Mitt Romney Sent Millions to Mormon Church

jem · Jan 23, 2012

your spin does not work here.
two thirds of independents say he sucks on the economy.
that is all you need to know.
Once there is one republican the true numbers will show and Obama will have a huge disadvantage to overcome.

he and democrats need to institute a s a low flat tax to replace our current income tax code. that is there only chance

jem · Jan 23, 2012

Quote from Ricter:

They may be dissatisfied with Obama but don't get your hopes up, that does not mean they're going to vote for a supply-sider.

all that a supply sider will have to do is show the charts which show that when they cut taxes revenues went up.

end of criticism.

Spending is the problem. Not tax cuts. Tax cuts have a good chance of causing revenue to go up again.

When that case gets clearly made by Gingrich. Obama will get 40 percent of the vote max.

Brass · Jan 23, 2012

Quote from jem:

all that a supply sider will have to do is show the charts which show that when they cut taxes revenues went up...

Except that everyone knows (or should be embarrassed not to know) that tax cuts don't pay for themselves. Except for that part. Even Right Wing Rand-loving Greenspan said as much. And this from a man who's a fan of low taxes.

Ricter · Jan 23, 2012

Quote from Brass:

Except that everyone knows (or should be embarrassed not to know) that tax cuts don't pay for themselves. Except for that part. Even Right Wing Rand-loving Greenspan said as much. And this from a man who's a fan of low taxes.

The holes in their argument are the premises that business is "tax suppressed", and that capital is scarce. Both are false.

Brass · Jan 23, 2012

Quote from Ricter:

The holes in their argument are the premises that business is "tax suppressed", and that capital is scarce. Both are false.

Well, you know the old adage about every problem looking like a nail to a hammer...

AK Forty Seven · Jan 23, 2012

Quote from jem:

your spin does not work here.
two thirds of independents say he sucks on the economy.
that is all you need to know.
Once there is one republican the true numbers will show and Obama will have a huge disadvantage to overcome.

he and democrats need to institute a s a low flat tax to replace our current income tax code. that is there only chance

Polls aren't spin jem

Asking a person will you vote for Obama or Romney in 2012 is better then asking are you disappointed with Obama on the economy

jem · Jan 23, 2012

Quote from AK Forty Seven:

Polls aren't spin jem

Asking a person will you vote for Obama or Romney in 2012 is better then asking are you disappointed with Obama on the economy

citing a poll as indicative of anything when the republican party has not not settled on one candidate is at best spin. it is a complete waste of time.

jem · Jan 23, 2012

Quote from Brass:

Except that everyone knows (or should be embarrassed not to know) that tax cuts don't pay for themselves. Except for that part. Even Right Wing Rand-loving Greenspan said as much. And this from a man who's a fan of low taxes.

ricter and I already had this argument on ET, with graphs and facts. Which is why Ricter now makes the nuanced argument about where we are on the tax vs revenue graph.

Reagan cut taxes and over his tenure... tax revenues grew by 91%.
Ricter mentioned that Reagan also raised taxes... but even in his article is was stated that on net... reagan had tax cuts.

the funny thing with et liberals and socialists (other than ricter) .. is that they argue using baloney instead of facts.

Reagan cut taxes... revenues went up.
Kennedy cut taxes... revenues went up.

Brass · Jan 23, 2012

Quote from jem:

ricter and I already had this argument on ET, with graphs and facts. Which is why Ricter now makes the nuanced argument about where we are on the tax vs revenue graph.

Reagan cut taxes and over his tenure... tax revenues grew by 91%.
Ricter mentioned that Reagan also raised taxes... but even in his article is was stated that on net... reagan had tax cuts.

the funny thing with et liberals and socialists (other than ricter) .. is that they argue using baloney instead of facts.

Reagan cut taxes... revenues went up.
Kennedy cut taxes... revenues went up.

How very selective of you, looking at only one aspect of the country's financial statements. So, tax revenues increased by 91% under Reagan? Do you think his spending may have had anything to do with that revenue increase, since during his rein, the national debt rose from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion? That's a 186% increase in the national debt for that 91% increase in revenues to which you referred, since you seem to like percentages. Evidently, revenues did not quite manage to cover outflows, eh? Looks like the main ingredient of the revenue sausage is perhaps something other than what you'd like it to be. I'm rather surpised that you managed to overlook this little item.

Here, let me make it easy for you. Listen to Greenspan's three little words just after the 50-second mark:

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eUiPBCRFZOs&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eUiPBCRFZOs&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

"They do not."

How be them apples?

jem · Jan 23, 2012

Quote from Brass:

How very selective of you, looking at only one aspect of the country's financial statements. So, tax revenues increased by 91% under Reagan? Do you think his spending may have had anything to do with that revenue increase, since during his rein, the national debt rose from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion? That's a 186% increase in the national debt for that 91% increase in revenues to which you referred, since you seem to like percentages. Evidently, revenues did not quite manage to cover outflows, eh? Looks like the main ingredient of the revenue sausage is perhaps something other than what you'd like it to be. I'm rather surpised that you managed to overlook this little item.

Here, let me make it easy for you. Listen to Greenspan's three little words just after the 50-second mark:

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eUiPBCRFZOs&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eUiPBCRFZOs&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

"They do not."

How be them apples?

selective my ass... one minute you are telling us cutting taxes does not work... then you are telling us cutting taxes and increasing spending did work for Reagan... Ok what about all the other times cutting taxes worked. Lets look at Kennedys cuts next... than post WWII cuts.

So far... we see Reagan cut taxes... revenue went up.