Comments on: Chicago Loses, Conservatives Rejoice

By: mike mcEachran

mike mcEachran — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:25:03 +0000

@ balckoutyears – I will be more concious of the road I take. It’s good advice, and part of my Bush Derangement Syndrom recovery plan. However, I think one can take the high road and still call a banana a banana when neccessary (to quote another post burried somewhere in here).

By: Jimmy the Dhimmi

Jimmy the Dhimmi — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 03:03:59 +0000

…and Greenspan and Bush and Bernake.

ROFLMAO!!!

By: Doomed

Doomed — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:08:00 +0000

I voted for Clinton Twice. I thought he was a fine president. I wished he were still in charge. Our deficit would most likely be gone and we would be in strong financial shape.

Because America is a consumer driven free market with massive regulations and…..AND we fuel our consumerism with DEBT we are going to have a recession every 5-9 years…Guaranteed. Its always political and its always bunk. Its not Clintons fault, Its not Bush’s Fault. Its the systems fault.

But I would that you guys would seriously challenge your leaders…Dems….they are leading you on the road to perdition….We are hopelessly in debt and I would be applauding these tax hikes if they were designed to solve our deficits. They are not.

In the end we end up with more taxes, more deficits and less of an ability to repay our debt because we’ve used up our taxation ability to address the debt.

I know most of you think that health care reform will cure the debt….I challenge that with all that I am. This is the Federal government who has never ever in the history of the world created an entitlement program thats remotely paid for itself.

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 23:33:20 +0000

LOL!!! Jimmy claims this is because of Clinton and Obama? Good lord. Lest I remind you...

By: Jimmy the Dhimmi

Jimmy the Dhimmi — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 23:14:49 +0000

Bill Clinton then raised marginal tax rates further, balanced the budget, and we saw a period of huge economic growth.

More like a huge economic bubble based on inflated stock prices which bust in 2000 leaving Mr. Bush Jr. with a major recession before he took over.

Also a budget surplus ( based on cutting military and intelligence spending during the emergence of Al-qaeda no less), which was wiped out completely one year after the Nasdaq bubble burst.

Clintongreenspanbushbernakeobamanomics:
1) Boom
2) Bust
3) Repeat

By: blackoutyears

blackoutyears — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:55:06 +0000

@Mike McE — I understand the frustration completely, I just don’t happen to think it’s an excuse for taking the low road. I think consensus comes from us, not Obama, and it starts with civility, humility, and more open-mindedness than either party has shown each other in a long time. I don’t agree with much of Doomed’s points, but I do think he’s correct about the insults and reductiveness coming from the Left, just as the Left is correct about the same from the Right. Instead of everyone crying false equivalency, how about just owning up to the fact that no one’s going out of their way to ensure mature debate.

By: michael reynolds

michael reynolds — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:13:47 +0000

I mistated: that second recession was during Bush the Elder, not Reagan, but the Reagan rates were still in effect. Bush’s tax increases came into effect in late 1990 by which point we were already in recession. We came out of that recession soon after Bush raised taxes.

By: michael reynolds

michael reynolds — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:05:06 +0000

OOPS. Sorry, transcription error there. Let me check.

By: michael reynolds

michael reynolds — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:03:38 +0000

Recession July 1981 to November 1982 (Reagan takes office, marginal rate: 50%)
Recession July 1990 to March 1991 (Reagan 28% and then 30% rate in effect)

So Reagan had two recessions under two very different tax rates. He left office having massively increased the deficit — so much so that George Bush the Elder had to raise taxes to undo Mr. Reagan’s mess.

Bill Clinton then raised marginal tax rates further, balanced the budget, and we saw a period of huge economic growth.

Mr. Bush Jr. came to office and cut taxes, ballooned the deficit and left office with the economy staring at depression.

Once again: this is not why we are getting spittle-flecked rants from the crazy train. It’s not taxes. Half the people in this country don’t even pay income taxes. Taxes are a stalking horse for a host of other issues: racism, cultural panic, and generalized right wing paranoia.

By: Doomed

Doomed — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:25:37 +0000

Ok MR

Reagans rates were initially dropped from 69-50 percent and the recession continued.

The U.S. Congress passed the Tax Reform Act (TRA) of 1986, (Pub.L. 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085, enacted October 22, 1986)CUT AND PASTED FROM WIKI……..The rate was dropped from 50 percent to 28 percent and the boom started.

There was no boom when the rates were 50 percent and in fact the recession continued with the S&L debacle and bail outs. Regan began running deficits to pay for a huge military which actually stimulated the economy out of the recession in late 1983.

When Bush Sr. Got into office he allowed rates to ease upward which got him into huge trouble with his own party….remember the NO NEW TAXES? He allowed taxes to rise which created a recession. His recession lasted 6 months and was over when Clinton entered office.

But thanks for the revisionist history lesson Im sure Obama and the democrats who continue to make sure the poor remain poor so they have a reason to vote Democrat…thank you.

By: Nick Benjamin

Nick Benjamin — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:12:06 +0000

Damn my blockquote demonstration did not work. Put blockquote between the brackets to open the quotes, then end the quotes by typing the same thing, but with a / before blockquote.

By: Nick Benjamin

Nick Benjamin — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:09:10 +0000

@Doomed, you can’t seriously be comparing the Panthers to the KKK. Unless of course you’re TRYING to destroy what little credibility you had.

The current Panthers are somewhat comparable to the current Klan, in that they’re a bunch of extremist whackoes nobody takes seriously. Technically calling them Black Panthers is illegal, because the 70s-era Black Panthers refuse to let them use the name.

The 70s-era black panthers were nothing like the Klan. They were Communist, and their biggest projects were watching the cops (they got publicity for this the same way the teapartiers do — by bringing perfectly legal firearms along) and running social service programs in black neighborhoods.

BTW, Doomed,

there’s a function called blockquote. Put it between brackets (

without a space), paste your quote, then type (

also without a space).

If you’re doing it right the post preview will have your quotes all purty.

Your posts will be much more readable.

By: michael reynolds

michael reynolds — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:34:40 +0000

Doomed:

The top tax rate in Reagan’s first term was 50% This was followed by a boom.

Taxes were then lowered, and Mr. Reagan handed Mr. Bush the elder a recession.

The top tax rate under Mr. Clinton was 39.6%. During which time we had economic good times, as you may recall, and balanced the budget.

Mr. Bush dropped the rate to 35% and we had an exploding deficit followed by a crisis of historic proportions.

Now Mr. Obama is talking about letting those cuts expire and returning us to the same top marginal rate we had under Mr. Clinton, and a lower rate than during Mr. Reagan’s “Morning in America.”

And your theory is that this is the motive for screaming, Hitler-shouting, spittle-flecked townhall and tea party madness. The terrible fear that it might be as awful as it was under Mr. Clinton or Reagan 1.

Yeah. That’s totally believable. Because there’s nothing that scares people worse than the idea of economic good times.

By: Doomed

Doomed — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:46:04 +0000

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/03/comparing-income-taxes-clinton-vs-bush.html

You might find this interesting.

Here you can see that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire will bring a tax increase to all those middle class people that Obama said will not see their income tax raise one dime.

The middle class got a huge tax break under the Bush tax cuts to the point that even the democrats voted for it.

For example A person under Clinton who made 65,000 dollars per year paid 28 percent under Clinton. Under Bush tax cuts the same person paid 15 FIFTEEN percent.

Dont be snookered by your own party….they want tax money to pay for all their social programs to keep the poor POOR….they dont care about the middle class….they are lying to you way more then the Republicans are lying to you.

By: Doomed

Doomed — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:30:22 +0000

Open your eyes man.

Those taxes are from Obama’s own 2010 budget. That is an analysis of Obama’s own 2010 Budget.

