Extreme-Out of Touch with reality

[Boo Radley]

They tell you the mood of the nation but if you don't want poll numbers look at the actual numbers and those numbers tell the same story as the poll numbers.

Mood? As in FEELINGS? So, you would argue FEELINGS are facts?

Again, what actual numbers? Concerning what? And didn't those tax cuts of Bush's make bad numbers impossible? :lamo

 

[Donc]

All will be revealed Nov 2nd won't it... and historically speaking, Democrats will lose seats. All that's questionable at this point is, "How many?". However, Obama's hope and change really doesn't resonate with much of America though people still think he's a nice guy. Time will change that as well, assuming he has time past 2012.

Bill Clinton bumped down into the thirties for quite a while but he managed to pull a eight year presidency out of the bag.

 

[Boo Radley]

Bill Clinton bumped down into the thirties for quite a while but he managed to pull a eight year presidency out of the bag.

At the end of the day, things like who he runs against will matter as much or more then the mood today. And things change sometimes. Too early for anyone to call the election just yet.

 

[Conservative]

Mood? As in FEELINGS? So, you would argue FEELINGS are facts?

Again, what actual numbers? Concerning what? And didn't those tax cuts of Bush's make bad numbers impossible? :lamo

There you go again, ignoring the affect tax cuts have on personal take home pay, that makes you look foolish. I really believe this is an act on your part because no one can bet this foolish.

 

[Conservative]

At the end of the day, things like who he runs against will matter as much or more then the mood today. And things change sometimes. Too early for anyone to call the election just yet.

I am now absolutely convinced that neither Obama or his supporters are nearly as smart as they seem to think they are. Arrogance is always the downfall of people in power.

 

[Boo Radley]

There you go again, ignoring the affect tax cuts have on personal take home pay, that makes you look foolish. I really believe this is an act on your part because no one can bet this foolish.

Frankly, they didn't effect me much at all, so yes, I doubt them. But that's you switching the subject again. Focus. Focus. :lamo

 

[Boo Radley]

I am now absolutely convinced that neither Obama or his supporters are nearly as smart as they seem to think they are. Arrogance is always the downfall of people in power.

I forgot to cue yor personal insult. Sorry. I'll try and stay on top of that better. :lamo

 

[Conservative]

Frankly, they didn't effect me much at all, so yes, I doubt them. But that's you switching the subject again. Focus. Focus. :lamo

So you are the arrogant elite that makes enough money that tax cuts don't affect you enough to worry about? Think you are in a majority? Seems the majority in this country today disagree with you. Why is it that poll numbers that look good for liberals are touted whereas those that aren't are attacked? Similar I guess to bls and bea numbers being good enough during the Clinton years but not so now.

 

[Donc]

Frankly, they didn't effect me much at all, so yes, I doubt them. But that's you switching the subject again. Focus. Focus. :lamo

I’m convinced that conservative is some kind of RNC bot assigned to DP. Notice the same tired old saws he post over and over, such as the one he just hurled at you.

< I really believe this is an act on your part because no one can bet this foolish.> then there is the old Reagan term that he has adapted lately < There you go again >

It must be sad to not be able to come up with an original thought of your own. Just stand on the sidelines hurling talking points as the parade goes by. Truly sad.

 

[Boo Radley]

So you are the arrogant elite that makes enough money that tax cuts don't affect you enough to worry about? Think you are in a majority? Seems the majority in this country today disagree with you. Why is it that poll numbers that look good for liberals are touted whereas those that aren't are attacked? Similar I guess to bls and bea numbers being good enough during the Clinton years but not so now.

Hardly. But facts are facts. The amount of money needed to really be felt is far more than the tax cuts actually aounted to. frankly, you had to be an elite to actually notice the Bush tax cuts in any real way.

But focus. Stay on topic.

 

[Conservative]

Hardly. But facts are facts. The amount of money needed to really be felt is far more than the tax cuts actually aounted to. frankly, you had to be an elite to actually notice the Bush tax cuts in any real way.

But focus. Stay on topic.

Then tell that to your empty suit President who gave the average taxpayer a $14 per week pay increase and called that significant. Still waiting for why you have such a problem with people keeping more of what they earn? Tax rate cuts and govt. revenue increases? How can that be?

