Monday, August 6, 2012
Miscellaneous 135
1) I don't doubt for a second that other administrations have met with lobbyists "off site", at coffee shops, and other destinations. But this Obama fellow was supposed to be a different type of politician and, yes, he was supposed to have a transparent administration as well....I mean, am I the only one who's a little bit disappointed in him here (of those who voted for him, I'm saying)?............2) Government bureaucracy is inherently inefficient and self-serving. To think that we can somehow sprinkle some pixie dust on it (yet another law, yet another layer of regulation) and magically make it not so is utterly ridiculous. And, yet, that is exactly what certain people think.............3) I have a question pertaining to Harry Reid. Is Mr. Reid saying that Romney LEGALLY didn't pay any taxes for ten years, or is he saying that the dude ILLEGALLY didn't pay any taxes for ten years? 'Cause if in fact it's the latter, then the Senate Majority Leader has a moral (and possibly legal, too?) obligation to go to the I.R.S. and/or the Justice Department and provide them with this important information. He does want to do the moral thing, no?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
no, he's not saying romney did anything illegal. he's making the political point that if he's wrong, romney could easily prove him wrong by releasing his tax returns. if romney doesn't release them, either reid must be right or romney must have something else he doesn't want publicly known. i must admit my opinion of reid has grown since he unveiled this ploy.
It's definitely not winter ball, that's for sure.
?
Sorry, I tend far too much to sports analogies. Harry's tactics - the major leagues. Get it?
Who is Barry Soetoro? Was Barry Soetoro a foreign exchange student at both Occidental and Columbia? Did Barry Soetoro receive financial aid as a foreign exchange student? Did Barry Soetoro attend many classes while attending Columbia?Hmmmm,very interesting.
barack obama graduated magna cum laude from harvard law school.
i doubt the shackeltroll even knows what that means.
I think that this might be one story without legs, Russ. Factcheck.org has already dealt with it, I believe.
Dont be so sure Will.d nova seems a bit concerned about it....their ilk is very protective of Obie.
How does nova know what Obies grades were....he's never released his transcripts.
d nova, whwre have I see d nova before?
Oh, that's right. IN OUTER SPACE.
Yep RN,another far left wingnut spouting the Obie accolades....never mind the 40 months of unemployment over 8%....never mind the 15% black unemployment rate.....never mind the 11% latino unemployment rate....never mind the 17 trillion in debt....think about hope and change....think about how "cool" Obie is....forget that he's never held a job in his life....remember those great speeches he gives....forget that he's incompetent....forget that after all he's just another Chicago political hack!!!!
Here's what I think that we know, Russ. Obama did graduate with honors from Harvard (Harvard would have to be lying for that not to be true). How well he did at Occidental and Columbia is a different story. He didn't graduate with honors from Columbia and so his GPA there had to have been under 3.3.......So, now, was the dude an affirmative action selection to get into Harvard Law. Maybe, maybe not. But he did take advantage of the opportunity and did exceedingly well there.
He may have done well at Harvard Law Will.....but he sure has shit in his mess kit in DC.His performance the past 3.5 years proves you cant go from community organizer to the White House.
ah, we've attracted a 2nd troll. i'll just deal with a little of the BS.
anybody that actually wants to check the prez's employment history can look at his bio on wikipedia. they'll find that in the 5 years between college and law school he held 3 jobs, 2 for one year each, then his first community organizing job for 3 years. he worked at 2 law firms during the summers when he was in law school. after that he taught for a few years, directed a voter registration drive, and was a civil rights lawyer for 3 years before running for office. representing that as 'never held a job in his life' tells us how trustworthy mr shackeltroll is.
rather than respond point by point to rustroll's cherry picking, i'll just post the one definitive link that shows how -- if you add in 7+ years of war -- *all* the economic troubles of the last 3.5 years can be traced to dubya's years [it often loads slowly -- due to RW hack attacks? -- so be patient]:
http://www.barackobama.com/jobsrecord
d nova said: "if romney doesn't release them, either reid must be right"
Reid is refusing the release the information, which is something he would only do if there was nothing to it at all. He's doing a poker bluff.
---------
will said: "So, now, was the dude an affirmative action selection to get into Harvard Law."
Ah yes, the problems of racist programs designed to promote people on skin color instead of ability.
