Wacka Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 What wine goes with puppies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 What wine goes with puppies? Sake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Sake Soju is more likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 No, no, no. Puppies are good. Nice and tender. Even when ground up and in the freezer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 What wine goes with puppies? Puppies give off their own whine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 What a bunch of idiots. Either way, the revenue is far less than the $1 trillion or more that would be lost from scrapping the alternative minimum tax. The AMT also is meant to be a minimum tax on the wealthy. Democrats have said the Buffett tax could replace the AMT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 The problem in Washington has nothing to do with the amount of revenue they take in. It has to do with how much they spend. When they can explain how they're going to live within about 18% of this nation's GDP, we can start talking about raising taxes. Anyone who thinks the government deserves/requires more money is absolutely nuts. It's always funny to read some retards post on a message board who doesn't understand the difference between his own opinions and facts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 It's always funny to read some retards post on a message board who doesn't understand the difference between his own opinions and facts Confession is good for the soul, Davey. Keep it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Confession is good for the soul, Davey. Keep it up. I can't wait until he gets to Step 9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-24/u-s-tax-breaks-valued-at-more-than-1-trillion-wsj-reports.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 http://www.bloomberg...sj-reports.html Wait, so if all the tax breaks are only a trillion dollars annually how will they reduce the deficit and balance the budget when the deficit far exceeds that number? Uh oh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Wait, so if all the tax breaks are only a trillion dollars annually how will they reduce the deficit and balance the budget when the deficit far exceeds that number? Uh oh. They'll just have to create more tax breaks, so they can eliminate them and raise even more revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 A few responses, since we've gone over this ad nauseum... Let's compare 2001 the year before the tax cuts began and 2006 a few years after they had a chance to impact. Unemployment was 4.7% for 2001 and 4.6% in 2006 (this answers crayonz); the DOW was higher in 2006 than 2001 (to compare apples and apples). The on-budget deficit was -$30 billion in 2001 and -$434 billion in 2006--a $400 billion difference for the mathematically challenged. You guys are forced to constantly come up with ways to deny the facts because you are stuck on the ideology that supply side worked, when all it did was create huge deficits under republican presidents. Seems to me you guys need to do some esplaining... This thread was killed before I got a chance to REMIND the left that BUSH was no fiscal conservative. We fully understand that while his tax cuts increased tax receipts, he and congress SPENT like drunken sailors on shore leave in Thailand. Believe me, I've been to Thailand! So, your comparison sucks. Of course we went into deep deficit. Bush and the GOP couldn't stop SPENDING. It's the SPENDING stupid. Not the income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 It's always funny to read some retards post on a message board who doesn't understand the difference between his own opinions and facts I'm not sure how he was trying to present this as a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 (edited) This thread was killed before I got a chance to REMIND the left that BUSH was no fiscal conservative. We fully understand that while his tax cuts increased tax receipts, he and congress SPENT like drunken sailors on shore leave in Thailand. Believe me, I've been to Thailand! So, your comparison sucks. Of course we went into deep deficit. Bush and the GOP couldn't stop SPENDING. It's the SPENDING stupid. Not the income. Better re-read it then--it was a combination of lower revenues and higher spending. In 2006, personal tax revenues were 1.8% less than the 2001 level. But you are right about the spending, which is why Bartlett, the former Reagan Supply-sider, is highly critical of the Bush-Cheney record. Edited March 25, 2012 by TPS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 It was more the two wars and the CONTINUATION of tax cuts that I had a problem with. The economy was pretty good under Bush for 5 of the 8 years. The problem was that the cuts/spending had a long lasting effect. Rates should have returned to Clinton levels when the economy was better again. Never happened. This is an argument FOR the Laffer curve, not against it. The simple truth here is: the proper way to look at the tax rate is as a variable, and not a constant, and, a variable that should be adjusted yearly, if not quarterly. For the prattling idiot in the NY times, this concept seems to be too difficult to comprehend. We need to be looking for leaders who can understand this concept, and hold them to moving it up and down based on what makes the most sense for the economy, period. By demanding that the tax rates be returned to Clinton era, and fixed there, the Democrat is making the contrapositive argument of the Republican's argument, who he calls names and calls wrong. (Hint: contrapositive is the logical equivalent...morons. ) High/low tax rates are never always good, or always bad. Rather, they are means to an end. If you are a Democrat, they are a means to justify continued ridiculous spending. If you are a Republican, they are means to attack said ridiculous spending, and curry favor with high end donors. Absolutist thinking on this has to end. And, what is it going to take, honestly?, what is it going to take to get this concept through thick skulls: Even if we taxed every millionaire and billionaire at 100% of their incomes and capital gains.....we will NOT balance the budget. The only way to balance the budget is to CUT....SPENDING....MORONS! Talking about the tax rate is a DISTRACTION. It is intended to distract you away from the sentence above. The question is: are you dumb enough to be distracted? And, the next question is: even if the sentence above weren't true, and it was possible to balance the budget/reduce the deficit via increasing the tax rate, would the Democrats live within that balanced budget, or would they increase spending again? Like we don't know the answer to that one..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 (edited) This is an argument FOR the Laffer curve, not against it. The simple truth here is: the proper way to look at the tax rate is as a variable, and not a constant, and, a variable that should be adjusted yearly, if not quarterly. For the prattling idiot in the NY times, this concept seems to be too difficult to comprehend. We need to be looking for leaders who can understand this concept, and hold them to moving it up and down based on what makes the most sense for the economy, period. By demanding that the tax rates be returned to Clinton era, and fixed there, the Democrat is making the contrapositive argument of the Republican's argument, who he calls names and calls wrong. (Hint: contrapositive is the logical equivalent...morons. ) High/low tax rates are never always good, or always bad. Rather, they are means to an end. If you are a Democrat, they are a means to justify continued ridiculous spending. If you are a Republican, they are means to attack said ridiculous spending, and curry favor with high end donors. Absolutist thinking on this has to end. And, what is it going to take, honestly?, what is it going to take to get this concept through thick skulls: Even if we taxed every millionaire and billionaire at 100% of their incomes and capital gains.....we will NOT balance the budget. The only way to balance the budget is to CUT....SPENDING....MORONS! Talking about the tax rate is a DISTRACTION. It is intended to distract you away from the sentence above. The question is: are you dumb enough to be distracted? And, the next question is: even if the sentence above weren't true, and it was possible to balance the budget/reduce the deficit via increasing the tax rate, would the Democrats live within that balanced budget, or would they increase spending again? Like we don't know the answer to that one..... My responses have focused on the evidence about tax cuts and revenues because the supporters always claim the reverse of what the evidence shows. I agree with your point AND I agree with Darin: government spending should be capped to some average % of GDP--I say average, because you need to have some flexibility during downturns. Edited March 26, 2012 by TPS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts