Republicans Say They’re Open to ‘Revenue Raisers’

Boo Radley · Jul 6, 2011

j-mac said:
It was money down the rat hole. Other that speculation there is no evidence that the expenditure did ANYTHING concrete to help our situation. And the spending continues.

j-mac

Not sure what you consider concrete. As I always say, the government can't control the economy However, if it prevent jobs from being lost, companies from going under, thus keeping jobs, it would be hard to say it did nothing concrete. I know for a fact money spent here kept jobs in place for a couple of years. Now unless you want to argue that government should take control of business, thus being responsible for hiring and firing, there is not much that really be done.

j-mac · Jul 6, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Not sure what you consider concrete. As I always say, the government can't control the economy However, if it prevent jobs from being lost, companies from going under, thus keeping jobs, it would be hard to say it did nothing concrete. I know for a fact money spent here kept jobs in place for a couple of years. Now unless you want to argue that government should take control of business, thus being responsible for hiring and firing, there is not much that really be done.

I disagree, this is the whole "saved jobs" meme that the WH wants us to swallow. There is no metric to determine, other than anecdotal, that jobs were "saved"....

j-mac

Gargantuan · Jul 6, 2011

j-mac said:
I disagree, this is the whole "saved jobs" meme that the WH wants us to swallow. There is no metric to determine, other than anecdotal, that jobs were "saved"....

j-mac

Are you really denying the fact that the stimulus kept thousands of public jobs (cops, firefighters, teachers) running during the harshest time of the economy?

Boo Radley · Jul 6, 2011

j-mac said:
I disagree, this is the whole "saved jobs" meme that the WH wants us to swallow. There is no metric to determine, other than anecdotal, that jobs were "saved"....

j-mac

Not true. Jobs here were kept with the money and lost without it. Others report the same. I've given you links before. I realize you don't want to accept it. Even when your peers start threads about ho much those saved jobs cost.

So, stop with the silliness and admit that while we could have let people lose those jobs, we did in fact save some jobs. And that government doesn't do hiring and firing, and cannot do much more than what was done.

The Prof · Jul 6, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Jobs here were kept with the money and lost without it

Barack Obama's Stimulus Plan: Failing by Its Own Measure - TIME

Obama: "No Such Thing as Shovel-Ready Projects" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Romer and Bernstein on stimulus - NYTimes.com

seeya at the polls, progressives

Boo Radley · Jul 6, 2011

The Prof said:
Barack Obama's Stimulus Plan: Failing by Its Own Measure - TIME

Obama: "No Such Thing as Shovel-Ready Projects" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Romer and Bernstein on stimulus - NYTimes.com

seeya at the polls, progressives

If I thought you understood what was being said, I would point out that this doesn't dispute what've said. But, it's kind of a waste of time. Moving on. :2wave:

Gargantuan · Jul 6, 2011

Boo Radley said:
If I thought you understood what was being said, I would point out that this doesn't dispute what've said. But, it's kind of a waste of time. Moving on. :2wave:

tell that to THE SLASHER and the DEPT CHAIR

LOL!

rock on, progressives

The Prof · Jul 6, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Moving on

so is obama

Just don't call it a 'stimulus' - Alexander Burns - POLITICO.com

Echo Chamber: The new S-word? - Alexander Trowbridge - POLITICO.com

Gargantuan · Jul 6, 2011

He basically posted exactly what I did. I'll have to add some random links to my prof impression next time though.

The Prof · Jul 6, 2011

Gargantuan said:
I'll have to add some random links to my prof impression next time though.

whatever floats your boat

meanwhile, the stim was a FAILURE

Q1 GDP 1.8% - Bloomberg

seeya at the polls, pals

Boo Radley · Jul 6, 2011

Gargantuan said:
He basically posted exactly what I did. I'll have to add some random links to my prof impression next time though.

True, those are essential.

The Prof · Jul 6, 2011

says the person who links to whitehouse.gov, comedy central and the SYDNEY MORNING HERALD on behalf of school teachers in new york

LOL!

meanwhile, obama's america worries

Daily Kos: One Million Apply for 50,000 McDonald's Jobs

Objective Voice · Jul 6, 2011

j-mac said:
This has got to be among the most ridiculous statements I have read lately. TARP was paid back, Iraq, Afghanistan are a drop in the bucket compared to the $1.5 Trillion expenditures that this administration has laid out as far as the eye can see. Now either, you are purposely ignoring Obama's spending, or ignorant to such, but thanks for the laugh.

j-mac

Since you claim I'm "ignorant" on spending under Obama, perhaps you can enlighten me. Other than the Stimulus, unemployment compensation and the extension thereof, and Libya, list the spending that has come under Obama.

j-mac · Jul 6, 2011

Objective Voice said:
Since you claim I'm "ignorant" on spending under Obama, perhaps you can enlighten me. Other than the Stimulus, unemployment compensation and the extension thereof, and Libya, list the spending that has come under Obama.

It isn't my job to educate you, why not start with health care, and go from there. Just type in 'google' and I am sure you can find it all.

but rest assured you are leaving out alot.

j-mac

Boo Radley · Jul 6, 2011

j-mac said:
It isn't my job to educate you, why not start with health care, and go from there. Just type in 'google' and I am sure you can find it all.

but rest assured you are leaving out alot.

j-mac

I won't argue Obama hasn't spent, but I will argue you and your side tend to over state it.

j-mac · Jul 6, 2011

Boo Radley said:
I won't argue Obama hasn't spent, but I will argue you and your side tend to over state it.

