the housing bust or soaring gas prices. All of which are conspiring against our economy. These things would have happened with or without Bush.

Our economy is cyclical and will continue to be. Revenues will rise and fall with the economy. It is congresses duty to curb the spending when they can't afford the excesses. It makes no sense to tax their way back to a revenue level when the people paying the taxes are hurting.

banyon
07-25-2008, 08:01 AM
GM doesn't get paid the same way the government does.

Taxes reduced, economy grows, larger tax base, more revenue for government.

Taxes raise, economy shrinks, smaller tax base, less revenue.

History plays this out.....Besides, the answer to our budget problems isn't revenue, it's spending. Lower spending is the only way to fix it.

Yeah I remember looking at when the wealthy had high tax rates in the 50's and 60's. Really tough economic times for the country.

Also, Europe has higher tax rates and their economy is really in the s***ter right now, huh?


Main Street over Wall Street for a change.

tiptap
07-25-2008, 08:33 AM
I think Clinton lucked into a remarkable economy that was on fire. More Millionaires were created in that span of time. Of course we all know it came to a screeching halt as he was leaving office. I don't think we will see anything like that happen in a long long time if ever. The terrorist attack of 2001 did nothing to help matters along. It would have been interesting to see what Bush's tax cuts would have accomplished had 9/11 not happened along with the War on Terror.

That all being said. I would much rather the Govt. cut their spending than to take in more money. I don't want to pay anymore into Social Security. A defunct system that will probably not be there for me. It is time we ween ourselves off of that system and move in another direction.

BTW I max out my Social Security contributions every year around Oct. Nov. I am far from rich. I do buy and sell stocks in an effort to better my financial status for retirement and frequently get slammed by Capital Gains.

Blah blah blah excuse excuse excuse. It doesn't change a damn fact that this administration and the Republicans ran a deficit instead of tightening the belt making the hard choices and not sinking the economy. Stay on the question of the deficit. But to humor you:

I max out my social security around April, I put my capital gains in retirement packages that will only be taxed later. Get the house in order and we can lower taxes about when I will want those funds.

And the idea Social Security is dead is wrong. It is true it is underfunded for the boomer retirement. Get the Boomers, I am one, to work longer before full retirement, raise the SS limit and increase funding from those Boomers before they all start retiring. After that bulge dies off, the population dynamics should be more stable, sustainable. It never was meant to be a retirement fund, it is a promise that will honor the elderly and keep them from destitution.

tiptap
07-25-2008, 08:37 AM
No I think Clinton just happened to be in office during an incredible time in our economy. That economy would have sky rocketed with or without Clinton.

I think 9/11 and the WOT has had a huge impact on our economy. Bush did not have any control on 9/11 but has had control over the WOT. He does not however have any control over the housing bust or soaring gas prices. All of which are conspiring against our economy. These things would have happened with or without Bush.

Our economy is cyclical and will continue to be. Revenues will rise and fall with the economy. It is congresses duty to curb the spending when they can't afford the excesses. It makes no sense to tax their way back to a revenue level when the people paying the taxes are hurting.

The diligence in which both parties had a part, in reducing the deficit allowed for easy capitalization because the Government wasn't competing for capital to fund the debt. That is big. Something the Republicans want to ignore and instead bankrupt the public sector. They say so all the time. The government cannot do anything, the private sector is supreme and can do no wrong. So they are quite willing to run the public part of the economy into the ground while making their friends rich in oil and war.

SBK
07-25-2008, 12:41 PM
Yeah I remember looking at when the wealthy had high tax rates in the 50's and 60's. Really tough economic times for the country.

Also, Europe has higher tax rates and their economy is really in the s***ter right now, huh?


Main Street over Wall Street for a change.

I'm sure Europeans would love to have our economy. Our unemployment is what, 1/2 of theirs? The only thing the Europeans have over us is the value of the Euro is quite high against the dollar. It wasn't all that long ago that those currencies were flipped, and I'm sure it won't be long and they'll be flipped again.

Pitt Gorilla
07-25-2008, 12:44 PM
It's easier to bury your head in the sand and dream of taxing other people than it is to see how things actually work when applied isn't it?I don't doubt your theory. Since you failed to mention a curve (or caveat) of any sort, shouldn't we be able to extrapolate?

SBK
07-25-2008, 12:52 PM
I don't doubt your theory. Since you failed to mention a curve (or caveat) of any sort, shouldn't we be able to extrapolate?

You're better than this.

