Barack - What Are His Positions?

[hedo]

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
hedo wrote:
But you remain the one ignorant of facts or the ability to make common sense statements. You post opinion and expect everyone to believe you. It works for Barack Hussein Obama but not you.

19% of the populace define themselves as liberals and being a liberal is generally the kiss of death in an election outside of Ma., NJ,NY or Calif. You know that and your continued insistance that it is not true is transparent to everyone but you. Hillary and Barack Hussein Obama continually claim they are not liberals…why do you think that is?

The last Liberal president was Roosevelt and his economic policies were a disaster for the country prolonging the depression far longer then it should have and setting up and Era of big government that we still suffer with today. Kennedy and Johnson would be considered right wingers today. Carter was just a fool but at least he served his country. Clinton, was a moderate with socialist leanings but he had the Republican congress to limit the damage he was able to cause.

Please define, how a higher tax rate, is an incentive for the economy to grow and where higher taxes have lead to economic expansion. Please limit your geographic scope to “earth” and not some made up land you have in your mind. Also please use reality as a guideline and not the voices in your head when making a point. This will be difficult for you but well worth he effort.

You argue that higher taxes have not shut off economic growth completely. If that’s the best you and Barack can come up with then you are effectively communicating your message. Please make sure it becomes part of the Democratic platform. “Tax to prosperity!” I know that Democratic strategy is to “hide” your positions until after the election but this idea of higher taxes should be broadcast to everyone.

Johnson and Carter were most certainly liberals.[/quote]

Carter became a liberal but most certainly did not run on that platform. Lyndon “Great Society” Johnson although certainly considered a liberal in his day would be to the right of just about any Democratic Senator today. Simply fighting a war “agressively” would have caused his liberal credentials to be recalled and burned under present day standards, which is what I referenced.

[pittbulll]

I want lower taxes just as much as any one else, but I do not want my Grand Children paying my debts. And in my opinion that is what we are doing right now. I think if we want lower taxes, we should spend less money

I think the Republicans that run this country and probably a lot of the world has trained the masses to think and say that increasing taxes on the wealthy are bad for the economy. Spending more money than we make is what is bad for the economy.
Our national debt is over 9 trillion dollars every man woman and child owes 30, 0000 dollars. I do not know what America�??s income is but we are not even making progress towards eliminating that debt.

I know we are fighting a war on terrorism right now. But you must remember your grand children will have wars of their own. That is if they could afford to fight their enemies

[100meters]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I want lower taxes just as much as any one else, but I do not want my Grand Children paying my debts. And in my opinion that is what we are doing right now. I think if we want lower taxes, we should spend less money

I think the Republicans that run this country and probably a lot of the world has trained the masses to think and say that increasing taxes on the wealthy are bad for the economy. Spending more money than we make is what is bad for the economy.
Our national debt is over 9 trillion dollars every man woman and child owes 30, 0000 dollars. I do not know what America�??s income is but we are not even making progress towards eliminating that debt.

I know we are fighting a war on terrorism right now. But you must remember your grand children will have wars of their own. That is if they could afford to fight their enemies
[/quote]
Well unfortunately, if we raise taxes on the rich folks, they’ll just stop investing all together. (learned from Hedo). For example according to WSJ the top 400 taxpayers ($213.9 million avg.each) current federal income tax rate is 18 percent. If it were any higher, no matter what the percentage, they stop investing. I know it seems crazy, because in 1995 their rate was nearly 30 percent, and it seemed like they still invested, but they didn’t (hedo says they were just sitting on their hands waiting for Bush), and won’t again if their rate goes up. They will only invest at 18 percent or lower.

Also you don’t have to worry about the debt, because like Hannity always says tax cuts create more revenue. Which is why the debt will be nearly gone or greatly reduced by the time Bush leaves office.

[pittbulll]

[quote]100meters wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I want lower taxes just as much as any one else, but I do not want my Grand Children paying my debts. And in my opinion that is what we are doing right now. I think if we want lower taxes, we should spend less money

I think the Republicans that run this country and probably a lot of the world has trained the masses to think and say that increasing taxes on the wealthy are bad for the economy. Spending more money than we make is what is bad for the economy.
Our national debt is over 9 trillion dollars every man woman and child owes 30, 0000 dollars. I do not know what America�??s income is but we are not even making progress towards eliminating that debt.