How do you overstate $1.5 Trillion each year as far as the eye can see?

j-mac

Objective Voice · Jul 6, 2011

j-mac said:
It isn't my job to educate you, why not start with health care, and go from there. Just type in 'google' and I am sure you can find it all.

but rest assured you are leaving out alot.

j-mac

As expected, you're dodging. You've claimed that I'm ignorant of Obama's spending. It's now your job to enlighten me. So...

Objective Voice said:
Other than the Stimulus, unemployment compensation and the extension thereof, and Libya, list the spending that has come under Obama.

Support your claim below with the actual numbers...

j-mac said:
How do you overstate $1.5 Trillion each year as far as the eye can see?

j-mac

Getting back to the thread topic, it would seem Republicans are finally open to ending some tax loopholes - "revenue raisers" since Sunday (July 3) and Pres. Obama's Twitter townhall. From FoxNews:

"If the president wants to talk loopholes, we'll be glad to talk loopholes," said House Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Cantor added that any revenues raised from closing such loopholes "should be coupled with offsetting tax cuts somewhere else."

Cantor's comments reflected important, if nuanced, flexibility for Republicans. His earlier position was that closing loopholes should wait for a comprehensive effort to reform the tax code.

Boo Radley · Jul 6, 2011

j-mac said:
How do you overstate $1.5 Trillion each year as far as the eye can see?

j-mac

■That GOP document says Democrats in Congress and Obama increased the deficit 259 percent since 2008, when it was $458 billion. That ignores the fact that President George Bush was in office in 2008. Obama inherited a $1.2 trillion deficit largely caused by declining revenues and Bush’s response to the economic crisis.

(snip)

■He says Obama’s budget “imposes $1.5 trillion in tax increases on job creators and American families.” But, as we written before, about half of that total would come from increases scheduled under current law.

Ryan’s Budget Spin | FactCheck.org

Like I said, overstated. yes, he spends, as did Bush before him and Clinton before Bush and Bush before Clinton and Reagan before Bush and carter before reagan and . . . . well . . . I hope you get the picture.

BDBoop · Jul 6, 2011

Here's a helpful link:

Economy | The White House

apdst · Jul 6, 2011

Objective Voice said:
Which begs the question, "Why hasn't lower taxes generated more jobs?" Again, the Bush tax cuts have been in effect since 2001, revised in 2003, extended in 2010 and still no significant job growth. Yet we keep hearing the argument that tax cuts create jobs! Or is it that they allow moreso for the wealthiest among us to "keep more of what they earn" with many not putting that money back in circulation within the national economy.

I see both sides of the argument, but IMO what we have here is "forced" conditions for stagflation. Few new jobs; unemployment hovers; no new revenue streams, incomes remain flat; little to no consumer spending = stagflation.

Bush had 4% unemployment, too.

The Prof · Jul 6, 2011

Boo Radley said:
he spends

yeah...

part of his problem is that darn stimulus

it just cost so much, y'know, almost a whole trillion dollars

and it was such a full out LOSER

romer and bernstein (you wouldn't know who they are) promised america that unemployment would be just over 6.5% today, per our passage of that prodigiously expensive stimulus

their analysis is found by opening the krugman link above (you wouldn't know him either)

very sad

seeya at the polls, progressives

bring your crayons

j-mac · Jul 6, 2011

Boo Radley said:
■That GOP document says Democrats in Congress and Obama increased the deficit 259 percent since 2008, when it was $458 billion. That ignores the fact that President George Bush was in office in 2008. Obama inherited a $1.2 trillion deficit largely caused by declining revenues and Bush’s response to the economic crisis.

(snip)

■He says Obama’s budget “imposes $1.5 trillion in tax increases on job creators and American families.” But, as we written before, about half of that total would come from increases scheduled under current law.

Ryan’s Budget Spin | FactCheck.org

Like I said, overstated. yes, he spends, as did Bush before him and Clinton before Bush and Bush before Clinton and Reagan before Bush and carter before reagan and . . . . well . . . I hope you get the picture.

Fact Check and PolitiFact are noted biased sites....Anything neutral?

j-mac

Boo Radley · Jul 6, 2011

j-mac said:
Fact Check and PolitiFact are noted biased sites....Anything neutral?

j-mac

:lamo :lamo :lamo

No, that's just what your inaccurate and extremely biased sources tell you. You get much wrong because you listen to them. :coffeepap

Boo Radley · Jul 6, 2011

apdst said:
Bush had 4% unemployment, too.

I think it was 7.8 when he left office. You're free to check that. :coffeepap

The Prof · Jul 6, 2011

Boo Radley said:
that's just what your inaccurate and extremely biased sources tell you

says someone who links to whitehouse.gov, comedy central and the SYDNEY MORNING HERALD on behalf of school teachers in new york

it's all in the sourcing

LOL!

Republicans Say They’re Open to ‘Revenue Raisers’

Gargantuan

Gargantuan

Gargantuan

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency