ican711nm
 
  -1  
Wed 20 Jan, 2010 07:34 pm
@Advocate,
Cutting taxes and federal spending, and removing present limitations on domestic drilling for oil and natural gas, are key parts of the Brown's, Palin's and the Tea Party's economic plans.

The Bush tax cuts in 2003 were not a failed policy! That policy worked. Bush's failure in 2007 to cause reduction of federal spending and reduce poorly regulated federal loans, is what resulted in failed policy in 2008.
Quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
Partial History of U.S. Federal Income Tax Rates
Highest and lowest Income Tax Rates 1971 to 2009
...
1971-1981: minimum = 14%; maximum = 70% [CARTER 1977-1981]

1982-1986: minimum = 11%; maximum = 50% [REAGAN 1981-1989]

1987-1987: minimum = 11%; maximum = 38.5%

1988-1990: minimum = 15%; maximum = 33% [BUSH 41 1989-1993]

1991-1992: minimum = 15%; maximum = 31%

1993-2000: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.6% [CLINTON 1993-2001]

2001-2001: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.1%

2002-2002: minimum = 10%; maximum = 38.6% [BUSH 43 2001-2009]

2003-2009: minimum = 10%; maximum = 35%

ANNUAL DATA
Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Year................USA Civil Population......USA Total Civil Employed
1980...................... 167,745,000.................99,302,000 [CARTER 1977-1981]
1981...................... 170,130,000………….....100,397,000 [REAGAN 1981-1989]
1982..................... 172,271,000.................99,526,000
1983..................... 174,215,000...............100,834,000
1984..................... 176,383,000...............105,005,000
1985..................... 178,206,000………........107,150,000
1986..................... 180,587,000...............109,597,000
1987..................... 182,753,000...............112,440,000
1988..................... 184,613,000...............114,968,000
1989..................... 186,393,000...............117,342,000 [BUSH 41 1989-1993]
1990..................... 189,164,000...............118,793,000
1991..................... 190,925,000...............117,718,000
1992..................... 192,805,000…….….......118,492,000
1993..................... 194,838,000...............120,259,000 [CLINTON 1993-2001]
1994..................... 196,814,000...............123,060,000
1995..................... 198,584,000………….....124,900,000
1996..................... 200,591,000...............126,708,000
1997..................... 203,133,000………….....129,558,000
1998...................... 205,220,000...............131,463,000
1999..................... 207,753,000...............133,488,000
2000..................... 212,577,000...............136,891,000
2001..................... 215,092,000………………136,933,000 [BUSH 43 2001-2009]
2002...................... 217,570,000...............136,485,000
2003..................... 221,168,000...............137,730,006
2004..................... 223,357,000...............139,252,000
2005..................... 226,082,000………….....141,730,000
2006...................... 228,815,000……..........144,427,000
2007..................... 231,867,000...............146,047,000
2008..................... 233,788,000...............145,362,000
2009..................... 235,810,000...............139,959,000 [OBAMA 2009-?]

MONTHLY DATA

2008:
August........................ xxxxxxxxxxx………...145,273,000
September……………... xxxxxxxxxxx…………145,029,000
October....................... 234,612,000…….....144,650,007
November................... 234,828,000..........144,144,000
December.................... 235,035,000.........143,338,000



2009:

January...................... 234,739,000...........142,099,000
February.................... 234,913,000...........141,748,000
March........................ 235,086,000……......140,887,000
April.......................... 235,271,000............141,007,000
May........................... 235,452,000...........140,570,000
June........................... 235,655,000...........140,196,000
July............................ 235,870,000...........140,041,000
August....................... 236,087,000...........139,649,000
September................. 236,322,000..........138,864,000
October..................... 236,550,000...........138,275,000
November ................ 236, 775,000…….……138,381,000
December ................. 237,005,000….…...…137,792,000




0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Wed 20 Jan, 2010 10:07 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

One really needs to hold his nose reading Okie. He gets more vile and putrid by the moment.

And then we have MM who thinks he is a constitutional scholar, although his writing is that of a five-year-old.

what is putrid is the idea that our president learned his politics from Jeremiah Wright, Saul Alinsky, and other Marxists, and the guy actually got elected. But maybe people are starting to wake up from the media induced trance that somehow cast a spell over people to make them believe something very very far fetched, that Obama was a centrist, a moderate, and that he was something more than a cheap Chicago agitator that believes in wealth redistribution, hates businesses and free markets, and apologizes for America everywhere the man goes.
okie
 
  -1  
Wed 20 Jan, 2010 10:10 pm
@BigTexN,
BigTexN wrote:

Quote:
Palin, Brown, and the Tea Partiers have no economic plan, except for the failed Bush policies.


...and the diehard Teddy liberals of Massachusetts voted for them!! LMAO!!!!!