 

[pbrauer]

It does seem that history doesn't support your point of view that this was a Republican problem. Why are Democrats on record defending Fannie and Freddie and rebuking Republican attempts to increase regulations?

YouTube - Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis

Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer

What were the regulations the R was talking about? Were they less restrictive or more? More importantly, since this happened in 2002 and the Republicans were in charge of Congress, why wasn't legislation passed?

 

[Conservative]

What were the regulations the R was talking about? Were they less restrictive or more? More importantly, since this happened in 2002 and the Republicans were in charge of Congress, why wasn't legislation passed?

In 2002 the Republicans weren't in charge of the Senate. You seem to have a misguided view of who controlled Congress and when? Republicans took control of the Senate in 2003

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

 

[Boo Radley]

Then tell that to your empty suit President who gave the average taxpayer a $14 per week pay increase and called that significant. Still waiting for why you have such a problem with people keeping more of what they earn? Tax rate cuts and govt. revenue increases? How can that be?

I don't have a problem withkeeping more of my money. I have a problem with not paying or debt. That's the point. When we spend, we have to pay for it. As we are in debt, just as we do in our own house holds, we have to tighten up and pay the debt. This is called responsibility.

So, I call for reducing spending and rasing taxes. This is equal to what I would do at home. I would reduce my spending and seek extra work. Tht equals recuing spending and raising taxes. Responsibility.

Now try hard not to fall on a stereotype or sling a personal insult, and just address what I said.

 

[Conservative]

I don't have a problme withkeeping more of my money. I have a problem with not paying or debt. That's the point. When we spend, we have to pay for it. As we are in debt, just as we do in our own house holds, we have to tighten up and pay the debt. This is called responsibility.

So, I call for reducing spending and rasing taxes. This is equal to what I would do at home. I would reduce my spending and seek extra work. Tht equals recuing spending and raising taxes. Responsibility.

Now try hard not to fall on a stereotype or sling a personal insult, and just address what I said.

So you think paying the govt. more money reduces debt? Please show me any time in modern history where more money went to the govt and debt was reduced? You seem to be very concerned about the govt. having the revenue to pay for what they spend but never seem to focus on that spending. If the govt. is going to waste money like they do then allow the people to keep more of what they earn and allow them to spend it as they see fit. That drives liberals crazy.

As I pointed out there is no evidence to prove that increasing taxes gives the govt. more revenue but even if it did there is no evidence that the govt. will cut spending with more revenue thus pay down the debt

 

[Boo Radley]

So you think paying the govt. more money reduces debt? Please show me any time in modern history where more money went to the govt and debt was reduced? You seem to be very concerned about the govt. having the revenue to pay for what they spend but never seem to focus on that spending. If the govt. is going to waste money like they do then allow the people to keep more of what they earn and allow them to spend it as they see fit. That drives liberals crazy.

As I pointed out there is no evidence to prove that increasing taxes gives the govt. more revenue but even if it did there is no evidence that the govt. will cut spending with more revenue thus pay down the debt

You're not listening. I call for both cuttng spending and raising taxes. Both. I have not limited to just raising taxes, so you can't honestly say "but never seem to focus on that spending."

Now support for ending the tax cuts for the wealthy:

Retired Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) on Monday told The Hill that ending tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush would help reduce the deficit, but he stopped short of advocating their expiration.

Domenici: Ending Bush tax cuts would help reduce the deficit - The Hill's On The Money

Extending the tax cuts for most Americans will increase the federal deficit by an estimated $2.2 trillion over 10 years.

(snip)

In a nod to deficit reduction, Obama did propose that lawmakers let the tax cuts expire for high-income households, couples making more than $250,000. Doing so would reduce the deficit by $678 billion from where it would be if the cuts were extended for everyone.

Bush-ama tax cuts: The $2.2 trillion decision - May. 4, 2010

Greenspan Calls for Congress to Let All Bush Tax Cuts Expire

Greenspan Calls for Congress to Let All Bush Tax Cuts Expire - BusinessWeek

There are more, but we'll stop at three for now.

 

[Conservative]

You're not listening. I call for both cuttng spending and raising taxes. Both. I have not limited to just raising taxes, so you can't honestly say "but never seem to focus on that spending."