I know we are fighting a war on terrorism right now. But you must remember your grand children will have wars of their own. That is if they could afford to fight their enemies

Well unfortunately, if we raise taxes on the rich folks, they’ll just stop investing all together. (learned from Hedo). For example according to WSJ the top 400 taxpayers ($213.9 million avg.each) current federal income tax rate is 18 percent. If it were any higher, no matter what the percentage, they stop investing. I know it seems crazy, because in 1995 their rate was nearly 30 percent, and it seemed like they still invested, but they didn’t (hedo says they were just sitting on their hands waiting for Bush), and won’t again if their rate goes up. They will only invest at 18 percent or lower.

Also you don’t have to worry about the debt, because like Hannity always says tax cuts create more revenue. Which is why the debt will be nearly gone or greatly reduced by the time Bush leaves office.
[/quote]

I wonder if I were to go buy a new truck and tell my best customers that I do not want them to pay their bill . Would that stimulate my economic situation. I would have never thought of that.

[hedo]

[quote]100meters wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I want lower taxes just as much as any one else, but I do not want my Grand Children paying my debts. And in my opinion that is what we are doing right now. I think if we want lower taxes, we should spend less money

I think the Republicans that run this country and probably a lot of the world has trained the masses to think and say that increasing taxes on the wealthy are bad for the economy. Spending more money than we make is what is bad for the economy.
Our national debt is over 9 trillion dollars every man woman and child owes 30, 0000 dollars. I do not know what America�??s income is but we are not even making progress towards eliminating that debt.

I know we are fighting a war on terrorism right now. But you must remember your grand children will have wars of their own. That is if they could afford to fight their enemies

Well unfortunately, if we raise taxes on the rich folks, they’ll just stop investing all together. (learned from Hedo). For example according to WSJ the top 400 taxpayers ($213.9 million avg.each) current federal income tax rate is 18 percent. If it were any higher, no matter what the percentage, they stop investing. I know it seems crazy, because in 1995 their rate was nearly 30 percent, and it seemed like they still invested, but they didn’t (hedo says they were just sitting on their hands waiting for Bush), and won’t again if their rate goes up. They will only invest at 18 percent or lower.

Also you don’t have to worry about the debt, because like Hannity always says tax cuts create more revenue. Which is why the debt will be nearly gone or greatly reduced by the time Bush leaves office.
[/quote]

If you don’t understand basic economics, continued use of economic terms, makes you sound foolish.

Read today’s WSJ. It’s on sale right next to the the NYT and the Worker’s Party Daily. Turn to the editorial page. It’s in the first section. Read about what the smart money is doing with regard to investing in tax free bonds. These are the types of bonds that invesotrs retreat into in times of economic uncertainty and expected high taxes. Money is pouring into them now. Municipal Bond investments do not vreate economic growth or stimulus.

Tax cuts do create growth. Your misinofrmed opinion is not fact.

Why don’t the Democrats campaign on a platform of poor economic growth, higher taxes and increased entitlements?
That’s what you want right? Be proud of it.

[100meters]

[quote]hedo wrote:

Why don’t the Democrats campaign on a platform of poor economic growth, higher taxes and increased entitlements?
That’s what you want right? Be proud of it.

[/quote]

If democrats have poor economic growth, then how do you categorize republican growth when democrats do far better on that particular measure (while pulling in more revenues)

It’s as if historically/factually—you don’t seem to know what the hell you’re talking about.

Why don’t you go look at the annual growth in real gdp of all presidents since Ike, and compare to the annual changes in taxes as a percentage of income. (which hilariously seems to be the point you’re making) Spoiler: Both of these tilt very strongly towards democrats.

I mean really you sound like a jackass on this stuff.

Now I would never suggest taxes caused this growth, only they don’t hurt growth. On the other hand lower taxes do not cause higher growth, in fact a strong argument could be made that they are associated with slower growth, (if you were going to make any argument)

your argument however higher taxes=slower growth is just factually dead wrong, and there’s tons of history to back that up.

[hedo]

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:

Why don’t the Democrats campaign on a platform of poor economic growth, higher taxes and increased entitlements?
That’s what you want right? Be proud of it.

If democrats have poor economic growth, then how do you categorize republican growth when democrats do far better on that particular measure (while pulling in more revenues)

It’s as if historically/factually—you don’t seem to know what the hell you’re talking about.

Why don’t you go look at the annual growth in real gdp of all presidents since Ike, and compare to the annual changes in taxes as a percentage of income. (which hilariously seems to be the point you’re making) Spoiler: Both of these tilt very strongly towards democrats.

I mean really you sound like a jackass on this stuff.

