Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: A-P Eye Opener! http://www.taxfoundation.org - ALL

Expand Messages
  • Robert Somershoe
    Yeah Danny. You do need to actually post some proof for once. I pulled an article comparing the Reagan and Bush/Clinton recoveries. The comparison is favored
    Message 1 of 22 , Mar 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Yeah Danny. You do need to actually post some proof
      for once. I pulled an article comparing the Reagan and
      Bush/Clinton recoveries. The comparison is favored
      toward Reagan artificially, because years 1996 to 2001
      are not included. But the important point is that the
      revenue GROWTH, under Reagan, is reflected:

      http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/taxpol/fig-3.gif

      I notice that you like to artificially dampen the
      results by using the "in FY2000 dollars" spin. what
      fiscal dollars "were" in 2000 has nothing to do with
      the actual real dollar revenue increases realized 15
      years earlier. Anyway, I pulled a LEFT site, Media
      Matters. You will notice that not only did ACTUAL
      revenues increase from 599.3 billion (1981) to 909.3
      billion (1988). Even when they used their bogus
      "FY2000 dollars" context, revenues STILL WENT UP. See
      for yourself. lol

      http://mediamatters.org/items/200801280001

      As for your nonsense about revenues dropping under
      Bush, see for yourself:

      http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf

      Sorry to burst your bubble, but the ALL-TIME RECORD
      REVENUES realized in 2006 are just that, an all-time
      record. Even when you factor in inflation. Rofl.

      See, Danny. Actual PROOF from official sites and your
      own lefty sites. Un-friggin'-deniable. Rofl.

      These were just a few sites that took a few minutes.
      Consider your bullshit.....DEBUNKED.

      Yes. Revenue went up during the 90's as well. Since I
      am not a partisan nudnik, like yourself, I am glad
      revenues went up then, as well. But I realize that
      this was due to the Tech Boom. The economic growth,
      that the tech boom spurred, started in 1991. So you
      will understand if I chuckle, a little, if you try to
      credit Clinton with the Tech Boom. lol. Bill Gates,
      not Bill Clinton.

      Finally, your desperate need for me to "be a
      Republican" is amusing, but stupid. But, please, by
      all means, if that is all you got....go with it. It
      has served you sooo well so far. Rofl.

      That's 2 more lies, Danny. I think that makes 17 now.
      While you still have yet to prove one lie, on my part.
      FOR ALL TO SEE. lol


      --- Daniel Goodman <dangoodbar@...> wrote:

