Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: OzmO on December 09, 2010, 03:38:05 PM
-
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/why_liberals_dont_like_the_tax.html (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/why_liberals_dont_like_the_tax.html)
CAP's Michael Linden produced a nice chart showing why the tax deal is tough for liberals to swallow:
(http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/taxdealbenefits_blog-011%20%281%29.png)
The red and blue on the chart are a bit confusing, so read it closely: On the left, you're seeing the amount of money Obama is spending on tax cuts for individuals (so the total doesn't include business tax cuts) next to the number of people who will benefit. On the right, you're seeing the same for the Republicans.
Obama's got 156 million people splitting $214 billion in tax cuts and benefits. The GOP's got 4 million people splitting $133 billion in tax cuts. On a per-person level, the GOP's tax cuts are much larger. An individual billionaire is getting a far better deal than an individual unemployed American. And that's galling. The problem is that to take the money from the billionaire means to also take the money from the unemployed individual. Actually, taking the money from the billionaire means taking the money from a lot of unemployed Americans.
To see how much, behold the return of the "snowman" graph, now updated to compare the original Obama plan, the original Republican plan and the compromise (click on the chart to enlarge it). All groups are getting more under this framework, but on an individual level, the wealthy are getting much, much more. The question, at the end of the day, is whether stopping them from getting it is worth cutting benefits for the unemployed, and tax cuts for middle-income Americans, and the Earned Income Tax Credit. I don't think it is, and that's particularly true because it's not, to me, about the size of the transfer so much as the possibility for stimulus. But given the level of inequality in this country, and the potential that deficit reduction deals won't be worked out by a progressive congress, I see how you could come down on the other side:
(http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/assets_c/2010/12/GR2010120808056-thumb-454x432-30750.gif)
-
Its keeping the rates the same.
How can you give people who dont pay much to begin with a lot of benefits?
-
Thank you--- 333
Nothing is changing. We are just keeping shit exactly the same as its been for 10 years. That's why this is such a farce. These aren't tax cuts. Nothing is being cut. Things are just remaining status quo so that there is more certainity among members of the business community and companies start hiring again.
This isn't a stimulus. This isn't a comprimise. These aren't tax cuts. If they were, Obama and the dems would owe the public a huge apology for lying over the last decade.
-
Actually liberals think all the money any of us earn actually belongs to them and we should be damn glad they let us keep as much as they do.
-
I once heard somebody say that Congress should get 11 month vacations. The longer they are on vacation, the more things stay the same and the less they hurt us.
-
Yup.
-
Since people say that nothing is changing then how exactly will it help the economy or job market
btw - what's also not changing is that these tax cuts are not paid for so we'll just keep adding to the debt
-
Since people say that nothing is changing then how exactly will it help the economy or job market
btw - what's also not changing is that these tax cuts are not paid for so we'll just keep adding to the debt
Again - we have had these rates for 10 years. You are assuming that the govt will get a certain degree of revenue which is pure speculation at best.
We have a massive spendng problem,.not a revenue problem.
-
Again - we have had these rates for 10 years. You are assuming that the govt will get a certain degree of revenue which is pure speculation at best.
We have a massive spendng problem,.not a revenue problem.
I'm not speculating anything
they added to the deficit for the last ten years and they will add to the deficit going forward
I'm questioning how they are going to help the economy when they haven't helped for the last ten years.
-
I'm not speculating anything
they added to the deficit for the last ten years and they will add to the deficit going forward
I'm questioning how they are going to help the economy when they haven't helped for the last ten years.
Bro - are you really that freaking dense? Seriously?
The issue is that after the tax cuts we spent massiviley fr two wars and other domestic shit, BUT REVENUES STILL INCRASED TO TE FEDRAL GVT.
Geez dude - WTF is wrong with you?
-
Bro - are you really that freaking dense? Seriously?
The issue is that after the tax cuts we spent massiviley fr two wars and other domestic shit, BUT REVENUES STILL INCRASED TO TE FEDRAL GVT.
Geez dude - WTF is wrong with you?
you're claiming the tax cuts created more tax revenue
source?