Now I would never suggest taxes caused this growth, only they don’t hurt growth. On the other hand lower taxes do not cause higher growth, in fact a strong argument could be made that they are associated with slower growth, (if you were going to make any argument)

your argument however higher taxes=slower growth is just factually dead wrong, and there’s tons of history to back that up.

The funny part, son, is you mimic the arguments I make but simply substitute false information. If you have apoint to make then go ahead and try. If not go back to kissing Barack’s ass.

Opinions are not facts. you are a broken record that plays an odd tune. You haven’t convinced anyone that higher taxes are good for the economy.
[/quote]

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts�??and the Facts

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.

[100meters]

[quote]hedo wrote:

The funny part, son, is you mimic the arguments I make but simply substitute false information. If you have apoint to make then go ahead and try. If not go back to kissing Barack’s ass.

Opinions are not facts. you are a broken record that plays an odd tune. You haven’t convinced anyone that higher taxes are good for the economy.

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts�??and the Facts

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.

[/quote]

To me it looks like you totally avoided my point and instead cut and pasted something from the heritage foundation. (checking…and yep, that’s exactly what you did, jeebus)

This time please check something more relevant, again:

Why don’t you go look at the annual growth in real gdp per captita of all presidents since Ike, and compare to the annual changes in taxes as a percentage of income.

Please inform readers how Dems faired versus republicans.

Thanks.

(also next time you’re going to take a stand on an issue for god’s sake do a little research, especially if you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about—this would prevent you looking like a total idiot ala Santorum and moving up in the polls…)

[Sloth]

Unfortunately, the Republicans forgot about the spending side of their platform.

[pittbulll]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Unfortunately, the Republicans forgot about the spending side of their platform.[/quote]

preach it Brother Sloth

[100meters]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Unfortunately, the Republicans forgot about the spending side of their platform.[/quote]

still, the biggest problem is the bush tax cuts, but yes tax cuts via borrowing (tax deferrals) a definite negative, versus tax cuts via reduced spending.

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]100meters wrote:
…
Why don’t you go look at the annual growth in real gdp per captita of all presidents since Ike, and compare to the annual changes in taxes as a percentage of income.

Please inform readers how Dems faired versus republicans.

Thanks.
…
[/quote]

This is pretty worthless.

How long does it take economic actions to take effect and work their way into the economic numbers?

Friedman showed even the most powerful and fast-acting monetary policy tool, the Fed’s interest-rate cuts or raises, take at least a year to show up in the numbers. I’d be interested to see some sort of calculation of GDP growth as attributed to the President in charge when the economic actions that caused them were taken. (And this is aside from whether the President actually took or even supported the action.)

[hedo]

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:

The funny part, son, is you mimic the arguments I make but simply substitute false information. If you have apoint to make then go ahead and try. If not go back to kissing Barack’s ass.

Opinions are not facts. you are a broken record that plays an odd tune. You haven’t convinced anyone that higher taxes are good for the economy.

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts�??and the Facts

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.

To me it looks like you totally avoided my point and instead cut and pasted something from the heritage foundation. (checking…and yep, that’s exactly what you did, jeebus)

This time please check something more relevant, again:

Why don’t you go look at the annual growth in real gdp per captita of all presidents since Ike, and compare to the annual changes in taxes as a percentage of income.

Please inform readers how Dems faired versus republicans.

Thanks.

(also next time you’re going to take a stand on an issue for god’s sake do a little research, especially if you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about—this would prevent you looking like a total idiot ala Santorum and moving up in the polls…)

[/quote]

You haven’t said anything yet…again.

Idiot=100 meters, kind of a redundant statement.

Try again if you can form an opinion. I don’t think you have had an original thought since you penned that gay love letter to Barack Huessein Obama.

How is your boy Elliot doing this morning?

[100meters]

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:

The funny part, son, is you mimic the arguments I make but simply substitute false information. If you have apoint to make then go ahead and try. If not go back to kissing Barack’s ass.

Opinions are not facts. you are a broken record that plays an odd tune. You haven’t convinced anyone that higher taxes are good for the economy.

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts�??and the Facts

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.

To me it looks like you totally avoided my point and instead cut and pasted something from the heritage foundation. (checking…and yep, that’s exactly what you did, jeebus)

This time please check something more relevant, again:

Why don’t you go look at the annual growth in real gdp per captita of all presidents since Ike, and compare to the annual changes in taxes as a percentage of income.

Please inform readers how Dems faired versus republicans.

Thanks.

(also next time you’re going to take a stand on an issue for god’s sake do a little research, especially if you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about—this would prevent you looking like a total idiot ala Santorum and moving up in the polls…)

You haven’t said anything yet…again.

