-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
-
Farrell’s Fallacies
May 9, 2013 | 25 comments
-
Turning on Obama
May 7, 2013 | 227 comments
-
The Pigs of Pigford
April 30, 2013 | 71 comments
-
Overstating Boston
April 26, 2013 | 143 comments
Special Report
Just Say No
High time for Republicans to renew their commitment to standing tough in opposition to tax hikes — here’s how to win politically in doing so.
(Page 2 of 2)
(3) Democrats argue that the economy did very well after Bill Clinton raised income tax rates, so how much harm could there be in returning to those rates? Republicans are already calling their bluff by saying, “OK, I’ll go along with it if you’ll go back to Clinton-era levels of spending.” (It is a clever political retort, but not actually good economic policy to take that deal.)
But calling the bluff misses an important point: While there are many factors beyond tax rates that impact economic activity, the Clinton presidency had two distinct segments in terms of tax policy. First was the four years after the 1993 tax hike; next is the four years after the 1997 capital gains rate cut forced on Clinton by the Republican Congress. (Then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and his GOP colleagues also kept spending under control and arm-twisted Clinton into grudgingly signing the remarkably successful welfare reform measures that President Obama now wants to gut.)
During the first four years of the Clinton administration, GDP growth averaged 3.3 percent while real wages (salaries adjusted for inflation) actually fell slightly. The first half of the Clinton administration ended with the federal government still running a $107 billion deficit. During the second half of the Clinton presidency, when tax and other policy was strongly impacted by Republicans, GDP growth averaged 4.4 percent, while real wages rose at an annual rate of 1.7 percent. It was this second period, following tax cuts, that the Clinton surplus appeared.
(4) From the “I know that you know that I know” files, Democrats recognize that Republicans are afraid of violating the Taxpayer Protection Pledge which many of them have made to Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform (ATR). So, Democrats are looking for ways to allow Republicans to vote for Democrats’ tax hike (raising taxes on individuals earning more than $200,000 or families earning more than $250,000) without technically violating the pledge.
One current idea is to allow all the Bush tax cuts to expire before bringing up “reform” for a vote, so that a vote to only lower taxes on part of the population would nominally be a vote for a tax cut. Norquist correctly says that this scheme “doesn’t pass the laugh test.” No Republican should give a moment’s consideration to the Democrats’ ploy which is cynical but not surprising, coming from the party of “deem and pass“ and other travesties of congressional malfeasance.
Mr. Norquist, who is one of the most powerful players in conservative politics, may be losing influence, even if only slightly, among Republicans. Over recent months, a handful of House freshmen, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, his father, former President George H.W.Bush (“Who the hell is Grover Norquist, anyway?”), and most recently Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) have rejected the Pledge as unnecessary and doing little other than giving Democrats political ammunition. Norquist takes none of this lying down, including saying that a recent op-ed by Coburn “is filled with ‘lies’” and that if Sen. Coburn wants to raise taxes, “he stands alone.” As far as “Bush 41” is concerned, conservatives might find criticism from a man who is perhaps best known for breaking his own “Read my lips: No new taxes“ pledge to be a badge of honor for Grover.
While it may be unnecessary for some politicians, the Pledge is an important influence on members of Congress who might otherwise cave in to their baser political instincts. The country is better for the Pledge, and while some flexibility for members of Congress is a good thing, too much isn’t. As my mother likes to say, “I promise to keep an open mind, but no so open that my brain falls out.” What remains to be seen is whether Republicans who claim that they remain faithful to the Pledge end up in a disagreement with Mr. Norquist about what represents a tax increase.
In particular — and this is the answer I gave to the congressman who e-mailed me with the unacceptable suggestion for a “balanced” approach — Republicans, including Mr. Norquist, should go along with almost any tax reform that closes loopholes and ends deductions and subsidies while lowering rates across the board if that tax reform is revenue neutral under a CBO static model. And they should not go along with any tax reform that is not revenue neutral, or which raises marginal tax rates on anyone other than people who currently pay zero federal income tax.
Static modeling, i.e. predictions of the impact of government policy on government cash flows, is always biased against tax cuts because it assumes that people’s behavior does not change in response to the policy changes. History shows that static modeling routinely underestimates the benefits to economic and job growth, and therefore to tax receipts, of tax cuts and other pro-growth economic policies. Therefore, any reform that includes tax rate cuts but statically scores as revenue neutral will, all else being equal, actually increase the amount of income received by the government.
Calls for political “cooperation,” “bipartisanship,” “balance,” or other weasel words designed to let Democrats grow government and let RINO Republicans evade politically difficult votes on spending reductions and entitlement reform must be rebuffed. While John Boehner cannot put wax in the Republicans’ ears to block the siren song of “can’t we all just get along,” some form of Ulysses Pact, even if not the ATR Pledge, is in order.
When Republicans consider any tax reform deal that includes raising tax rates on anybody who already pays federal income taxes or closing tax loopholes without reducing rates, they should think of Nancy Reagan and Just Say No.
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (247) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/20/just-say-no
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
DTOM| 7.20.12 @ 6:58AM
Ross;
More fine work from you.
Your "static modeling" paragraph is dead on, but maybe a little too 'inside baseball.' The idiocy of static modeling is so idiotic that you would do us all a big favor by focusing two or three articles on it and its stupid, evil ways. Most people seem to miss it - especially people who have campaign managers on their staff. The only way to get to them is through angry voters. And the only way to get angry voters to ask pointy questions about it is for someone to explain it to them.
Don't Tread On Me
benny havens| 7.20.12 @ 7:39AM
Remember when Tip O’Neil vowed to Ronald Reagan that if he went along with raising taxes, the democrats would cut spending? Taxes went up and spending went up. For every dollar they took in they spent $1.25.
Remember what happened to the president that said, “read my lips, no new taxes”! He went along with Dan Rostenkowski, and the rest of the democrats, and put taxes on the table. The democrats raised taxes and the president was voted out of office and spending continued.
Now the democrats are whistling the same tune, raise taxes and we’ll balance it with spending cuts. This is funnier than a Laurel & Hardy movie.
TLP| 7.20.12 @ 8:05AM
Thank You, benny.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if JUST ONE of these MFers, on our side, had any semblance of MEMORY.
It wasn't just Reagan. It was 41 as well.
They LIE. They LIE, because they're LIARS. They LIE, because all they have to Sell, is a Sack of Pig Sh*t, soaked in a Bucket a Puke, that they keep in a Hot Car, with the windows rolled up, until it's time to sell.
The latest example?
A Stab in the Back, by a Supreme Court Justice who believed that He had a Higher Calling, than to "Just do his job", and rule on the Constitutionality of the Legislation, before him.
The Left spent YEARS, telling everybody that their H.C. Penalty "Is not a Tax!"
Then, after being admonished at Trial, they agreed with Chief Justice QUISSLING, that it was a Tax, after all. They knew that they could never get it passed as a TAX INCREASE. So, they did what any good Lib does, when he Peddles his Sack a Sh*t.
They Lied.
And, this is why we don't COMPROMISE with these Ccksckrs.
Ever!
I'm talking to YOU - McCain - you Stupid Bastard? And! anyone else in the GOP who thinks that "Bipartisan" is anything other than CAPITULATION.
Wake Up!
Purp| 7.20.12 @ 10:04AM
Why did you leave off the next Democrat - Bill Clinton, who raised taxes and cut spending both? Raised taxes without 1 Republican vote. Cut spending bipartisan. Scared irresponsible children the Republicans are.
Nevertheless- the Democrats did it before, the Republicans didn't. So who to believe?
The path is clear - if you want fiscal solvency, you want the party of Clinton, not Bush.
JP| 7.20.12 @ 2:10PM
Yes, and Clinton's 1993 tax increases were so popular that his party lost both Houses of Congress in 1994.
And Clinton didn't cut spending. From 1993-1995 government grew, as did the defecit. It wasn't until the GOP took Congress and forced Clinton to slow spending did spending slow. And it wasn't until Clinton signed the GOP capital gains tax cuts did the defecit get erased.
Purp| 7.20.12 @ 3:38PM
Oh, that's right, it was ALL Moon Beam Newt -- that's right, the Democrats in the Senate just sat on their hands, right? And, who btw signed it into law? Clinton.
Like I said, it's the party of Clinton, not Bush toward fiscal solvency. Republicans won't cut anything, they just spend it on something else.
John Navratil| 7.20.12 @ 4:49PM
Any facts to share, like JP did, or is this just more BS?
DTOM| 7.21.12 @ 8:26AM
You needn't ask. Purp lives in a "fact-free zone."
Albertus Magnus| 7.22.12 @ 5:08PM
Purp is a tiresome, dim-witted fool. What he thinks is "economics" is talking points from pedantic socialists. Nothing he says need be taken seriously and no response will ever shut him up. He "debates" like a divorced woman on PMS. Purp is a waste of time.
Purp believes like Senator Steny Hoyer, that money wasting, vote buying programs like unemployment and food stamps are "the most stimulative things you can do for the economy." Any one who actually believes such idiocy is incapable of independent thought and probably needs a keeper to wipe the drool. Government is not the solution, government is he problem. We suffer from profligate spending and high taxes. We do not have too much business and free enterprise. We have too much government.
Common Decency| 7.23.12 @ 5:28AM
Come on Purp - Its common sense and common decency. A good doctor does not go to the bed of a patient who has been sick and is still feeling delicate and then tell the patient "Get out of bed! Do some exercise! Give blood!" and likewise a good government does not tell the business sector when it is recovering and still feeling delicate "Obey more regulations! Pay more taxes!" There are times when raising taxes is a good idea (such as bubble time) but that time is not now. Put your political preferences to one side and try to get the economy healthy again. Which is more important - you score debating points for your favorite politicians or the US economy gets well soon?
Gary B| 7.20.12 @ 10:16AM
It's been "high time" for Republicans for as long as I've been alive. I've been lied to a thousand more times by Republicans than by Democrats.
I lay the damage to our society and economy at the feet the people who promised they would fix things once they arrived in DC. They didn't. They settled into their new home town and started making friends.
For example, Darrell Issa has been shooting his mouth off for months now. Show me the results. Boehner is an empty suit and some Republicans in the Senate are about to vote in favor of the UN small arms treaty. Finally, that little back-stabbing creep, McCain, has never stumbled down an aisle he didn't reach across.
I've spent my entire adult life holding my nose and voting for these liars. I'm about to do it again. If I didn't have a daughter, I'd give up.
Jack London| 7.20.12 @ 11:11AM
You missed your time Gary - you should have been in the Wild West or in some kind of Mad Max future. Then you could have no government and go round wasting people with all the small arms you can lay your hands on. By the way - seen the new Batman movie?
Houdini| 7.20.12 @ 11:57AM
Typical lefty chickensh$t comment, especially the last reference.