-
you're claiming the tax cuts created more tax revenue
source?
I'm stating it as a matter of fact.
Again - the issue is spending - not taxes.
-
I'm not speculating anything
they added to the deficit for the last ten years and they will add to the deficit going forward
I'm questioning how they are going to help the economy when they haven't helped for the last ten years.
tax cuts dont add anything you moron...
by your logic by not taxing us 100% we are adding to the deficit...
its spending....
AGAIN HOW DOES GIVING THE GOVT MORE MONEY AND TAKING IT AWAY FROM THE CITIZENS HELP THE ECONOMY?
you still havent answered that although I know why you keep avoiding it ;)
-
I'm not speculating anything
they added to the deficit for the last ten years and they will add to the deficit going forward
I'm questioning how they are going to help the economy when they haven't helped for the last ten years.
We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. The best solution is to cut taxes another 25% and cut spending 50%. That's something we've never tried.
-
tax cuts dont add anything you moron...
by your logic by not taxing us 100% we are adding to the deficit...
This can't be stated any clearer. Do you understand, Straw Man? Or should we draw you little pictures?
-
Neither taxing or cutting taxes helps the economy.
They're both red herrings... True, the problem is the spend issue, which NEITHER SIDE will fucking stop.
Why are you guys nut huggers on blue or red? It's asinine. Guaranteed ain't no money getting saved anywhere anytime.
Keep on arguing amongst yourselves because that's exactly what they want.
-
Neither taxing or cutting taxes helps the economy.
They're both red herrings... True, the problem is the spend issue, which NEITHER SIDE will fucking stop.
Why are you guys nut huggers on blue or red? It's asinine. Guaranteed ain't no money getting saved anywhere anytime.
Keep on arguing amongst yourselves because that's exactly what they want.
Disagreed letting ppl keep more of their money will have a much more beneficial impact than taxing them more...
-
Disagreed letting ppl keep more of their money will have a much more beneficial impact than taxing them more...
Disagree all you want, but in the past 10 years, I haven't seen some beneficial impact since the tax cuts began.
Have you?
-
The problem is that we did not curtail spending and many tax breaks were offset buy the effects of a weak dollar policy which drove up mny item like oil, food, commodities, as well as pushed people into homes and drove those prices up.
Not to mention tax increases at the state level.
-
The problem is that we did not curtail spending and many tax breaks were offset buy the effects of a weak dollar policy which drove up mny item like oil, food, commodities, as well as pushed people into homes and drove those prices up.
Not to mention tax increases at the state level.
No point in going down this road again with commodities 3333. As a matter of fact I was watching Fox Business the other day and Cavuto had a guy on who was agreeing that a lot of the increase is due to false means... People controlling the system... Fraud if you will.
I believe he said 20% is not unrealistic as a "guess".
-
No point in going down this road again with commodities 3333. As a matter of fact I was watching Fox Business the other day and Cavuto had a guy on who was agreeing that a lot of the increase is due to false means... People controlling the system... Fraud if you will.
I believe he said 20% is not unrealistic as a "guess".
I was referring to may other factors that were in th economy which offset the benefit of the tax cuts.
Problem is that raising peoples' taxes now is insane. Even Keynes would be against this.
-
I was referring to may other factors that were in th economy which offset the benefit of the tax cuts.
Problem is that raising peoples' taxes now is insane. Even Keynes would be against this.
I'm not saying I disagree... I'm saying that the problem really isn't taxes... It's what gets done with the money after.
-
Disagree all you want, but in the past 10 years, I haven't seen some beneficial impact since the tax cuts began.
Have you?
LOL so youre in the camp with obama blaming the recession on tax cuts?
what was going to happen, was going to happen no matter the tax rates, sorry but youre argument hold no water...I could by the same token say the last 10 years would have been worse if the tax cuts werent there
-
I'm not saying I disagree... I'm saying that the problem really isn't taxes... It's what gets done with the money after.
Of course. But to me, its the spending side that is the main issue, not the tax side. We simply can't afford out present obligations and even if we raied taxes, if won solve anything because our spending is so enormous.
-
LOL so youre in the camp with obama blaming the recession on tax cuts?
what was going to happen, was going to happen no matter the tax rates, sorry but youre argument hold no water...I could by the same token say the last 10 years would have been worse if the tax cuts werent there
I'm not "blaming" I'm simply saying they didn't help.
This isn't an Obama camp thing... This is a fact of history.
Taxes were cut and spending went up... The government went from surplus to shortfall.
Is anything I'm saying incorrect?
-
I'm not "blaming" I'm simply saying they didn't help.
This isn't an Obama camp thing... This is a fact of history.
Taxes were cut and spending went up... The government went from surplus to shortfall.
Is anything I'm saying incorrect?
The two have nothing to do with each other as revenue to the govt also went up. Its just that spending increases greaty outpaced the increased revenue, which we all agree is a complete disaster fiscally.
-
Of course. But to me, its the spending side that is the main issue, not the tax side. We simply can't afford out present obligations and even if we raied taxes, if won solve anything because our spending is so enormous.
I do not think you're wrong... I agree that raising taxes doesn't change but like 1% of out of our total deficit.
I also don't think that it's the right thing to do... I'm simply saying that neither the raising or lowering of taxes changes a damn thing. So people around here sit and argue just to argue.
-
I'm not "blaming" I'm simply saying they didn't help.
This isn't an Obama camp thing... This is a fact of history.
Taxes were cut and spending went up... The government went from surplus to shortfall.
Is anything I'm saying incorrect?
So your judge is by their effect on the deficit?
Again tax cuts do not add to the deficit?
again by your logic we should tax 100% of govt spending instead of simply cutting back on spending
-
So your judge is by their effect on the deficit?
Again tax cuts do not add to the deficit?
again by your logic we should tax 100% of govt spending instead of simply cutting back on spending
Bullshit... way to reach. At what point can you not understand that all of my posts are about curbing spending.
My initial post in this thread was about how you guys are arguing amongst yourselves about 1% of the budget and yet you are forgetting the other 99%.
It's all about spending. You just read what you want to read into things man.
-
Bullshit... way to reach. At what point can you not understand that all of my posts are about curbing spending.
My initial post in this thread was about how you guys are arguing amongst yourselves about 1% of the budget and yet you are forgetting the other 99%.
It's all about spending. You just read what you want to read into things man.
whoa whoa whoa broham...you said that tax cuts dont do anything, I asked if its b/c you judge them based on what happens to the deficit...
-
whoa whoa whoa broham...you said that tax cuts dont do anything, I asked if its b/c you judge them based on what happens to the deficit...
No I didn't... I said that in the past 10 years since the tax cuts were enacted, that nothing good has happened to the economy. I'm not saying that they don't do "anything". Everyone would like to keep their money... so sure, that's what they do... they let people keep their money, but they haven't done anything to the economy.
-
The federal government collected $2.1 trillion in taxes for 2009. And how much did they spend? $3.5 trillion. Why in the world would we give them more money? They're like a kid in a candy shop, it's not even real money to them. I can't fathom why we haven't instituted a balanced budget amendment to the constitution.
-
I'm stating it as a matter of fact.
Again - the issue is spending - not taxes.
great - then it should be easy to prove
let's see it
-
The govt took in more revenue after the bush tax cuts. However, the spending increased in great porportion.
How hard is that for you to grasp?
-
No I didn't... I said that in the past 10 years since the tax cuts were enacted, that nothing good has happened to the economy. I'm not saying that they don't do "anything". Everyone would like to keep their money... so sure, that's what they do... they let people keep their money, but they haven't done anything to the economy.
ok so what are you judging to come up with that assesment?
-
Thought this was interesting, I was looking for the tax income revenue before and after the tax cuts currently in place and found this....
Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts-and the Facts
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/ten-myths-about-the-bush-tax-cuts
Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.
Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.
Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.
Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.
Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.
Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.
Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.
Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.
Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.
Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.
-
it goes into detail for each myth so click on the link....
