Taxes were cut, where are the jobs?

Howey said:
You really, really need to go back to whatever forum that was that kicked you off. You obviously don't have the smarts to play with the big boys and girls here.
Click to expand...

I am not going to waste my time repeating Postmodern Prophet who handed you your lunch, because you much rather take the words fed you by Katrina Van den Hoover, or Ben Addled brain, over honesty and reason.

But I will address this part I quoted...I wasn't kicked off any site, I am taking a break, which I think is healthy from time to time because at times after knowing the posters for so long it can get in the way of having an actual debate...Although, the other board I am on, is probably much more like board in here that is more heavily moderated. As a result there are some extremely smart people there that make intelligent arguments without all of the vitriolic name calling, third grade Bull Shit we get here from posters like you Howie...At some point when I grow tired of handing you your ass on a regular basis, I will go back to civil debate, and probably check in here rarely...

See, although the constant sniping, and childish bickering can be fun for a while, it is tiresome with at any given moment 5 different threads on the same damned subject, and the schoolyard antics are just plain stupid. But like I say I am dishing it as well, but rest assured it is for my entertainment. A dumb ass like you wouldn't last one day on the other board I post on.
 
Althea said:
Why weren't they permanent? Why did they expire in '10?
Click to expand...

Bush originally proposed them to congress to deal with the recession left him by Clinton, and made worse by 9/11, and it worked beautifully. For the vast majority of both of Bush's terms unemployment was below 5%.

The rate has been in place now for the better part of three terms, I'd say it is no longer "the Bush cuts" but rather the tax rate. If Obama does anything to it at this point,it is him raising the tax rate.
 
j-mac said:
Bush originally proposed them to congress to deal with the recession left him by Clinton, and made worse by 9/11, and it worked beautifully. For the vast majority of both of Bush's terms unemployment was below 5%.

The rate has been in place now for the better part of three terms, I'd say it is no longer "the Bush cuts" but rather the tax rate. If Obama does anything to it at this point,it is him raising the tax rate.
Click to expand...
That's all very nice, but the question was, "why did they expire in '10"?

You do realize that there is a specific reason?
 
j-mac said:
I am not going to waste my time repeating Postmodern Prophet who handed you your lunch, because you much rather take the words fed you by Katrina Van den Hoover, or Ben Addled brain, over honesty and reason.

But I will address this part I quoted...I wasn't kicked off any site, I am taking a break, which I think is healthy from time to time because at times after knowing the posters for so long it can get in the way of having an actual debate...Although, the other board I am on, is probably much more like board in here that is more heavily moderated. As a result there are some extremely smart people there that make intelligent arguments without all of the vitriolic name calling, third grade Bull Shit we get here from posters like you Howie...At some point when I grow tired of handing you your ass on a regular basis, I will go back to civil debate, and probably check in here rarely...

See, although the constant sniping, and childish bickering can be fun for a while, it is tiresome with at any given moment 5 different threads on the same damned subject, and the schoolyard antics are just plain stupid. But like I say I am dishing it as well, but rest assured it is for my entertainment. A dumb ass like you wouldn't last one day on the other board I post on.
Click to expand...

:rofl2: :rofl2:

'Taking a break'. 'Namecalling'.
 
Yurt said:
what is the specific reason?
Click to expand...
You blather on about the Bush cuts, and how well they worked. You posted that they were scheduled to expire in '10.

There is a very specific reason for that. Republicans wanted them to be permanent. What happened?

Are you saying that you have no idea about the specifics of the tax cuts that you hail as being a success?











Edit...I see it was Yurt who I quoted...


So I'll wait for Bravo, or Jmac to tell us why they expired.

Sorry for the oops
 
Althea said:
You blather on about the Bush cuts, and how well they worked. You posted that they were scheduled to expire in '10.

There is a very specific reason for that. Republicans wanted them to be permanent. What happened?

Are you saying that you have no idea about the specifics of the tax cuts that you hail as being a success?
Click to expand...

you're confusing me with someone else.

i want to know what YOU think. YOU made the claim. i know why. man up and answer your own question.
 
Althea said:
You blather on about the Bush cuts, and how well they worked. You posted that they were scheduled to expire in '10
Click to expand...

I can only offer my opinion on why they were enacted with a sunset provision. 1. President Bush is a more traditional, in terms of thinking, president. 2. My opinion is that he thought it wasn't up to him to permanently lower the rates. So, he left it in place for the next president and congress to either extend, make permanent, or do away with.

The moment Obama extended them in '10 they became his tax rates.

There is a very specific reason for that. Republicans wanted them to be permanent. What happened?
Click to expand...