JD| 7.20.12 @ 12:34PM
Jack, that was really, really low.
Jack London| 7.20.12 @ 12:53PM
Why? It's not me who wants guns and no government. Maybe if he had no daughter after an event like Aurora he'd think again.
RonRonDoRon| 7.22.12 @ 11:37AM
"want no government" - this crap, again and again.
Thw if-you-don't-want-this-government-action-then-you-obviously don't-want-any-government-at-all argument is getting so tiresome. It has no validity. To have no government at all is the position of anarchists - no one on the right wants no government. The only exception might be the most extreme of libertarian ideologues - so extreme they've essentially dropped off the left/right political spectrum.
The you-want-no-government argument is a favorite of the left, even though it is so empty of substance as to be just silly. How about this, Jack - how about I make the argument that if you want any more government involvement in the economy at all then, obviously you want full-on communism? Is that a reasonable argument?
Albertus Magnus| 7.22.12 @ 5:19PM
STRAW-MAN ARGUMENT ALERT! JL is up to the old straw man thing again, "refuting" arguments that no one makes. No one here said "no government." Personally, I want LESS government, not NO government. JL and other idiots want totalitarian government, that is, government that controls the totality of your life, including every single dollar you earn. To boobs like JL, government is SUPPOSED to control all aspects of life from birth to death and control every decision you make in your life and how much money is "proper" for you to have. And of course the reason for this overwhelming desire is that as everyone knows, government has only the most intelligent and qualified people in its bureaucracies and leadership. Everyone knows that elected officials (especially Democrats) are selfless, self-sacrificing saints, who not only want what is best for everyone else, but only they even KNOW what is best for everyone else. Of course they simply MUST take all your money to spend, since only government is qualified and competent to spend it! Everyone knows this, right?
JL spews logical fallacies like a sick cat spews vomit.
Gary B| 7.20.12 @ 1:33PM
JD: Maybe Jack favors no guns and lots of government, like Chicago or Detroit. Also, I'm surprised he didn't work abortion into his thoughtful comments.
DTOM| 7.21.12 @ 8:29AM
Or Berlin 1937-April 1945...
Or Moscow 1918 - 1990, 1995-now
Or China 1939 - 1993?
Gary B| 7.21.12 @ 2:47PM
DTOM: Real tyranny requires a siren song of benefits and a ton of useful idiots who believe it. It's an old story with perfect record of failure.
I would add to your list the 3am, no-knock, wrong-address break ins courtesy of your local SWAT team. How many innocent lives have been lost with that state-sponsored fiasco?
Jack's world is one long nightmare.
TLP| 7.21.12 @ 8:05PM
Don't worry, Gary B.
When Jackass from London goes to the Hospital, in need of an Emergency Operation, and the Affirmative Action "Doctor" from Haiti gives him his PAIN PILL?
THEN, maybe, he'll "Think again".
Maybe.
Occam's Tool| 7.20.12 @ 5:06PM
Jack: that was pretty damn low.
Jack London| 7.20.12 @ 1:44PM
Oh, and at least McCain has refound his spine after supporting Huma Abedin against the vile Bachmann and her bottom-dwelling supporters.
TrueBlue | 7.20.12 @ 1:52PM
Ignoring the fact that anyone else applying for a security clearance who had a mother and father as part of a known terrorist organization would have been denied said clearance, of course.
JP| 7.20.12 @ 2:13PM
If Hillary's aide Huma Wiener was just a low level federal worker she wouldn't be able to get a Secret Clearance. Her extended family has a history of supporting terrorists. But, in this day an age of Obama, The Muslim Brotherhood is nothing more than a Democratic outreach group.
Gary B| 7.21.12 @ 4:00AM
Didn't Hillary and Bill sell missile secrets to the Chinese in return for campaign cash? Yes, I think they did. Move along, folks, nothing to see here.
RCV| 7.22.12 @ 7:22PM
Even Boehner had the decency to step up to her defense.
TLP| 7.22.12 @ 8:34PM
She's a Muslim Brotherhood Loving Whore Wife, of a Freak.
Period.
All Johnnie Boner did was give us ONE MORE REASON, to get rid of him, after Novenmber.
Gary B| 7.22.12 @ 11:11PM
He's the quintessential empty suit. He's nowhere near as bad as Obama, but he's a manure-spreader nonetheless.
jaytrain| 7.20.12 @ 8:09AM
This is a conversation we simply ought not to have . Taxes , rates revnues what ever , are not the problem . Spending is the problem .It is the only problem . Fix spending and the tax issue goes away . And since we all agree that it was BUSH'S fault , I suggest we return to the spending levels of the last full Bush FY budget and stop right there . No fuss, no muss , problem solved .To coin a phrase " It's the spending , stupid "
Purp| 7.20.12 @ 10:05AM
Why not to the spending and tax levels of the Clinton era? Fiscally, the budget was in balance, in fact, we were creating surpluses - you have a problem with that?
Bush didn't balance a thing. Get serious.
JD| 7.20.12 @ 12:49PM
Purp, to do what you suggest would be a huge tax hike on the poor, a small tax hike on the rich, and a huge spending cut.
I'd take your deal, but you would not.
TrueBlue | 7.20.12 @ 1:54PM
I think Purp and his buddies forgot the .com boom that was the major cause of the economy not tanking after Clinton's initial massive tax hike too. Nevermind that taxes were also lowered when the REPUBLICANS in Congress lowered spending to get him that surplus he takes credit for. Also ignores the fact they had to fight tooth and nail to get it passed.
But I'll make you a deal Purp. You get us Clinton level spending FIRST, then I'll agree to tax increases (particularly on the people who receive more money back from the government than they put into the system).
Purp| 7.20.12 @ 3:41PM
Fine True Blue - get rid of the Tea Party - - President Obama offered just about that. 3 Trillion in cuts and 1 Trillion in revenue increases - and the Tea Party wouldn't let John Boner agree to it. Blame the Tea Party, they killed the deal. The Tea Party is irresponsible and will destroy America.
Truth to Power| 7.21.12 @ 9:36AM
No get rid of the Democratic Party. We have an enormous spending problem. You have played your taxes now, spending cuts later for the last time.
Purp| 7.21.12 @ 5:50PM
Actually, we are collecting 15% tax revenues, when historically we collect 19-21% revenues ratio to GDP. We need to cut spending from 25% to 20% of GDP, but we need to raise revenue a like amount. You can't argue with those facts. It's that simple to be in balance.
But when one side won't budge because of Grovel Nosequist's hold on all Republican balls, they wimp out and f*** the country. Who the h*ll is this turd blossom Grovel? Elected representatives cower to him? And your the Daddy Party? I don't think so...
Truth to Power| 7.21.12 @ 7:02PM
You are going to have to do some cutting my friend and you are going to have to do it first. In the first two years of the big O he could have raised all the taxes he liked and he raised none. The big O promised to cut and didn't cut anything. He spent money paying tax payer dollars to gay money bundlers and other cronies. Now it is time for him to go. We don't want to end up like Greece, California or Detroit. Those are all left wing places that have followed your model to disaster.
RonRonDoRon| 7.22.12 @ 11:43AM
There is no Tea Party, as such. There are a lot of people who call themselves tea party activists. Some of them have formed organizations, some haven't but simply show up at rallies. Some of the organizations formed want to be seen as the "official" tea party organization; many others know better than to make that claim.
Purp| 7.20.12 @ 3:40PM
JD - President Obama offered just about that. 3 Trillion in cuts and 1 Trillion in revenue increases - and the Tea Party wouldn't let John Boner agree to it. Blame the Tea Party, they killed the deal. The Tea Party is irresponsible and will destroy America.
DTOM| 7.21.12 @ 8:31AM
Purp,
What is the weather like in your "fact-free zone?
Dark and cloudy and redolent with the scent of BS?
Purp| 7.21.12 @ 5:50PM
You don't remember last summer do you? And you call me "fact free"? Or wasn't those offers mentioned on Fixed News or Rush Loudmouth?
Truth to Power| 7.21.12 @ 7:04PM
Oh yeah, the first summer of recovery. Cuts first my friend. Your dishonesty gets you no deals.
Albertus Magnus| 7.22.12 @ 5:24PM
Purp is a tiresome, dim-witted fool. What he thinks is "economics" is talking points from pedantic socialists. Nothing he says need be taken seriously and no response will ever shut him up. He "debates" like a divorced woman on PMS. Purp is a waste of time.
There have been NO CUTS in government spending. There have been cuts in departments (mostly in Defense), but government spends more now than ever before. You can't "cut" spending by spending more money. This is nonsense, as is virtually everything "purp" writes. Can people really be not only that stupid, but that arrogant at the same time? I guess they can. Proof: Purp.
JP| 7.20.12 @ 2:16PM
The surpluses lasted as long as the Dot Com Bubble. They were gone before Clinton left office. And the Dot Com Bubble was the result of the Capital Gains Tax Cut of 1997 (proposed and passed by the GOP Congress), and Greenspans liquidity injections. During that period, Clinton was obsessed with a young, unknown intern and certain sexual practices involving masterbation.
Purp| 7.20.12 @ 3:43PM
Then why did GW Bush and the Republicans give massive tax cuts when there was no surplus? To hurt America? That's what it did.
They sure weren't/aren't worried about deficits and debt when they are in charge, now are they?
DTOM| 7.21.12 @ 8:32AM
Fact free zone! Still raining baloney!
Mimi | 7.20.12 @ 8:34AM
The Obama increase in GDP ratio from 18-19% to 24% , increasing debt 5 trillion is reason enough to throw him out of office. Does he have the ABILITY to count the change in his pocket? The Dem's and others put this thriving nation into the hands of of an irresponsible, un-talented, non-ambitious, easily distracted play-guy...and the time has come to UNDUE THE DAMAGE!
TLP| 7.20.12 @ 12:34PM
Yeah.
And, one of them - Peggy Noonan - is out there, this time, pushing Condoleeza Rice for Veep.
That's reason 1, 2' and 3, to give that idea the old Heave Ho.
(No pun intended.)
Gary B| 7.20.12 @ 1:15PM
LOL
RCV| 7.20.12 @ 1:25PM
Fox News poll shows Condi to be the top choice of registered GOP voters, TLP.
JP| 7.20.12 @ 2:17PM
Yes, registered GOP voters who work and live in the Beltway.
TLP| 7.20.12 @ 4:32PM
What's your point?
I think for myself.
What else did the New York Times tell you to say, today?
RCV| 7.22.12 @ 7:24PM
You are indeed one of a kind, TLP. The "thinking" part I'm not too sure about.
TLP| 7.22.12 @ 8:38PM
I'm not surprised.
The only thing you seem to be "Sure of" is your Messiah's ability to lead us in to Third World Status.