-
Thought this was interesting, I was looking for the tax income revenue before and after the tax cuts currently in place and found this....
Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts-and the Facts
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/ten-myths-about-the-bush-tax-cuts
Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.
Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.
Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.
Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.
Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.
Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.
Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.
Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.
Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.
Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.
bump for a response from tu, straw, 240 et al...
-
Thought this was interesting, I was looking for the tax income revenue before and after the tax cuts currently in place and found this....
Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts-and the Facts
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/ten-myths-about-the-bush-tax-cuts
Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.
Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.
Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.
Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.
Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.
Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.
Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.
Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.
Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.
Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.
Racist Post Reported.
-
Why didn't/couldn't the Repubs make the tax cuts permanent in the first place?
-
Why didn't/couldn't the Repubs make the tax cuts permanent in the first place?
hey did not have the votes and could only do it through reconcilliation or something like that.
-
hey did not have the votes and could only do it through reconcilliation or something like that.
correct and why exactly could they not make them permanent (hint - Byrd Rule)
-
Thought this was interesting, I was looking for the tax income revenue before and after the tax cuts currently in place and found this....
Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts-and the Facts
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/ten-myths-about-the-bush-tax-cuts
Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.
Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.
Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.
Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.
Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.
Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.
Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.
Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.
Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.
Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.
would you like to respond to this straw???
-
would you like to respond to this straw???
tell me why the Repubs couldn't make the tax cuts permanent and then I'll address it
-
tell me why the Repubs couldn't make the tax cuts permanent and then I'll address it
b/c we had ppl like you in congress who didnt understand the top 10 myths and facts about the tax cuts? :D ;D ;)
-
b/c we had ppl like you in congress who didnt understand the top 10 myths and facts about the tax cuts? :D ;D ;)
wrong
try again
-
wrong
try again
LOL b/c it was passed with reconciliation the byrd rule was b/c ppl wrongly thought it would add to the deficit but if you refer to MYTH 1: you can see that even after the tax cuts, tax revenues were higher than the historical average... ;)
things that make you go, hmmmmmmmmm
so does this mean obamas health care bill is going to sunset in 10 years? :D
-
tell me why the Repubs couldn't make the tax cuts permanent and then I'll address it
hahhahaha and if you refer to MYTH 2: you can see that "Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline."
LOL guess that kinda bursts your bubble doesnt it little buddy?
-
LOL b/c it was passed with reconciliation the byrd rule was b/c ppl wrongly thought it would add to the deficit but if you refer to MYTH 1: you can see that even after the tax cuts, tax revenues were higher than historical average... ;)
things that make you go, hmmmmmmmmm
so does this mean obamas health care bill is going to sunset in 10 years? :D
increase in tax revenue (if it's true - you show no proof) doesn't mean the tax cuts were paid for or paid for themself
If the overall base of taxpayers grew and if more people made more money (do you remember the dot.com era) then overall tax revenue could easily be larger......but that's al it means. There is no other conclusion you can draw. Of course if you're a neocon think tank you can pretend it means something more ....but it doesn't.
I guess the deficicit and debt didn't increase during from 2001 to 2010 either (especially odd since Bush Admin didn't bother to included either war in his budgets and as such were not part of the official "deficit"
to your last point - the health care legislation wasn't passed with reconciliation
-
hahhahaha and if you refer to MYTH 2: you can see that "Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline."
LOL guess that kinda bursts your bubble doesnt it little buddy?
again - other than just claiming it do you have some actual proof.
Overlay the former tax structure on the 2006 AGI and tell me if you think we would have a larger or smaller deficit
-
again - other than just claiming it do you have some actual proof.
Overlay the former tax structure on the 2006 AGI and tell me if you think we would have a larger or smaller deficit
did you try clicking on the link?
Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.