And they are defacto now the rate. What has been happening is that if you recall, Demo's took control of the congress '06, and the complete congress along with the Presidency in '08. They could have waived a hand and raised them at any time....Why didn't they if it was such a good idea?

Are you saying that you have no idea about the specifics of the tax cuts that you hail as being a success?
Click to expand...

No.
 
Taichiliberal said:
And there you have it folks, this dumbass Bravo BELIEVES something, and that trumps reality in his intoxicated mind. Someone needs to pull this dumb SOB aside and explain to him that laws do not automatically terminate with a President's term. if Bravo was indeed correct, then there would have been no DOCUMENTED attempt by the GOP to EXTEND....they would have had to vote to RE-INSTATE.

YOU're getting more hilarious with every stupid post....EXTEND ?....RE-INSTATE ?
Of course the tax rates were allowed to stay in place.....extend is a good description.....by Obama....It then became Obama tax policy, Buah had nothing
to do with the tax policys of the Obama administraion.....
are you really trying to say that the tax policy of one president that in intended to end at his leaving the white house but is continued by a NEW president
do not become the tax policy of the NEW president ? No freakin' way Clarabell....

And as the chronology of teh posts shows, our barfly Bravo did indeed bring Kennedy into the conversation. Proven wrong, he tries to back off and deny his previous assertion like the gutless little neocon flunky that he is.


So unless Bravo CAN DOCUMENT his assertion beyond his opinion, I won't waste time responding to his rantings, and will sit back and laugh as he pontificates from the barstool. Carry on.
Click to expand...

You just did document my assertion.....you keep repeating everything I said and act like its new news.....todays tax rates are what
Obama has put into effect....Bush is long gone and has no control over tax policy since his departure and his legislation was for his tax rates to return to their previous levels........
None of you carping and long-winded bullshit is gonna change the facts.....
===============
And Yes, I brought Kennedy in post #407 in response to the assertion in Jarods op about tax cuts and jobs.....and here it is in its entirety....


We have been living with JFK's Tax Cuts for over 60 years now, job losses since have been bad...

I thought tax cuts were designed to create jobs, what gives?

How about that Jarod, what gives ?
Click to expand...

No 'assertions'.....no blame.....no anything except what you tiny brain imagines and mis-characterizes about it.....

The posts facetious nature is obvious to everyone except our resident pinhead tcliberal....
Jarod's stupid assertion that tax policy in 2001 has anything to do with job creation in 2012 is exposed by simple logic.....

Give it up TC, you're just making a bigger ass of yourself than usual.....you've been schooled over and over in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Who benefits?

Jarod said:
We have been living with the Bush Tax Cuts for a while now, job losses since have been bad...

I thought tax cuts were designed to create jobs, what gives?
Click to expand...

First, we have to think about who is the bene on the tax deal.
To create an environment condusive for job creation you have to extend tax cuts
For high earners. This is just my opinion but not many low-middle class individuals
Have created many jobs.
 
First, we have to think about the bene on the tax deal. If we want an environment conducive for job creation then tax cuts must be extended to this high earners. This is my opinion but I don't think many lower middle-class individualshave created that many jobs.
 
Althea said:
That's all very nice, but the question was, "why did they expire in '10"?

You do realize that there is a specific reason?
Click to expand...

They didn't expire in '10. They were scheduled to, but Obama extended them. The reason the tax cuts had a sunset provision is, Democrats wouldn't vote for it otherwise. You see, during the presidential campaign of 2000, when Bush campaigned on the promise to reduce taxes, Al Gore was saying it would cause all sorts of calamity by "blowing a hole in the debt." So being this was a divided issue from the campaign, and being the Congress is made up of two parties, the only way it could be passed into law was with bipartisan support, and the only way to obtain that, was to place a sunset provision on the tax cuts.

Now the specific reason given by the Democrats for objection, was Al Gore's "blow a hole" claims, which is the typical Democrat response whenever a tax cut is mentioned. It's funny how the only time Democrats are worried about the debt is when we talk about tax cuts. It's never a concern when implementing massive new government programs or doing anything the Democrats want to do. It's only when tax cuts are mentioned that the Democrats suddenly become concerned with the debt, and they use the arrogant presumption that tax money already belongs to them, and the cut has to be "paid for."
 
Dixie said:
They didn't expire in '10. They were scheduled to, but Obama extended them. The reason the tax cuts had a sunset provision is, Democrats wouldn't vote for it otherwise. You see, during the presidential campaign of 2000, when Bush campaigned on the promise to reduce taxes, Al Gore was saying it would cause all sorts of calamity by "blowing a hole in the debt." So being this was a divided issue from the campaign, and being the Congress is made up of two parties, the only way it could be passed into law was with bipartisan support, and the only way to obtain that, was to place a sunset provision on the tax cuts.

