But...but taxes are good, right? So more taxes are more good, right?
Hope and less change in your pocket.

3.6% is Taxageddon?

You poofers are hilarious.

Strange how all this fecal matter will hit the oscillating device after the election?

Chump Change You Can Believe In.

3.6% is Taxageddon?
#2 | Posted by 726

Liberal math is a thing of wonder.

Obama "Taxmageddon" looms, taxes set to surge

Oh noes! Tax rates will revert to Clinton era levels! Abortions, gay marriage, contraception, christian persecution and taxmageddon! Better kill yourselves now!

Liberal math is a thing of wonder.

Roflmao.

Mea Culpa. 4.6%. Feeling better about that Taxageddon thing now?

BUT BUT TAXES ARE PATRIOTIC at least that is what Gaff Master Extraordinaire smokin joe biden says,,,

#2 | Posted by 726

"$500,000,000,000.00 is Taxageddon?
You poofers are hilarious."

FTFY

Ahhhh KaBooM.

In an economy of $15,294,000,000,000?

Yes. Taxageddon.... by all means have a meltdown.

If all of it expired and went back to original levels, it would hurt the Eberly household quite a bit.

But I'm not worried.

The fact that most of the impact will be on the middle class is lost on the libs. Reduction of child credits, loss of joint tax return discount, and a general tax increases everyone pays on the first $8,700 of wages will jump 5% will affect the folks and they will not be as glib as the Obama apologists on the DR who are most likely the receivers of government largess.

Imagine the howls from liberals if it was a 3.6% real spending cut.

White House Bets on Revenue Surge in 2013

The White House, in its fiscal year 2013 budget, is projecting a huge surge in new tax revenue compared with fiscal 2012. The boost is one of the reasons the White House believes the deficit will fall to $901 billion in the fiscal year that starts on Oct. 1, 2012, compared with $1.3 trillion in the current year. In purely mathematical terms, more revenue means less deficit.

The nearly 18% increase in revenue, from $2.469 trillion in 2012 to $2.902 trillion in 2013, would be the third largest percentage increase since 1953, according to White House data. In 1977, tax revenue increased 19.29% and in 1969 revenue increased 22.16%.

Where does the White House see this jump in revenue coming from? Partly due to economic growth, and partly due to new tax increases.

For example, the budget expects that corporations will pay $354 billion in income tax in 2013, compared with $281 billion in 2012. It also expects to bring in $83 billion in new revenue by allowing tax cuts for high-income families to expire.

The fact that most of the impact will be on the middle class is lost on the libs.

Only if you buy into the hysterics that it will expire, which you obviously do.

Uhhhhhhh - Bush's tax cuts expire, and now this is Obama's "Taxmageddon?"

How about - "Bush was a dumb-ass, and now President Obama has decided one of Bush's mistakse will not be further perpetuated?"

I know it hard for the liberal mind to get this concept but when a tax cut expires it is a tax increase.

I know it hard for the liberal mind to get this concept but when a tax cut expires it is a tax increase.

WE NEED MITT. HE IS ONE OF US. SUPPORT MITT FOR PRESIDENT!

How about - "Bush was a dumb-ass, and now President Obama has decided one of Bush's mistakse will not be further perpetuated?"

if it was such a mistake, whore, then why did Obama extend them?

You do realize that middle class dems are gonna want to keep all of those tax rates in tact, don't you?

"I know it hard for the liberal mind to get this concept but when a tax cut expires it is a tax increase."

I know it is hard for the conservative mind to get this concept but when an ill-judged tax cut expires, it causes taxes to resume their rightful level.

Note to Dems. To redistribute income, first you need to have income.

"if it was such a mistake, whore, then why did Obama extend them?"

I'm not answering you until you leave the word "whore" out of it. That's my joke, not yours. You don't even understand it, let alone have any business appropriating it.

"if it was such a mistake, whore, then why did Obama extend them?"

Because the Republicans demanded them in return for extending unemployment benefits, and refused to allow the bill to go forward without the tax cuts being extended. Weren't you paying attention?

"You do realize that middle class dems are gonna want to keep all of those tax rates in tact, don't you?"

Hopefully, more sensible folks will be able to point to carried interest being counted as income, and dividends counted as income, and realize they have to pitch in as well.

"Note to Dems. To redistribute income, first you need to have income."

Note to Republicans. To redistribute income, first you need to stop giving nearly all of it to a very few people at the top of the food chain.

"Note to Dems. To redistribute income, first you need to have income."

Laughble, coming from someone who probably voted for the biggest re-distributor upwards in his lifetime.

Mitt paid $15 of his last $100 in earnings to the Feds. You paid about double that.

#21 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

Yes ending a recession, recovering from 911, Building American terror protection programs, Lowering unemployment down to 5.5% and increased revenue to the treasury sure did suck compared to todays Obamaville.

"ending a recession"

The only recession on Dubya's watch was the one he handed off. Regardless what the NBER says, "recession" already has a definition.

"Lowering unemployment down to 5.5%"

It was under 5% when he got it, and by the end we were bleeding 750,000 jobs a month.

"increased revenue to the treasury"

Another proud flunkee from Econ 101.

#25 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

Do you just suck up every mindless cliche your lib masters feed you or are you capable of deductive reasoning?

The only recession on Dubya's watch was the one he handed off. Regardless what the NBER says, "recession" already has a definition.#28 | Posted by Danforth

I proved this once before so pay attention this time!

It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

"And this is a conservative number"

It's also only 1/3rd the government's revenue. Why is it treated like the whole picture?

"Do you just suck up every mindless cliche your lib masters feed you or are you capable of deductive reasoning?"

The irony is priceless.

"Lowering unemployment down to 5.5%"
It was under 5% when he got it, and by the end we were bleeding 750,000 jobs a month.#28 | Posted by Danforth

Annual average unemployment rate, civilian labor force 16 years and over (percent)

2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0
2004 5.5
2005 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6
2008 5.8
2009 9.3
2010 9.6

"I proved this once before"

You didn't prove a damned thing, other than you'll suck up every mindless cliche your masters feed you.

Do you know what the classic definition of "recession" is? Two consecutive contracting quarters. We did NOT have two consecutive contracting quarters until Dubya was ready to hand off the reigns. It doesn't matter who calls the earth flat, they're still wrong.

#31 | Posted by Danforth

There will be NO Danforth Diversion on this one. We are talking about personal tax income. If you can’t play on the same field you can take your ball and to elsewhere.

"Annual average unemployment rate"

So you're giving Dubya credit for the low unemployment numbers Clinton gave him, but blaming Obama for the shit sandwich he was given?

You'd get flunked out of analysis class...right after they laughed you out of it.

I'm not answering you until you leave the word "whore" out of it.
#23 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

Is Pin Cushion acceptable?

#33 | Posted by Danforth

What you you grant me if I prove that. 30 days off the DR?

"We are talking about personal tax income"

Of course, because if you only talked about payroll taxes --you know, the major type of taxes 2/3rs of workers pay-- the payer charts would be flipped. You want to limit the discussion to INCOME taxes only because any other part of the tax picture blows your theories all to shit.

"If you can't play on the same field you can take your ball and to elsewhere."

So you can continue to be intellectually dishonest?

That's my joke, not yours.

then how come you aren't laughing, whore?

the rest of us are.......

Weren't you paying attention?

yes, I saw the president cave on the tax increase over the unemployment extension. bad choice. he caved. If the tax increase is such a big damn deal to the left then they should be upset with obama over that.

but the left is never upset at obama for anything. it's always easier to blame someone else for his poor choices.

but I'm pretty sure those are folks "rooting" for one side....

Hopefully, more sensible folks will be able to point to carried interest being counted as income, and dividends counted as income, and realize they have to pitch in as well.

that one falls a bit down the list.

Child tax credits
marginal rates on the lower income levels
payroll taxes

"What you you grant me if I prove that."

Prove what? That "recession" has a new definition, just for Dubya? Knock yourself out.

#35 | Posted by Danforth

If you take the time to look at the unemployment numbers by month you will see a considerable spike after 9/11 and hense the two tax cuts. Clinton had Republicans in charge of Congress so he couldn't fuck up the economy but he tried.

"If the tax increase is such a big damn deal to the left then they should be upset with obama over that. "

Yeah, cause God knows the Party of Responsibility isn't going to take responsibility, even for its own ideas and insistence.

"If you take the time to look at the unemployment numbers by month you will see a considerable spike after 9/11 and hense the two tax cuts."

One of the tax cuts came before 9/11. Are you stupid, or lying?

Danforth, just out of curiosity, why did you support Huntsman who is big on tax cuts?

Yeah, cause God knows the Party of Responsibility isn't going to take responsibility, even for its own ideas and insistence.

I've never saddled them with the Party of anything. I extend the same courtesy to the dems.

you should try it sometime.

"but the left is never upset at obama for anything. it's always easier to blame someone else for his poor choices."

It seems more of a relative thing. I haven't been very happy with Obama, but what ideas do the Rs offer other than a return to the policies which fucked things up in the first place? All I get from most of them is lower taxes on the wealthiest and less regulation, except on women's bodies. Hell, Eric Cantor is even calling a bill to allow dumping of previously banned pesticides a "jobs bill". And as you've stated, you want Dems to blame Obama for what the Republicans wanted and insisted upon. It doesn't seem to work like that.

#40 | Posted by Danforth

Business Cycle Dating Committee, National Bureau of Economic Research

July 17, 2003

CAMBRIDGE July 17 -- The Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research met yesterday. At its meeting, the committee determined that a trough in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in November 2001. The trough marks the end of the recession that began in March 2001 and the beginning of an expansion. The recession lasted 8 months, which is slightly less than average for recessions since World War II.

"then how come you aren't laughing, whore?"

Oh, but I am.

I have decided that every time you call me "whore," I will be calling you "cocksucker."

I am no more a whore than you are a cocksucker, but if these are the games you want to play, so be it.

Cocksucker.

#43 | Posted by Danforth

See "recession 2001". Learning impaired or simple minded?

-you want Dems to blame Obama for what the Republicans wanted and insisted upon.

yeah, if the dems want to preted there is a difference between their party and the GOP, then they shouldn't applaud obama when he caves into them.

Oh, but I am.

clearly, that isn't true, whore.

you are furious.

I am no more a whore than you are a cocksucker,

you might be a capricorn, but nobody gives a shit.

If my username included "cocksucker" in it, then you'd have a point, whore.

pathetic deflection to your hurt feelings.

"clearly, that isn't true, whore.

you are furious."

At you?

At long last, cocksucker, you've said something truly funny.

How very seldom of you.

Whore, what's got you all bunched?

You named yourself Whore, wear it proudly.

"Danforth, just out of curiosity, why did you support Huntsman who is big on tax cuts?"

