The real party of NO, the GOP, steps it up

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...or-the-jobless

I guess you and Riot can start the crying now...

Now? I started crying when Obama came out and said he'd cave before negotiations began. He may yet stick at 1 million (which I think is the most he should go), but he already said he'd extend for everyone, it's just a matter of length.

Yes, I do not agree with that at all. Bad, bad for expanding deficit as an unfunded tax cut. Obviously doesn't build any jobs, because that's the tax rate in effect now, that we've had since 2001-2003. We've lost 800,000 jobs on that tax rate and gone into a major recession after a threatened depression. Not much "business building" there, is there?

How's that tax cut supposed to be so awesome for growing the economy again?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Now? I started crying when Obama came out and said he'd cave before negotiations began. He may yet stick at 1 million (which I think is the most he should go), but he already said he'd extend for everyone, it's just a matter of length.

Yes, I do not agree with that at all. Bad, bad for expanding deficit as an unfunded tax cut. Obviously doesn't build any jobs, because that's the tax rate in effect now, that we've had since 2001-2003. We've lost 800,000 jobs on that tax rate and gone into a major recession after a threatened depression. Not much "business building" there, is there?

How's that tax cut supposed to be so awesome for growing the economy again?

Are you seriously saying that the Bush tax cuts were responsible for a global economic calamity? The Bush tax cuts caused the collapse of the housing markets and caused finanical companies to make bad investmets? Are you saying that the Bush tax cuts are responsible for the debacle of fannie mae and freddie mac?

[Riot]

Are you seriously saying that the Bush tax cuts were responsible for a global economic calamity?

You seriously got that out of what I said? LOL - no, that's not what I said.

The Bush tax cuts caused the collapse of the housing markets and caused finanical companies to make bad investmets? Are you saying that the Bush tax cuts are responsible for the debacle of fannie mae and freddie mac?

Geeshus freekin' cripes. What drugs are you on?

Show me how that tax rate to the wealthy helped grow jobs and the economy since 2001 and 2003.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

You seriously got that out of what I said? LOL - no, that's not what I said.



Geeshus freekin' cripes. What drugs are you on?

Show me how that tax rate to the wealthy helped grow jobs and the economy since 2001 and 2003.

You cant say that we have lost jobs since 2003 and simply blame one thing, the Bush tax cuts. Again, there are so many factors that it is silly to blame one particular thing. I could counter that perhaps we would have lost 2 million jobs without them. Naturally my argument would be silly as well so i wont go there.

[Riot]

You cant say that we have lost jobs since 2003 and simply blame one thing, the Bush tax cuts.

I didn't do that, and do not think that. I simply pointed out the truth, that the tax rates in question for the wealthiest 2% of Americans have been the rates present through this last historical near great depression and great recession.

As keeping these rates as they are, and not raising the gross rate 3.6% (and remember that is not adjusted rate after deductions, not the practical rate of 17% or so the wealthiest average) - on the top 2% of wealthiest Americans has been deemed essential to our economy, surely there is some way that conclusion was arrived at, some way to measure the amount of this tax rates contribution to growth within the economy, in spite of the toilet the entire economy fell into. That's not too complex an operation, especially in retrospect. There must have been present exactly what is being promised now: increases in business capital investment, etc.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

I didn't do that, and do not think that. I simply pointed out the truth, that the tax rates in question for the wealthiest 2% of Americans have been the rates present through this last historical near great depression and great recession.

As keeping these rates as they are, and not raising the gross rate 3.6% (and remember that is not adjusted rate after deductions, not the practical rate of 17% or so the wealthiest average) - on the top 2% of wealthiest Americans has been deemed essential to our economy, surely there is some way that conclusion was arrived at, some way to measure the amount of this tax rates contribution to growth within the economy, in spite of the toilet the entire economy fell into. That's not too complex an operation, especially in retrospect. There must have been present exactly what is being promised now: increases in business capital investment, etc.

You cant just mention one thing and then say you didnt. The inference is clear.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You cant just mention one thing and then say you didnt. The inference is clear.

No, you took the wrong inference, and I corrected your misunderstanding.