      > Do I need to post the analysis of revenue adjusted
      > to 2000 $$$, spending and population for Reagan,
      > Clinton and Bush taken directly from the White House
      > web site to again prove that revenues fell
      > drastically under Reagan and Bush and rose
      > significantly under Clinton?
      >
      > It is really very easy to do.
      >
      >
      >
      > Robert Somershoe <rtboot@...> wrote:
      > No, YOU'VE got to be kidding. Again you
      > mention my
      > lies. lol. You mean like saying that Kennedy raised
      > taxes after he died? You mean like saying that
      > Gephardt and Bradley co-authored an alternative to
      > the
      > 1986 TRA? Those kind of lies? I have to keep using
      > your DOCUMENTED lies as examples, because, to date,
      > you still haven't proven that anything I have said
      > is
      > a lie. For months you have been claiming this. And
      > have yet to demonstrate one. While I can demonstrate
      > yours at will. How could I not love this?
      >
      > How could I not love it when you claim that the tax
      > cuts lowered revenue, when we have set an all-time
      > record for revenue in 2006? Rofl. You are
      > hysterical.
      >
      > Was it worth it? Hmm, let's see...lower tax
      > burden....a big part of avoiding economic disaster
      > after the tech bubble burst and 9/11...all-time
      > record
      > revenues......hmmmm. Yeah, why would anyone want
      > that?
      > lol. Since revenues are doing so well, BY ALL
      > ACCOUNTS, the reason we have a "projected deficit"
      > is
      > because of OVER-SPENDING. Not because of tax cuts.
      > Why
      > am I NOT surprised that a self-described genius like
      > yourself doesn't know that?
      >
      > Bottom line, when your only defense of raising taxes
      > is that lowering taxes is "simplistic", you have
      > already lost. Especially when you, yourself, have
      > previously admitted that tax cuts stimulate the
      > economy. I guess you were just being "simplistic"
      > too.
      > Rofl. Your own words kill you. But at least you
      > managed to work the term "Repug" into your post, so
      > you not only "did your job", but I suspect that you
      > maxed out your potential as well. rofl.
      > --- Daniel Goodman <dangoodbar@...> wrote:
      >
      > > YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING.
      > >
      > > Some of the many proven Shoe lies is that cutting
      > > taxes raises revenue. Having completely debunked
      > > that big lie, along with so many others, let us
      > > turn to taxes reductions under Bush.
      > >
      > > That Bush did reduce income tax revenue is beyond
      > > dispute. Part of reducing income tax revenue
      > > includes reducing taxes people pay.
      > >
      > > So well of course the numbers in the post are
      > > overstated, that is taxes for most of the classes
      > > have not fallen as much as stated, (If asked I
      > will
      > > provide more links where more accurate information
      > > on tax reductions by Bush but prefer people do
      > their
      > > own research and reach their own conclusions on
      > what
      > > sites are most accurate all of which is easy to do
      > > on this subject)
      > >
      > > the fact is for most people taxes have been
      > > reduced under Bush.
      > >
      > > But that is not the question. The question is:
      > > was it worth it.
      > >
      > > That is have the increased deficits resulting from
      > > Bush tax cuts that must be paid back with
      > interest,
      > > the jobs moving overseas because of corporate tax
      > > cuts to build factories in China, the falling
      > value
      > > of the $$$$, the decreased access to higher
      > > education,.......THE WHOLE PICTURE.
      > >
      > > And on the whole picture BUSH IS SCREWING MOST
      > > AMERICANS.
      > >
      > > All reducing the argument to taxes does is appeal
      > > to the lowest common denominator, or as they are
      > > called these days Repugs.
      > >
      > >
      > > Robert Somershoe <rtboot@...> wrote:
      > > Hi Cricket. Excellent post. I won't hold
      > > my breath
      > > waiting for one of the resident socialists to
      > refute
      > > this. Because they can't.
      > >
      > > Add to this the fact that a single mother of 2,
      > > making
      > > 30K, had a tax liability of $1,340.00 per year
      > under
      > > Clinton. Since the tax cuts, she has no tax
      > > liability.
      > > Since the tax cuts, over 7 million of the poorest
      > > taxpayers have been knocked off the rolls
      > entirely.
      > > Because of the this, the tax burden of the richest
      > > 10%
      > > has gone from 65.1% to 65.8%. And, last year,
      > > despite/because of these tax cuts, revenues were
      > at
      > > an
      > > ALL-TIME RECORD 2.35 trillion.
      > >
      > > When you consider all of this, it is easy to
      > dismiss
      > > the "complaints" about the tax cuts as being
      > > partisan
      > > bullshit put forth by people who care more about
      > > their
      > > party than the country. End of story.
      > >
      > > Peace. Robert.
      > > --- gmd <gmd10ms@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > > Based on using the actual tax tables (see link
      > > > below), here are some
      > > > examples on what the taxes were/are on various
      > > > amounts of income for
      > > > both singles and married couples. so let's see
      > if
      > > > the Bush tax cuts
      > > > only helped the rich.
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
      http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
      > > >
      > > > Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under
      > > > Bush 2008
      > > >
      > > > Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making
      > > > 30K - tax $4,500
      > > >
      > > > Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making
      > > > 50K - tax $12,500
      > > >
      > > > Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making
      > > > 75K - tax $18,750
      > > >
      > > > Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making
      > > > 60K- tax $9,000
      > > >
      > > > Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making
      > > > 75K - tax $18,750
      > > >
      > > > Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making
      > > > 125K - tax $31,250
      > > >
      > > > If you want to know just how effective the
      > > > mainstream media is, it is
      > > > amazing how many people that fall into the
      > > > categories above think
      > > > Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the
      > > > greatest President
      > > > ever. If any democrat is elected, ALL of them
      > say
      > > > they will repeal
      > > > the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the
      > people
      > > > that fall into the
      > > > categories above can't wait for it to happen.
      > This
      > > > is like the movie
      > > > The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody
      > out
      > > of
      > > > some money and
      > > > they don't even know what happened
      > > >
      > > > ###
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      __________________________________________________________
      > > Looking for last minute shopping deals?
      > > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
      >
      === message truncated ===



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
      Be a better friend, newshound, and
      know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
    • Daniel Goodman
      First off I want to post this little ditty from Shoe where he calls Adam Smith the father of Socialism. All Adam Smith did was attempt to QUANTIFY Capitalism.
      Message 2 of 22 , Mar 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        First off I want to post this little ditty from Shoe where he calls Adam Smith the father of Socialism.
         