He was for more Reagan-style cuts than Bush's trickle-down cuts. Reagan's type has worked better.

I also admire Huntsman's work in China, his measured approach, and his character. Even though I disagree with a lot of his positions, I think he's a good, honorable man, and I believe he would (and possibly will) make a great President, something I think is more important than voting for the letter behind the name.

"See "recession 2001". Learning impaired or simple minded?"

IOW, you DON'T know the definition, and you're relying on the talking points fed to you by your masters.

You never took economics, did you?

"Learning impaired or simple minded?"

So let me get this straight: you don't know the definition of recession, we didn't have two consecutive contracting quarters, but you're going to lap up the NBER changing the definition because it doesn't make the guy you voted for look as abysmal as he was???

"if the dems want to preted there is a difference between their party and the GOP, then they shouldn't applaud obama when he caves into them."

I think it's pretty obvious to the Dems, even if it's not from your vantage point in the sand. You can't even admit the Rs wanted the tax cuts.

The NBER is the official organization that determines recessions. If they call it a recession it is a recession no matter what danforth thinks.

"The NBER is the official organization that determines recessions."

Bullshit. They can pontificate all they want, unless the definition has changed, we didn't have a recession.

Why did they change definitions for Dubya?

If they call it a recession it is a recession no matter what the definition of the word is.

ftfy

The FED says it's the NBER but Danforth knows more than the FED

Official business cycle datesâ€"the peaks and troughs in the economy that define recessions and expansionsâ€"in the U.S. are determined by the NBER. A private, nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization founded in 1920, the NBER is dedicated to understanding how the economy works. Today it has over 600 university professors and researchers who conduct empirical research on the economy as Bureau associates.

He was for more Reagan-style cuts than Bush's trickle-down cuts. Reagan's type has worked better.

I also admire Huntsman's work in China, his measured approach, and his character. Even though I disagree with a lot of his positions, I think he's a good, honorable man, and I believe he would (and possibly will) make a great President, something I think is more important than voting for the letter behind the name.

#54 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-20 05:58 PM

He was also a lot more positive than the others.

"The FED says it's the NBER but Danforth knows more than the FED"

Either show where the definition has changed, or leave for 30 days.

"He was also a lot more positive than the others.'

After Huntsman dropped out, I suddenly started seeing a lot more support for him around here.

From the wiki entry on the "recession":

"However, economic conditions did not satisfy the common shorthand definition of recession, which is "a fall of a country's real gross domestic product in two or more successive quarters," and has led to some confusion about the procedure for determining the starting and ending dates of a recession."

i think we'll be paying more taxes. in California too, so we'll have to suck it up. no doubt prop 13 will be modified in some respect - probably to exclude commercial property vs. owner-occupied residential.

i wouldn't mind paying more taxes if there was also a drop in spending, and a closure of loopholes and tax breaks designed to control consumer and corporate behaviors. don't think, though, that that will ever happen.

#62 | Posted by Danforth

You lost and you have no honor.

"You lost and you have no honor."

When did the definition change?

Anyone can proclaim they're the official anything; unless the definition has changed, it's still the same classic definition they teach in Econ classes: two consecutive contracting quarters, something we did NOT have.

Did the definition change for Dubya? Yes or No?

The FED says it's the NBER that defines a recession

NBER defines what constitutes a recession and when a recession exists.

Danforth is wrong again and is busy flopping around like a fish out of water.

"The FED says it's the NBER that defines a recession"

BFD. If the FED said the sky was green, that wouldn't be true either.

"NBER defines what constitutes a recession and when a recession exists."

No, the dictionary does that.

"Danforth is wrong again and is busy flopping around like a fish out of water."

I'm going with the actual definition. You're going with "it's whatever these guys say it is". Sorry, but definitions don't fall that easily.

Did you ever take economics?

Gee, look...an actual definition:

#70 | Posted by Danforth

Flip, Flop, Flip

The NBER's Recession Dating Procedure

A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales. A recession begins just after the economy reaches a peak of activity and ends as the economy reaches its trough. Between trough and peak, the economy is in an expansion. Expansion is the normal state of the economy; most recessions are brief and they have been rare in recent decades.

"Flip, Flop, Flip"

They sure are flip-flopping. There's a classic definition. Why did NBER choose a different barometer for Dubya?

And you've never taken an econ class, have you? You're just barfing what someone else said, without knowing the actual answer yourself.

"A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales."

And from the page with the actual definition:
A period of general economic decline; typically defined as a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters.

You have lost and you still have no honor. Flip, Flop, Flip, but worse than that you are boring the hell out of me.

Just do what our Treasury Secretary and several dozen White House staffers do. Just don't pay.

"You have lost"

What a moron. You think I "lost" because you're too stupid to know the definition of the word.

Danforth knows all about losing since he is a loser.

Those of you preferring the GDP measurement of a recession may be shocked to learn during 2000, 2001, and 2002 we never -- not ever -- had two consecutive quarters with negative GDP growth. Heck, we didn't have one quarter of negative growth. Keep in mind, when the media runs a story they rarely go back and update you when they're wrong. Table 2.1 shows quarterly GDP growth for 2000 through 2003. the third quarter of 2001 growth was pretty darn flat, but positive nonetheless.

Year // Quarter // GDP Growth

2001q1 // .68%
2001q2 // 1.07%
2001q3 // .06%
2001q4 // .90%
2002q1 // 1.05%
2002q1 // .90%

"Danforth knows all about losing since he is a loser."

