Taxes were cut, where are the jobs?

Taichiliberal said:
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?
Click to expand...

Creating NEW jobs isn't so easy when the country is at what is normally considered full employment, ie, about 5.2 % average over 8 years.....

Is that same policy Clinton and Obama are following, Reaganomics? lol
 
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...

Once again the Dixie Dunce ignores history and FACTS that he does not like in favor of his own version of reality:

In 2001 and 2003, Congress passed tax cuts proposed by President George W. Bush. At the time, Mr. Bush and the Republican leaders of Congress certainly believed they were rewriting the tax code permanently, but the laws they passed actually gave the cuts an expiration date at the end of 2010.The question of what would happen then became more relevant after Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006, and the two parties have been fighting about them ever since, with Republicans pushing to make them permanent and Democrats seeking to end them for upper-income households. Their fate now seems likely to play a significant role in the 2012 presidential campaign.

In 2008, Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to roll back the high-end cuts, but a Democratic Senate balked at muscling through that change. After making huge gains in the November 2010 midterm elections, Republicans announced they would block all legislation in the lame-duck session that followed until all the cuts were extended.

In December 2010, Mr. Obama reached a deal with Republicans that extended the tax cuts at all income levels through the end of 2012 (they expire Jan. 1, 2013) as part of a package that would also keep benefits flowing to the long-term unemployed, cut payroll taxes for all workers for a year and take other steps to bolster the economy. It also continued tax breaks on dividends and capital gains, and lowered the estate tax. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refere...uts/index.html
 
Obama caved and agreed to not change the tax rates.....
Now tell us something we don't already know....
 
Taichiliberal said:
Once again the Dixie Dunce ignores history and FACTS that he does not like in favor of his own version of reality:

In 2001 and 2003, Congress passed tax cuts proposed by President George W. Bush. At the time, Mr. Bush and the Republican leaders of Congress certainly believed they were rewriting the tax code permanently, but the laws they passed actually gave the cuts an expiration date at the end of 2010.The question of what would happen then became more relevant after Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006, and the two parties have been fighting about them ever since, with Republicans pushing to make them permanent and Democrats seeking to end them for upper-income households. Their fate now seems likely to play a significant role in the 2012 presidential campaign.

In 2008, Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to roll back the high-end cuts, but a Democratic Senate balked at muscling through that change. After making huge gains in the November 2010 midterm elections, Republicans announced they would block all legislation in the lame-duck session that followed until all the cuts were extended.

In December 2010, Mr. Obama reached a deal with Republicans that extended the tax cuts at all income levels through the end of 2012 (they expire Jan. 1, 2013) as part of a package that would also keep benefits flowing to the long-term unemployed, cut payroll taxes for all workers for a year and take other steps to bolster the economy. It also continued tax breaks on dividends and capital gains, and lowered the estate tax. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refere...uts/index.html
Click to expand...
That link scratches the surface, but you have to dig deeper to get at the truth.

We've seen claims that Bush purposely had a sunset on his tax cuts. That's LAUGHABLE.

We've seen republicans get credit for forward thinking, because the tax cuts were meant to be a temporary boost to the economy. Also laughable.


None of them understand the heinous nature of the way Bush tanked the economy. They laugh about Gore claiming that tax cuts would blow a hole in the deficit. Who's laughing now?

Oh, right....deficits are only bad when Dems. are in the White House.


Read here


During the legislative fight over tax cuts in 2001, Senate Republicans could not predict with certainty that they would reach the 60-vote threshold of support that would have enabled them to make the tax cuts permanent. As a result, when Congress passed the first of many tax cuts during the last decade in May 2001, it passed it as a reconciliation bill which needs only 51 votes. That was the so-called Bush tax cut, formally known as the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA, pronounced egg-tray). Reconciliation was devised in 1974 as a way to for the Senate to deal more effectively with budget bills, but it soon became a technique to limit amendments and debate. In 1985, the Senate added the so-called Byrd rule to reconciliation. Named after Senator Robert Byrd, the rule forbids a bill passed under reconciliation from, among other things, altering federal revenue for more than 10 years. Any senator may object that a provision violates that stricture, and if the presiding officer agrees, a vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling.
Click to expand...

Republicans WANTED the tax cuts to be permanent. Despite what the ignorant Righties here may have you believe.
 
Althea said:
Nope, Bush's handlers wanted them to be permanent.
Click to expand...

"Bush's handlers" who the hell are you talking about? Who are Obama's "handlers"? George Soros?

Yea...sure. Why did Obama extend them?
Click to expand...

Because he'd be blamed for tanking the economy if he had raised them. Same reason he si going to keep them in place again.

Nonsense
Click to expand...

No NOT nonsense. Obama and demo's went behind the curtain and forced Stimulus, forced Obamacare through...They absolutely could have rammed through a tax hike if they were such a good idea. But they aren't! That's why they have to impose their God awful taxes incognito, like they did with this Obamacare (tax)
 
Althea said:
That link scratches the surface, but you have to dig deeper to get at the truth.

Republicans WANTED the tax cuts to be permanent. Despite what the ignorant Righties here may have you believe.
Click to expand...

Do you think the Bush tax cuts were passed the way they were without his knowing and consent ? He agreed to the way they got them through Congress...
Who the fuck EVER denied the R's wanted the tax cuts to be permanent, you ignorant pinhead.....of course they did....EVERYONE knows that and we've always
known that for the last 11 years ....
The fact is, they weren't permanent.....OBAMA MADE them last longer than what the legislation called for.....no one else....
Todays tax rates are Obamas tax rates......that asshole has to take responsibility for his presidency sooner of later.

You're quite a dunce aren't you......akin to TCLibby....now tell us something we don't already know.

You were also WRONG blaming 'righties' for calling someone ignorant in another thread too....when it was really one of your own clowns posting that accusation...
 
Last edited:
Althea said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Once again the Dixie Dunce ignores history and FACTS that he does not like in favor of his own version of reality:

In 2001 and 2003, Congress passed tax cuts proposed by President George W. Bush. At the time, Mr. Bush and the Republican leaders of Congress certainly believed they were rewriting the tax code permanently, but the laws they passed actually gave the cuts an expiration date at the end of 2010.The question of what would happen then became more relevant after Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006, and the two parties have been fighting about them ever since, with Republicans pushing to make them permanent and Democrats seeking to end them for upper-income households. Their fate now seems likely to play a significant role in the 2012 presidential campaign.

In 2008, Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to roll back the high-end cuts, but a Democratic Senate balked at muscling through that change. After making huge gains in the November 2010 midterm elections, Republicans announced they would block all legislation in the lame-duck session that followed until all the cuts were extended.

In December 2010, Mr. Obama reached a deal with Republicans that extended the tax cuts at all income levels through the end of 2012 (they expire Jan. 1, 2013) as part of a package that would also keep benefits flowing to the long-term unemployed, cut payroll taxes for all workers for a year and take other steps to bolster the economy. It also continued tax breaks on dividends and capital gains, and lowered the estate tax. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refere...uts/index.html
Click to expand...
That link scratches the surface, but you have to dig deeper to get at the truth.

We've seen claims that Bush purposely had a sunset on his tax cuts. That's LAUGHABLE.

We've seen republicans get credit for forward thinking, because the tax cuts were meant to be a temporary boost to the economy. Also laughable.


None of them understand the heinous nature of the way Bush tanked the economy. They laugh about Gore claiming that tax cuts would blow a hole in the deficit. Who's laughing now?

Oh, right....deficits are only bad when Dems. are in the White House.


Read here

During the legislative fight over tax cuts in 2001, Senate Republicans could not predict with certainty that they would reach the 60-vote threshold of support that would have enabled them to make the tax cuts permanent. As a result, when Congress passed the first of many tax cuts during the last decade in May 2001, it passed it as a reconciliation bill which needs only 51 votes. That was the so-called Bush tax cut, formally known as the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA, pronounced egg-tray). Reconciliation was devised in 1974 as a way to for the Senate to deal more effectively with budget bills, but it soon became a technique to limit amendments and debate. In 1985, the Senate added the so-called Byrd rule to reconciliation. Named after Senator Robert Byrd, the rule forbids a bill passed under reconciliation from, among other things, altering federal revenue for more than 10 years. Any senator may object that a provision violates that stricture, and if the presiding officer agrees, a vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling
Click to expand...


Republicans WANTED the tax cuts to be permanent. Despite what the ignorant Righties here may have you believe.
Click to expand...


