Mitt Romney drumming up money with the well-heeled

[Ziggy]

 

 

second, bush won in 2000 by promising his tax cuts. by promising bigger refunds. so, the check that keeps coming, as you said.

 

 

 

This statement say so much. Honestly.....

 

So...a tax refund or a drop in taxes is relying on the government financially??? Really???

 

News flash, it isn't the governments money. If they allow you to keep more of YOUR money, that isn't living off the government. Taking someone else's money who worked hard for it and giving it to someone else is living off the government.

this has been bothering me so i am going to try to explain it for you a little better.

 

bush sold the american public on the notion that if elected they would get a tax refund (so people voted for him because of a promise of a paycheck, something you seem to have a problem with. although, i doubt that is the only reason people voted for bush, just as the reasons to vote of obama are far more complex and idiosyncratic), but under that auspice he was really just trying to pass a huge tax cut to the opulent minority. it was an unfunded tax cut that facilitated historic wealth redistribution to that opulent minority on the back of the middle class and our increasing debt. that is far worse, more irresponsible, and gravely out-of-line with true conservative values than 47% of americans not paying federal income tax and a sliver actually receiving money from the gov't to survive.

 

I love the phrase "unfunded tax cut". Since when do you need funding to cut taxes. The government is not giving money to people, they are allowing people to keep more of their own money.

[carlfense]

 

 

second, bush won in 2000 by promising his tax cuts. by promising bigger refunds. so, the check that keeps coming, as you said.

 

 

 

This statement say so much. Honestly.....

 

So...a tax refund or a drop in taxes is relying on the government financially??? Really???

 

News flash, it isn't the governments money. If they allow you to keep more of YOUR money, that isn't living off the government. Taking someone else's money who worked hard for it and giving it to someone else is living off the government.

this has been bothering me so i am going to try to explain it for you a little better.

 

bush sold the american public on the notion that if elected they would get a tax refund (so people voted for him because of a promise of a paycheck, something you seem to have a problem with. although, i doubt that is the only reason people voted for bush, just as the reasons to vote of obama are far more complex and idiosyncratic), but under that auspice he was really just trying to pass a huge tax cut to the opulent minority. it was an unfunded tax cut that facilitated historic wealth redistribution to that opulent minority on the back of the middle class and our increasing debt. that is far worse, more irresponsible, and gravely out-of-line with true conservative values than 47% of americans not paying federal income tax and a sliver actually receiving money from the gov't to survive.

 

I love the phrase "unfunded tax cut". Since when do you need funding to cut taxes. The government is not giving money to people, they are allowing people to keep more of their own money.

You do understand that if everything else is constant cutting taxes by $1 increases the deficit by the same amount as increasing spending by $1 . . . right?

 

I see a common tendency amongst GOP partisans to ignore that fact. Unless of course (as I've come to suspect) people don't actually care about the deficit so much as their suspicion that the size of government is exploding because of that durned Obama.

[Ziggy]

You understand that economies are never static, its standard economics. If you want to talk about a commodity, you put it into a vacuum and change one thing and study those effects, but there is no vacuum in the real world.

 

If you cut the taxes by 1 dollar, that $1 is spent on a soda/ pop (any commodity), which some goes to state tax, some to the store, some to the trucking company, the bottling company, so on and so forth. That also may give the buyer an incentive to spend another dollar at the store for a candy bar or a bag of chips. When you talk about $1 tax cut = $1 increased deficit, that is true in a vacuum but not in real life.

[sd'sker]

You understand that economies are never static, its standard economics. If you want to talk about a commodity, you put it into a vacuum and change one thing and study those effects, but there is no vacuum in the real world.

 

If you cut the taxes by 1 dollar, that $1 is spent on a soda/ pop (any commodity), which some goes to state tax, some to the store, some to the trucking company, the bottling company, so on and so forth. That also may give the buyer an incentive to spend another dollar at the store for a candy bar or a bag of chips. When you talk about $1 tax cut = $1 increased deficit, that is true in a vacuum but not in real life.

exactly why the middle class needs tax cuts and it has no affect (or could i use 'effect'? i will stick with 'affect' to be safe) on the wealthy. tax cuts should be based on the type of incentives they create. they should go to the real job creators, consumers.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

second, bush won in 2000 by promising his tax cuts. by promising bigger refunds. so, the check that keeps coming, as you said.