Awwww, poor Jackass must've gotten his ass creamed by the Florida Toads.

"worse than that you are boring the hell out of me."

Translation: I've run out of C&Ps and will actually have to answer the direct questions if I keep going.

You can't even admit the Rs wanted the tax cuts.

That was so obvious it wasn't worth "admitting".

ask yourself danforth, was there doubt in the mind of anybody else here, besides you, that the "Rs wanted the tax cuts"?

Geez....in your attempts to be the smartest kid in the class, you manage to be the dumbest, in some ways.

Who in the fuck would argue the GOP didn't want the tax cuts?

"ask yourself danforth, was there doubt in the mind of anybody else here, besides you, that the "Rs wanted the tax cuts"?"

Well, from you're idiotic question...you.

"Geez....in your attempts to be the smartest kid in the class, you manage to be the dumbest, in some ways."

Sorry my snark went entirely over your head. Maybe if you got it out of the sand, things like that wouldn't happen.

you're = your

what are you talking about?

You have got to be the worst communicator I have seen on this blog. Even Boob can make a point better than you.

You have stooped so low as to assign the most assinine position to someone else. I have no idea why.

show me where I have stated or even implied that the GOP isn't for keeping the tax cuts in tact.

and then, in total pantie waving desparation, you claim to be making a point "over my head".

$500. more per kid
Married couples fucked again
Payroll taxes up 35% again

All thanks to the Obama and the democrats.

You're just barfing what someone else said, without knowing the actual answer yourself.

he went to a website.

just like you, poindexterforth

$500. more per kid
Married couples fucked again
Payroll taxes up 35% again

All thanks to the Obama and the democrats.

don't worry. Neither Obama nor the dems are gonna get suck with that conclusion.

Neither is the GOP.

"he went to a website."

Great. Another moron who doesn't know the definition, and refuses to educate himself.

"You have stooped so low as to assign the most assinine position to someone else. "

Did you miss where I asked if you were paying attention?

"show me where I have stated or even implied that the GOP isn't for keeping the tax cuts in tact."

When you asked "then why did Obama extend (the tax cuts)?"

You knew, of course. I answered in the same vein in which you had posted.

"then, in total pantie waving desparation, you claim to be making a point "over my head"."

Something you've clearly proven by your hissy fit.

#88 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-20 11:59 PM | Reply | Flag: googles everything he knows....but claims to know more than others who do the same.

Yet another example of how poindexter is limited by no subject being out of his reach.

"just like you"

No, dipshit, I used the definition, something you'd know if you'd ever taken and passed an Econ class.

"googles everything he knows"

So no Econ class ever, huh?

"Yet another example of how poindexter is limited by no subject being out of his reach. "

Yet another example of how Beverly will side with idiots if they're nearer to his side of the aisle.

Tell us, Beverly, is this a situation where you're just as dumb as Lokisfur, or do you actually think you're piling on?

-When you asked "then why did Obama extend (the tax cuts)?"

well, he did.

Were you paying attention?

or is it easier to just deny that Obama signed it?

It's okay poindexter.

You've been beaten up so much here it's not possible you have any pride left anyway.

"or is it easier to just deny that Obama signed it? "

No, not at all. Obama signed it.

"You've been beaten up so much here it's not possible you have any pride left anyway."

Aw, isn't that cute? Beverly doesn't know the answer either, so he has to declare victory.

-So no Econ class ever, huh?

I skipped them all.

just like 3rd grade.

Actually, I took 3 econ courses.

that would be exactly 3 more than you took, google lover.

If you had taken any, you'd know that none of it answers these questions.

But you don't know that so it's better to pretend you've actually taken one.

which is clearly not true.

-Beverly doesn't know the answer either, so he has to declare victory.

to what question?

"that would be exactly 3 more than you took, google lover."

Ah, that old tactic: lie.

"Actually, I took 3 econ courses.

Well then for God's sake, Beverly, are you just going to keep tap dancing? Tell us, in your bestest big-boy voice: what's the definition of recession?

"If you had taken any, you'd know that none of it answers these questions."

Ah, that old tactic: ignorance.

-Yet another example of how Beverly will side with idiots if they're nearer to his side of the aisle.

who have I sided with? you are arguing someting you know nothing about you can't google and attack someone else for same.

where have I taken up with Paneocon?

"you are arguing someting you know nothing about"

The irony is priceless.

"you can't google and attack someone else for same."

Ah, I get it now. We need to get a little more basic for you.

Let's start here: do you understand the meaning of the word definition?

-what's the definition of recession?

oh, so you now get around to asking me a question that you previously called me a moron about. a little out of order, don't you think?

Any fucking retard can google it. You really think you are above anybody here because you can google the definition of a word?

you need help.

-do you understand the meaning of the word definition?

you still can't catch up to the fact that every retard here, perhaps including you, can google anything.

it's not a special gift.

really

everybody has access to it.

"oh, so you now get around to asking me a question that you previously called me a moron about"

So you weren't aware of the subject on which you were criticizing me? Typical.

"You really think you are above anybody here because you can google the definition of a word?"

When they're making up a new definition? You tell me.

"you need help."

Fat talk from the guy who couldn't accept I grew up Catholic, couldn't accept I was supporting Huntsman, and now can't seem to accept I might know a thing or two about economics...like the definition of the particular word in question.

-Ah, that old tactic: lie.

I don't think so. I really don't think you have any professional expertise in economics at all. just an internet connection.

you forget you have vomited your resume here so many times that even a casual visitor here would know it.

"you still can't catch up to the fact that every retard here, perhaps including you, can google anything. "

Then feel free to google the definition of the word recession, and report to the class whether 2001 fit that description.

"I don't think so. I really don't think you have any professional expertise in economics at all."

Okay, you're a jealous moron. Got it.

"you forget you have vomited your resume here so many times that even a casual visitor here would know it"

Yet somehow you don't. I guess that means you're even more retarded than a casual visitor.

-So you weren't aware of the subject on which you were criticizing me?

sure I was.

Fat talk from the guy who couldn't accept I grew up Catholic,
couldn't accept I was supporting Huntsman, and now can't seem to accept I might know a thing or two about economics...like the definition of the particular word in question.

yeah, you're always trying to sell others on that stuff. Why is it that you have that problem?

why can't you sell any of that to anybody? I don't see anybody else here EVER working as hard as you do to convince others of how great you are and "Please, listen to me...I'm important".

aren't you tired of trying to sell that?

EB,
Have you ever stepped in gum before?

-Okay, you're a jealous moron. Got it.

despite the great life I lead, I would never accuse someone else here of being jealous of me.

funny that you would.
wow....what a delusional world you live in.

-Yet somehow you don't.

LOL

"why can't you sell any of that to anybody? I don't see anybody else here EVER working as hard as you do to convince others of how great you are and "Please, listen to me...I'm important"."

I sure hope your hangover is kind to you.

"aren't you tired of trying to sell that?"

Gee, then why did you just waste so much time on me? It's almost like you feel the need to knock anyone who's actually educated on a subject.

-Have you ever stepped in gum before?

yes, but "gum" doesn't come to mind when I think about what I have on my shoes after an exchange like this.......

"despite the great life I lead, I would never accuse someone else here of being jealous of me."

I'm not the one desperately trying to pretend you aren't someone you are.

- It's almost like you feel the need to knock anyone who's actually educated on a subject.

outside of google, where is your "education" on national economics and recessions?

Good grief, all you have done is post the definition of "recession" and "definition"

"outside of google, where is your "education" on national economics and recessions?"

I paid part of my way through college as a TA in the Economic department.

That, and I know the definition of the word.

"Good grief, all you have done is post the definition of "recession" and "definition""

And all you've done is avoided the issue: did 2001 fit the definition of recession or not?

-I'm not the one desperately trying to pretend you aren't someone you are.

no, you're pretending you are someone you aren't, actually.

"no, you're pretending you are someone you aren't, actually."

Okay, go back to lying. That seems to be your default position when things aren't going your way.

Imagine the howls from liberals if it was a 3.6% real spending cut.

#13 | Posted by Ray

Heads explode.

And get ready because they didn't cut 1 trillion or whatever amount that was supposed to be cut--they are going to have to cut 500 billion or so from somewhere other than military.

And Obama did the military really well. He already has 500 billion to be cut from the military right now--before they are going to have to cut another 500 billion..making a trillion dollars.

-did 2001 fit the definition of recession or not?

okay, I spent 9 minutes on this and it appears that we didn't have 2 or more consecutive quarters of negative growth and yet the NBER called it a recession anyway.

so it appears that technically it did not satisfy the definition of a recession and that economists are in disagreement as to whether nor it should be characterized as such.

wow, I must know something about economics if I came up with that.

yeah....my 9 minute "education".

you're too easy danforth.

-That seems to be your default position when things aren't going your way.

not going my way?

what...here?

-And all you've done is avoided the issue:

no, I have also gotten my kicks by beating up on the same retard who keeps coming back for more.

"wow, I must know something about economics if I came up with that. yeah....my 9 minute "education"."

I knew all that without having to look it up.

It comes from having paid attention in Econ class.

"so it appears that technically it did not satisfy the definition of a recession"

And that's something everyone who ever took an Econ 101 course (and passed it) would know.

But it's telling: I knew Lokisfur was wrong immediately, yet you, who took three whole Econ classes had to look it up.

#118 | Posted by MURPHY

Cut everything enacted by the GOP 2001-2007 and we won't have deficits.

Let's be straight about this:

Republicans controlled both houses when the Bush tax cuts failed to pass.

The GOP couldn't muster enough Republican votes to pass this outright, so they had to resort to 'reconciliation', which only allowed them to remain in effect for 10 years.

Idiots trying to blame Obama should look to their own. They were bad for the budget, bad for deficits, and were shoved through by whatever means necessary despite even Republican opposition.

The election coming
Obam is going
Democrats claim in hell it is snowing
Romney is sworn
Obama's ass is worn
Michelle eats fries
Her husband sits and cried

Dream on.

This will be a repeat of Bob Dole '96.

Except you won't have a candidate anywhere nearly as respected as Bob Dole was.

Either a flip flopper or a right wing nutcase who wants America 1919 back

I see an electoral landslide for the republican(Romney) candidate!

I see an electoral landslide for the republican(Romney) candidate!

#128 | Posted by dnmxt

If I were you I wouldn't hang a "Psychic" sign outside.

Republicans are sunk this year. They lost the culture war Sanitorium is still trying to fight, Romney's a flip flopper even most Republicans don't like, Sanitorium is unelectable and only liked by the right wing lunatic fringe.

You're screwed in November. I'll bet you $100 on it.