D Nova said:
" if you add in 7+ years of war -- *all* the economic troubles of the last 3.5 years can be traced to dubya's years [it often loads slowly -- due to RW hack attacks? -- so be patient]:"
Only the troubles Bush is to blame for. The rest, such as the 50% increase in the national debt, and 20% increase in unemployment, are the result of Obama's choice and policies.
look, dmarks, if you can't read a graph, quit bothering me with your foolishness. it's obvious obama couldn't stop bush's job losses overnight. it was >800k the month he took office. it took 3 months for monthly job losses to start falling and about a year to reduce it to zero. that plus 2 wars plus bush's tax cuts for the rich plus the costs of getting out of bush's mess are the causes of the debt. any other interpretation is the result of confirmation bias.
hell, dmarks, i'm not going to explain reid's strategy to you. if you can't grasp what i said, believe what you want.
d nova: it took 3 months for monthly job losses to start falling and about a year to reduce it to zero. that plus 2 wars plus bush's tax cuts for the rich plus the costs of getting out of bush's mess are the causes of the debt.
Exactly. We'd probably be discussing how quickly Obama is paying down the national debt if not for bush's illegal wars and bush's recession.
D Nova said; "ook, dmarks, if you can't read a graph, quit bothering me with your foolishness. it's obvious obama couldn't stop bush's job losses overnight."
Instead, he made it worse. Not only that, promised policies (Obamacare and other bad policies) caused more job losses between Obama's election and inauguration.
Instead of trying it was to fix the problem, he took the counter-productive step of wasting even more money on a "stimulus" that was a pay-back to unions.
"that plus 2 wars plus bush's tax cuts for the rich plus the costs of getting out of bush's mess are the causes of the debt."
The tax cuts directly resulted in more revenue coming in. The cost of the necessary retaliation against the terrorists is less than $1.4 trillion: a small fraction of the debt accumulated by both Bush and Obama. And this is assuming that any of this added to the debt: a good case can be made that defense is a necessary Federal expense, and all tax revenues much more than covered it.
And this total cost of war for all of Bush's 8 years and Obama's 3 so far is less than the total deficit Obama has chosen to add in each ONE of his years.
Also, it is deceptive and false to refer to "Bush's tax cuts to the rich". Most of the tax cut money involved that people got to keep more of went to middle class people, and most of those who had less money taken were middle class.
My "other" interpretation relies on the facts, and both of your claims are refuted
1) The cost of the wars is about one-tenth of the total debt over the period during which the wars have taken place.
2) The Bush tax cuts actually increased revenues for the several years after they enacted (revenues didn't plunge until later when Nancy Pelosi took over the House)
D Nova: "hell, dmarks, i'm not going to explain reid's strategy to you. if you can't grasp what i said, believe what you want."
Reid has played a liar's game. He has refused to give his sources, or even the information. It's just rumors. If it had any validity, he would have given either one.
I grasp what you said, but that does not mean I agree with nonsense.
dmarks: The tax cuts directly resulted in more revenue coming in.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
dmarks: The cost of the necessary retaliation against the terrorists...
There was no "retaliation against the terrorists". There were two illegal wars orchestrated to make bush a "war time president" so he could [1] win re-election, and [2] funnel billions of taxpayer dollars to his cronies. These wars represent one of the biggest rip offs in history.
bush's illegal wars made the terrorists stronger by pissing off millions of Muslims, many who signed up with al Qaeda as a result.
dmarks: ...it is deceptive and false to refer to "Bush's tax cuts to the rich".
It is, in fact, highly accurate, as the rich benefited disproportionately.
dmarks: The Bush tax cuts actually increased revenues for the several years after they enacted...
They didn't.
dmarks: ...revenues didn't plunge until later when Nancy Pelosi took over the House...
Due to the negative effects of the bush tax cuts taking effect.
I think dmarks got you there WD.Your retort was very weak....very weak.
Actually, wd, between 2003 and 2007, revenues increased to the federal government by the greatest percentage increase of any 4 years in American history. So, at least for those four years, dmarks is accurate (prior to 2003, we were coming out of a recession and so, just like Obama shouldn't be blamed for the job losses early on in his tenure, neither should Bush).
And 300 of the 370 billion in tax cuts did NOT go to the top 1-2%. Wrong on that one, too, wd.
WD is flat-out lying. After the Bush tax cuts, the rich pay a higher percentage of income and actual dollars than the non-rich.