Thanks for completing the circle.....with willfully ignorant neocon/teabagger flunkies, you have to spoon feed the truth.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...-cut-where-are-the-jobs&p=1047907#post1047907

Keep laughing, you drunken clown, laugh! You're dismissed.
Click to expand...

So your contention tacky is that the tax rates were forced upon Obama right? So then explain this:


At that time the economy was growing at about 2.5% or better, now it is half that and it's ok to raise taxes?

Come on Tacky, this is dumb....It is the same meme Obama has been trying since '08...Didn't work then, and won't work now.
 
j-mac said:
There fixed it for ya.
Click to expand...

Actually, what you've done is a violation of the rules by altering the orginal word content of someone's post. If you don't have the intellectual capacity/honesty to debate the issue rationally and factually, then don't post.
 
j-mac said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sho...07#post1047907

Keep laughing, you drunken clown, laugh! You're dismissed.
Click to expand...

So your contention tacky is that the tax rates were forced upon Obama right? So then explain this:


At that time the economy was growing at about 2.5% or better, now it is half that and it's ok to raise taxes?

Come on Tacky, this is dumb....It is the same meme Obama has been trying since '08...Didn't work then, and won't work now.
Click to expand...

What's dumb is your persistence in trying to rewrite recent history and ignore what you don't like.

FACT: In 2008, Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to roll back the high-end cuts, but a Democratic Senate balked at muscling through that change. After making huge gains in the November 2010 midterm elections, Republicans announced they would block all legislation in the lame-duck session that followed until all the cuts were extended. - NY Times

Not my "contention" you idiot! A matter of fact and history that can be corroborated by the WSJ, Businessweek, etc.


As for your clip....Obama explains what his plan was/is....your 2.5% growth claim has no date or reference or documentation. In short, you're just as insipidly stubborn as ever, Mac
 
Taichiliberal said:
What's dumb is your persistence in trying to rewrite recent history and ignore what you don't like.

FACT: In 2008, Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to roll back the high-end cuts, but a Democratic Senate balked at muscling through that change. After making huge gains in the November 2010 midterm elections, Republicans announced they would block all legislation in the lame-duck session that followed until all the cuts were extended. - NY Times

Not my "contention" you idiot! A matter of fact and history that can be corroborated by the WSJ, Businessweek, etc.


As for your clip....Obama explains what his plan was/is....your 2.5% growth claim has no date or reference or documentation. In short, you're just as insipidly stubborn as ever, Mac
Click to expand...


it was in August 2009, pinhead....6 months into his term...give it up lightweight, he schooled you again.

https://www.google.com/search?q=oba...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
 
Taichiliberal said:
What's dumb is your persistence in trying to rewrite recent history and ignore what you don't like.

FACT: In 2008, Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to roll back the high-end cuts, but a Democratic Senate balked at muscling through that change. After making huge gains in the November 2010 midterm elections, Republicans announced they would block all legislation in the lame-duck session that followed until all the cuts were extended. - NY Times

Not my "contention" you idiot! A matter of fact and history that can be corroborated by the WSJ, Businessweek, etc.


As for your clip....Obama explains what his plan was/is....your 2.5% growth claim has no date or reference or documentation. In short, you're just as insipidly stubborn as ever, Mac
Click to expand...

The part I bolded is the only thing that the NYTimes got right in that pap....Look, you and I both know, if we are being intellectually honest that is, that Obama's entire Presidency has been anchored on the "I WON" meme. We can tell that by him today rolling out the exact same rhetoric he was spewing before he caved in '10. Obama talks a big game about compromise, but that is a funny word for libs. They think that compromise means do things our way.

Demo's held congress since '06, and all three branches from '08, to '10 when they lost the house. Since then any valid compromise has been tabled by Harry 'a little birdy told me' Reid. And blaming it on everything from ATM's and Mall kiosks, to it being Repub's fault. NOT ONCE has Obama in 4 years taken responsibility for a damned thing. He is a dishonest pussy.

Now, he is starting up the class warfare, and raise taxes on the rich crap for his election because he can't run on his failure of a record. So let's just drop the crap can we?
 
Taichiliberal said:
Actually, what you've done is a violation of the rules by altering the orginal word content of someone's post. If you don't have the intellectual capacity/honesty to debate the issue rationally and factually, then don't post.
Click to expand...

Oh, no - that's not against the rules. Billy said it's perfectly fine to do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top