Sadly, for Republicans, lunatic right wing Teabaggers (who don't even understand what the Boston Tea Party was about) have chased out all the sane Republicans. Takes independents to win national elections. The GOP have fucked themselves but good.

To bitch about the expiring tax cuts now is ludicrous. The only reason they're set to expire is because they couldn't even get enough Republicans to vote for the Bush tax cuts with majorities in both houses and the Presidency. Thus, reconciliation and their expiration after 10 years.

The GOP made their bed, then shit in it, now have to lay in it. WTG!

You're screwed in November. I'll bet you $100 on it.
#129 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Don't bet with Danforth. He'll never admit he was wrong and He'll never pay up.

Now that Danforth has shown his tenuous hold on reality over a definition of a recession that almost every financial reporting services says existed, I thought I'd light him up again.

Business Cycle Dating Committee, National Bureau of Economic Research
July 17, 2003

I see an electoral landslide for the republican(Romney) candidate!

Oh, and the Titanic will pull up the Whtie Star Line pier on the Hudson River on the west side of Manhattan at 5 a.m. on April 17.

#128 | Posted by dnmxt

Oh, and the Titanic will pull up the Whtie Star Line pier on the Hudson River on the west side of Manhattan at 5 a.m. on April 17.
#133 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

You should stop drinking and hanging out at the docks trying to pick up sailors at 5:00am and maybe you will stop seeing ghost ships. Kind of like that other mirage you keep seeing a Obama reelection.

The GOP made their bed, then shit in it, now have to lay in it. WTG!
#130 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

It's both sad and funny - the French tristesse joie may come close to describing it, although the fact that "tristesse" can also be associated with post-coital tristesse (perhaps not unrelated to what I'm talking about, now that I think about a bit more); still, let's not forget, for those observing the performance, schadenfreude - watching so many tiightie riighties on the DR (and elsewhere) rend their bodices and pantaloons over the malapropic presidency of George W. Bush, distancing themselves from him because he wasn't a "real conservative" (presumably like, well, them). And ignoring the performance of GOP legislaqtors, as well.

In fact, their inability to accept responsibility and shove the job of cleaning up the consequential consequences of the actions they committed and/or enabled perfectly mirrors George Bush's actions throughout his life. Make a mess, someone else will come by and have to clean it up.

It's almost as pathetic as the way in which they seek to damn Obama for taking actions with which they'd have agreed, were the president only a Republican.

Politics is a bit of a crapshoot, so nothing is really certain, but I have a feeling they're going to discover this November that the high-wire dance their performing is being done without the benefit of a net.

hanging out at the docks trying to pick up sailors at 5:00am
#134 | Posted by paneocon

I hope you wear a coat.

.. lunatic right wing Teabaggers (who don't even understand what the Boston Tea Party was about) have chased out all the sane Republicans. Takes independents to win national elections ..
#130 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

have you adequately prepped for an outcome you didn't predict?
.. whining & begging for scraps don't count

I knew all that without having to look it up.

liar

And that's something everyone who ever took an Econ 101 course (and passed it) would know.

again, liar.

I knew Lokisfur was wrong immediately, yet you, who took three whole Econ classes had to look it up.

I felt like I owed both of you the courtesy of being right before I responded.

Do you know the definition of "courtesy"?

Anyway, I took those classes a couple decades ago.

You never took it. You are nothing but a someone who has a PhD in Google.

-Except you won't have a candidate anywhere nearly as respected as Bob Dole was.

funny, yet another republican you hated when he was running, wouldn't have voted for him with a gun to your head and instead voted for the other guy who was a draft dodging womanizer.

But now you pretend to "respect" Bob Dole.

After Huntsman dropped out, I suddenly started seeing a lot more support for him around here.

#63 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-20 07:28 PM

But whatever, he didn't even crack 1%. Probably because he attempted sanity in hateful times.

"liar"

Pathetic pretense is all you have left, Bev.

Note to Republicans. To redistribute income, first you need to stop giving nearly all of it to a very few people at the top of the food chain.

#25 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2012-02-20 04:54 PM | Reply |

Whore-- giving it away? you mean letting people keep what they earned.

I just wonder when Obama is going to make it clear that he lied about tax increases by making the penalty in the Health Care Bill a Tax in order to make it constitutional... even though his administration continues to say it is not a tax...

3.6% is Taxageddon?

You poofers are hilarious.

#2 | Posted by 726 at 2012-02

you poor naive obamadupe smuck....

you have no idea the taxes coming your way...

global tax
HUNDREDS OF TAXES in so many forms in obama budget and obamacare...

"take supercomputer to add up all the taxes in 2014"....fox business commentator

SPENDING ON ECONOMY as share of economy.....24%..FIRST TIME since world war 2...dan henninger...WSJ..

you stupid stupid STUPID people....

You think 726 pays taxes?

I predicted that the GOP followers who cheered on Bush's crazy spending would cry bloody murder when taxes were eventually raised to pay for it.

I didn't predict that Obama would fail to raise taxes for a whole term and that he'd spend even worse than Bush.

But the fact remains, that if you voted for either Obama or Bush, you have no right to cry about higher taxes.

fox business commentator

LOL!

Truly a fair and balanced commentary.

You want to be spoon fed RNC talking points fine, but let's not even to pretend that anything said by a commentator on that shitrag channel is anywhere close to fact based.

But yes... 4.6% increase in the top marginal rate is "taxageddon" and this weeks manufactured fauxrage.

$500 billion increase in an economy of $16 trillion is a about a 3% increase in taxes and it is TAXAGEDDON!