AS for the 645 Billion it depends on if you choose Kerry’s cap and trade bill or the boxer cap and trade bill that is going to pass…..or it might not pass…..We can only hope that it doesnt pass….that we make a difference and that we change minds.

Nice try on the echo chamber but I actually do my research rather then take for granted my own paycheck hasnt risen so gee there must not be any new taxes out there and if my OWN paycheck hasnt risen then those GOP’ers who claim all these new taxes are Liars.

By: michael reynolds

michael reynolds — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:41:34 +0000

Doomed:

Do me a favor. Compare tax rates that will apply after the Bush tax cuts expire, with the tax rates Mr. Reagan had in place. Come back and tell us all what you find. And explain why this is the apocalypse.

By: michael reynolds

michael reynolds — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:38:08 +0000

Doomed:

In this case I present you with 1.65 trillion dollars in new taxes

You did no such thing.

Give me the numbers of the bills — endorsed by Obama — that reveal a plan to raise taxes by 1.6 trillion dollars.

One of the tactics of the right is to live inside an echo chamber of lies and paranoia and then imagine that the rest of us will simply buy into those lies.

By: Doomed

Doomed — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:52:38 +0000

What is LIFO? LIFO (which stands for “last in, first out”) is an inventory accounting method used by companies throughout the U.S. economy to determine both book income and tax liability. Book income is the amount of earnings shown on business financial
statements. Tax liability is the amount of income tax owed to the government

Repealing LIFO would be a massive tax increase on hundreds of thousands of large and small American businesses, and could force many smaller ones to close. CUT AND PASTED.

This is just one area where medium and small businesses are being affected by the repeal of LIFO. 61 billion in tax increases. These businesses either have to raise their fees to pay for this tax or they shut their doors or they fire people to pay for the costs of LIFO repeal.

You can believe that the Democrats love you….you can believe that the Democrats sit up nights worrying about the middle class and poor in America but guess what.

If we give the POOR food stamps….they are still POOR.
If we give the poor FREE health care…..they are still poor.
If we give the poor public housing….they are still poor.
If we raise the minimum wage…everyone raises prices and the POOR are still POOR.

The democrats are nothing but an organization that claims they are all for the little man and what that really means is keeping the little man tied to their apron strings and dependent upon the government for handouts to survive.

The drug of choice for the Democrats is poverty….they do things to help the poor while NEVER ever helping them to NO LONGER BE POOR.

No one wants to debate issues. Everyone believes they know the truth and anyone who rocks their boat gets the I hate you meme. How many names Ive been called in this one thread I have lost count, simply for presenting the other side of the debate.

By: Doomed

Doomed — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:40:05 +0000

One of the great debate tactics of the left is to look at facts….Deny those facts and then switch the subject.

In this case I present you with 1.65 trillion dollars in new taxes. You then call it BS…..and then start accsuing tea party members of screaming about Hitler, Stalin, fascism and communism and all kinds of other non sense.

Good job of using the Lefts Alinsky tactics for not wanting to have a real debate.

How can I take you seriously here on this site when you and Agnostic are not willing to even tackle the facts.

1.65 trillion is more then the Bush tax cuts. Yet the Bush tax cuts were going to destroy America. Now here we have 1.65 trillion and that doesnt even touch on the taxes that will be contained in the new health care bill that will amount to another 1 plus trillion.

Now….weve added 2.6 trillion in taxes over 10 years and havent even touched the deficits…

Dick Cheney said….”Deficits don’t matter.” Are you guys now siding with Cheney?

By: michael reynolds

michael reynolds — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:53:30 +0000

Doomed:

No, what I asked you to do is make sense of your contention that the tea parties and townhall loons are all about tax increases.

You came back with a BS list of taxes which, even if they were all real (and they aren’t) amount to a 2% increase in government receipts.

Sorry, but people don’t start screaming about Hitler, Stalin, fascism, communism and all the other Birther, Deather, Tea Bagger nuttiness over a 2% tax increase that doesn’t even affect them directly.