Now support for ending the tax cuts for the wealthy:

Retired Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) on Monday told The Hill that ending tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush would help reduce the deficit, but he stopped short of advocating their expiration.

Domenici: Ending Bush tax cuts would help reduce the deficit - The Hill's On The Money

Extending the tax cuts for most Americans will increase the federal deficit by an estimated $2.2 trillion over 10 years.

(snip)

In a nod to deficit reduction, Obama did propose that lawmakers let the tax cuts expire for high-income households, couples making more than $250,000. Doing so would reduce the deficit by $678 billion from where it would be if the cuts were extended for everyone.

Bush-ama tax cuts: The $2.2 trillion decision - May. 4, 2010

Greenspan Calls for Congress to Let All Bush Tax Cuts Expire

Greenspan Calls for Congress to Let All Bush Tax Cuts Expire - BusinessWeek

There are more, but we'll stop at three for now.

Have you not been touting CBO numbers? So why not now. I totally reject your claim that raising taxes will increase govt revenue nor will it put 16million people back to work and paying taxes. Seems that CBO which you tout when it supports your point of view but you ignore when it doesn't. Which is it?

CBO offers mixed forecast on extending Bush tax cuts | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

 

[Donc]

Have you not been touting CBO numbers? So why not now. I totally reject your claim that raising taxes will increase govt revenue nor will it put 16million people back to work and paying taxes. Seems that CBO which you tout when it supports your point of view but you ignore when it doesn't. Which is it?

CBO offers mixed forecast on extending Bush tax cuts | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

You’re doing the same damn thing that you’re accusing him of, using the CBO when it’s convenient. Do you want me to find a post of yours where you sneer at a CBO report? I wont have go very for back in time.

 

[Conservative]

You’re doing the same damn thing that you’re accusing him of, using the CBO when it’s convenient. Do you want me to find a post of yours where you sneer at a CBO report? I wont have go very for back in time.

Not at all, I am throwing the CBO back at Boo and you who seem to tout it as accurate. I know that CBO isn't accurate because they offer projections whereas Bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury report actual results.

 

[Donc]

Not at all, I am throwing the CBO back at Boo and you who seem to tout it as accurate. I know that CBO isn't accurate because they offer projections whereas Bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury report actual results.

Cool, then you wont have a problim showing us the page that its on then?

 

[Conservative]

Cool, then you wont have a problim showing us the page that its on then?

Why do you need a page number? Want someone to read the article to you? Give me your address and I will send the article to you in audio form. Keep diverting!

 

[Boo Radley]

Have you not been touting CBO numbers? So why not now. I totally reject your claim that raising taxes will increase govt revenue nor will it put 16million people back to work and paying taxes. Seems that CBO which you tout when it supports your point of view but you ignore when it doesn't. Which is it?

CBO offers mixed forecast on extending Bush tax cuts | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

From your article:

The CBO's baseline scenario assumes that the Bush-era tax breaks will expire, as current law provides. In that case, next year's deficit would fall to $1.07 trillion, or 7 percent of the country's total economic output, or gross domestic product, according to agency estimates. 2012, the deficit would shrink to $665 billion, or 4.2 percent of GDP.

 

[Boo Radley]

Why do you need a page number? Want someone to read the article to you? Give me your address and I will send the article to you in audio form. Keep diverting!

No, want you to support your claim.

 

[Conservative]

No, want you to support your claim.

I posted the article, ask the paper

 

[Conservative]

From your article:

The CBO's baseline scenario assumes that the Bush-era tax breaks will expire, as current law provides. In that case, next year's deficit would fall to $1.07 trillion, or 7 percent of the country's total economic output, or gross domestic product, according to agency estimates. 2012, the deficit would shrink to $665 billion, or 4.2 percent of GDP.

Not my article, the paper's article from the CBO. notice selective reading as usual.

WASHINGTON - The director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said on Thursday that permanently extending tax cuts put in place under President George W. Bush would provide a "considerable" economic boost over the next several years but would result in substantial increases in the federal deficit, placing the country in a precarious fiscal situation by 2020.

In addition the deficit YTD is 1.2 trillion now with two months to go. CBO projections are going to fall AGAIN