Good to see you got the sand kicked in your collective vag's again. It is so fun to see you guys melt with hysterics.

But the fact remains, that if you voted for either Obama or Bush, you have no right to cry about higher taxes.

The one fact that the Bush champions who all faded from sight circa 2008 hung their collective hat on was that once the structural deficits that Dubya created exploded the government would have no choice but to kill Medicare and Social Security kicking millions of "parasites" that worked their entire lives to curb and further into poverty.

Their plan was privatize social security so wall street could skim off the top and make trillions while eating up all the growth, leaving the contributors with less when they retire than they put in like was done in South America.

The Ryan plan would replace Medicare with a voucher that would be worthless in value after 10 years and yet the medical industry would still get it's 15- 20% annual growth in costs.

Never did they ever plan on repaying the money stolen from the social security trust used to fund the operating fund deficits from 1980 till today. They would give the benefits of huge government spending to cronies and huge unfunded tax cuts to the rest of their donors and then demand that the middle and lower classes pay for them ... again.

You think 726 pays taxes?

Nope, I am a parasite that sits back living my lavish lifestyle being paid for by chumps like you who do. I have seven 70" LED HDTV's, five blu ray home theatres, 12 x-boxes that I leave on all the time since my rent, heat, light, cell phone, internet are paid for by the gubmint.

Thank you very much.

Now I have to take my advanced earned income credit payment and EBT card down to the corner to exchange them for money I will blow on hookers and booze tonight for Mardi Gras. I plan on partying until at least 4 am since I can sleep in all day tomorrow.

Sucker.

BTW, do you know who I could call to polish the spinner rims on Lexus SUV. The last guy retired to Boca.

funny, yet another republican you hated when he was running, wouldn't have voted for him with a gun to your head and instead voted for the other guy who was a draft dodging womanizer.

But now you pretend to "respect" Bob Dole.

#139 | Posted by eberly

I respected Dole in '96 and still do. I didn't begin to loathe Republican politicos until they no longer resembled civil, pragmatic, non-hypocritical human beings.

#140 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Good post. Huntsman was alright. Sad the GOP have been taken over by loonies

#152 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

You can have him back, He is low milage and will make a fine democrat when you realize you went too far to the left for the American people.

went too far to the left

IOW... did not adopt far right batshit theological loonytarian positions of the clown car.

Paneocon,

You'd have said the same about Reagan if he was running. He'd have been called a 'RINO' by today's GOP.

It isn't about how far Democrats have gone left. It's about how far right the GOP have gone. They're digging a deep hole they won't be able to climb out of.

AU, precisely.

As if GWB was not far right enough for these morans, they are looking for a saviour that will make Baby Bush look like a liberal.

Good for them. The most electable of the four clown car occupants left is being pushed over a cliff by the theologues that will gladly impose a Christian Theocracy on America. Got to give them that they are true to their whackjob principles even if it means four more years under a kenyan muslim communist fascist marxist liberal moderate.

726

With a flip flopping uber wealthy wishy washy Romney on one hand, and a right wing nutcase in Sanitorium - who wants a return to America circa 1919 - the GOP are in sad, sad shape.

Sanitorium lost his reelection bid by the largest percentage for an incumbent in U.S. history. If he's the nominee, he could set the record for losing in a Presidential election too. However, I still think Romney is the likeliest nominee at the end of the day.

Even if there were a brokered convention who would they select?:

- Mitch Daniels: all the personality of an undertaker
- Chris Christie: Sopranos
- Jeb Bush: America's forever burned out on Bushes

The GOP are a modern version of a circular firing squad.

-If he's the nominee, he could set the record for losing in a Presidential election too.

I think he'll get his ass kicked, barring something major happening that will hurt Obama in the meantime.

But there is no fucking way he'll lose 49 states....which is the record.

unless you meant a separate record for republicans.

EB

Losing percentage of the vote.

#155 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

You just compared Huntsman to Reagan? That's a reach even for a lib dem

But there is no fucking way he'll lose 49 states....which is the record.

You think he will lose more states than Goldwater?

You just compared Huntsman to Reagan?

You are right, Huntsman is far more conservative.

You think he will lose more states than Goldwater?

no. Santorum will lose but will still carry many flyover states.

Where does the White House see this jump in revenue coming from? Partly due to economic growth, and partly due to new tax increases.

For example, the budget expects that corporations will pay $354 billion in income tax in 2013, compared with $281 billion in 2012. It also expects to bring in $83 billion in new revenue by allowing tax cuts for high-income families to expire.

blogs.wsj.com

#14 | Posted by paneocon

Increased revenue from tax increases? Hardly, ask the UK how that is working out.

2013 will see even LESS revenue under the Obama plan; about 9% less by my calculations.

History is there if anyone looks!

There's No Escaping Hauser's Law

Tax revenues as a share of GDP have averaged just under 19%, whether tax rates are cut or raised. Better to cut rates and get 19% of a larger pie.

Over the past six decades, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have averaged just under 19% regardless of the top marginal personal income tax rate. The top marginal rate has been as high as 92% (1952-53) and as low as 28% (1988-90). This observation was first reported in an op-ed I wrote for this newspaper in March 1993. A wit later dubbed this "Hauser's Law."