 

 

 

This statement say so much. Honestly.....

 

So...a tax refund or a drop in taxes is relying on the government financially??? Really???

 

News flash, it isn't the governments money. If they allow you to keep more of YOUR money, that isn't living off the government. Taking someone else's money who worked hard for it and giving it to someone else is living off the government.

this has been bothering me so i am going to try to explain it for you a little better.

 

bush sold the american public on the notion that if elected they would get a tax refund (so people voted for him because of a promise of a paycheck, something you seem to have a problem with. although, i doubt that is the only reason people voted for bush, just as the reasons to vote of obama are far more complex and idiosyncratic), but under that auspice he was really just trying to pass a huge tax cut to the opulent minority. it was an unfunded tax cut that facilitated historic wealth redistribution to that opulent minority on the back of the middle class and our increasing debt. that is far worse, more irresponsible, and gravely out-of-line with true conservative values than 47% of americans not paying federal income tax and a sliver actually receiving money from the gov't to survive.

 

I love the phrase "unfunded tax cut". Since when do you need funding to cut taxes. The government is not giving money to people, they are allowing people to keep more of their own money.

You do understand that if everything else is constant cutting taxes by $1 increases the deficit by the same amount as increasing spending by $1 . . . right?

 

I see a common tendency amongst GOP partisans to ignore that fact. Unless of course (as I've come to suspect) people don't actually care about the deficit so much as their suspicion that the size of government is exploding because of that durned Obama.

 

Wow....you just stumbled on something. Maybe we should cut spending. YES I DO CARE ABOUT THE DEFICIT. I WANT SPENDING CUT!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

All the friggen tax increases you can have is not going to come anywhere close to eliminating the deficit. You are looking at one side of the equation that does very little.

[carlfense]

Wow....you just stumbled on something. Maybe we should cut spending. YES I DO CARE ABOUT THE DEFICIT. I WANT SPENDING CUT!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

All the friggen tax increases you can have is not going to come anywhere close to eliminating the deficit. You are looking at one side of the equation that does very little.

No . . . I'm not looking at only one side of the equation. I agree that we need to cut spending. Where have I said otherwise? You are the one who is looking at only one side of the equation.

 

It's really hard to take your arguments seriously when your posts show such a shocking lack of self-awareness.

[sd'sker]

Wow....you just stumbled on something. Maybe we should cut spending. YES I DO CARE ABOUT THE DEFICIT. I WANT SPENDING CUT!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

All the friggen tax increases you can have is not going to come anywhere close to eliminating the deficit. You are looking at one side of the equation that does very little.

"i don't know, i think if we only raised taxes on the rich the deficit would be eliminated within six months."--no one, ever.

 

is spending going to eliminate the deficit? and then, how crippled will our economy when there is no security or gov't spending?

 

my caps lock works to, watch: THE ONLY WAY TO FIX THE ECONOMY, AND LOWER THE DEFICIT, IS TO INCREASE SPENDING. SPENDING FROM ANYWHERE.

[carlfense]

You understand that economies are never static, its standard economics. If you want to talk about a commodity, you put it into a vacuum and change one thing and study those effects, but there is no vacuum in the real world.

 

If you cut the taxes by 1 dollar, that $1 is spent on a soda/ pop (any commodity), which some goes to state tax, some to the store, some to the trucking company, the bottling company, so on and so forth. That also may give the buyer an incentive to spend another dollar at the store for a candy bar or a bag of chips. When you talk about $1 tax cut = $1 increased deficit, that is true in a vacuum but not in real life.

Unfortunately, history seems to show otherwise. Your theory is nice . . . but the facts aren't on your side.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-economic-growth-a-new-65-year-study-finds/262438/

[Ziggy]

You understand that economies are never static, its standard economics. If you want to talk about a commodity, you put it into a vacuum and change one thing and study those effects, but there is no vacuum in the real world.

 

If you cut the taxes by 1 dollar, that $1 is spent on a soda/ pop (any commodity), which some goes to state tax, some to the store, some to the trucking company, the bottling company, so on and so forth. That also may give the buyer an incentive to spend another dollar at the store for a candy bar or a bag of chips. When you talk about $1 tax cut = $1 increased deficit, that is true in a vacuum but not in real life.

exactly why the middle class needs tax cuts and it has no affect (or could i use 'effect'? i will stick with 'affect' to be safe) on the wealthy. tax cuts should be based on the type of incentives they create. they should go to the real job creators, consumers.