And, you don't care.
See how smart you are?
Occam's Tool| 7.20.12 @ 5:08PM
Condi would be a poor choice, RCV. Very, very poor on ME issues.
RCV| 7.22.12 @ 7:25PM
She'd be a very smart choice, Occam, both politically and policy-wise.
TLP| 7.22.12 @ 8:40PM
Of you ever needed a reason to be against her?
That was it.
Gary B| 7.22.12 @ 11:15PM
The establishment loves her and the conservative base is indifferent at best, so she's the worst choice. Talk about going backwards...
Truth to Power| 7.21.12 @ 9:42AM
Get her residency out in California. She would be a giant improvement as their governor. RCV shouldn't advise anybody on anything until he cleans up his mess in California. Waste, fraud, kickbacks, bribes are what RCV is all about. Even at this point all he feels for his role in the destruction of California is sorrow that the union sweetheart deals are in jeopardy. Pathetic!
RCV| 7.22.12 @ 7:31PM
She would indeed make a terrific governor, and we'd be very lucky to have her. But she has too much foreign policy experience and smarts to waste them on state venues.
Despite your usual ill-formed assumptions, Untruth, I have no sympathy for nor sorrow at the loss of any public pension deals, nor any love for waste, fraud, kickbacks or bribes. You are such a pathetic ignoramus.
RCV| 7.22.12 @ 7:32PM
... And she is already a resident of California. She's back teaching at my alma mater, Stanford, where she's spent most of her academic career.
Purp| 7.20.12 @ 3:44PM
You really shouldn't talk about your former President, Republican Baby Bush. He did exactly what you describe.
Purp| 7.21.12 @ 5:52PM
15% tax revenue is too low and expenses are too high as you say. Raise one, lower the other = balance. It's that simple. But BOTH sides have to compromise and move toward balance.
Truth to Power| 7.21.12 @ 7:05PM
Cuts first.
RonRonDoRon| 7.22.12 @ 11:49AM
As Kaminsky clearly explains, revenue is down to 15% because the recession has tanked top-end incomes. Revenue will make its way back to the 19.5% average when the economy does better than the current, very weak recovery.
Purp| 7.20.12 @ 8:54AM
"None of the personal income tax or capital gains tax increases enacted in the post-World War II period has raised the projected tax revenues." - Of course that's a Big Fat Lie. 3 of the 4 major tax hikes over the last 60 years was followed by an economic boom and tremendous growth.
It simply isn't true that tax cuts = growth. It matters who the tax cut goes to, what kind of tax is cut, how the tax cut is implemented.
GW Bush famously touted his $ 600.00/$1200.oo tax cut to individuals and families in 2008 to stave off recession - well we know how that worked out, don't we?
francisdesales| 7.20.12 @ 9:17AM
You must be joking.
The recession was CAUSED by a 600/1200 dollar tax cut...
Nothing to do with normal business expansion/contraction, Lehman Brothers, subprime lending, excessively low interest rates and excessive government debt...
Wow. Do liberals REALLY believe this??? No wonder the country's economy is in such terrible shape...
C'mon Man!| 7.20.12 @ 9:49AM
Yeah francis, they do believe their pap, sad, isn't it?
And too many young minds full of mush believe it to, because it's easy. Learning the truth is hard.
Purp| 7.20.12 @ 12:05PM
Another idiot speaking from the fringe... YOU are the ones in denial - there never has been a country like you imagine.
Yet you reap the benefits of the country you have that our forefathers gave you and act like their is something wrong with our Republic. It's Un-American.
TLP| 7.20.12 @ 12:42PM
It's amazing how Fast and Far the Economy Sh*t the Bed, once Harry Ried, and Nancy Pelosi, took over Both Houses of Congress, January 21, 2007, and Chris Dodd, and Bawney Fwank took over the Chairmanships of the Senate Banking Commitee, and the House Finance Committee, respectively.
Somehow, these two were the only the only two people in the Country, who saw "NO PROBLEM" with Fannie and Freddie.
Anybody Surprised?
LOOK IT UP.
Purp| 7.20.12 @ 4:39PM
News Flash!
Venture Capitalists Abandon Romney - Ruh, Roh
http://www.reuters.com/article.....HV20120720
Purp| 7.21.12 @ 5:54PM
Before 2007, Neither Pelosi, Frank or Reid had any power to change anything.
It all happened on Bush's watch. What happened in 2002-2006 caused the crash in 2007-2008. Anything else you believe is in total denial with fact.
Truth to Power| 7.21.12 @ 7:07PM
Nonsense. Your pyramid schemes and market interventions have caused the problems. One of the big O first acts as as Senator was to make sure that their was no reform and the money kept flowing to bad loans. It is time for a change.
TLP| 7.21.12 @ 8:14PM
And all of the Sh*t we're going through, now, happened on your Boy's watch.
(This the part where you completely ignore everything you just said, and say - "It's Bush's Fault")
You're on the air.
Action!
RonRonDoRon| 7.22.12 @ 11:54AM
I'm thinking the only workable response to Purp would be to ignore him - the comment board equivalent of the Amish tradition of "shunning."
His mind is completely impervious to any input that challenges his very rigid mind-set and worldview. He'll say anything rather than admit that anything he believes is in any way less than the absolute truth.
Purp| 7.20.12 @ 12:03PM
No, idiot, how can you be that STUPID - that tax cut was supposed to stop the recession - but just like everything else Bush did, it didn't work.
JD| 7.20.12 @ 12:50PM
Bush had no obvious recession to stop at the time; your accusation is false. Obama, on the other hand, failed miserably at his promises to stop a recession.
Purp| 7.20.12 @ 3:46PM
JD - you know nothing about history, and I assume you were alive in 2008, so you lived it. That's even more amazing.
Did you get a refund from the government? Did you pay taxes then? Google the "Bush Tax cut of 2008" and learn something for a change...
DTOM| 7.21.12 @ 8:40AM
So Purp, name 1 thing that Obama has done that has worked to repair the economy.
Just one thing that worked.
You cannot.
Even in the "Fact-free zone" you cannot identify one thing that worked.
Unless you consider the cooking of the employment and unemployment statistics at the DOC? But does that work or just worsen things in the medium term. Thusly, 'job numbers show slight improvement' when they actually worsen, week later they worsen further, then DOC reports new worse numbers while having to report adjustments to prior week's numbers, also worse.
Hasn't this happened for 70 or 80 consecutive weeks? (Just say "Yes" Purpoleater!)
Yet after a year of mangling the numbers, the economy is definitely worse than a year ago. Your Obama can't even lie successfully.
Neither can you.
Eventually
Purp| 7.21.12 @ 5:57PM
Auto Industry Rescue worked fantastically.
If you don't believe it, you're in denial. GM is alive and well and the #1 Automobile maker in the WORLD. Chrysler is booming and Ford and all the suppliers in the US for the Big 3 and Toyota, Honda and Kia are doing just fine - Thank you President Obama.
Now apologize DTOM.
Truth to Power| 7.21.12 @ 7:08PM
Nonsense. It is a house of cards that was another payoff to unions.
TLP| 7.21.12 @ 8:16PM
And, they still owe US $64 Billion, that we will NEVER see.
Truth to Power| 7.20.12 @ 9:38AM
Let me say again, no.
paintbrush| 7.20.12 @ 10:38AM
So, can you name one person who paid the IRS more than he owed because he trusted the government to put his money to good use?
Purp| 7.20.12 @ 12:06PM
Why would anyone pay more than they legally should?
Romney should show us all how to do it, so we can become rich too. Why not? He's so good at it - tell us, teach us. THEN we'll listen.
DTOM| 7.21.12 @ 8:43AM
Call your buddy George Soros - get him to chip in for deficit reduction. He has certainly spent a lot of money to put Democrats into office to raise taxes, thus cutting government reciepts by killing off business activity.
If big George really wanted to help, you should tell your handlers to tell George to write the check and help out Barry...
C'mon George is the 1%'s 1% isn't he?
Purp| 7.21.12 @ 5:59PM
Soros isn't running for President. Romney wants America to trust him - how? He's secretive, stiff, and stonewalls when asked uncomfortable questions. Not Presidential material, no concern for America's needs. Just his own. Go back to Corporate America RomBot. You can dictate there.
Truth to Power| 7.21.12 @ 7:09PM
Soros owns the big O that is running. Time for a change little man.
benny havens| 7.20.12 @ 12:08PM
Purp
Please explain to me how tax hikes equal growth? I guess you believe that if the government raises taxes they have more to spend and it means a better economy.
Well Einstein, your president just spent $800,000,000 in stimulus money and nothing happened. In fact in the last 3 years he spent $4.5 trillion more then the $7.5 trillion he took in and the economy is still on the verge of collapse. It’s the spending, stupid.
TLP| 7.21.12 @ 8:20PM
Actually, something did happen.
Things are getting Worse, and now we're $5 TRILLION deeper on Debt than we were before he started.
Pay Attention.
JP| 7.20.12 @ 2:21PM
Tax rates were cut by JFK in 1962 (significant tax cuts). Spending sky rocketed beginning in 1964 and continued unabated through 1968. And spending and taxes were cut in 1947 by Truman. The nation was still stuck in a prolonged FDR style recession until then. It wasn't until Truman significantly cut spending and many taxes that the Post World War II Boom began. And it helped that there was no foreign competition. US exports exploded because almost all of Europe and Asia needed US machine tools, food, and consumer goods until they could recover from WorldWar II.
Purp| 7.20.12 @ 6:08PM
The top tax rate was 91% in 1947 - what history are YOU reading?
The Depression ended in 1943, with war spending BY THE Government put everyone back to work.
You really need to read the real history of the United States - from books written then - not now by partisans with an agenda to brainwash you with.
JP| 7.20.12 @ 6:44PM
Living standards dropped from 1933-1941, and continued to drop during WWII (that's what happens with a command economy). The FDR New Deal policies continued after WWII. This nation expirienced a severe recession from1945-1947. You only mention income taxes, and the top rate applied only to hire earners (who could shelter their money). Truman cut income taxes for the middle class, introduced tax cuts for business and capital depreciation, as well as tax cuts for home interest deduction, education expenses, etc.. From 1932 through 1947 and into 1948 the US had an extended Depression/Recession. Full employment during the war only occured due to wage and price freezes, the draft, and severe rationing in everything from fossil fuels, rubber, food, sugar, metals, etc...Again, from 1942-1945 living standards in the US plunged. And the New Dealers still in the Truman WH demanded they continue and expand Roosevelt's policies ad infitnitum. Truman stripped much of the New Deal from our economy and was hated for this by his own party.
Targeted tax cuts on capital and income, mixed with deep cuts in federal spending (all which occured after 1947) got us out of the Roosevelt inspired recessions.