Critics tirelessly contend that America's swing from budget surpluses in 1998-2001 to a $247 billion budget deficit in 2006 resulted chiefly from the "irresponsible" Bush tax cuts. This argument ignores the historic spending increases that pushed federal spending up from 18.5 percent of GDP in 2001 to 20.2 percent in 2006.[4]
The best way to measure the swing from surplus to deficit is by comparing the pre-tax cut budget baseline of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) with what actually happened. While the January 2000 baseline projected a 2006 budget surplus of $325 billion, the final 2006 numbers showed a $247 billion deficit-a net drop of $572 billion. This drop occurred because spending was $514 billion above projected levels, and revenues were $58 billion below (even after $188 billion in tax cuts). In other words, 90 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit resulted from higher-than-projected spending, and only 10 percent resulted from lower-than-projected revenues.[5] (See Chart 1.)
Furthermore, tax revenues in 2006 were actually above the levels projected before the 2003 tax cuts. Immediately before the 2003 tax cuts, the CBO projected a 2006 budget deficit of $57 billion, yet the final 2006 budget deficit was $247 billion. The $190 billion deficit increase resulted from federal spending that was $237 billion more than projected. Revenues were actually $47 billion above the projection, even after $75 billion in tax cuts enacted after the baseline was calculated.[6] By that standard, new spending was responsible for 125 percent of the higher 2006 budget deficit, and expanding revenues actually offset 25 percent of the new spending.
The 2006 tax revenues were not substantially far from levels projected before the Bush tax cuts. Despite estimates that the tax cuts would reduce 2006 revenues by $188 billion, they came in just $58 billion below the pre-tax cut revenue level projected in January 2000.[7]
The difference is even more dramatic with the pro-growth 2003 tax cuts. The CBO calculated that the post-March 2003 tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion, yet 2006 revenues came in $47 billion above the pre-tax cut baseline released in March 2003. This is not a coincidence. Tax cuts clearly played a significant role in the economy's performing better than expected and recovering much of the lost revenue.
-
read the last sentence of the above post VERY VERY VERY CAREFULLY STRAWMAN... ;)
-
did you try clicking on the link?
I've read the list before and I've read all the counter argument
why doesn't Obama just explain that his tax compromise won't really add 900 billion to the deficit and will instead actually increase tax revenue and lower the deficit
problem solved
-
I've read the list before and I've read all the counter argument
why doesn't Obama just explain that his tax compromise won't really add 900 billion to the deficit and will instead actually increase tax revenue and lower the deficit
problem solved
please present your counter arguments for me...
good question, my guess would be it goes against his core liberal beliefs although its clear at least via the heritage foundation(a pretty reputable establishment) that those beliefs are wrong...either that or he is just ignorant of the facts...
-
please present your counter arguments for me...
good question, my guess would be it goes against his core liberal beliefs although its clear at least via the heritage foundation(a pretty reputable establishment) that those beliefs are wrong...either that or he is just ignorant of the facts...
LOL !
you think that's a good question?
maybe Obama doesn't have access to interweb or maybe the White House blocks access to neocon "think tank" websites
still though it sure would be helpful if Obama could just explain that the 900 billion shortfall really won't exist
-
Neither taxing or cutting taxes helps the economy.
They're both red herrings... True, the problem is the spend issue, which NEITHER SIDE will fucking stop.
Why are you guys nut huggers on blue or red? It's asinine. Guaranteed ain't no money getting saved anywhere anytime.
Keep on arguing amongst yourselves because that's exactly what they want.
QFT
-
LOL !
you think that's a good question?
maybe Obama doesn't have access to interweb or maybe the White House blocks access to neocon "think tank" websites
still though it sure would be helpful if Obama could just explain that the 900 billion shortfall really won't exist
Again please give me the counter arguments to these points...
LOL first of all the supposed 900 billion isnt from just the tax cuts its from the extension of jobless benefits as well...
facts are facts buddy, unless you have facts to dispute what ive posted please clam up about the 900 billion and how tax cuts add to the deficit ;)
-
Again please give me the counter arguments to these points...
LOL first of all the supposed 900 billion isnt from just the tax cuts its from the extension of jobless benefits as well...
facts are facts buddy, unless you have facts to dispute what ive posted please clam up about the 900 billion and how tax cuts add to the deficit ;)
bumpty bump bump bump bump bummmmppppp ;D (you have to hear the way it sounds in my head)