Rusty: I think dmarks got you there WD. Your retort was very weak... very weak.
My retort was very strong. That tax cuts increase revenue is widely disproved claptrap.
GHWB called it "voodoo economics". David Stockman, the director of the Office of Management and Budget under Reagan, admitted the "Supply Side" theory used to sell Reagan's 1981 tax cut, "was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate".
Laughter is all this nonsensical claim deserves.
Will: 2003 and 2007, revenues increased to the federal government by the greatest percentage increase of any 4 years in American history.
Due to the sound economic policies of the Clinton administration that lead to a booming economy. It took bush awhile to fuVk it up.
Will: And 300 of the 370 billion in tax cuts did NOT go to the top 1-2%. Wrong on that one, too, wd.
I'm not wrong... because I never claimed that. You made it up.
dmarks: WD is flat-out lying. After the Bush tax cuts, the rich pay a higher percentage of income and actual dollars than the non-rich.
dmarks is flat-out lying. I said, "the rich benefited disproportionately". I didn't make the specific claim you say I did... it's a straw man.
"Due to the sound economic policies of the Clinton administration that lead to a booming economy. It took bush awhile to fuVk it up."......Fully wrong, wd. Bush actually inherited a slight recession and the tax cuts did NOT have the deleterious effects on revenue that Paul Krugman warned that they would. Revenues skyrocketed (the problem was that Bush and the Congress overspent) and actually set records.
Here are the specific numbers, wd. Total direct revenue to the Federal government in 2003 was 1.78 trillion. By 2007, that number had grown to 2.57 trillion, a nearly 800 billion dollar increase. Not too shabby.
WD said; "My retort was very strong. That tax cuts increase revenue is widely disproved claptrap."
Will presented the cold hard facts of actual Treasure figures after the Bush tax cuts. This showed strongly increased revenue.
Sorry, a lie in the form of a strong retort is still a lie. You now have absolutely no excuse to lie about the revenues; you have now seen the facts.
"Due to the sound economic policies of the Clinton administration that lead to a booming economy. It took bush awhile to fuVk it up."
Actually, Bush was in office from 2003 to 2007, the time being discussed. The tax revenue increase was from his tax cut, not Clintons. It was all his baby. And you forget that Clinton handed Bush a recession
Will: And 300 of the 370 billion in tax cuts did NOT go to the top 1-2%. Wrong on that one, too, wd.
"I'm not wrong... because I never claimed that. You made it up."
So this means you now know that the vast majority of the tax cuts involved everyone but the top 2%
"dmarks is flat-out lying. I said, "the rich benefited disproportionately".""
But they did not....and that is a flat-out lie. Because in terms of real dollars, percentage of income, and percent share of tax revenues, the rich don't 'benefit' at all after the tax cuts. Not in any way. They pay a lot more than anyone else... after the Bush tax cuts.
'Instead, he made it worse. Not only that, promised policies (Obamacare and other bad policies) caused more job losses between Obama's election and inauguration.'
nope. obama made it better. current stagnation is the result of the 2010 election. you're really grasping at straws to confirm your bias when you blame him for what happened before he took office.
here's reality -- deny it all you want: http://www.barackobama.com/jobsrecord
federal receipts: 20.6% of GDP in FY 2000, 19.5% in 2001, kept falling for 3 more years, never got above 18.5% since, but projected to do so in 2014 and keep rising.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
i'm still looking for when it 'skyrocketed'.
i see how you guys think now. bush 'inherited a slight recession' that didn't begin till after he took office, but obama gets the blame for what happened before he got sworn in. pelosi is responsible for everything that went wrong under bush even though the recession was triggered by the housing bubble bursting in the first half of 2006.
yeah, that's it. i get it now. of course.
or is it GIGO?
oh, and reid never said he had any information other than what his source told him. in the interview when he first mentioned it he even said he wasn't certain it was true. how is that a lie?
and you don't really expect him to reveal his confidential source, do you?
but if romney can prove anything, why doesn't he? saying he paid 13% is not proof. does he really think his credibility is higher than reid's? can you say 'swiss bank'? how about 'caymans'?
'the rich pay a higher percentage of income and actual dollars than the non-rich.'
not a higher percentage if most of their income is interest or dividends or capital gains or any combination of the above.
romney's not the only 13 percenter.
Post a Comment