Purp| 7.21.12 @ 6:01PM
Who in the h*ll told you all that crap? The Depression ended in 1943 and would have ended sooner, had FDR not tried austerity and cutbacks in 1937 (the little Depression).
Not surprisingly, rationing was instituted to defeat Japan and Germany in the War. Then, people sacrificed when the country went to war. Not like in the Bush years, hey, Bubba?
Truth to Power| 7.21.12 @ 7:12PM
Europe and Japan were destroyed during the war and we enjoyed the benefits. It is not a plan for the future. Roosevelt was a disaster. You really should read more.
Al Adab| 7.20.12 @ 9:35AM
Taxes are too often used to engineer results. We have all heard the proverbial, "I you want less of something, tax it." Why we might ask is The Left so agressive in attempting to tax success? Apparently, they want less of it.
In their universe if one excels, then some other must suffer. They have forgotten that JFK, in touting his tax cut proposal, told us that, "A rising tide lifts all ships." Tax policy should encourage not penalize financial accomplishment on the part of the citizens.
Is there an underlying goal hidden in this policy? If so it is to level all, none excel and none fail, but all must live a lower standard set by the government and its agents. Instead of providing opportunity for all, this government of The Left seeks universal mediocrity.
Jack London| 7.20.12 @ 11:18AM
Hi Al. Here's a question - if GW Bush hadn't enacted his tax cuts would we be better or worse off as a nation right now?
JD| 7.20.12 @ 12:40PM
Worse, unquestionably.
Even if you make the liberal assumption that tax changes have little impact on taxable revenue, and thus, lower taxes reduced revenue (a dubious assumption), there has still been NO negative consequence of low federal revenue to-date. Spending has surged, unrelated to revenue, we're just punting it all as a deficit.
The debt is a future problem, not a present problem, other than its impact on currency and bond prices, which nobody thinks are significant to today's economies. In short, the only way one can say that our deficit accumulation has hurt the economy to date (as opposed to hurting the economy in the future, when we're forced to deal with the debt), is if particular spending has actually done more harm than good.
Given Obama's love for handouts for the poor and middle class, I doubt you seriously want to argue that tax cuts for the poor, absent any corresponding spending cuts, harmed the economy at the time. As a Democrat, I don't think you want to malign spending either.
The fact is, the present economy is unduly inflated by deficit spending. Reality should be worse than it is.
TLP| 7.20.12 @ 12:44PM
Actually?
The Correct Answer is - Worse, EXPONENTIALLY.
Jack London| 7.20.12 @ 1:04PM
Sadly for you history shows that all two-term presidents in recent history delivered much better job growth than GW Bush, without massive tax cuts for the wealthy. Under Bush we also saw anemic economic growth and the second biggest crash in history, no increase in real income for the less well off, and the cuts were the biggest cause of the current deficit.
So the answer is, as usual, the opposite to what you believe. I think you should go back a few grades and learn the basics - I'll start you off with the fact the Earth is not flat.
TLP| 7.20.12 @ 4:36PM
Ya know, Jack. It would be a lot easier to respond to your stupid shit, if everything you wrote wasn't stupid shit.
Ya know what I mean?
DTOM| 7.21.12 @ 8:50AM
Jack lives across the dirt road from Purp in the "Factfree zone." In all his postings he hasn't brought a single verifiable fact to the discussion.
In the intellectual gun fight that plays out here, Jack London and Purp come armed with rubber bands.
Facts are bullets, and in the "factfree zone" they have been outlawed by their master, George Soros.
Boys, has George had you over for a barbecue lately?
Thought not...
How long you gonna play useful idiots dancing to George's tune?
TLP| 7.20.12 @ 4:36PM
Ya know, Jack. It would be a lot easier to respond to your stupid shit, if everything you wrote wasn't stupid shit.
Ya know what I mean?
JP| 7.20.12 @ 7:38PM
Ameic growth? From 2004-2006 the GDP averaged around 3% growth. Much better than the 1.6 to 1.8% growth we've seen in recent years. And spending was $5 trillion less.
JP| 7.20.12 @ 2:22PM
The Clinton Recession didn't end until the Bush Tax Cuts were enacted in 2003.
TLP| 7.20.12 @ 4:36PM
You're just confusing him.
Occam's Tool| 7.20.12 @ 5:09PM
Worse off.
Purp| 7.20.12 @ 12:08PM
Alas, it has always been with government and taxes. Get over it.
Opportunity for all is NOT the same as special breaks for the few. Now is it? Only one presidential candidate talks about reducing the special breaks - and it ain't RomBot.
Al Adab| 7.20.12 @ 12:32PM
Hi Jack and you too Purp:
Both of you actually hit the point. The progressive income tax is the problem. It treats people and their property (their incomes) differently depending on the volume and source. This penalizes success and discourages business and economic growth. A single rate, or ideally, the elimination of the income tax would be be preferable. That way no special groups get breaks and all people would be treated the same as the 14th amendment specifies.
As to your question Jack, the lower the rate the more of their income property each person would get to keep. What possible moral claim does the federal government have to persons income? Should not each citizen decide for themselves how they choose to spend what is rightly theirs?
Jack London| 7.20.12 @ 1:09PM
Al - we have a huge deficit fuelled by the tax cuts and still growing inequality. We cannot go on promoting huge prosperity only for a small minority. Go back and look at the structural factors in place during times of greater prosperity for all - they all have reasonable taxation for the well-off and really those rich people did not suffer, did they...
Al Adab| 7.20.12 @ 1:16PM
Borrowing and spending create the deficit Jack. The debt is compounded from years of running deficits. Both parties are complicit in this crisis. Assigning blame will not accomplish the cure. I object to the progressive income tax based on its inequality and treatment of special interests through various deductions and exclusions. I would think you would agree or is it simply your intent to punish financial success rather than encourage it?
BTW would you support legislation mandating that your tax increases be used solely to buy back the debt? Would you support sale and leases of federal lands for the same purpose? Do you favor a 100% tax on incomes over 250K? Aside from the rhetoric Jack, where do you draw the line?
Jack London| 7.20.12 @ 1:50PM
Just letting the tax cuts for the rich expire will do for a start Al - don't overblow it. I'm certainly in favor of closing loopholes – as we know, your side say they want this but are completely silent on what - such as those exploited by Romney, so no surprise there.
You cannot run a modern economy on the ideology of a time of barter - as i said, look at the factors in play when we were pulling together as a nation far better and put your touching concern for the wealthy to one side - trust me, it won't reduce them to penury. And they can always go live in the Caymans if they don't want to put their country first.
Al Adab| 7.20.12 @ 2:05PM
Jack:
Please stop reinterpreting my comments. My concern is not for the wealthy, but rather for all those who may someday become wealthy. Government policy should encourage the accumulation and creation of individual wealth not penalize it. My desire is that many, many become wealthy even if they fail any number of times. The cost of doing business should be lowered not increased. These are policy choices over and above any party concerns. As I stated, the problem is the progressive, overly complex income tax code itself.
Now, I have a baseball game to get to so enjoy your afternoon and weekend.
Jack London| 7.20.12 @ 2:12PM
Al - if you want greater social mobility then that too is fostered better in a more equal society. I don't know if it's possible to find out, but I'd be willing to wager that more people moved up to the wealthier classes under higher tax regimes.
Occam's Tool| 7.20.12 @ 5:05PM
No, Jack, they didn't. They move up faster under lower tax regimes and legal stability. Keeping a tax regime low 6 months at a time is not a favorable environment.
Or, was Britain richer at the beginning or the end of the Thatcher Prime Ministership?
Purp| 7.20.12 @ 3:50PM
Al - can you please explain how the most productive times in America the rich had 70-90% income tax rates on them? The wealthy take care of themselves, but they can only generate so much economic activity. Hundreds of millions of people with good incomes and money to spend generates the economic activity. 70% of our economy is consumer driven, not investor driven. When the middle class is strong and wealthier, America is strong economically. The rich don't make or break the economy, ever.
John Navratil| 7.20.12 @ 4:53PM
Purp,
Because we were the ONLY industrial power in the world at that time!
Purp| 7.20.12 @ 5:05PM
John, poor John - Not true, those tax rates, that was during the FDR Presidency (1935 and afterwards), during the Depression and beyond. Hell it was 50% during Reagan's time...
Go learn something. Sorry to break your Fixed News bubble.
John Navratil| 7.20.12 @ 5:23PM
Purp,
I'd certainly bring 1935 in as a period of great productivity. It kinds of seems familiar, today, doesn't it.
In the 20's tax rates were cut from 70% to 20% and the revenue went UP 50%. FDR pushed them to 90% (sound like someone in the news, today?). Kennedy cut them to 60% in 1961 and by 1968 revenues increased 33% in real terms (62% nominal).
I would think it would be you who needs to go learn something. No need to apologize for your own ignorance.
John Navratil| 7.20.12 @ 5:25PM
OOPS! The 20's tax cut was to 25% and Kennedy cut to 70%. I'll stand by the rest.
Purp| 7.20.12 @ 6:16PM
No, actually, nothing sounds like today. But 1935 was not a great productive time, but 1943 was, with 90% tax rate as tops. So were the 1950's with 91% as top tax rates.
Tax cuts don't equal prosperity - it's not that simple. But it's simple to explain on Fixed News - I get that. It's just not so.
John Navratil| 7.20.12 @ 7:01PM
Purp,
In 1943 we were on a war footing, spending in deficit and diverting 50% of our GDP to the war. It left a debt which took twenty years to pay (which was largely done). Who the hell was paying the 90%? Was it the soldier? Rosie the riveter? Anyone? Wages were fixed and the era of transferring personal expenses to company expenses - the company car, expense account, health insurance - was upon us to circumvent regulations.
Your are right though. It was productive. It produced two generations of peace.
As we began this little discussion, the 50's were are period when we were the only game in town.
Yet you, without anything to back it up, suggest that 90% tax rates had no effect on productivity and the revenue (a tax on productivity) to the Fed.
You keep referring to "Fixed News". What is that? I remember the fourth grade (it was just before the Civil War) and we called people Fatso, Four-eyes and Dumbo. Then our testicles descended.
Purp| 7.21.12 @ 6:04PM
OMG - Fixed News, Faux News, Fox News, all the same. If you're that dense, no wonder you don't get it.
DTOM| 7.21.12 @ 8:53AM
Anybody going to tell Purp about that WWII thing?
Apparently George Soros erased it from Purp's teleprompter.
TLP| 7.21.12 @ 8:23PM
Thank You.
Occam's Tool| 7.20.12 @ 5:10PM
They weren't the most productive times. That would be the second Reagan administration.
The top Fed tax rate under Ronnie was 28%. Clinton had to raise the Ronnie levels, remember?