Now the specific reason given by the Democrats for objection, was Al Gore's "blow a hole" claims, which is the typical Democrat response whenever a tax cut is mentioned. It's funny how the only time Democrats are worried about the debt is when we talk about tax cuts. It's never a concern when implementing massive new government programs or doing anything the Democrats want to do. It's only when tax cuts are mentioned that the Democrats suddenly become concerned with the debt, and they use the arrogant presumption that tax money already belongs to them, and the cut has to be "paid for."
Click to expand...
Like most of your posts, this is factually incorrect.
 
j-mac said:
I can only offer my opinion on why they were enacted with a sunset provision. 1. President Bush is a more traditional, in terms of thinking, president. 2. My opinion is that he thought it wasn't up to him to permanently lower the rates. So, he left it in place for the next president and congress to either extend, make permanent, or do away with.
Click to expand...
Nope, Bush's handlers wanted them to be permanent.

The moment Obama extended them in '10 they became his tax rates
Click to expand...
.Yea...sure. Why did Obama extend them?



And they are defacto now the rate. What has been happening is that if you recall, Demo's took control of the congress '06, and the complete congress along with the Presidency in '08. They could have waived a hand and raised them at any time....Why didn't they if it was such a good idea?
Click to expand...
Nonsense
 
Althea said:
Nope, Bush's handlers wanted them to be permanent.

So Bush compromised and included a sunset provision....whats your point ?

.Yea...sure. Why did Obama extend them?

The reason is irrelevant and is subject to interpretation...the FACT remains....OBAMA overrode the Bush legislation and kept the rates as they still are....he owns them

Nonsense

Nonsense or not.....its STILL the truth
Click to expand...
.
 
bravo said:
So Bush compromised and included a sunset provision....whats your point ?
.
Click to expand...
My point, is that none of you have any clue as to the specifics of the issue.

Of course, that doesn't stop you from posting nonsense like the garbage above.


Not one of you knows anything about Bush's tax cuts. But you continue to post talking points.


Educate yourselves.
 
bravo said:



Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
And there you have it folks, this dumbass Bravo BELIEVES something, and that trumps reality in his intoxicated mind. Someone needs to pull this dumb SOB aside and explain to him that laws do not automatically terminate with a President's term. if Bravo was indeed correct, then there would have been no DOCUMENTED attempt by the GOP to EXTEND....they would have had to vote to RE-INSTATE.

YOU're getting more hilarious with every stupid post....EXTEND ?....RE-INSTATE ?
Of course the tax rates were allowed to stay in place.....extend is a good description.....by Obama....It then became Obama tax policy, Buah had nothing
to do with the tax policys of the Obama administraion.....
are you really trying to say that the tax policy of one president that in intended to end at his leaving the white house but is continued by a NEW president
do not become the tax policy of the NEW president ? No freakin' way Clarabell....
And as the chronology of teh posts shows, our barfly Bravo did indeed bring Kennedy into the conversation. Proven wrong, he tries to back off and deny his previous assertion like the gutless little neocon flunky that he is.


So unless Bravo CAN DOCUMENT his assertion beyond his opinion, I won't waste time responding to his rantings, and will sit back and laugh as he pontificates from the barstool. Carry on.
Click to expand...

You just did document my assertion.....you keep repeating everything I said and act like its new news.....todays tax rates are what
Obama has put into effect....Bush is long gone and has no control over tax policy since his departure and his legislation was for his tax rates to return to their previous levels........
None of you carping and long-winded bullshit is gonna change the facts.....
===============
And Yes, I brought Kennedy in post #407 in response to the assertion in Jarods op about tax cuts and jobs.....and here it is in its entirety....




No 'assertions'.....no blame.....no anything except what you tiny brain imagines and mis-characterizes about it.....

The posts facetious nature is obvious to everyone except our resident pinhead tcliberal....
Jarod's stupid assertion that tax policy in 2001 has anything to do with job creation in 2012 is exposed by simple logic.....

Give it up TC, you're just making a bigger ass of yourself than usual.....you've been schooled over and over in this thread.
Click to expand...

:whoa: :palm:
 
rt15779@gmail.com said:
First, we have to think about the bene on the tax deal. If we want an environment conducive for job creation then tax cuts must be extended to this high earners. This is my opinion but I don't think many lower middle-class individualshave created that many jobs.
Click to expand...

The Shrub's job creation rate was FAR lower than Clinton's, and ended his 2nd term n a downward economic tailspin....where are the jobs' after 30 years of Reaganomics?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top