        "All Adam Smith did was attempt to QUANTIFY Capitalism.
        And, if the truth be told, he did so in "The Wealth of
        Nations", with the desire of stating what HE thought
        the obligations of Government, in using the wealth
        generated by Capitalism for the betterment of the
        nation, were. To be sure, he is closer to being the
        "Father" of Socialism than Capitalism. But since the
        desire of the masses to take from the rich and give to
        the poor were also with us long before Adam Smith,
        that isn't even the case."
         
        Now the fact is I posted a complete analysis adjusting for population growth, SPENDING which was really the key to Bush and Reagan economic growth, and also inflation that shows that revenue fell under both Bush and Reagan but expanded under Clinton. 
         
        Notice how to be a Repug you must argue that things happening in the present are always the fault of credit of the person who preceeded you?
         
        Adam Smith's Weath of Nations is what all serious economists consider the REFERENCE point for discussing Capitalism.
         
        Which by the way means Shoe is not serious.
         
        Therefore it is a waste of time of discussing matters with Shoe. 
         
        But for others reading these posts,
         
        the issue of government involvement by in large is efficiency.  For example building roads, defense of the nation, schools, the mail and health care often come down to can the government do it more efficiently.  There are few greater skeptics of government involvement then Smith correctly pointing out that once you turn something over to government it is unlikely to ever be given back to the private sector. 
         
        Smith who was a true conservative was also concerned that government PAY ITS BILLS. 
         
        Which made him even more skeptical of government involvement because he believed disliked  taxes more then Shoe.  But understanding economics he understood that some evils are better then the alternative like have a stupid population and a undeveloped nation. 
         
        Which brings us to tax burden.  There is no doubt that cutting taxes reduces revenue. 
         
        There is also no doubt that government must pay its bills. 
         
        That is the real enemey of government is BANKRUPTCY. 
         
        We are seeing it today with the falling $$$$, jobs moving overseas and huge deficits.
         
        These are the economic policies of Bush, Reagan and Shoe.
         
        That is they hide their lies and failures behind big spending and borrowed money all the time condeming both. 
         
         



        Robert Somershoe <rtboot@...> wrote:
        Yeah Danny. You do need to actually post some proof
        for once. I pulled an article comparing the Reagan and
        Bush/Clinton recoveries. The comparison is favored
        toward Reagan artificially, because years 1996 to 2001
        are not included. But the important point is that the
        revenue GROWTH, under Reagan, is reflected:

        http://www.house. gov/jec/growth/ taxpol/fig- 3.gif

        I notice that you like to artificially dampen the
        results by using the "in FY2000 dollars" spin. what
        fiscal dollars "were" in 2000 has nothing to do with
        the actual real dollar revenue increases realized 15
        years earlier. Anyway, I pulled a LEFT site, Media
        Matters. You will notice that not only did ACTUAL
        revenues increase from 599.3 billion (1981) to 909.3
        billion (1988). Even when they used their bogus
        "FY2000 dollars" context, revenues STILL WENT UP. See
        for yourself. lol

        http://mediamatters .org/items/ 200801280001

        As for your nonsense about revenues dropping under
        Bush, see for yourself:

        http://www.cbo. gov/ftpdocs/ 81xx/doc8116/ 05-18-TaxRevenue s.pdf

        Sorry to burst your bubble, but the ALL-TIME RECORD
        REVENUES realized in 2006 are just that, an all-time
        record. Even when you factor in inflation. Rofl.

        See, Danny. Actual PROOF from official sites and your
        own lefty sites. Un-friggin'- deniable. Rofl.

        These were just a few sites that took a few minutes.
        Consider your bullshit.... .DEBUNKED.

        Yes. Revenue went up during the 90's as well. Since I
        am not a partisan nudnik, like yourself, I am glad
        revenues went up then, as well. But I realize that
        this was due to the Tech Boom. The economic growth,
        that the tech boom spurred, started in 1991. So you
        will understand if I chuckle, a little, if you try to
        credit Clinton with the Tech Boom. lol. Bill Gates,
        not Bill Clinton.

        Finally, your desperate need for me to "be a
        Republican" is amusing, but stupid. But, please, by
        all means, if that is all you got....go with it. It
        has served you sooo well so far. Rofl.

        That's 2 more lies, Danny. I think that makes 17 now.
        While you still have yet to prove one lie, on my part.
        FOR ALL TO SEE. lol

        --- Daniel Goodman <dangoodbar@yahoo. com> wrote:

        > Do I need to post the analysis of revenue adjusted
        > to 2000 $$$, spending and population for Reagan,
        > Clinton and Bush taken directly from the White House
        > web site to again prove that revenues fell
        > drastically under Reagan and Bush and rose
        > significantly under Clinton?
        >
        > It is really very easy to do.
        >
        >
        >
        > Robert Somershoe <rtboot@yahoo. com> wrote:
        > No, YOU'VE got to be kidding. Again you
        > mention my
        > lies. lol. You mean like saying that Kennedy raised
        > taxes after he died? You mean like saying that
        > Gephardt and Bradley co-authored an alternative to
        > the
        > 1986 TRA? Those kind of lies? I have to keep using
        > your DOCUMENTED lies as examples, because, to date,
        > you still haven't proven that anything I have said
        > is
        > a lie. For months you have been claiming this. And
        > have yet to demonstrate one. While I can demonstrate
        > yours at will. How could I not love this?
        >
        > How could I not love it when you claim that the tax
        > cuts lowered revenue, when we have set an all-time
        > record for revenue in 2006? Rofl. You are
        > hysterical.
        >
        > Was it worth it? Hmm, let's see...lower tax
        > burden....a big part of avoiding economic disaster
        > after the tech bubble burst and 9/11...all-time
        > record
        > revenues.... ..hmmmm. Yeah, why would anyone want
        > that?
        > lol. Since revenues are doing so well, BY ALL
        > ACCOUNTS, the reason we have a "projected deficit"
        > is
        > because of OVER-SPENDING. Not because of tax cuts.
        > Why
        > am I NOT surprised that a self-described genius like
        > yourself doesn't know that?
        >
        > Bottom line, when your only defense of raising taxes
        > is that lowering taxes is "simplistic" , you have
        > already lost. Especially when you, yourself, have
        > previously admitted that tax cuts stimulate the
        > economy. I guess you were just being "simplistic"
        > too.
        > Rofl. Your own words kill you. But at least you
        > managed to work the term "Repug" into your post, so
        > you not only "did your job", but I suspect that you
        > maxed out your potential as well. rofl.
        > --- Daniel Goodman <dangoodbar@yahoo. com> wrote:
        >
        > > YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING.
        > >
        > > Some of the many proven Shoe lies is that cutting
        > > taxes raises revenue. Having completely debunked
        > > that big lie, along with so many others, let us
        > > turn to taxes reductions under Bush.
        > >
        > > That Bush did reduce income tax revenue is beyond
        > > dispute. Part of reducing income tax revenue
        > > includes reducing taxes people pay.
        > >
        > > So well of course the numbers in the post are
        > > overstated, that is taxes for most of the classes
        > > have not fallen as much as stated, (If asked I
        > will
        > > provide more links where more accurate information
        > > on tax reductions by Bush but prefer people do
        > their
        > > own research and reach their own conclusions on
        > what
        > > sites are most accurate all of which is easy to do
        > > on this subject)
        > >
        > > the fact is for most people taxes have been
        > > reduced under Bush.
        > >
        > > But that is not the question. The question is:
        > > was it worth it.
        > >
        > > That is have the increased deficits resulting from
        > > Bush tax cuts that must be paid back with
        > interest,
        > > the jobs moving overseas because of corporate tax
        > > cuts to build factories in China, the falling
        > value
        > > of the $$$$, the decreased access to higher
        > > education,.. .....THE WHOLE PICTURE.
        > >
        > > And on the whole picture BUSH IS SCREWING MOST
        > > AMERICANS.
        > >
        > > All reducing the argument to taxes does is appeal
        > > to the lowest common denominator, or as they are
        > > called these days Repugs.
        > >
        > >
        > > Robert Somershoe <rtboot@yahoo. com> wrote:
        > > Hi Cricket. Excellent post. I won't hold
        > > my breath
        > > waiting for one of the resident socialists to
        > refute
        > > this. Because they can't.
        > >
        > > Add to this the fact that a single mother of 2,
        > > making
        > > 30K, had a tax liability of $1,340.00 per year
        > under
        > > Clinton. Since the tax cuts, she has no tax
        > > liability.
        > > Since the tax cuts, over 7 million of the poorest
        > > taxpayers have been knocked off the rolls
        > entirely.
        > > Because of the this, the tax burden of the richest
        > > 10%
        > > has gone from 65.1% to 65.8%. And, last year,
        > > despite/because of these tax cuts, revenues were
        > at
        > > an
        > > ALL-TIME RECORD 2.35 trillion.
        > >
        > > When you consider all of this, it is easy to
        > dismiss
        > > the "complaints" about the tax cuts as being
        > > partisan
        > > bullshit put forth by people who care more about
        > > their
        > > party than the country. End of story.
        > >
        > > Peace. Robert.
        > > --- gmd <gmd10ms@yahoo. com> wrote:
        > >
        > > > Based on using the actual tax tables (see link
        > > > below), here are some
        > > > examples on what the taxes were/are on various
        > > > amounts of income for
        > > > both singles and married couples. so let's see
        > if
        > > > the Bush tax cuts
        > > > only helped the rich.
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
        http://www.taxfound ation.org/ publications/ show/151. html
        > > >
        > > > Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under
        > > > Bush 2008
        > > >
        > > > Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making
        > > > 30K - tax $4,500
        > > >
        > > > Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making
        > > > 50K - tax $12,500
        > > >
        > > > Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making
        > > > 75K - tax $18,750
        > > >
        > > > Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making
        > > > 60K- tax $9,000
        > > >
        > > > Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making
        > > > 75K - tax $18,750
        > > >
        > > > Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making
        > > > 125K - tax $31,250
        > > >
        > > > If you want to know just how effective the
        > > > mainstream media is, it is
        > > > amazing how many people that fall into the
        > > > categories above think
        > > > Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the
        > > > greatest President
        > > > ever. If any democrat is elected, ALL of them
        > say
        > > > they will repeal
        > > > the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the
        > people
        > > > that fall into the
        > > > categories above can't wait for it to happen.
        > This
        > > > is like the movie
        > > > The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody
        > out
        > > of
        > > > some money and
        > > > they don't even know what happened
        > > >
        > > > ###
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
        > > Looking for last minute shopping deals?
        > > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
        >
        === message truncated ===

        ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
        Be a better friend, newshound, and
        know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile. yahoo.com/ ;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR 8HDtDypao8Wcj9tA cJ



        Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

      • Robert Somershoe
        Heelo Proud. Thanks for admitting that I was correct. I say that because I challenged you, in my post, to refute anything that I said or post one example of me
        Message 3 of 22 , Mar 2, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Heelo Proud. Thanks for admitting that I was correct.
          I say that because I challenged you, in my post, to
          refute anything that I said or post one example of me
          lying. You didn't do any of the above. You did go into
          a rant about how the GOP doesn't stand a chance in the
          election. But you didn't refute one thing that I said.
          That's all I needed to know. Thank you.

          BTW, Good luck in the election.......not.

          Peace. Robert
          --- James Frye <ProudLiberal7@...> wrote:

          > --- In American-politics@yahoogroups.com, Robert
          > Somershoe
          > <rtboot@...> wrote:
          > >
          > > Proud. lol. I just love watching you get all
          > twisted
          > > like this. No matter that you presented ZERO
          > facts, or
          > > actually refute one thing that I said. Why was
          > that?
          > > Maybe when it gets down to it, all you have is
          > > partisan vitriol.
          > >
          > > Before I proceed, I noticed that you claimed that
          > I
          > > lied about something. I am calling your bluff, you
          > > Socialist wingnut. CITE ONE LIE IN MY RESPONSE!
          > JUST
          > > ONE! I will be waiting....in vain, no doubt.
          > Falsely
          > > claiming lies doesn't work for that mental midget
          > > Danny and it sure as hell ain't gonna work for
          > you.
          > > NOW NAME ONE! Put up or shut up. Hell, I would
          > settle
          > > for you just refuting ONE FACT in my reply. Well?
          > >
          > > More importantly, your response confirmed
          > something
          > > that I have always known about you Socialist
          > types.
          > > Bitter jealousy of "the rich". To the point where
          > you
          > > would gladly suspend their rights to salve your
          > > bitterness. Why do I say that? It's very simple.
          > >
          > > You acknowledge that the tax cuts helped the lower
          > and
          > > middle classes. You didn't refute the fact that
          > the
          > > richest 10% are paying a slightly higher
          > percentage of
          > > the tax burden. Therefore, you acknowledge that
          > the
          > > tax cuts were porportional and across-the-board.
          > And
          > > since revenues have reached an ALL-TIME record
          > last
          > > year (AFTER TAX CUTS), you can't claim that
          > "sluggish
          > > revenue growth" demands tax hikes. Therefore, your
          > > ONLY REASON for your irrational hatred of "rich
          > > people" is just plain bitterness and envy. To the
          > > point that making them actually pay a HIGHER
          > > PERCENTAGE (so much for the 14th amendment) isn't
          > good
          > > enough. You just want to "punish them". And that
          > is
          > > just pathetic.
          > >
          > > Take your Socialist class warfare bullshit
          > somewhere
          > > else. When revenues set another record next year,
          > even
          > > more people will see through the rhetoric. Keep to
          > the
          > > man-made global warming, raise taxes, National
          > > Healthcare. If your side really sticks to that
          > agenda
          > > and things keep improving in Iraq, I feel pretty
          > good
          > > about the election. As for enjoying "being in the
          > > minority", ya got me there. I have been "in the
          > > minority" for as long as I can remember. I think
          > you
          > > might wanna prepare for a similar fate. Could be
          > you
          > > are counting those chickens way too early.
          > >
          > > All thoughts and replies welcome. Peace. Robert
          > >
          > >
          > > --- James Frye <ProudLiberal7@...> wrote:
          > >
          > > Oh, nice try, wingnut twins! First of all, no one
          > > said that people who weren't rich didn't benefit
          > from
          > > the tax cuts - just like no one has said they
          > would