Purp| 7.20.12 @ 6:11PM
Sorry - 50% was the top tax rate in 1986. you are wrong, revisionist rightwing history as usual.
DTOM| 7.21.12 @ 8:56AM
"...reporting from the factfree zone, today trained seal Purp reported some gussied up history concerning the so-called Reagan tax rates which were in fact enacted by the Democratic Congress and signed by President Reagan..."
You are going to have to do better. Call George S and get an update....
Purp| 7.21.12 @ 6:04PM
Occam - Clinton presided over the largest peacetime economic growth in our history, not the bumpkin Reagan.
TLP| 7.21.12 @ 8:28PM
Actually, Clinton presided over the most Unanswered Terrorist Attacks against our Country, and the most Illegal Overseas Campaign Contributions from The Red Chinese Army, as well as the most Sex Scandals, in our Country's History, including being charged with RAPE, on National Television, on the #1 Show, at the time - 60 Minutes.
But, you already knew that, didn't you?
JP| 7.20.12 @ 7:35PM
How many middle class people are employers? A man who owns a small tool and die company (3 employees) with earnings of $500,000 will see his taxes go up on Jan 1 2013 55,000 minimum. Guess what? One of his employees will get laid off. His total take up pay is less than $120,000. But, according to Obama, he is a millionaire and billionaire.
Think of a software developer who employs 2 employees and has revenues of $750,000. His taxes will go up nearly $100,000. His total take home pay is tops $200,000. He will also have to lay-off one employee or eat the loss. If he lives in California, his take home pay is much less.
Multiply those scenarios by 15 million Type-S corporations and you will see a recession by the end of July 2013. But, have no fear; we will more than likely be in recession by Jan of next year if current trends continue.
According to Obama, a man who owns a plumbing company,a woman owns 10 tanning booths are the rich (they make more than $250,000). And the wealthiest 5% pay 50% of all taxes. The problem with socialism, as Maggie Thatcher said, is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Purp| 7.21.12 @ 6:13PM
Your numbers are ridiculous. If you have enough business/sales to keep 3 people working, you aren't laying off anyone. You will need them to produce what you sell - you won't hurt your sales but not being able to produce what you need. That would be suicidal.
I've run 2 companies as sole owner and you aren't calculating correctly.
If a company owner makes $500,000.00 take home pay, then yes his taxes will go up 1/1/13. But- What a company makes as gross revenue is NOT the same as what the owner nets. It's the owner's net pay, adjusted income, not the company total revenue that determines the owner's tax rate.
If you are incorporated, the corporate tax rate applies on net profit, not gross profit, which is not the same as the individual company owner's tax rate.
If you take home > $250,000.000 however you make it, that is your income, and then deductions come off of that. But that has no relation to what your company sells as revenue, unless you have to take less salary because of reduced sales.
So I hope you got it now.
jmulcahy1| 7.22.12 @ 10:10PM
Why are you taking credit for the 2 companies you ran as sole owner? You didn't build those.
TLP| 7.21.12 @ 8:33PM
How many middle class people are employers?
Wow. Talk about being "Behind the Times".
Purp's Boy is out there, now, pushing a "Bottom Up Economy" whereby we'll now be getting our jobs from the Homeless Man at the Traffic Light, holding up a Sign that reads - "Will HIRE for food".
Only in Amerika.
Oldefarte| 7.20.12 @ 11:45PM
Okay so make the middle class strong, How? Eliminate labor unions, which returns manufacturing to this country and allows states to lower their wage/benefits. Eliminate governmental welfare which forces it recipients to WORK and forces illegals to go back to Mexico. Eliminate WelfareCare, Medicaid and force everyone to buy their own insurance [subsidized where only necessary]. Eliminate wasteful/duplicative governmental programs and therefore lower governmental exenses. Next question?????
Purp| 7.21.12 @ 6:22PM
1) Require all companies to keep 50% of their employees in the United States or get the HQ out of the United States.
2) Eliminate CEO pay in the form of stock options. Instead of incenting CEOs to keep stock prices high, incent them to create strong companies in the United States.
3) Invest in education so more Americans can be pulled out of poverty with better training and education.
4) Don't force foreign students back home after they are well educated here at our Universities. They are some of the most entrepreneurial types in the world. We want to keep them here.
5) Scrap NAFTA, CAFTA and other one-sided trade agreements that only benefit the 1% and large corporations, not Americans.
6) Eliminate territorial taxation, which allows companies to make it there but sell it here so they pay less taxes to America.
7) Eliminate tax havens and tax evasion schemes and reduce taxes on middle classers.
Just a few ideas - there's more.
You are wrong on the unions. And, any welfare is a rounding error in our budget. Get real, it's a pittance. Waste/duplicative - okay, that's a good one.
Truth to Power| 7.21.12 @ 7:15PM
As the Greeks, Italians, Irish, English, French are learning businesses can move and they only say if they are willing to take their fascist ideas to completion. California is learning this as well and Detroit has turned itself into a waste land fighting against this freedom. No to taxes. Lets try cuts to the leviathan.
TLP| 7.21.12 @ 8:40PM
If you got rid of The Unions, and the THOUSANDS of New Job Killing Regulations, and stopped Attacking every Industry with the EPA, the Energy and Interior Departments, and didn't sick the Gun Running/Blacks Only Justice Department, and the Union Controlled NLRB on everybody.
Then, these Companies WOULD come back to America. But, of course, that would be Racist, in your book.
Right?
JP| 7.20.12 @ 2:28PM
Spending in 2001 was $1.8 trillion.Today it is $3.8 trillion. This nation has a spending problem and not a tax problem, When a nation puts more people on Disability than put employ it has a spending problem, and not a tax problem. When a nation must go to Mexico to enlarge its Food Stamp Program despite having 50 million people enrolled in it, it has a spending problem.
Purp| 7.20.12 @ 5:09PM
What is the difference in spending? Do you know where the change in the Federal Budget came from? If you don't, you're just making shit up.
JP| 7.20.12 @ 6:47PM
Purp do us a favor and go back to the homeless shelter and return your e-machine to Goodwill.
BTW, the numbers I cite come straight from the federal government (ie CBO).
DTOM| 7.21.12 @ 9:07AM
JP - Purp does NOT live in a homeless shelter. He is paid to endlessly provide nonresponsive answers to to wel thought out questions that are at the very core deep insults.
Purp and Jack London and Purp are the Hydra that Hercules defeated in Greek mythology. You cut off one lie and they place two more in it's place.
We must use Hercules's wisdom in defeating them. Each lie must be painstakingly cut off and then immediately hit with a flaming torch to prevent the new lies from sprouting from the wound.
Which sounds like a lot of work. We could just refuse to play their silly little game and ignore their factfree 'thinking.'
Ronald Reagan had a very effective line for lying opponents, it was "There you go again." TYGA.
Let's try it...
Purp| 7.21.12 @ 6:23PM
JP - link please ... not that I don't believe you - I'm just saying. PROVE your numbers.
Oldefarte| 7.20.12 @ 11:38PM
Where the change comes from? Easy dummie...welfare. Revenues have not increased enough to cover welfare, therefore tapping Wild Bill's Lincoln Bedroom visitors for the difference was/is necessary....next question?????
Purp| 7.21.12 @ 6:24PM
Fart- you have no idea how little welfare is in this country, do you?
DTOM| 7.21.12 @ 8:58AM
Purp,
It's actually pretty simple. It's $2 trillion.
You just subtract 1.8 from 3.8 and then put the trillion unit back in. I thought your pal George Soros would have educated you on that simple little trick.
Purp| 7.21.12 @ 6:25PM
DTOM - so how much did revenue grow in the same time period, hmmmm? You do realize there is 2 sides to the ledger, don't you?
What's your obsession with George Soros? Is that the only Billionaire's name you know?
Truth to Power| 7.21.12 @ 7:16PM
Cuts first. We won't fall for your scam again.
JD| 7.20.12 @ 12:43PM
Purp, you despicable liar. There is no debate as to which party favors social engineering and spending through the tax code. It is yours. Obama's supposed desire to eliminate loopholes stems not from dislike of loopholes, but is rather an attempt to make the tax code, already more "progressive" than it ever has been, even more "progressive". His refusal to trade loophole cuts for rate reductions and his refusal to consider loophole cuts for the non-rich are proof of that.
Purp| 7.20.12 @ 3:54PM
You're funny - From Virginia Governor Vaginal Ultrasound to the Mississippi shutdown of women's clinics to control abortion, the Republicans are using social engineering by government to effect their own social values. And, that's just one example.
Come back when your side stops doing what you say you don't like. Otherwise, move on.
JP| 7.20.12 @ 7:17PM
Purp,
What's your obession with vaginal probes? Is there anything perverse you're trying to tell us?
Purp| 7.21.12 @ 6:27PM
Yes, Republicans want to stick a vaginal probe in every woman to dissuade them from abortion. Now, how does raping a woman equate to anti-abortion? The Republicans have gone whacko and they will pay in November.
Truth to Power| 7.21.12 @ 7:17PM
You look at the murder of 50 million babies as an opportunity. You are one sick puppy.
Oldefarte| 7.20.12 @ 11:35PM
Ultrasounding would be a good thing, since it would eliminate ya boy's welfare dependent constituents, right? But then who'll be left to stupidly vote for Democrats?????
TLP| 7.20.12 @ 12:58PM
Yes, unless you include all of the Hundreds of Billion your Boy gave to the Blue States, to keep his Dues Paying Public Sector Unions, on the Job, and still Paying Dues, that their Leadership promptly funneled back in to Democrat Campaign Coffers, and all of the Subsidies that he gave to his Biggest Campaign Contributors, and Bundlers, for their Mafia Style "Front" Green Energy Companies, who promptly proceeded to declare Bankruptcy, after The Muslim changed the Bankruptcy Laws, so that His Guys would be the First to be Reimbursed for their troubles, thus enabling them to RETURN THE FAVOUR via Campaign Contributions.
I'd ask you about the fact that John MFing Global Corzine - who STOLE $1.6 Billion of Investor's Money - is on President POS's Payroll, Bundling Campaign Loot for the Ccksckr's Campaign?
But, I think we all know what you're Stupid Sh*t Response would be.
Don't we.
JayDick| 7.20.12 @ 10:11AM
The economics of tax increases/cuts are clear; tax increases are bad. The politics are another matter and that's where I'm not crazy about the Norquist pledge.
Of course, vague promises of deficit reduction, as we have seen before, are unacceptable. But, how about Democrat support for a solid balanced budget amendment in exchange for a small tax increase (on a static basis) as part of tax reform that eliminated deductions and lowered rates? Or, how about Democrat support for broad entitlement reform in exchange for a similar tax deal?
These deals may be unlikely, but the point is to never say never.