Idiot=100 meters, kind of a redundant statement.

Try again if you can form an opinion. I don’t think you have had an original thought since you penned that gay love letter to Barack Huessein Obama.

How is your boy Elliot doing this morning?
[/quote]

One can only assume (by your change in the subject) that you have indeed actually looked at some factual information, and that yes despite raising taxes democratic economic performance far exceeded that of republicans. Odd that you can’t admit here?

And if you hadn’t noticed I’m hoping the spitter resigns?

[100meters]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
…
Why don’t you go look at the annual growth in real gdp per captita of all presidents since Ike, and compare to the annual changes in taxes as a percentage of income.

Please inform readers how Dems faired versus republicans.

Thanks.
…

This is pretty worthless.

How long does it take economic actions to take effect and work their way into the economic numbers?

Friedman showed even the most powerful and fast-acting monetary policy tool, the Fed’s interest-rate cuts or raises, take at least a year to show up in the numbers. I’d be interested to see some sort of calculation of GDP growth as attributed to the President in charge when the economic actions that caused them were taken. (And this is aside from whether the President actually took or even supported the action.)
[/quote]

Factoring in a year delay, or even “business cycles” still gives the same result, although yes it does move carter even further ahead. The point is Hedo is dead wrong, any look at real GDP and taxes points to the EXACT opposite of what he’s saying. The only legitimate argument one could make is that cutting taxes has a coincidental relation with decreased economic performance.

And again, I’m not debating/discussing causation.

[orion]

[quote]100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
…
Why don’t you go look at the annual growth in real gdp per captita of all presidents since Ike, and compare to the annual changes in taxes as a percentage of income.

Please inform readers how Dems faired versus republicans.

Thanks.
…

This is pretty worthless.

How long does it take economic actions to take effect and work their way into the economic numbers?

Friedman showed even the most powerful and fast-acting monetary policy tool, the Fed’s interest-rate cuts or raises, take at least a year to show up in the numbers. I’d be interested to see some sort of calculation of GDP growth as attributed to the President in charge when the economic actions that caused them were taken. (And this is aside from whether the President actually took or even supported the action.)

Factoring in a year delay, or even “business cycles” still gives the same result, although yes it does move carter even further ahead. The point is Hedo is dead wrong, any look at real GDP and taxes points to the EXACT opposite of what he’s saying. The only legitimate argument one could make is that cutting taxes has a coincidental relation with decreased economic performance.

And again, I’m not debating/discussing causation.[/quote]

And again.

Prices go up, demand goes down.

Make work more expensive, it is less demanded.

Ergo, Economy grows less than it could.

Where you are right is main factors come into play, not just taxes, but also how tax cuts are financed an so on.

However that also works against you, since a correlation between higher taxes and higher economic growth is incidental at best.

No money taxed and spent by the government will ever be spent as efficiently as people would have used it on the market place.

Finally, while the Republicans record is shameful the US federal deficit is not the real problem.

Social security however is and the promises the Democrates made will either never ever be kept, or the US will go broke. Compared to social security, the federal deficit is a fart in a thunderstorm.

[hedo]

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:

The funny part, son, is you mimic the arguments I make but simply substitute false information. If you have apoint to make then go ahead and try. If not go back to kissing Barack’s ass.

Opinions are not facts. you are a broken record that plays an odd tune. You haven’t convinced anyone that higher taxes are good for the economy.

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts�??and the Facts

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.

To me it looks like you totally avoided my point and instead cut and pasted something from the heritage foundation. (checking…and yep, that’s exactly what you did, jeebus)

This time please check something more relevant, again:

Why don’t you go look at the annual growth in real gdp per captita of all presidents since Ike, and compare to the annual changes in taxes as a percentage of income.

Please inform readers how Dems faired versus republicans.

Thanks.

(also next time you’re going to take a stand on an issue for god’s sake do a little research, especially if you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about—this would prevent you looking like a total idiot ala Santorum and moving up in the polls…)

You haven’t said anything yet…again.

Idiot=100 meters, kind of a redundant statement.

Try again if you can form an opinion. I don’t think you have had an original thought since you penned that gay love letter to Barack Huessein Obama.

How is your boy Elliot doing this morning?

One can only assume (by your change in the subject) that you have indeed actually looked at some factual information, and that yes despite raising taxes democratic economic performance far exceeded that of republicans. Odd that you can’t admit here?

And if you hadn’t noticed I’m hoping the spitter resigns?[/quote]

No I’m just mocking one of the Democrats favorite sons.