          > > entirely rollback the Bush tax cuts. This is an
          > > argument based on falsehood - both major
          > Democratic
          > > candidates would keep, if not expand, the tax cuts
          > for
          > > people making less than $250,000 a year. What they
          > > would rollback is the tax cut for the people who
          > > didn't need the extra cash - the wealthy who got
          > the
          > > lion's share of the goodies from the Bush
          > Republicans
          > > and the phony libertarians.
          > >
          > > Now, I understand how the moon barker right has a
          > > problem with honesty and all that, given how many
          > lies
          > > you both have been spoonfed and regurgitate
          > regularly
          > > back into the group. Fortunately for the country,
          > most
          > > Americans don't buy your BS anymore...on dang near
          >
          > > everything. In fact, a good majority of the
          > country
          > > supports rolling back the rich's portion of the
          > tax
          > > cuts and have for years now.
          > >
          > > You've had your chance for the last 12 years (6 of
          > > which with a conservative President to sign your
          > > programs into law), and all you've managed to do
          > is
          > > prove that conservatism is a failure across the
          > board.
          > > Enjoy your time back in the minority.
          > ******************************
          > It's all right there - all accurate and irrefutable,
          > as evidenced by
          > your descent into namecalling. Feel free to look up
          > everything I
          > said - please, don't take my word for it. I do
          > admit to having fun
          > watching the liberepublikan right lashing out,
          > crying loudly and
          > gnashing their teeth and writhing over your upcoming
          > losses.
          >
          > (Cricket/gmd - feel free to chime in. This is to
          > you too.)
          >
          > What exactly is the liberepublikans going to beat us
          > on? Staying in
          > Iraq forever so the dreaded Islamofascists don't set
          > up camp in your
          > closets and under your beds? Yeah, good luck with
          > that one - a
          > consistent 61-70% of the country want us out of
          > there within a year.
          > Do run on that.
          >
          > How about your great tax policies, that's sure to be
          > a winner. The
          > last time one of us 'Socialist wingnuts' was in
          > office, the budget
          > was in surplus to the point that the Fed. Reserve
          > chairman was
          > warning about paying off the national debt too
          > early. What has years
          > of conservative/libertarian policies brought us the
          > last 12 years -
          > six of which with a conservative President to sign
          > anything the
          > conservative Congress passed? Let's see - a deficit
          > in the
          > trillions, massive borrowing from the REAL
          > Communists in China (and
          > here I thought you types didn't like those guys),
          > and an economy that
          > looks good but only reflects an increase in PROFITS
          > - not jobs,
          > consumer spending, or any of the other things that
          > usually show a
          > truly good economy. Run on that too, why we'll just
          > be clobbered by
          > that!
          >
          > How about national security - that's sure to beat
          > the pants right off
          > us. Uh oh, wait a second - the biggest terrorist
          > attack on American
          > soil happened while the Mighty Con Protectors of
          > America were on the
          > job? How can this be? Surely they did everything
          > they could to stop
          > it in the 8 months prior to the attacks! No, huh?
          > Dang. But what
          > about the USS Cole and all those embassies being
          > attacked under the
          > watch of that eee-vil statist Socialist wingnut who
          > was President you
          > say. Well, technically they were "American soil" in
          > a nice
          > diplomatic kind of way, but none of that was in the
          > heart of the
          > largest American city, now were they.
          >
          > Well surely, the cons made up for all that afterward
          > - I'll be
          > generous here and say they might have been unable to
          > stop the 9/11
          > attacks even if they had tried. They must have
          > fully funded their
          >
          === message truncated ===