Mimi | 7.20.12 @ 11:08AM
No deal...ever works with these takers. They'll get more revenue in when taxes decrease and the economy thrives, more people work and the...TIL gets bigger and bulges. They got it backwards....paradox doesn't fit with them..they don't get it, or trust it....SMARTS are not their style. We have to vote them out...like always !
Purp| 7.20.12 @ 12:11PM
Oh, please - Republicans haven't voted for a tax increase in over 20 years ... and you think they know how to run a country at war? In a recession? In a depression? Give it a rest. They are horrible at governing ... their record of non-achievement proves it.
But now you can vote for MR. Obomneycare with the car elevator and hidden tax havens. Yeah, that's SMART.
JP| 7.20.12 @ 2:33PM
So, governing is raising taxes? And where does that leave Obama. His administration can only boast of enlarging the unemployment rolls, doubling the number of people on food stamps, sticking it to bondholders, adding $5 trillion to the defecit in 3.5 years, and cutting $500 billion from Medicaire spending in order to give free birth control pills to 30 year old, upper middle class law school coeds. Heck the Dems haven't even passed or produced a budget in 3 years.
Purp| 7.20.12 @ 4:11PM
Excuse me - but Bush put us into 10.2 % Unemployment, Obama has brought it down to 8.2%. Complain if you will that it's not low enough, but Obama has improved the economy in all ways left to him by Bush. Doubling Food Stamp usage goes to Bush, he caused it, so does all of the 5 Trillion in deficit spending - he left with a $1.4 Trillion budget, a wrecked economy, job losses of 800,000/month, credit markets frozen, and the stock market in the toilet. Who better deserves the credit for jumping off the sinking Titanic. Obama kept it afloat and has bailed it out nearly to normal.
The Medicare cut was the subsidies given to private insurance companies as a way to try to start privatizing Medicare. Republican trickery that's all, so go talk to them why they did that. Democrats restored Medicare to normal.
Budget - don't make me laugh. A budget is a signed final deal - any budget you know of by Republicans in the last 10 years?
John Navratil| 7.20.12 @ 6:39PM
Purp,
The unemployment rate was 7.6% when Obama was inaugurated. I could be snarky and suggest that Obama has RAISED the unemployment rate since he was elected, but I'll leave that sort of verbal legerdemain to you.
1982 saw both the highest unemployment rate (10.8%) and the highest average unemployment rate. Yet Reagan, who famously "stayed the course", saw unemployment return to its pre-recession levels in 24 months? Here we are with forty months of unemployment in excess of 8%.
Those are facts. Dispute them if you can. Now tell us again about all the good economic policies of this amateur.
Purp| 7.21.12 @ 6:33PM
John - poor John - First Reagan did not have nearly the bad economy to deal with that Obama was given. There was no "falling over the cliff" talk then. It was a bad recession, but that was all. And give plenty of credit to Paul Volcker who headed the Fed Reserve. Reagan didn't do it alone, and he sure didn't have a housing crash with a financial crash on top of it. And, don't forget, Reagan's time was followed by the Savings and Loan crash and the Papa Bush Recession. So Reagan wasn't all powerful.
This economy is best compared to the Great Depression, not any previous recession. And, FDR got us out of that, but it took a while to reverse Hoover's mess.
We are not in a recession - this is the Bush Depression. And that takes a while to reverse, doesn't it?
John Navratil| 7.22.12 @ 10:22AM
Purp,
Any facts to add? Or just more of your historical opinion?
JP| 7.20.12 @ 6:55PM
The Bush Recession ended in June 2009. The unemployment rate peaked in 2010; food stamp usage peaked after 2010, and continues to soar. The number of people working today is at its lowest since 1932 (63%, another 350,000 people applied for first time unemployment benefits this week alone); unempoyment in Jan 2009 was 7.6%, and the defecit from 2008 was below $600 billion. No one forced Obama/Reid/Pelosi to borrow an additional $5 trillion since then.
Purp- This just in: Bush has been gone for almost 4 years.Obama owns this economy. Last month more people went on disability than found jobs. Obama is now going to Mexico to find new food stamp participants.
Purp| 7.21.12 @ 6:36PM
JP - you are completely off the charts. No matter what you are saying, America, by over 50%, blames Bush for the mess we are in. They know how much and how hard Obama has worked to fix and reverse decades of Republican neglect and obstruction. In fact, the Republican House is still trying to kill the economy, or weren't you paying attention last year during the Default debate?
Oldefarte| 7.20.12 @ 11:28PM
You lying SOS! Yo Acorn Boy's anti-business [except for what he gave the HOS in Columbia] tactics has caused private sector employers to bank their profits if any and not hire. You're a GD liar, and worse than yo paycheck writer in chief, slash worthless community organizer for the south side, beer-summiter!!!!!!!
Purp| 7.21.12 @ 6:37PM
Fart - you really are a potty mouth, ain't ya. You creepy, crusty old fart that knows nothing except bad language. What good do you do? You add nothing, you argue nothing and you're boring. Be gone.
Truth to Power| 7.21.12 @ 7:19PM
This is troll talk. You are a pathetic loser who has dedicated his ridiculous life to raising the morale of his political enemies. Thanks.
Oldefarte| 7.20.12 @ 11:31PM
Want smart or lack therof? how about 11/4/08, when the dumbarses of this country elected a trojun horsing community organizing, Harvard educated on taxpayer money, idiot from Chicago to run this country. How bout that for acting """""stupidly""""""??????
Spike| 7.20.12 @ 10:56AM
Ross,
Brilliant assessment. Now, let's hope(pray) that Republicans have the spine of which you speak.
Ross Kaminsky| 7.20.12 @ 11:14AM
Thanks, Spike....now I'm off to read about and listen to news reports about these horrific shootings in Aurora, CO. I'll be on the radio in Denver for the next few days and these murders will of course be the topic of conversation.
t. ventner| 7.20.12 @ 11:24AM
DENVER THEATER KILLINGS
As someone who grew up in a place where guns designed to kill people are more or less banned and where no one feels that some essential freedom has been lost -- on the contrary, freedom from fear is cherished -- I often wonder what it will take for Americans to absolutely reject the NRA, all their ideas, and anyone who supports their morbid, necrophiliac love of an element of the constitution that is anachronistic, poorly written, unclear, and insanely stupid given modern weaponry. After which, we could actually start to actually do something to save the approximately 30,000 lives lost to gunshot wounds every year, many of them children.
Ross Kaminsky| 7.20.12 @ 11:25AM
Let's save this for another day, Mr. Ventner
Al Adab| 7.20.12 @ 1:20PM
Mr. K:
Don't overlook the fellow who acted with his weapon to prevent horrific events in that internet cafe the other day. There are downsides and upsides to every Liberty we possess
Jack London| 7.20.12 @ 2:01PM
I saw that - he was reckless. You should never start a possible firefight in a crowded room and he could easily have killed a customer. And for what? A few mobile phones and some cash.
WillyP | 7.21.12 @ 2:21PM
Maybe... maybe not... The perpertrators claim nobody was in danger, do you believe them? More importantly, would you have believed them if they had pointed a gun at you?
Purp| 7.20.12 @ 12:12PM
Very good points - but these people will have none of it - until their own get killed. They can't put themselves in other's shoes, 'cause it will never happen to them. They are in denial about so many things. Sad, really.
JD| 7.20.12 @ 12:46PM
A Norwegian madman got guns. You think we can eliminate them in America? We ban many drugs - has that eliminated them?
Our experience with local gun bans has been clear. They increase violent crime.
You've never seen a mass shooting in a place where guns were allowed. There's a reason for that.
Liberals retain their simple-mindedness on every issue. Just as they can't comprehend how shoveling other people's money to the poor harms the poor economically, they can't comprehend how their gun bans increase shootings. As with all things, they think their every policy accomplishes its intent, simply because they have "good" intent!
TLP| 7.20.12 @ 1:00PM
Let's not forget the old axiom: If you outlaw guns. Only OUTLAWS will have guns.
Drunken Sailor| 7.20.12 @ 3:03PM
Right on TLP. It just boggles my mind that liberals think people of a criminal frame of mind will not use guns simply because there is a law against it. Last I checked there was a law against murder, hasn't stopped it yet.
For a perfect example of liberal gun law idiocy, look to Chicago. Handguns have been banned, yet look at the rate of violent gun crimes and murder. Don't believe Emanuel thinks the liberal gun laws are working, do you?
Purp| 7.20.12 @ 4:12PM
Assault rifles are needed by whom? Why would anyone need to buy 15/day, which is what is allowed? What purpose are they? To sell to Outlaws? Illegals? To kids who can't buy their own? To mow down who?
TLP| 7.20.12 @ 4:39PM
You.
TLP| 7.20.12 @ 4:39PM
And it's - whom.
Idiot.
Purp| 7.21.12 @ 6:37PM
No it's you, moron.
TLP| 7.21.12 @ 8:45PM
Wow.
Nice comeback.
Are you, by any chance, 9 years old?
I'm thinking you're probably 9 years old.
JP| 7.20.12 @ 6:57PM
Why don't you ask Obama's Justice Department. They had no problem selling fully automatic weapons to terrorists and criminals.
Purp| 7.21.12 @ 6:38PM
They learned it from Bush - in Arizona, ya know, the smart capital of the United States.
Truth to Power| 7.21.12 @ 7:22PM
Nonsense. Your guys sold the guns, watched Americans get killed by them and then covered up. You have just provided cover for them like the little loser you are. Anything for the cause is not very inspiring. I guess the gay money bundlers are appreciative.
Oldefarte| 7.20.12 @ 11:21PM
We're all going to need assault rifles eventually in order to defend ourselves against the illegal wetbacks streaming across the southen border with a GET OUT OF JAIL FREE PASS from Barry, Eric and Janet, along with directions to the nearest governmental welfare office so they can obtain their free food stamps!!!!!
Mimi | 7.20.12 @ 3:11PM
Too bad somebody wasn't at that theater last night with a revolver to defend the people against that killer....lots of those killed may have been saved!
Truth to Power| 7.21.12 @ 9:50AM
"...30,000 lives lost to gunshot wounds every year..."
This is really the price we pay for the Democratically controlled inner cities of our nation. They are filled with the race obsessed and dysfunctional. As long as they look for solutions among the intellectual elite at our universities there will be little hope of improvement.
Who Knows?| 7.20.12 @ 12:16PM
What else is there to do, except say no, to the spoiled rotten children who rule the Democratic Party?
But, just SAYING it isn’t enough!
Who signs the checks?
Also, as Uncle Miltie Friedman taught us, supposedly once and for all time, it’s the SPENDING, stupid.
The fact that this lesson hasn’t been learned by most people, regarding their own personal finances, as well as all levels of government, is what has to be taken into account, as the real bottom line.
