2012 Elections in the USA

[QUOTE=Matt Psyche;426161]The tax cut in 1981 and 2001 reduced the tax revenue while the tax increase in 1993 increased the revenue. Thanks.[/QUOTE]Agreed. The notion that tax cuts pay for themselves, is an ideological fallacy that few economists subscribe to.

The IGM economic experts panel was created to explore the extent to which economists agree or disagree on major public policy issues. When asked about the proposition, [i]"A cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut."[/i], none of the panel's 40 economists agreed. When responses were weighted by the confidence respondents expressed in their answers. 96% disagreed and 4% were uncertain.

Economists Agree: Tax Cuts Cost Revenue
[url]http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/06/29/economists-agree-tax-cuts-cost-revenue---[/url]

Under Bush, the Council of Economic Advisers, two chairs of the CEA (Greg Mankiw, Ed Lazear), and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson all refuted the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves (let alone, that they increase revenues). Their statements in the article below are clear.

Hey Mitch McConnell, Bush Economists Said Tax Cuts Did Grow the Deficit
[url]http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/hey-mitch-mcconnell-bush-economists-said-tax-cuts-i-did-i-grow-the-deficit/59728/[/url]

John Quincy Adams and John Adams on my mothers side. Her Maiden Name was Adams.

Now you know why I am really pissed. The Declaration of Independence. They hated England not each other.
Now you all know why I have such deep feelings about where our Country is headed.

Must have been why I became a Printer. Uncle Ben.

[QUOTE=Sidney;426198]Ryan is my man. We are distant cousins. My mothers name was Ryan. I believe that I will receive many entitlements![/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Esten; 426200]Agreed. The notion that tax cuts pay for themselves, is an ideological fallacy that few economists subscribe to.

The IGM economic experts panel was created to explore the extent to which economists agree or disagree on major public policy issues. When asked about the proposition, [i]"A cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut."[/i], none of the panel's 40 economists agreed. When responses were weighted by the confidence respondents expressed in their answers. 96% disagreed and 4% were uncertain.

Economists Agree: Tax Cuts Cost Revenue.

[url]http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/06/29/economists-agree-tax-cuts-cost-revenue---[/url][/QUOTE]From your article:

"The economists were asked a second question, about whether cutting income taxes right now would lead to higher gross domestic product in five years. Here 43 percent agreed it would. 48 percent were uncertain, and 9 percent disagreed (on a confidence-weighted basis)....we can conclude that there is widespread agreement among expert economists that, in a weak economy, a stimulus package of both tax cuts and more spending will increase growth and reduce unemployment."

Translation: Lower taxes = stronger economy = more prosperity for all. That's of course assuming that the politicians have enough sense not to spend us into oblivion, like Greece.

There is little doubt that taxes collected do not increase in proportion to increases in tax rates, especially for businesses, people in higher tax brackets, and taxes on capital gains and dividends. Anyway, is this an issue? I don't believe Romney is proposing to cut taxes. He's proposing to cut marginal rates on all taxpayers and eliminate loopholes and deductions, especially loopholes that benefit higher income taxpayers. Tax collected from upper income taxpayers would not go down.

Is more left than the NY Times. The WP is one of the most liberal-oriented papers in the USA.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;426190]Also some neutral sources like the Washington Post. .[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Matt Psyche;426206]Is more left than the NY Times. The WP is one of the most liberal-oriented papers in the USA.[/QUOTE]I think their editorial page is a lot more balanced than the New York Times, especially when you take the op-ed's into account. They may not endorse Obama this year. I agree that the journalists who work there, like most journalists in big cities in the northeast, have a liberal bias.

How come you did come out and say anything about Romney's speech to the OurAmerican Legion Vets, about the Afghanistan Policies was not True?

More Lies!!!

[QUOTE=Tiny12;426208]I think their editorial page is a lot more balanced than the New Yerk Times, especially when you take the op-ed's into account. They may not endorse Obama this year. I agree that the journalists who work there, like most journalists in big cities in the northeast, have a liberal bias.[/QUOTE]

You would be under Mexican control and your Argentine Spanish would not help.

Have you been to Mexico? I have many times. It is a foreign Spanish Country, one that they will not be most likely be Simpatico with you.

The Mexicans would retake Your States! Come on, Think about what you are saying. Sounds like a North against the South Bull Shit Problem. I have a Jewish last name, but I do not care about any Religion. As was said "why can't we all get along"?

Is the Answer only Money?

Who would you ask for Help?

If You have been too long away from your Home, TL would know what to do more than You.

[QUOTE=El Queso; 426171]I want Texas to secede from the Union. I would hope that such an event would cause other states to break away as well. Let the behemoth become a bunch of smaller, fairer (to their own population) countries.

We had a discussion about this the other night. Romney's words are much closer to my beliefs than Obama's. Obama is so far out there to me that I can't stomach the thought of voting for him. But Romney is a member of the same fraternity and the only thing I see with him is the possibility of slowing down the inevitable. Some think we need Republicans to fix things, but I don't think the problem can be fixed because it is inherent in how too many people (the masses who are voting themselves MORE and MORE) think nowadays.

So for me, if Romney is going to slow things down, and Bush and Obama (Obama more so) both put so many future debt obligations on the backs of the US population who pay for it (poor people and politicians sure as hell don't) , maybe I SHOULD vote for Obama to allow things to progress even faster if he wins.[/QUOTE]

Your posts are just idiocy dude. Like the rantings of an angry uneducated old man. Read your recent long post. One minute you are teaching at Stanford and the next you are holding a 14$/hour job. IALOTFLMAO! Now mexico will take over an independent texas. LMAO dude. Really? All expats are traitors. The republicans are extreme and Pelosi / