Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Debt ceiling politics

Debt ceiling politics (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 10:28 PM
 
a loophole is a mistake. let's fix it...
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 10:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
I heard on the news about congressmen (I'm assuming Democrats given the nature of topic) closing all business tax loopholes, to the tune of $1.2 trillion in revenue.

That's great, and all, but it's not going to go very far unless they also reduce spending. How about a "no pork for 1 year" bill.
Yes, cut the loopholes, and match it dollar for dollar with Spending cuts.

Boom. $900B surplus.

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 10:45 PM
 
turtle for president.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, Washington
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 10:49 PM
 
If he wasn't forgetting the huge debt that already exists, that'd be great.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 10:51 PM
 
Who's forgetting? Obama? Pelosi?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, Washington
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 11:00 PM
 
Turtle.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 11:14 PM
 
No, he isn't. Don't make up lies about other people's views just because you don't like or understand their solutions.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 11:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Yes, cut the loopholes, and match it dollar for dollar with Spending cuts.

Boom. $900B surplus.

-t
but a loophole is something the companies shouldn't be doing in the first place.

they are cheating on America...how un-American!

what about companies that keeps sending work overseas AND get the tax loopholes?

$900 billion in defense spending cuts, ok!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 11:24 PM
 
Off topic nonsense.
( Last edited by Cold Warrior; Jul 13, 2011 at 11:31 PM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, Washington
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 11:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
No, he isn't. Don't make up lies about other people's views just because you don't like or understand their solutions.
How are cuts going to make interest payments? And nice one, telling me to not make up lies about other people's views. You're the one who said that my solution is to tax the rich more, something I never, have ever even mentioned.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 11:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Who's forgetting? Obama? Pelosi?
you yahoos

with your cow walkings and barn painting or whatever you people do in the flyover states
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 11:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
but a loophole is something the companies shouldn't be doing in the first place.

they are cheating on America...how un-American!

what about companies that keeps sending work overseas AND get the tax loopholes?

$900 billion in defense spending cuts, ok!
Don't companies tend to complain loudly when tax loopholes get closed?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 11:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
but a loophole is something the companies shouldn't be doing in the first place.

they are cheating on America...how un-American!

what about companies that keeps sending work overseas AND get the tax loopholes?
I don't see it that way. A loophole is MEANT to be exploited.
Guess how loopholes get into laws in the first place: through lobbying.

It's not illegal to exploit it. Any company has the duty to its shareholders to maximize profit. That includes taking advantage of certain tax loopholes.

If politicians don't like it, they need to fix it. But they need to stop pretending that the companies are soooo bad. That's just bullshit.

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 11:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
If he wasn't forgetting the huge debt that already exists, that'd be great.
Uhm, say what ?

I'm not forgetting any existing debt, a surplus is necessary to reduce it.

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 11:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
How are cuts going to make interest payments? And nice one, telling me to not make up lies about other people's views. You're the one who said that my solution is to tax the rich more, something I never, have ever even mentioned.
How are cuts going to make interest payments? Seriously? You're playing around here, right?

Well, let's see. If you're spending far too much and running up your lines of credit, the responsible thing to do is seriously cut back on your spending. Then you can pay for the essential things that must be paid for (debt service and other essential functions), and then you choose not to pay any more for the other crap that you may want to spend on but simply can't afford. Either that or you decide you want to continue your fiscal recklessness and eventually default.

Debt service currently demands between 6-10% of federal revenue. We have no problem paying our debt service right now, but choices have to be made because if we continue on the current course debt service will soon enough also become unaffordable.

This stuff isn't hard to understand, I assure you. If you can understand your own finances you can understand what is and isn't responsible for the government's finances. And you can see the future that Democrats are creating for us by looking at Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, etc.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Jul 13, 2011 at 11:53 PM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 11:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I don't see it that way. A loophole is MEANT to be exploited.
Guess how loopholes get into laws in the first place: through lobbying.

It's not illegal to exploit it. Any company has the duty to its shareholders to maximize profit. That includes taking advantage of certain tax loopholes.

If politicians don't like it, they need to fix it. But they need to stop pretending that the companies are soooo bad. That's just bullshit.

-t
hmmm what's your definition of loophole?

so a big company doesn't want to pay taxes, they hire lobbyists to influence lawmakers to let a loophole exist for the benefit of the company...
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2011, 11:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
... Then you can pay for the essential things that must be paid for ...
Of course, this is the big issue of debate. What one party perceives to be "essential", the other party perceives to be the opposite. And a failure of both to compromise on what they perceive to be essential will result in a default inducing stalemate.

Perhaps there should be something like an equal cut across all expenditure/services with additional cuts to areas that both parties can agree on.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 12:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
hmmm what's your definition of loophole?

so a big company doesn't want to pay taxes, they hire lobbyists to influence lawmakers to let a loophole exist for the benefit of the company...
That's a f*cking corrupt politicians, that's all there is. Don't blame it on the company, or the tax code, for that matter. You can not blame people for being smart about errors, mistakes or intentional grey areas.

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 12:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Of course, this is the big issue of debate. What one party perceives to be "essential", the other party perceives to be the opposite. And a failure of both to compromise on what they perceive to be essential will result in a default inducing stalemate.

Perhaps there should be something like an equal cut across all expenditure/services with additional cuts to areas that both parties can agree on.
There's only one truly essential thing that both parties agree on: Debt service. Everything else is a matter of values and priorities, and since there's going to be no consensus agreement on how to cut there should be across the board cuts on every single expenditure.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 12:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
That's a f*cking corrupt politicians, that's all there is. Don't blame it on the company, or the tax code, for that matter. You can not blame people for being smart about errors, mistakes or intentional grey areas.

-t
ok so i'm saying government fix the loopholes

aren't all politicians corrupt?

and how do they get corrupt? money form corrupt companies through lobbyists
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 12:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
ok so i'm saying government fix the loopholes

aren't all politicians corrupt?

and how do they get corrupt? money form corrupt companies through lobbyists

This sort of thing is like debating who is worse: the crack dealer or the crack user...

In a perfect world you'd have neither (unless your crack habit doesn't affect anybody else
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 12:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
ok so i'm saying government fix the loopholes
I'm with you on that.

Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
aren't all politicians corrupt?
99%

Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
and how do they get corrupt? money form corrupt companies through lobbyists
No. They are corrupt BEFORE they get in touch with big money.
They are already corrupt by the time they got into enough power to cut deals with corrupt corporations.

-t
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, Washington
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 08:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
How are cuts going to make interest payments? Seriously? You're playing around here, right?

Well, let's see. If you're spending far too much and running up your lines of credit, the responsible thing to do is seriously cut back on your spending. Then you can pay for the essential things that must be paid for (debt service and other essential functions), and then you choose not to pay any more for the other crap that you may want to spend on but simply can't afford. Either that or you decide you want to continue your fiscal recklessness and eventually default.

Debt service currently demands between 6-10% of federal revenue. We have no problem paying our debt service right now, but choices have to be made because if we continue on the current course debt service will soon enough also become unaffordable.

This stuff isn't hard to understand, I assure you. If you can understand your own finances you can understand what is and isn't responsible for the government's finances. And you can see the future that Democrats are creating for us by looking at Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, etc.
Thanks for your condescension.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 09:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Well, let's see. If you're spending far too much and running up your lines of credit, the responsible thing to do is seriously cut back on your spending. Then you can pay for the essential things that must be paid for (debt service and other essential functions), and then you choose not to pay any more for the other crap that you may want to spend on but simply can't afford. Either that or you decide you want to continue your fiscal recklessness and eventually default.
You could get a second job. You know, increase your income so that it can cover your expenses and start paying down your borrowing.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 08:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I'm with you on that.



99%



No. They are corrupt BEFORE they get in touch with big money.
They are already corrupt by the time they got into enough power to cut deals with corrupt corporations.

-t
corrupt with what if not money?

can you agree that some politicians are in bed with big corporations (with stocks and or kickbacks) and will refuse to close the loopholes?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, Washington
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 08:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Uhm, say what ?

I'm not forgetting any existing debt, a surplus is necessary to reduce it.

-t
Don't you make cuts, reduce debt, THEN have surplus?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 10:15 PM
 
question on billionaires getting tax cuts:

so if the billionaire is a conservative, odds are that he will save the money (ie use the money to make more money)

if the billionaire is a liberal, odd are she/he will blow it all on pot...

how does that help the us economy?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 10:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
Don't you make cuts, reduce debt, THEN have surplus?
Geez, dude, read the whole thread. Seriously.

-t
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, Washington
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 05:59 AM
 
I have been. I guess I will drop out since no one seems willing to answer any simple questions.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 06:30 AM
 
My question, again:

Have the Bush tax cuts improved the lives of the middle class by way of increasing income and/or creating jobs?

and in the case of Big Mac who unless I'm blind is the only person that answered this: what evidence exists to support your claims?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 08:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
My question, again:

Have the Bush tax cuts improved the lives of the middle class by way of increasing income and/or creating jobs?
We're no longer concerned with jobs created besson, you know this. The question now is, how many jobs did Bush save? The answer is gobs and gazillions of course. Go ahead, prove he di'nt. Never mind the actual unemployment rate.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 09:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
I have been. I guess I will drop out since no one seems willing to answer any simple questions.
That's on you. Read again:

Originally Posted by turtle777
Yes, cut the loopholes, and match it dollar for dollar with Spending cuts.
Boom. $900B surplus.
Originally Posted by mitch
If he wasn't forgetting the huge debt that already exists, that'd be great.
Originally Posted by turtle777
Uhm, say what ?
I'm not forgetting any existing debt, a surplus is necessary to reduce it.
Originally Posted by mitch
Don't you make cuts, reduce debt, THEN have surplus?
Come on

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 09:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Have the Bush tax cuts improved the lives of the middle class by way of increasing income and/or creating jobs?
That's easy to answer.

It has improved their lives less than the lives of the lower classes were improved by the Obama administration. Give or take.

-t
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 01:18 PM
 
As an incentive....

When we have a deficit no elected federal level politician or the staff will be paid. This might have them thinking about not over-spending. They would actually plan out their legislation, and track the money more closely. The whining from the Senate and House won't be as loud as the White house staff. Who cares about them anyway?

Time to wind down ALL entitlements.. It was a stupid, short sighted concept anyway. Close Dept of Ed. close HHS. Close DOE, which NEVER did what it was supposed to do, develop new energy sources and get them on line. No more foreign aid. No more funding of 'activists, organizers etc'. Stop funding redundant programs. Repeal Owe-bamacare. No more 99 weeks of unemployment.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 04:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
That's easy to answer.

It has improved their lives less than the lives of the lower classes were improved by the Obama administration. Give or take.

-t
You're right, the lower class really have it made.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 04:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
That's easy to answer.

It has improved their lives less than the lives of the lower classes were improved by the Obama administration. Give or take.

-t

My question didn't involve a comparison to Obama policies, but thanks for answering, I'll take this as a "no".
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 04:47 PM
 
You guys suck at sarcasm.

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 04:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
You guys suck at sarcasm.

-t

Evidently, you guys suck at answering questions.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 05:32 PM
 
Yeah, right.

A statement followed by a question mark doesn't make a question, but whatever. Keep wondering why nobody answers.

-t
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 05:46 PM
 
I don't see it that way. A loophole is MEANT to be exploited.
Originally Posted by ironknee
ok so i'm saying government fix the loopholes
I'm with you on that.
wait what?

Originally Posted by turtle777
Yes, cut the loopholes, and match it dollar for dollar with Spending cuts.
why? if the loophole is a mistake, why add pork to the enforcement
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 06:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
why? if the loophole is a mistake, why add pork to the enforcement
spending cuts = add pork ?

-t
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 06:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
spending cuts = add pork ?

-t
why not just fix the loophole? it's bad for America.

why have a "if you do this, then you must do that?"

why not love America over greedy corporations?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 06:04 PM
 
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 06:13 PM
 
^^^^^^

That about sums up the stupidity surrounding these debt ceiling negotiations. With his offer of a 4 trillion dollar "grand bargain" that the GOP ran away from, President Obama has unequivocally exposed what anyone who was even remotely paying attention already knew. The GOP values keeping tax rates (especially for corporations and the wealthy) low more than they value lowering the deficit. Despite all their public consternation about the latter.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 06:17 PM
 
Bullshit. Why just do ONE ?