We see this manifesting across the globe. In China, spending is controlled by individuals, as they aim to create savings. In Europe, it’s the opposite.
Essentially, human societies choose ways to “spend” their time, as groups or as individuals, either as creators or consumers of wealth. Work, that is, or leisure.
So, when we pay attention to government spending, we’re really talking about the sum total of time spent by humans in “jobs” ultimately paid for by taxpayers.
Ah---I saw a program showing a gov’t worker processing veteran disability claims. The “poor” drone, surrounded by desks piled with thick folders of information, meaning she had years of “work” ahead of her! Took me back to my own past, “working” in an office in the army.
No mas.
Fiscal| 7.20.12 @ 12:28PM
When are any of you going to understand that there is NO link between taxes and spending. That's the issue, not a dumb pledge to prevent tax increases (which as done nothing to curb spending) and not a compromise. Also, there is absolutely no macroeconomic data that shows tax cuts raise U.S. GDP. That's because GDP is NATIONAL, and the money saved is invested GLOBALLY. Tax cuts do raise the GDP of China, but is that what we really want?
We need a balanced budget amendment, but none of the politicians, right or left, will fight for it because it limits their ability to spend. Those who take the Norquist pledge will NOT reduce spending -- they only use it fool people into voting for them. The left is just plain irresponsible. In the end, there is no difference between the right and the left when it comes to what they actually do.
Let's get rid of the no new taxes pledge and replace it with a balanced budget amendment pledge. Then we'll get some action.
TLP| 7.20.12 @ 1:10PM
You say that there is no data to prove that Tax Cuts raise U.S. GDP. Then you go on to say that it does in China, and "Do we really want that?"
Obviously, We Do want that. And, unless you were even More Brain Dead in the 1980's than you seem to be, now?
You would know that Tax Cuts INDEED Spur Economic Activity, and thus, More Economic Growth, producing More Money to the Treasury.
Just ask JFK.
How did you get so Stupid?
Purp| 7.20.12 @ 4:26PM
Except that Ronnie Reagan the Saint raised taxes 6 times in 8 years ... Boom! Economic increase.
If tax cuts spurred economic activity why didn't the Bush Tax Cuts spur us to Clinton Year's prosperity, hmmmm?
You're missing the point, but you got the Right Wing Talking point down - and you're wrong.
TLP| 7.20.12 @ 4:41PM
Uhhhhhh.
Maybe because we were fighting Two Wars, that your buddies, in the Democrat Party, AUTHORIZED.
Occam's Tool| 7.20.12 @ 5:01PM
1st he lowered tax rates to a max of 28% from 70%. They have never gone past 35% since then, Purp. Stick to the truth and you will learn much.
Purp| 7.21.12 @ 6:40PM
In the Clinton years, 39.5 % was the max tax rate. Get THAT straight, hmmm? Try facts if you want to stay with truth.
JP| 7.20.12 @ 7:01PM
And he cut the following taxes:
Income taxes for top and middle earners
He increased capital depreciations
He cut taxes on inventories
Expanded child deductions
He removed taxes on inflated wages (aka reduced bracket creep)
He decreased the amount of tax brackets
Do you want me to go on?
Purp| 7.21.12 @ 6:41PM
What Reagan did was close tax expenditures and that made the difference. But you won't hear that except from Reagan's own Budget Director - David Stockman. He is not wanted on Fixed News shows.
Truth to Power| 7.21.12 @ 7:26PM
Cuts first, we have a huge spending problem that will get worse each year. It is time for new leadership. Lets send the big O back to wherever he came from. He can go back to organizing those lovely communities in Chicago. He obviously has done a fine job at that.
Oldefarte| 7.20.12 @ 11:17PM
Answer [dummie] goes all the way back to 1977 with the CRA, aided by Fannie/Freddie/Affordable Houses/HUD which necessitated CREATIVE FINANCING by the real estate and financial industires to battle the onslaught of Democrats' governmental housing welfare policies since 1977. The final death of housing values caused an economic collapse that almost destroyed this country [and Europe]. Neither Bush nor G-D Almighty could have saved this collapse from occurring. Of course the BLACK JESUS was in chicago at the time crawling in bed with his thug political friends [or playing golf or basketball], while coaching the Acorn troops on how to corrupt the voting system so he was of no use [and four years later he still is of no use]. Thats why!!!!!!!!
Purp| 7.21.12 @ 6:42PM
CRA again? You really are a 1 trick pony, ain't ya? IN 30 years, no Republican changed a think..
Truth to Power| 7.21.12 @ 7:28PM
You are projecting again. We have no choice but to change and the big O isn't doing anything constructive. Time for change before we are like Greece.
Purp| 7.21.12 @ 9:15PM
Yes, we must remove those conservative clowns on the Supreme Court - speech is money and corporations are people. What are they smoking? I thought the redsters are moral, clean and holy? Only on Sunday I guess.
Tom Kyba| 7.20.12 @ 12:59PM
To sick Purp and his sick friends. Your opinions on taxes weren't enough were they? No, you had to delve into the Denver shootings before the freakin' blood was cleaned up, didn't you? I have thought at times that in between your snotty, self-absorbed ego massaging, that you occasionally had a worthwhile point. Well the jury is in on you sick misanthropes. Every derogatory comment directed your way was fully deserved. You guys must have been high-fiving each other when Georgie Stephanopolis the squirrel boy along with his fellow androgyne Brian Ross tried to stick the shooting to the Tea Party. Every shot, every snotty put-down you and your sick leftist brothers have been spewing are nothing but projections of your own degenerate personalities. You hate yourselves obviously. Well congratulations, I also hate every one of you as well.
P.S. And the horse you rode in on a**h*les.
TLP| 7.20.12 @ 1:12PM
You're not surprised, are you?
Purp| 7.20.12 @ 4:35PM
So, let me see, 9/11 happens and we invade Afghanistan to get the baddies.
Did you expect Bush to wait to do something until when, the Towers were rebuilt?
But when a psychopath kills a dozen with assault rifles, by saying we don't need assault rifles,(not meaning all guns mind you), in the hands of the American people is sick?
Maybe had we banned the damn assault weapons when the AZ Congresswoman was shot, this could have been avoided. What are you so afraid of? You think an assault weapon or 100 will stand off the US Armed Forces with Tanks, Artillery and Bombers , if you are to be taken out? That's just stupid. And you call me sick?
And, when Dr. Tiller, derogatorily named "Tiller the Baby Killer" was shot, were you dismayed, mortified or just okay with that?
Your double standard and hypocrisy is alarming and appalling.
Clean your own house before pointing the finger, pal.
TLP| 7.20.12 @ 4:43PM
When Tiller the Killer got what he DESERVED?
I was OVERJOYED.
May he Burn In Hell.
Purp| 7.20.12 @ 5:20PM
As I expected. May you do as well for your inhumane attitude.
Oldefarte| 7.20.12 @ 10:59PM
Want inhumane? Try this....someone should stick his assault rifle up his anus and let er rip!!!!!
Occam's Tool| 7.20.12 @ 5:02PM
Dear Purp: it's the ACLU, not the Conservatives, who litigated Reise Versus St. Mary's, among others, and made it impossibly difficult to involuntarily medicate psychotic patients long term. It's the LEFT.
Purp| 7.20.12 @ 5:20PM
Off topic ... what about assault weapons? The RIGHT is stopping any ban, not the LEFT.
John Navratil| 7.20.12 @ 6:07PM
Purp,
You do know that an "assault weapon" such as the AK-47 fires the 7.62 round which is at the bottom end of the energy range of all the rounds used by a typical deer rifle.
The "right" works against any ban to keep your camel's nose out of my tent. Once you stop the relative "pop gun", you go after the next. Tell me you and your ilk don't want to ban all guns. Can you do that?
An "assault weapon" fires a single shot per trigger pull just like any other semi-automatic rifle. If you want a full-auto rifle, prepare for a background check, a $200 tag, permission from your local sheriff, a Class-3 federal firearms dealer, a few months and about $10,000 dollars - then your rifle has to have been manufactured before 1968. You do not walk into your local gun dealer and buy one. I challenge you to find anyone murdered by a "machine gun". I seem to recall hearing of a woman who murdered her husband with one in the 30's.
By the way. I present this to you as fact. I'll be happy to argue any challenge to these facts. Your opinions - you can keep to yourself.
Purp| 7.21.12 @ 6:47PM
That's a red herring argument. The "slippery slope" that plants the fear in you and you lose all common sense.
This kid had a clip of 30 rounds. Now why would you need that? To take out a herd of deer? You're worrying about the wrong thing.
It's mass murdering anyone would want to try to stop - not gun buying. If one single shot, even 6 times in a minute, were the norm, we'd be much better off.
But with 30 rounds shot off in less than a minute - that is meant ONLY to mow people down. What's wrong with stopping that?
John Navratil| 7.22.12 @ 10:22AM
Purp,
What's not to fear from the slippery slope. It's the stock and trade of the left. Look at the smoking bans. What was rational about Dianne Feinstein defining an "assault weapon" as she did - cosmetically? It was a blatant attempt to frame the argument so as to jump onto that slippery slope.
If there had been two armed people in that theatre, perhaps fewer would have died. If I were the second person, I'd surely not want a single-shot, either.
Aurora already had fairly strict gun laws which did precisely nothing, as in D.C., Chicago and Detroit. Houston is a big city with "concealed carry" laws and a lower murder rate.
If you want to stop mass murdering, you will have to get rid of 17-24 psycho males. If you want to treat the symptom, you will need to get rid of the shotguns used at Columbine. That would have been a better choice for this murder's mission. You'd probably need to get rid of propane cylinders and gasoline cans, as well. There is simply no end to the good choices we can make in the interests of safety.
Just to put this in perspective, on average 54 people are killed by lightning per year. No one should live in fear of being a victim such as these people were. But it is precisely this fear you of the left seek to exploit to lead the masses in your direction.
Purp| 7.22.12 @ 10:35AM
John - so you advocate an armed nation, a police state perhaps with police guarding all public areas and the population armed to the teeth to protect the private areas? That will cost money - can we raise taxes for that?
You do know that all police officers are in favor of controlling or banning the most lethal weapons that are simply used to mow down people, don't you? Don't you think they know more than you or I about controlling crime, criminals and public safety?
In any case, had you been in the theater firing back, in the dark, how many innocents do you think you might hit? Not a great idea, John.
Moreover, if you want to treat the mentally disturbed that can do these things, that will cost money. Can we raise taxes for that?
The defense of guns comes from the gun manufacturers, who couldn't care less what happens with the guns they sell. Big surprise there, huh?
Even most NRA members are for banning assault weapons that are meant strictly for, well, assault on people. A hunter doesn't need semi-automatic weapons to hunt or for target practice.
Some of us want to drive 100 mph for the thrill - so what? It's dangerous, stupid and can hurt other people.
Assault weapons may be a thrill, but they are dangerous, stupid to own, and can definitely hurt others.
John Navratil| 7.22.12 @ 10:59AM
Purp,
No. Not relevant. No. Bullshit - irrelevant. Not many - gun control means hitting what you aim for. Yes, but we would have to get rid of the liberal laws which emptied the asylums. No surprise, there is also support from the public.
Those are the answers to your questions. Your statements are not worth commenting on as being strictly the bullshit value statements of one "Purp".
JP| 7.20.12 @ 7:05PM
Only the Denver killer didn't use assault rifles
Purp| 7.21.12 @ 6:52PM
Some versions of the AR-15 assault rifle that police said was one of three guns James Holmes carried into the movie theater massacre were outlawed for civilian sale under the federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. Since then, all versions have been legal for sale and possession in the U.S.
The AR-15, widely distributed by more than two dozen manufacturers in a range of calibers, is a semi-automatic rifle that fires shots individually, with each pull of the trigger. Aftermarket parts available at sporting goods stores include magazines big enough to hold 90 bullets. AP reports Holmes' gun was equipped with a high-capacity, drum-style magazine.
Now why would anyone need 30, 60 or 90 bullets to fire one after another - at WHOM?
John Navratil| 7.22.12 @ 11:00AM
Purp,
An not a single assault rifle was used at Columbine. What's your point!
Oldefarte| 7.20.12 @ 10:56PM
The LEFT are so stupid, they can't tell a duck or quail from human beings apparently. He wasn;t the JOKER, but he was a no-nothing imbicilic worthless bastard [and an insult to the entire human race]. May he rot [and make no mistake....he will do so] in HELL!!!!!
Purp| 7.21.12 @ 6:56PM
Except for your LEFT statement, I agree with you. But do you really need a gun with 30, 60 or 90 rounds in a magazine to take down a few ducks or quail or even deer? What could you possibly do with any animal shot up that badly? I dont' think you need that kind of weapon against anything except to mow people down. And THAT is all this is about. Stopping that.
Truth to Power| 7.21.12 @ 7:35PM
It is not my taste but big magazines are not the problem. Criminals and dangerous crazy people are the problem. They need to be segregated from civil society. Because of Blue States and cities the left encourages the creation of truly dangerous people and that is where the problem is.
Purp| 7.22.12 @ 10:38AM
Truth - pony up the tax money to do what you advocate, put your money where your mouth is.
It's just stupid to make that Blue State claim. But I leave it to you to figure out why that was a stupid comment.
John Navratil| 7.22.12 @ 11:31AM
Purp,
The solution from the left is always to raise taxes, isn't it? No problems are ever solved without the government are they? Got a hang-nail? There's a bureaucrat for that!
JP| 7.20.12 @ 7:04PM
Since when is a Glock and a shotgun "assault" rifles?
When was the last time a crazed killer attacked a bar in Texas?
Purp| 7.21.12 @ 6:53PM
Some versions of the AR-15 assault rifle that police said was one of three guns James Holmes carried into the movie theater massacre were outlawed for civilian sale under the federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. Since then, all versions have been legal for sale and possession in the U.S.
The AR-15, widely distributed by more than two dozen manufacturers in a range of calibers, is a semi-automatic rifle that fires shots individually, with each pull of the trigger. Aftermarket parts available at sporting goods stores include magazines big enough to hold 90 bullets. AP reports Holmes' gun was equipped with a high-capacity, drum-style magazine.
Oldefarte| 7.20.12 @ 11:08PM
Fool, let me attempt to inform you of the truth. Whether some nutjob kills with an assault rifle, a roadside bomb, or toxins within a water supply, WHAT THE F**K DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?????? They're still going to kill and find anyway possible to do so, stupid! The solution you say? Easy, dumbars.....change society's way of behavior to incorperate a belief in GOD, in morality, in right and wrong, in personal responsibility, in doing the right thing, in not being a worthless wimp in wanting to take out others when attempting to kill one's self, etc. When you moronic loons aka liberals destroy religion and morality with your SEX, DRUGS AND ROCK-N-ROLL mentality, you bring forth COLORADOS, COLUMBINES, ETC. Get it now dummie [probably not]???????
Purp| 7.21.12 @ 6:57PM
Do you follow Michelle Bachman or Moonbeam Gingrich, Fart? You sound like it.
Purp| 7.20.12 @ 6:04PM
Let me add - the NRA is quite insensitive sending out a tweet at Noon today -
"Good morning, shooters. Happy Friday! Weekend plans?" @NRA_Rifleman
These are NOT the kind of people we should follow!
It has since been removed, AFTER being pressed on it - https://twitter.com/NRA_Rifleman?tw_i=226305483730989056&tw_e=screenname&tw_p=tweetembed
JP| 7.20.12 @ 7:08PM
And if one or more of the movie goes carried a H&K PS2000 with laser sights, the body count would be much, much less.
Oldefarte| 7.20.12 @ 10:53PM
The shooter was not an NRA member. He was however a member of the """"UNEMPLOYED MASTERED-DEGREED WORTHLESS PUNKS OF AMERICA WITH A SICKOFANT AXE TO GRIND AGAINST NORMAL SOCIETY""""!!!!
Joe D.| 7.20.12 @ 3:35PM
My first comment to those wimpy RINOs is where were the bipartisanship offers from democrats in the first 2 years of obama admin. I think I hear get in the back of the bus, shut up, we won you lost, and let the adults in the room solve the mess you created. That is real bipartisanship.
Maybe the the compromise should be 10 - 1 in spending to taxes and you first and us 4 years from now.
Close the NEA, Dept. of Environment, Dept. of Energy and the Dept. of the Interior and we will talk about tax increases. You first.
We need to shrink the government and roll back the over burden regulations. This is as much of the problem as spending. We have to changed the thinking in washington that you have to provide, tell us what to do and spend our money first. Get the power back in the congress hands and out of the administrations hands. New rules only from congress.
Purp| 7.20.12 @ 4:38PM
How are you going to shrink the government, when everyone will be asked "Papers Please..." everywhere and the government has to inspect every woman's vagina with a vaginal ultrasound probe?
You don't want to shrink the government, you want it to control what you think is someone else's problem, that is all.
You want more power in the hands of Congress? Seriously? God help us ... the bought and paid for Congress?
JP| 7.20.12 @ 7:11PM
Must be Happy Hour at the Homeless shelter. Purp, what's the special Night Train?Mad Dog? Lancers?
Purp| 7.21.12 @ 6:53PM
No response JP, if figures ... beyond your comprehension.
Truth to Power| 7.21.12 @ 7:37PM
He gave you the response you deserved.
Purp| 7.21.12 @ 9:13PM
Yes, I see your just as dumb as JP. It figures you hang together and don't know what you're talking about.
Oldefarte| 7.20.12 @ 10:49PM
No fool, I want the GD Republicans to take back control of my government from the domestic terrorists Democrats that captured my country on 11/4/08. I want the community organizing anti-Americans, anti-business, pro-welfare recipients to be put upon a free, all-expense-paid trip back to the southside of Chicago's gang infested slums [never to be heard from again, at least not on national TV]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Occam's Tool| 7.20.12 @ 5:00PM
The vast majority of economic activity in this country involves people who pay taxes.
The Dems honor their commitment to spending cuts as often as Lucy honors her commitmemt to keep the football down for Charlie Brown. There is no point in making tax deals with them---it's like getting a heavy alcoholic to just 'have one drink" on New Year's Eve.
John Navratil| 7.20.12 @ 7:20PM
Occam's Tool,
If there is any good to come of this Presidency it is that the Dems have broken cover, like Gollum, to seize the ring.
That they have been reduced to offering 3:1 cuts to increases isn't new. Like an Arab camel trader, it's just part of the lie. We will know in just over fifteen weeks if this nightmare is over or if we will have to put up with Purp's victory dance over charred bones. I take no solace if it is short lived, but I would like to see Purp smack his forehead saying Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot. (I can dream ;)
Oldefarte| 7.20.12 @ 10:43PM
Oh I almost fall asleep when reading about the pros and cons of TAX INCREASES. Duh wait.......IT'S THE GOVERNMENTAL EXPENSES STUPIDS! First, everyone should remember the fact that ''''''IF''''''' the Republicans agreed with the socialists aka Democrats on raising taxes, where in hades do you suppose that those increased tax revenues would end up? Do you suppose that its possible that the Democrats would find new socialistic legislation to spend those tax revenues upon? Shazam, geewiz, geeholifats and gadzooks!!! Remember the Democrats BS about """"""shovel ready jobs""""" as the basis/reason for the $800billion [non]stimulus legislation???? Does ya thinks that possibly that $800bil instead went to the labor unionized state/local governments to enable them to avoid laying off the necessary excess employees on their books that would have been necessary had not they gotten that taxpayer stash????? Ding-dong...the door bells ringing! When these domestic terrorists lie about tax revenues do you think it possible that they also lie about the intended use of same to pay down the defecit/debt????? WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!
besttechgadgets[dot]com | 7.21.12 @ 2:05AM
I think the ability of a country's economy to maintain one of which is to tax, so the economic resilience is also dependent by the tax
happy blogwalking .
http://besttechgadgets.com
Jack in Wi| 7.21.12 @ 4:09PM
Well the Republican can learn a lot from old man Bush and his backing down on no new taxes.
Sadly the same gang still has a lot to say in the party.
Sue| 7.22.12 @ 7:19AM
The Congress has basically become a "representation without taxation" body. Even if they claim to represent the taxpayers, they really don't because they take from the taxpayers and give to non-taypayers (the earned income tax credit, housing, food stamps, transportation vouchers, subsidized tuition, free medical, free school lunches, before school breakfast and after school dinner,). I wonder sometimes how they can even call themselves representatives of the people, or call Congress the "Peoples' House;" The fact is, we who pay taxes are being greatly abused by these so-called representatives, while those who get "rebates" are encouraged to demand more from us. They really have become "extortionatives" instead of representatives.
Purp| 7.22.12 @ 10:44AM
How much tax money goes to all those "horrible" people support programs, which I'm not sure they all exist anyway (After school dinner? )?
If you knew, you might shut up, it's not that much. Our aid to Egypt and Israel alone would equal much of what you are complaining about. Not to mention 1 aircraft carrier battle group, or one crop's agricultural subsidies or the oil companies subsidies - Instead of hurting the American people, why not cut back on one of those programs - paying people not to plant crops, supporting foreign governments with direct payments, reducing 1 carrier battle group?
Republicans won't balance the budget - they'll just spend the money on vaginal ultrasound probes for 160,000, 000 women ... "Papers please" becomes "Show us your hooch...." under Republican control...