          ____________________________________________________________________________________
          Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
          http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
        • Robert Somershoe
          Danny. Do you realize that you just proved another lie....ON YOUR PART. lol. You previously stated that I claimed that Adam Smith was a Socialist . True? And
          Message 4 of 22 , Mar 2, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Danny. Do you realize that you just proved another
            lie....ON YOUR PART. lol. You previously stated that I
            claimed that "Adam Smith was a Socialist". True? And
            you post my exact words, below, which prove,
            irrevocably, that I never claimed that Adam Smith was
            a Socialist. Thank you for that. Although that does
            kinda make lie number 18, on your part. I think what
            happened was that you realized that you couldn't
            dispute the FACTUAL PROOF that I posted proving you
            wrong, so you reverted back to Adam Smith. Who knows?

            I noticed that you still claimed that revenue fell. No
            proof. Just you claiming it. lol. Sorry, but the
            actual facts, from the CBO, the Teasury and your own
            MediaMatters sites say the opposite. They prove me
            right. No matter how hard you sputter and squirm, the
            FACTS prove you wrong.....yet again. Since everyone
            else has seen the information, you are only telling
            YOURSELF how "smart" you are. Rofl. I love that.

            Here are a few more sites that prove you wrong.

            http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1414.cfm

            Granted, this is a right wing site, but the source of
            information is the Joint Economics Committee.

            http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

            So, Danny. When you actually feel like backing up your
            bullshit with some actual proof, please let me know.
            Everyone else sees me doing just that.

            Once again, you are proven to not know shit about the
            topic at hand. You have been proven wrong and caught
            in yet another lie. The funny thing is that you claim
            I am not to be taken seriously. ROFL LOL LOL.

            SPANKED AGAIN.
            --- Daniel Goodman <dangoodbar@...> wrote:

            > First off I want to post this little ditty from Shoe
            > where he calls Adam Smith the father of Socialism.
            >
            > "All Adam Smith did was attempt to QUANTIFY
            > Capitalism.
            > And, if the truth be told, he did so in "The Wealth
            > of
            > Nations", with the desire of stating what HE thought
            > the obligations of Government, in using the wealth
            > generated by Capitalism for the betterment of the
            > nation, were. To be sure, he is closer to being the
            > "Father" of Socialism than Capitalism. But since the
            > desire of the masses to take from the rich and give
            > to
            > the poor were also with us long before Adam Smith,
            > that isn't even the case."
            >
            > Now the fact is I posted a complete analysis
            > adjusting for population growth, SPENDING which was
            > really the key to Bush and Reagan economic growth,
            > and also inflation that shows that revenue fell
            > under both Bush and Reagan but expanded under
            > Clinton.
            >
            > Notice how to be a Repug you must argue that
            > things happening in the present are always the fault
            > of credit of the person who preceeded you?
            >
            > Adam Smith's Weath of Nations is what all serious
            > economists consider the REFERENCE point for
            > discussing Capitalism.
            >
            > Which by the way means Shoe is not serious.
            >
            > Therefore it is a waste of time of discussing
            > matters with Shoe.
            >
            > But for others reading these posts,
            >
            > the issue of government involvement by in large is
            > efficiency. For example building roads, defense of
            > the nation, schools, the mail and health care often
            > come down to can the government do it more
            > efficiently. There are few greater skeptics of
            > government involvement then Smith correctly pointing
            > out that once you turn something over to government
            > it is unlikely to ever be given back to the private
            > sector.
            >
            > Smith who was a true conservative was also
            > concerned that government PAY ITS BILLS.
            >
            > Which made him even more skeptical of government
            > involvement because he believed disliked taxes more
            > then Shoe. But understanding economics he
            > understood that some evils are better then the
            > alternative like have a stupid population and a
            > undeveloped nation.
            >
            > Which brings us to tax burden. There is no doubt
            > that cutting taxes reduces revenue.
            >
            > There is also no doubt that government must pay
            > its bills.
            >
            > That is the real enemey of government is
            > BANKRUPTCY.
            >
            > We are seeing it today with the falling $$$$, jobs
            > moving overseas and huge deficits.
            >
            > These are the economic policies of Bush, Reagan
            > and Shoe.
            >
            > That is they hide their lies and failures behind
            > big spending and borrowed money all the time
            > condeming both.
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Robert Somershoe <rtboot@...> wrote:
            > Yeah Danny. You do need to actually post
            > some proof
            > for once. I pulled an article comparing the Reagan
            > and
            > Bush/Clinton recoveries. The comparison is favored
            > toward Reagan artificially, because years 1996 to
            > 2001
            > are not included. But the important point is that
            > the
            > revenue GROWTH, under Reagan, is reflected:
            >
            > http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/taxpol/fig-3.gif
            >
            > I notice that you like to artificially dampen the
            > results by using the "in FY2000 dollars" spin. what
            > fiscal dollars "were" in 2000 has nothing to do with
            > the actual real dollar revenue increases realized 15
            > years earlier. Anyway, I pulled a LEFT site, Media
            > Matters. You will notice that not only did ACTUAL
            > revenues increase from 599.3 billion (1981) to 909.3
            > billion (1988). Even when they used their bogus
            > "FY2000 dollars" context, revenues STILL WENT UP.
            > See
            > for yourself. lol
            >
            > http://mediamatters.org/items/200801280001
            >
            > As for your nonsense about revenues dropping under
            > Bush, see for yourself:
            >
            >
            http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf
            >
            > Sorry to burst your bubble, but the ALL-TIME RECORD
            > REVENUES realized in 2006 are just that, an all-time
            > record. Even when you factor in inflation. Rofl.
            >
            > See, Danny. Actual PROOF from official sites and
            > your
            > own lefty sites. Un-friggin'-deniable. Rofl.
            >
            > These were just a few sites that took a few minutes.
            > Consider your bullshit.....DEBUNKED.
            >
            > Yes. Revenue went up during the 90's as well. Since
            > I
            > am not a partisan nudnik, like yourself, I am glad
            > revenues went up then, as well. But I realize that
            > this was due to the Tech Boom. The economic growth,
            > that the tech boom spurred, started in 1991. So you
            > will understand if I chuckle, a little, if you try
            > to
            > credit Clinton with the Tech Boom. lol. Bill Gates,
            > not Bill Clinton.
            >
            > Finally, your desperate need for me to "be a
            > Republican" is amusing, but stupid. But, please, by
            > all means, if that is all you got....go with it. It
            > has served you sooo well so far. Rofl.
            >
            > That's 2 more lies, Danny. I think that makes 17
            > now.
            > While you still have yet to prove one lie, on my
            > part.
            > FOR ALL TO SEE. lol
            >
            > --- Daniel Goodman <dangoodbar@...> wrote:
            >
            > > Do I need to post the analysis of revenue adjusted
            > > to 2000 $$$, spending and population for Reagan,
            > > Clinton and Bush taken directly from the White
            > House
            > > web site to again prove that revenues fell
            > > drastically under Reagan and Bush and rose
            > > significantly under Clinton?
            > >
            > > It is really very easy to do.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Robert Somershoe <rtboot@...> wrote:
            > > No, YOU'VE got to be kidding. Again you
            > > mention my
            > > lies. lol. You mean like saying that Kennedy
            > raised
            > > taxes after he died? You mean like saying that
            > > Gephardt and Bradley co-authored an alternative to
            > > the
            > > 1986 TRA? Those kind of lies? I have to keep using
            > > your DOCUMENTED lies as examples, because, to
            > date,
            > > you still haven't proven that anything I have said
            > > is
            > > a lie. For months you have been claiming this. And
            > > have yet to demonstrate one. While I can
            > demonstrate
            > > yours at will. How could I not love this?
            > >
            > > How could I not love it when you claim that the
            > tax
            > > cuts lowered revenue, when we have set an all-time
            > > record for revenue in 2006? Rofl. You are
            > > hysterical.
            > >
            > > Was it worth it? Hmm, let's see...lower tax
            > > burden....a big part of avoiding economic disaster
            > > after the tech bubble burst and 9/11...all-time
            > > record
            > > revenues......hmmmm. Yeah, why would anyone want
            > > that?
            > > lol. Since revenues are doing so well, BY ALL
            > > ACCOUNTS, the reason we have a "projected deficit"
            > > is
            > > because of OVER-SPENDING. Not because of tax cuts.
            > > Why
            > > am I NOT surprised that a self-described genius
            > like
            > > yourself doesn't know that?
            > >
            >
            === message truncated ===



            ____________________________________________________________________________________
            Be a better friend, newshound, and
            know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.