Neither is right or wrong by itself, but our deficits are TOO BIG to be tackled by a one-sided approach.

-t
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 06:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Bullshit. Why just do ONE ?

Neither is right or wrong by itself, but our deficits are TOO BIG to be tackled by a one-sided approach.

-t
Agreed. Which is why Speaker Boehner running away from a 4 trillion dollar "grand bargain" with President Obama that wouldn't have been a one-sided approach was so short sighted. Unfortunately, he doesn't have control over the Tea Party element within the GOP caucus. But the GOP only has itself to blame for its current predicament. It created this monster by catering to the more extreme elements in its base in an bid to regain power. And now that they've retaken the House and gained in the Senate the GOP establishment is realizing that it's in bed with a faction that is all too willing to cut off its nose to spite its face. Consequences be damned.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 06:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Yeah, right.

A statement followed by a question mark doesn't make a question, but whatever. Keep wondering why nobody answers.

-t



How much clearer did I have to be in restating my question numerous times, with some wording tweaks design to improve clarity? If clarity was really the problem, why didn't anybody ask for clarification? Did you feel like my question was leading? Was this the problem?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 10:34 PM
 
some interesting numbers from this article:
Latest developments in debt ceiling standoff | ajc.com

Q: How did the debt grow from $5.8 trillion in 2001 to its current $14.3 trillion?

A: The biggest contributors to the nearly $9 trillion increase over a decade were:

—2001 and 2003 tax cuts under President George W. Bush: $1.6 trillion.

—Additional interest costs: $1.4 trillion.

—Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: $1.3 trillion.

—Economic stimulus package under Obama: $800 billion.

—2010 tax cuts, a compromise by Obama and Republicans that extended jobless benefits and cut payroll taxes: $400 billion.

—2003 creation of Medicare's prescription drug benefit: $300 billion.

—2008 financial industry bailout: $200 billion.

—Hundreds of billions less in revenue than expected since the Great Recession began in December 2007.

— Other spending increases in domestic, farm and defense programs, adding lesser amounts.
The line items with values total $6t, leaving nearly $3t for the last two unvalued line items.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 11:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Agreed. Which is why Speaker Boehner running away from a 4 trillion dollar "grand bargain" with President Obama that wouldn't have been a one-sided approach was so short sighted.
Let's not pretend there was any talk of a "grand bargain" before the GOP/Tea Party factor. Only the blind would make something negative of such an otherwise healthy perspective.

Unfortunately, he doesn't have control over the Tea Party element within the GOP caucus. But the GOP only has itself to blame for its current predicament.
As if Obama somehow enjoys the overwhelming support of his liberal base.

It created this monster by catering to the more extreme elements in its base in an bid to regain power. And now that they've retaken the House and gained in the Senate the GOP establishment is realizing that it's in bed with a faction that is all too willing to cut off its nose to spite its face. Consequences be damned.
Boehner suggested we pass the Biden-led measure now. How is that "Obama gives and gives and gives and those damned Republicans won't budge an inch"? It's simply not true. Let's also not pretend the "Grand Bargain" includes the usage of that increased tax revenue on the debt. If you've been listening to your President, he's not talking about slowing government growth. I'm sorry if that kind of "Tea Party" mentality is inconvenient for you right now, but if that's not a point of contention in a discussion on yet another round of debt ceiling increase debates, nothing is.

In the case of Obama's leadership in this; is it too much to request that your government come to you with its case, make an appeal to the challenges you face, indicate how it is they plan to improve their stewardship of your resources, and ask for your contribution? Or must they repeatedly deride you for the results of your success and demand it of you only to grow itself under the guise of cuts from ludicrous growth to crazy growth.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2011, 12:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
some interesting numbers from this article:

I'd *really* like to see somebody try to justify the Bush tax cuts adding 1.6 trillion dollars worth of jobs. I still fail to understand why Republicans are happy to be so vehement about leaving these off the table.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:28 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2