 

Now we are getting somewhere, everyone should get a tax cut. But seriously I am all for reducing taxes on households making under $1 million. Over that I wouldn't object to increasing taxes a small amount, and closing tax loopholes. But it has to be connected to cuts on the spending side. Our country can no longer continue to spend the amount of money without the ability to pay for those expenditures.

[carlfense]

Now we are getting somewhere, everyone should get a tax cut. But seriously I am all for reducing taxes on households making under $1 million. Over that I wouldn't object to increasing taxes a small amount, and closing tax loopholes. But it has to be connected to cuts on the spending side. Our country can no longer continue to spend the amount of money without the ability to pay for those expenditures.

Those statements only have one sentence between them. The mind boggles.

[Ziggy]

You understand that economies are never static, its standard economics. If you want to talk about a commodity, you put it into a vacuum and change one thing and study those effects, but there is no vacuum in the real world.

 

If you cut the taxes by 1 dollar, that $1 is spent on a soda/ pop (any commodity), which some goes to state tax, some to the store, some to the trucking company, the bottling company, so on and so forth. That also may give the buyer an incentive to spend another dollar at the store for a candy bar or a bag of chips. When you talk about $1 tax cut = $1 increased deficit, that is true in a vacuum but not in real life.

Unfortunately, history seems to show otherwise. Your theory is nice . . . but the facts aren't on your side.

 

Actually its not a theory, its macro and micro econ 101.

[carlfense]

You understand that economies are never static, its standard economics. If you want to talk about a commodity, you put it into a vacuum and change one thing and study those effects, but there is no vacuum in the real world.

 

If you cut the taxes by 1 dollar, that $1 is spent on a soda/ pop (any commodity), which some goes to state tax, some to the store, some to the trucking company, the bottling company, so on and so forth. That also may give the buyer an incentive to spend another dollar at the store for a candy bar or a bag of chips. When you talk about $1 tax cut = $1 increased deficit, that is true in a vacuum but not in real life.

Unfortunately, history seems to show otherwise. Your theory is nice . . . but the facts aren't on your side.

 

Actually its not a theory, its macro and micro econ 101.

You took macro and micro and don't realize that what you're reciting are theories?

 

Might want to head back to school.

[Ziggy]

Now we are getting somewhere, everyone should get a tax cut. But seriously I am all for reducing taxes on households making under $1 million. Over that I wouldn't object to increasing taxes a small amount, and closing tax loopholes. But it has to be connected to cuts on the spending side. Our country can no longer continue to spend the amount of money without the ability to pay for those expenditures.

Those statements only have one sentence in between them. The mind boggles.

 

Ironic coming from someone who hates when people who take Obama out of context, you do the very same thing.

[carlfense]

Now we are getting somewhere, everyone should get a tax cut. But seriously I am all for reducing taxes on households making under $1 million. Over that I wouldn't object to increasing taxes a small amount, and closing tax loopholes. But it has to be connected to cuts on the spending side. Our country can no longer continue to spend the amount of money without the ability to pay for those expenditures.

Those statements only have one sentence in between them. The mind boggles.

 

Ironic coming from someone who hates when people who take Obama out of context, you do the very same thing.

What context is lacking? Enlighten me.

[Ziggy]

You understand that economies are never static, its standard economics. If you want to talk about a commodity, you put it into a vacuum and change one thing and study those effects, but there is no vacuum in the real world.

 

If you cut the taxes by 1 dollar, that $1 is spent on a soda/ pop (any commodity), which some goes to state tax, some to the store, some to the trucking company, the bottling company, so on and so forth. That also may give the buyer an incentive to spend another dollar at the store for a candy bar or a bag of chips. When you talk about $1 tax cut = $1 increased deficit, that is true in a vacuum but not in real life.

Unfortunately, history seems to show otherwise. Your theory is nice . . . but the facts aren't on your side.

 

Actually its not a theory, its macro and micro econ 101.

You took macro and micro and don't realize that what you're reciting are theories?

 

Might want to head back to school.

 

Its not a theory that Micro and Macro are discussed in a vacuum, the actual discussion of Micro and Macro are the theories.