I have looked at the facts. Democratic economic performance has been dismal. That is the fact. What you are spewing is misinformed opininion.

Keep repeating it. Maybe someone will believe you.

[hedo]

[quote]100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
…
Why don’t you go look at the annual growth in real gdp per captita of all presidents since Ike, and compare to the annual changes in taxes as a percentage of income.

Please inform readers how Dems faired versus republicans.

Thanks.
…

This is pretty worthless.

How long does it take economic actions to take effect and work their way into the economic numbers?

Friedman showed even the most powerful and fast-acting monetary policy tool, the Fed’s interest-rate cuts or raises, take at least a year to show up in the numbers. I’d be interested to see some sort of calculation of GDP growth as attributed to the President in charge when the economic actions that caused them were taken. (And this is aside from whether the President actually took or even supported the action.)

Factoring in a year delay, or even “business cycles” still gives the same result, although yes it does move carter even further ahead. The point is Hedo is dead wrong, any look at real GDP and taxes points to the EXACT opposite of what he’s saying. The only legitimate argument one could make is that cutting taxes has a coincidental relation with decreased economic performance.

And again, I’m not debating/discussing causation.[/quote]

You haven’t offered a debate or given much of a discussion yet. I’m right and you are trying to deflect the point and making yourself seem silly in the process. Please continue.

Begin again. High taxes are good for the economy and stimulate growth how?

[100meters]

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
…
Why don’t you go look at the annual growth in real gdp per captita of all presidents since Ike, and compare to the annual changes in taxes as a percentage of income.

Please inform readers how Dems faired versus republicans.

Thanks.
…

This is pretty worthless.

How long does it take economic actions to take effect and work their way into the economic numbers?

Friedman showed even the most powerful and fast-acting monetary policy tool, the Fed’s interest-rate cuts or raises, take at least a year to show up in the numbers. I’d be interested to see some sort of calculation of GDP growth as attributed to the President in charge when the economic actions that caused them were taken. (And this is aside from whether the President actually took or even supported the action.)

Factoring in a year delay, or even “business cycles” still gives the same result, although yes it does move carter even further ahead. The point is Hedo is dead wrong, any look at real GDP and taxes points to the EXACT opposite of what he’s saying. The only legitimate argument one could make is that cutting taxes has a coincidental relation with decreased economic performance.

And again, I’m not debating/discussing causation.

You haven’t offered a debate or given much of a discussion yet. I’m right and you are trying to deflect the point and making yourself seem silly in the process. Please continue.

Begin again. High taxes are good for the economy and stimulate growth how?

[/quote]

good.
freaking.
lord.

You made up the negative effects of taxes and democratic performance. Now go f–ing look and see how untrue it is (I even provided you with suggestions so as to not embarrass you here)
This isn’t a debate, as I already said, Dems crush Reps on economic performance(by any measure,but for the sake of this argument, GDP), and yes tax percentages are higher under dems.

This is the EXACT opposite of what you are claiming.

And for the millionth time I’m not arguing causation, only that NO, taxes have not hurt economic performance, but yes lower taxes coincide with the decreased performance of republican economies. (recently 2001 and 2003 tax cuts followed by a. recession, and b. the most anemic recovery from a recession in history and since then only Poppa Bush has been worse)

You are just dead wrong on this, hilariously so.

Damn you are stupid.

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]

100meters wrote:
…
Why don’t you go look at the annual growth in real gdp per captita of all presidents since Ike, and compare to the annual changes in taxes as a percentage of income.

Please inform readers how Dems faired versus republicans.

Thanks.
…

BostonBarrister wrote:

This is pretty worthless.

How long does it take economic actions to take effect and work their way into the economic numbers?

Friedman showed even the most powerful and fast-acting monetary policy tool, the Fed’s interest-rate cuts or raises, take at least a year to show up in the numbers. I’d be interested to see some sort of calculation of GDP growth as attributed to the President in charge when the economic actions that caused them were taken. (And this is aside from whether the President actually took or even supported the action.)

100meters wrote:
Factoring in a year delay, or even “business cycles” still gives the same result, although yes it does move carter even further ahead. The point is Hedo is dead wrong, any look at real GDP and taxes points to the EXACT opposite of what he’s saying. The only legitimate argument one could make is that cutting taxes has a coincidental relation with decreased economic performance.

And again, I’m not debating/discussing causation.[/quote]

I’d like to see that, with the factoring in of business cycles and/or a delay.

BTW, if you’re not arguing causation, what’s the point?