***SPRAYER
07-25-2008, 01:07 PM
I'm sure Europeans would love to have our economy. Our unemployment is what, 1/2 of theirs? The only thing the Europeans have over us is the value of the Euro is quite high against the dollar. It wasn't all that long ago that those currencies were flipped, and I'm sure it won't be long and they'll be flipped again.


http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Map_AmericaWillPay.jpg

Pitt Gorilla
07-25-2008, 01:24 PM
You're better than this.Where is the tipping point?

SBK
07-25-2008, 03:08 PM
Where is the tipping point?

I personally think there'd be no better way to create a fantastic economy than enacting the fair tax. We'd become a comporation magnet, as no other country in the world would be able to compete with our corporate tax structure.

Lots of jobs, tons of business, which would then lead to much, much, much higher tax revenues for the government.

It would appear to us that we'd be paying 0, although the government would be collecting something like 18%.

The solution isn't in the taxable rate though, it's in the government spending.

banyon
07-25-2008, 03:58 PM
I'm sure Europeans would love to have our economy. Our unemployment is what, 1/2 of theirs? The only thing the Europeans have over us is the value of the Euro is quite high against the dollar. It wasn't all that long ago that those currencies were flipped, and I'm sure it won't be long and they'll be flipped again.

Their unemployment actually counts the unemployed though. Plus, their median incomes are rising while ours are stagnant.

For the upper 2-5% of income earners, though, you are right, it is much better to be making gobs of money here.

tiptap
07-25-2008, 06:34 PM
I have all kinds of questions about comparison of the unemployment rates. After all we CONSCRIPT national Guard personnel and their conscription counts as employment as well as someone being hired to take their place back home. It only means something in how it moves. Comparisons across years or countries is a fallacy in comparison.

SNR
07-26-2008, 12:02 AM
.

VAChief
07-26-2008, 08:27 AM
No I think Clinton just happened to be in office during an incredible time in our economy. That economy would have sky rocketed with or without Clinton.

I think 9/11 and the WOT has had a huge impact on our economy. Bush did not have any control on 9/11 but has had control over the WOT. He does not however have any control over the housing bust or soaring gas prices. All of which are conspiring against our economy. These things would have happened with or without Bush.

Our economy is cyclical and will continue to be. Revenues will rise and fall with the economy. It is congresses duty to curb the spending when they can't afford the excesses. It makes no sense to tax their way back to a revenue level when the people paying the taxes are hurting.

Some of them I would agree. 9/11 may have been unavoidable, but the nearly trillion dollar war in Iraq was anything but unavoidable. You don't think that one single event has had a largely negative effect on our economy?

2bikemike
07-26-2008, 08:56 AM
Some of them I would agree. 9/11 may have been unavoidable, but the nearly trillion dollar war in Iraq was anything but unavoidable. You don't think that one single event has had a largely negative effect on our economy?

Yes, every single event is largely effecting our economy in a negative way. I believe the WOT is the biggest drag on our economy. The Housing crisis is probably the second biggest drag followed by the high fuel cost. The accumulative effect is damn near crippling.

Everybody is being pinched by this. Some more than others obviously. Which is why I so firmly believe raising taxes is the last thing you want to do in this situation. I am paying so much more just to get to and from work. Everything I buy is more expensive because shipping costs are so freaking high. I am losing discretionary spending. Take more tax dollars from me and I have even less to spend.

Fortunately for me I have owned my home in Calif. for 16 years. I have a low interest fixed mortgage. So the housing crisis has a minimal impact on me.

SNR
07-26-2008, 10:30 AM
Okay, I actually watched the video.

Did anybody else?

tiptap
07-26-2008, 12:55 PM
Freedoms are enumerated by the Bill of Rights. The economic model is a choice of the majority or at least their representatives. The misstatements for me is the notion that the last 7 years allows us to simply step back to Clinton economics. (he says he likes Clinton better than Bush on economics) For example, Clinton got that process going by RAISING TAXES. I know I paid the Clinton sur tax. I bailed out the Reagan/Bush I deficit feed. I am willing to pay to bail out the even worse Bush ll deficit frenzy. But at the same time I want universal Health coverage. Part of the difference in discretionary money between Europeans and Americans is in meeting Universal Health Coverage. Add to that free university access or such makes for a happier life. I am also unclear how that chart works considering the exchange rates are so favorable for the Europeans and I am not sure how that relates. After all the chart includes the disposable income of the highest 1%. What would be more informative is to include the mode. That is the income represented by the most number of people as well. But the mismatch would point out just how much of the resources are being commanded by so few.

Frankie
07-26-2008, 03:06 PM
No I think Clinton just happened to be in office during an incredible time in our economy. That economy would have sky rocketed with or without Clinton.


I love this. "Reagan brought us a great economy" but "Clinton just lucked into one."

I have a question about your quote here, 2bm:
Do you honestly think the "economy would have sky rocketed" had Duhbya become POTUS in '92?

ClevelandBronco
07-26-2008, 03:12 PM
I love this. "Reagan brought us a great economy" but "Clinton just lucked into one."

I have a question about your quote here, 2bm:
Do you honestly think the "economy would have sky rocketed" had Duhbya become POTUS in '92?

Where did you get those quotes that you try to attribute to him? Did he actually say that, or are you just making it up, you lying piece of shit?

FTR: Presidents don't create economies. They don't have that kind of power.

Frankie
07-26-2008, 06:16 PM
Where did you get those quotes that you try to attribute to him? Did he actually say that, or are you just making it up, you lying piece of shit?

FTR: Presidents don't create economies. They don't have that kind of power.

I was referring to the general opinion of the Righties expressed many times here and in the Right punditry. I never attributed it to 2bikemike specifically. Reread my post and use your brain this time before emulating your other Donky-Loving friend.

2bikemike
07-26-2008, 06:25 PM
I love this. "Reagan brought us a great economy" but "Clinton just lucked into one."

I have a question about your quote here, 2bm:
Do you honestly think the "economy would have sky rocketed" had Duhbya become POTUS in '92?

My reasoning for the state of the economy was the tech boom that fueled the economy. It was going to happen regardless who was in office. My Point is the POTUS has very little control over the economy. Many things that happen with the economy take time to develop and happen. If you study a trend of the economy you will see it was improving before Clinton took office. It was ebbing when he left. When Bush Sr. Took office I believe things were trending down.

I also believe had Gore or Kerry won the election we would still be seeing some of the very same problems. We might not be so entrenched in the WOT but we would still have had a Housing Bubble and we would still be paying $4 plus a gallon. The earth would still be a fraction warmer than it was 8 years ago.

Sure Bush and Co. Fugged up the WOT. But when it comes to the Budget, Congress is just as responsible as anyone else. Bush did not create this mess of a housing market. He did not create this problem with the cost of oil.

ClevelandBronco
07-26-2008, 06:28 PM
I was referring to the general opinion of the Righties expressed many times here and in the Right punditry. I never attributed it to 2bikemike specifically. Reread my post and use your brain this time before emulating your other Donky-Loving friend.

I don't wish ill on all Persians. Just you, Frankie, you lightweight liar, just you.

Frankie
07-26-2008, 06:45 PM
My reasoning for the state of the economy was the tech boom that fueled the economy. It was going to happen regardless who was in office. My Point is the POTUS has very little control over the economy.

My post was not an expression of ridiculing your post. Thanks for the civil response. I do agree partially with what you are saying. But I also firmly believe that policies implemented by different administrations can help a positive economic trend along, slow down a negative trend, or totally screw up the economy, positive or negative. You cannot totally discount that.

If I may drift a bit from the subject, I also do believe that big powerful entities like oil companies do have the power and will to damage or temporarily heal the economy to affect elections in favor of their favorite candidates. I'll go out on the limb to predict that we will see a price drop in Gas prices between now and November. Just a hunch.

Frankie
07-26-2008, 06:46 PM
I don't wish ill on all Persians. Just you, Frankie, you lightweight liar, just you.

Good. You've had the last say. Now go play with yourself like your other friend.

ClevelandBronco
07-26-2008, 06:50 PM
Good. You've had the last say. Now go play with yourself like your other friend.

C'mon, Frankie. I'll let you have the last say. Admit you're a ****ing liar.

BucEyedPea
07-26-2008, 07:56 PM
Seems to me rex, with the amount of debt we have, that each succeeding president has to share this honor with the previous presidents.

Biggest tax increase in the history of our republic was what Reagan's tax increase was called that reversed his tax cuts a year earlier.

Next biggest tax increase was Bush Sr. Then the next was Clinton. And on and on.

Bush Jr gave us the stealth tax increase, to fund his wars, that one is called inflation. I wonder how much that offsets his tax cuts?

***SPRAYER
07-26-2008, 07:59 PM
Bush Jr gave us the stealth tax increase, to fund his wars, that one is called inflation. I wonder how much that offsets his tax cuts?

True.

:clap: