Obama '08?

Certainly seems unrelated to a low level English class.

Such a statement presumes that the statement is untrue, when it is actually perfectly true.

Letting the Bush cuts expire will cost taxpayers $115 billion next year alone, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and $2.6 trillion through 2020.

You have a tortured sense of what's right, Ican. You asked for the evidence, you conveniently leave out,

"By the way, everything I'm sharing with you tonight is in the public record. The 50 covert actions - these are secret, but that has been leaked to us by members of the oversight committee of the Congress."

before you snuck in,

"I urge you not to take my word for anything. ... "


JTT's alleged evidence is from a lecture. John Stockwell gave this lecture in October, 1987. That was when Reagan was president!

Is this supposed to magically make all this information about the illegal CIA actions that has been supplied by the US government just disappear?

Quote:

HOW IS THE FOLLOWING TAX INCREASE GOING TO WORKOUT FOR OUR ECONOMY?

You do understand that the last time we increased taxes, the economy subsequently skyrocketed? And the last time we cut them, the economy plummeted?

Your one-dimensional analysis is horrible, Ican.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

HOW IS THE FOLLOWING TAX INCREASE GOING TO WORKOUT FOR OUR ECONOMY?

You do understand that the last time we increased taxes, the economy subsequently skyrocketed? And the last time we cut them, the economy plummeted?

Your one-dimensional analysis is horrible, Ican.

Cycloptichorn

Then why not make the tax rate 100%, cyclops, if raising taxes correlates with a skyrocketing economy, why not go all the way, dufus?

For the liberal mental giants among us, it should be a fairly simple matter to solve two problems, one being sagging tax revenues and the other a tanking economy. Simply raise tax rates.

C'mon, man, let's have a better discussion than foolish and empty statements...

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

C'mon, man, let's have a better discussion than foolish and empty statements...

Cycloptichorn

I would suggest you start by admitting that tax rates are in fact factors in the economy, just as other business costs and personal income factors affect the economy. To assert that they do not is downright silly.

You have in fact admitted as much by accusing me of using foolish and empty statements

Your false statement has been shown to be as extreme as my statements are to debunk your extremely silly assertions.

If you haven't sensed my mood in regard to this, yes, I admit to being more than impatient with unrealistic people out there, of which I consider liberals to be. I would suggest you run your own business for a few years, cyclops, and educate yourself in regard to taxes, all kinds of taxes, payroll taxes, sales tax, personal property tax, income tax, and all the rest of the taxes that bureaucrats have dreamed up to support their often worthless jobs.

Can you link to where I asserted that taxes were not a factor in the economy? Let me know if you can do so.
Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Can you link to where I asserted that taxes were not a factor in the economy? Let me know if you can do so.
Cycloptichorn

Not difficult at all, cyclops, because you have habitually and regularly argued that the Laffer Curve is fictitious, and here is just but one quote from your above post, not in reference to the Laffer Curve, but nonetheless very indicative of what you believe:
"Tax rates don't determine whether an economy moves up and down."

"Tax rates don't determine whether an economy moves up and down."

Are tax rates one factor in our economy and it's growth? Yes.
Do tax rates alone determine whether our economy moves up or down? No.

The two statements are not contradictory, Okie, in any way.

The so-called 'Laffer curve' is fictitious. It does not exist in reality. It cannot be used to predict the effects of tax cuts or hikes in any way.

Cycloptichorn

False, and common sense would tell you it is false. Of course, tax rates are not the only contributor to the economy, but I believe Laffer drew the curve to fit a rough depiction of the effect of tax rates upon the economy, given all other factors being roughly constant.

As I have said, if you would actually be able to relate to the business world more than the world of government, you might be able to understand the realities of this issue much better.

Hah, well this might be due to the fact that we entered a major recession in between Obama's time on the campaign trail and his time in office, and we don't have the money to fully fund assistance to other countries at this time.

How hard is this stuff to figure out, MM?

Cycloptichorn

Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey cited a report by the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, that estimated that more than $23 million in U.S. taxpayer funds have been spent on the referendum. Smith and other conservatives have complained that at least some of that money has been spent in support of the proposed constitution, possibly violating U.S. law.

Smith and other lawmakers have accused the Obama administration of offering incentives to Kenya to approve the controversial new constitution, promising that passage would “allow money to flow” into the nation's coffers. A federal law known as the Siljander Amendment makes it illegal for the U.S. government to lobby on abortion in other countries.