Why? Higher taxes discourage the "animal spirits" of entrepreneurship. When tax rates are raised, taxpayers are encouraged to shift, hide and underreport income. Taxpayers divert their effort from pro-growth productive investments to seeking tax shelters, tax havens and tax exempt investments. This behavior tends to dampen economic growth and job creation. Lower taxes increase the incentives to work, produce, save and invest, thereby encouraging capital formation and jobs. Taxpayers have less incentive to shelter and shift income.

The historical record is clear on this as well. In 1987 the capital gains tax rate was raised to 28% from 20%. Capital gains realizations as a percent of GDP fell to 3% in 1987 from about 8% of GDP in 1986 and continued to fall to below 2% over the next several years. Conversely, the capital gains tax rate was cut in 1997, to 20% from 28% and, at the time, the forecasts were for lower revenues over the ensuing two years.

In fact, tax revenues were about $84 billion above forecast and above the level collected at the higher and earlier rate. Similarly, the capital gains tax rate was cut in 2003 to 15% from 20%. The lower rate produced a higher level of revenue than in 2002 and twice the forecasted revenue in 2005.

"The lower rate produced a higher level of revenue than in 2002"

More intellectual dishonesty.

To truly measure whether tax cuts increase revenue, you have to compare to a year before the cuts, not start cherry-picking a new base year once the cuts are in place.

And this is the same WSJ who proclaimed "tax cuts increase revenue", and then used a methodology -- using nominal dollars instead of real, inflation-adusted dollars -- as "proof", a method which will get a freshman Econ student flunked out. So either they're that stupid, or they think their readership is.

"Why? Higher taxes discourage the "animal spirits" of entrepreneurship. When tax rates are raised, taxpayers are encouraged to shift, hide and underreport income. Taxpayers divert their effort from pro-growth productive investments to seeking tax shelters, tax havens and tax exempt investments."

If that were true, we would see huge growth under these current low tax rates.

I can't believe someone busted out "animal spirits" in this thread!

#167 | Posted by Danforth

I see your in the mood for another ass whooping today. Not enough to take on the FED on the definition of a recession, now you are calling out the WSJ and W. Kurt Hauser one of today's respected economists and the author of "Housers Law" out as liars.

"I see your in the mood for another ass whooping today."

I see you're doing the intellectual dishonesty two-step again.

"now you are calling out the WSJ and W. Kurt Hauser one of today's respected economists and the author of "Housers Law" out as liars."

He's clearly cherry-picking; he's taking a year after the cuts and pretending that's the base year.

Are you too stupid to see that?

He also talks about the current tax policies being pro-growth.

If that's true, where's the growth?

"Not enough to take on the FED on the definition of a recession"

Pan reminds me of the idiots who used to manage a restaurant I bartended for in my youth. One of their specialty drinks had a lot of rum and juices in it.

They called it a Singapore Sling.

I had to point out that name was already taken, and the recipe was completely different, with gin as the base alcohol, and cherry brandy. They responded with the same puzzled look I imagine Paneocon does when I point out that's not the definition of that word.

As I said upthread, if you start making up definitions, you can get any damned result you want.

#172 | Posted by Danforth

Danforth reminds me of the idiots that walk around the park talking incoherently to themselves just to hear the sound of their own voice.

#173

Have you found that definition yet, Singapore?

Danforth reminds me of the idiots that walk around the park talking incoherently to themselves just to hear the sound of their own voice.
#173 | Posted by paneocon | Flag: Walks Around the Park Talking Incoherently to Himself Just to Hear the Sound of His Own Voice

#175 | POSTED BY DOC_SARVIS AT 2012-02-22 11:02 AM Walks Around the Park hanging out near the restrooms trying to earn a buck or two.

Walks Around the Park hanging out near the restrooms trying to earn a buck or two.
#176 | Posted by glasshouse

Your obsession with other posters' genitals, combined with your closeted fascination with homosexuality - I mean, I don't care what you do, but you clearly need to project what you perceive as your own "failings" onto others - is quite pathetic. And while your expressed desire to earn PainedCon's approval is obvious, it, too, has a certain needy quality to it.

Try and get out, see if you can make a friend or two.

#177 | POSTED BY DOC_SARVIS AT 2012-02-22 11:12 AM

Nice try at deflection there princess. Have you come out to your parents yet? Do yhey know you cruise mens rooms?

Nice try at deflection there princess. Have you come out to your parents yet? Do yhey know you cruise mens rooms?
#178 | Posted by glasshouse

There's no deflection about it. You parade your projections onto the boards here pretty regularly. You're the one whose head is filled with homosexual fantasies, you're the one who feels compelled to project them onto others, and, ultimately, you're the one who has to deal with them. I suspect - but do not know - that you owning up to them, recognizing them for what they are, may be the first step towards self-acceptance.

Truly a fair and balanced commentary.

You want to be spoon fed RNC talking points fine, but let's not even to pretend that anything said by a commentator on that shitrag channel is anywhere close to fact based.

#147 | Posted by 726 at 2012-02-21 01:35 PM |

more proof you simply dont know what you are talking about...watch fox on sat. am...two hour block of business...EACH half hour show has at least one liberal fuck....but then that would mean you would have to think for yourself...

seriously...next saturday...from 10 to 12...EST...give it two hours just once....bet you wont though....

BTW, do you know who I could call to polish the spinner rims on Lexus SUV. The last guy retired to Boca.

#150 | Posted by 726 at 2012-02-21 01:51 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

LEXUS SUV..

damn dude...you're a ONE percenter STOMPING all over the environment with your footprints...

SHIT...looks like thats ONE redeeming social factor for you.. :)