So, the failed Bush policies must be better than the "hope" of the Nobel Prize winner!

That is funny, Big Tex, in fact hilarious.

And the statement that Palin, Brown, and the Tea Partiers have no economic plan, how deluded can one be?
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  0  
Wed 20 Jan, 2010 10:19 pm
Your both clowns. I'm gonna buy you both big red shoes for X-mas.
okie
 
  -1  
Wed 20 Jan, 2010 10:26 pm
@Amigo,
Save your money, or wear them yourself.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  2  
Thu 21 Jan, 2010 07:42 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Advocate wrote:

One really needs to hold his nose reading Okie. He gets more vile and putrid by the moment.

And then we have MM who thinks he is a constitutional scholar, although his writing is that of a five-year-old.

what is putrid is the idea that our president learned his politics from Jeremiah Wright, Saul Alinsky, and other Marxists, and the guy actually got elected. But maybe people are starting to wake up from the media induced trance that somehow cast a spell over people to make them believe something very very far fetched, that Obama was a centrist, a moderate, and that he was something more than a cheap Chicago agitator that believes in wealth redistribution, hates businesses and free markets, and apologizes for America everywhere the man goes.


That is all lies. You cannot (and will not) prove any of your statements.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Thu 21 Jan, 2010 10:57 am
@Advocate,
okie arrives at conclusions based on his own perception of reality that is born out of his ignorance. He has never, even once, provided evidence or facts to back up his opinion.

What I find fascinating are those a2k posters who believe okie has any merit at all. They go along with his idea that Obama is a Marxist, and learned his craft from Wright and other communists who worked in community-based organizations - in the US.

When asked to prove their claim that Obama has taken away their freedoms, they have never shown one incident of such an idiotic idea. None, never, nada.
Advocate
 
  1  
Thu 21 Jan, 2010 02:23 pm
It is a shame that Obama never does anything.

New Banking Regulations: Obama Seeks Bigger Banking Restrictions
January 21, 2010
JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama stepped up his campaign against Wall Street on Thursday with a far-reaching proposal for tougher regulation of the biggest banks.

"We have to get this done," Obama said at the White House. "If these folks want a fight, it's a fight I'm ready to have."

It was a stern, populist lecture from the president to Wall Street for what he perceives as its abandonment of Main Street. Obama said the government should have the power to limit the size and complexity of large financial institutions as well as their ability to make high-risk trades.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Thu 21 Jan, 2010 03:16 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
When asked to prove their claim that Obama has taken away their freedoms, they have never shown one incident of such an idiotic idea. None, never, nada.

Our actual claim is that Obama is ATTEMPTING to take away our freedoms.
We have provided multiple examples of Obama advocating that which constitutes ATTEMPTING to take away our freedoms. Continuation of Stimulus, establishing a 2nd Stimulus, extension of TARP, extension of Fannie and Freddie, establishing Cap and Trade, elimination of charter schools, and extension of federal healthcare, are a few examples of that which will reduce our freedoms because they will reduce jobs, increase taxes, and reduce the value of our dollars.
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone poster wrote:
Obama didn't listen to the people, and he lost. That's what Bush did, and the country almost died.

Well finally,cice, you admit--or rather, logically imply-- Obama's amplified emulations of Bush's errors, if continued, will cause the country to finally die.

Will the real cicerone imposter please stand up?


0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Sat 23 Jan, 2010 08:32 am
I'm a little weary of the self-serving rationalizers of both conternding parties. Defending the Bush tax cuts as a good idea that would have worked better if only the previous administration had curtailed spending is somewhat like defending a bank robber whose actions would have been OK if only he had applied for the loan. Both actions were required to achieve the claimed effect, but only one was done: claiming "credit" in such a case is false and deceptive.

In a similar way the Democrat protagonists for the Administration's various health care programs were promising us that the new powers they were seeking to control health care insurers, providers, and the available choices for everyone in the country would not increase the public debt; would provide for more efficient health care delivery for all; would not be subject to the unchecked venality and corruption that historically attends nearly all such government programs; would magically serve a huge (according to them) population of people without access to health care, without any adverse effect on anyone, even in the absence of any provision or market mechanism to increase the supply of services; and would increase the productivity of health care providers everywhere through the magical powers of government regulation, taxation and brueaucratic oversight.

They were also in effect claiming that we needed new and expanded government entitlements to save us from the adverse effects on public finances of previous government entitlements !

I'm sure that, in the evident intensity of the belief of these self-styled "progressives", many of them actually believed this nonsense. However, it has become increasingly evident that a large and growing segment of the public is very skeptical of their ability (and committment) to deliver on these promises, explicit and otherwise.

Now, in the face of this political failure, our sainted President is adopting the posture of the angry populist, suddenly angry with the greed of the financial industry, and expressly determined to "fight" for us poor dumb, stupid folks, who have rejected his previous remedies. This is perplexing, given the concentration of Wall street types at high levels in his administration; its willingness (eagerness) to claim credit for the beginnings of a rebound in the financial sector; and its loving protection for Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, which more than any other financial institutions, fuelled the late housing bubble that precipitated the crisis from which we are beginning to recover.

Instead of learning from his errors and those of his avid supporters, our president is simply demonizing others to distract public attention from the failures of his own party. This will likely be a welcome palliative to his progressive claques, but it is also likely to further undermine public confidence in his leadership, wisdom and character. (I was sadly bemused to hear him in his speech yesterday declare that this is "not about him", and then follow with repeated boasts that "I will fight ...." for this and that protection of us poor, stupid folks from the evil effects of our own free choices.).
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 23 Jan, 2010 10:40 am
@georgeob1,
The Obama diversion will work too! American's have short memory spans, and most don't know fact from fiction. Look at all those Americans who still believe the health plan had a "death panel" inclusion.

This country is fated for failure when we spend billions on wars and forget about our own children's education and health. Our infrastructure is in need of repair while we build schools and hospitals in Iraq and Afghanistan.

All this with borrowed money from our children and grandchildren.

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 23 Jan, 2010 10:48 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
for this and that protection of us poor, stupid folks from the evil effects of our own free choices.).


I take it George that you mean there is no need to protect us poor, stupid folks from the evil effects of our own free choices.

I presume you are joking.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Sat 23 Jan, 2010 11:02 am
@BigTexN,
BigTexN wrote:

Quote:
Palin, Brown, and the Tea Partiers have no economic plan, except for the failed Bush policies.


...and the diehard Teddy liberals of Massachusetts voted for them!! LMAO!!!!!

So, the failed Bush policies must be better than the "hope" of the Nobel Prize winner!


It is more that Coakley ran the worst campaign in history. It is a jock state, and she didn't know a famous Boston pitcher, etc.
maporsche
 
  1  
Sat 23 Jan, 2010 11:14 am
@Advocate,
So, are you saying that the liberals in Mass are too stupid to understand that not everyone knows about Curt Schilling?

Are you thinking they're a bunch of morons?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Sat 23 Jan, 2010 08:07 pm
@georgeob1,
The Bush tax cuts were a good idea that would have WORKED BETTER if only the BUSH administration had curtailed spending!
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sat 23 Jan, 2010 11:22 pm
Quote:
Obama’s plight has been unchanged for months. Neither in action nor in message is he in front of the anger roiling a country where high unemployment remains unchecked and spiraling foreclosures are demolishing the bedrock American dream of home ownership. The president is no longer seen as a savior but as a captive of the interests who ginned up the mess and still profit, hugely, from it.

That’s no place for any politician of any party or ideology to be. There’s a reason why the otherwise antithetical Leno and Conan camps are united in their derision of NBC’s titans. A TV network has become a handy proxy for every mismanaged, greedy, disloyal and unaccountable corporation in our dysfunctional economy. It’s a business culture where the rich and well-connected get richer while the employees, shareholders and customers get the shaft. And the conviction that the game is fixed is nonpartisan. If the tea party right and populist left agree on anything, it’s that big bailed-out banks have and will get away with murder while we pay the bill on credit cards " with ever-rising fees.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/opinion/24Rich.html?hp

Damn Right!
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sat 23 Jan, 2010 11:27 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
As is usually the case when the public speaks this loudly, the people are right: The process that has produced the House and Senate bills has been an abomination. The voters sent Obama to Washington to lead, not to engage in endless horse-trading. When Sen. Ben Nelson demanded a tax exemption for his state of Nebraska as the price of his vote, that should have been a sign to the White House that the process had gone haywire. Instead, the administration agreed to similar buy-offs for the insurance industry and labor unions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012202659.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Amen
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 23 Jan, 2010 11:32 pm
@hawkeye10,
I wonder how many Americans still trust Obama?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sat 23 Jan, 2010 11:38 pm
@cicerone imposter,
If trust was an issue his likability numbers would not be as great as they are. I think that the issue is that we are increasingly coming to the conclusion that he is not up to the job. As you will recall for many months I was saying the same thing, that his refusal/inability to run Hilary through the blade when he had the chance was a very bad sign re his level of intestinal fortitude, which disqualified him from the presidency. I was won over by his fabulous political gamesmanship, but sadly it seems that I was correct to begin with.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 24 Jan, 2010 12:08 am
@hawkeye10,
I'm more of a stickler for honesty, so he fell from grace too frequently during his first year in office. They were not just white lies; they were outright lies. I just can't handle people like that!
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1546
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.2 seconds on 07/10/2025 at 03:21:34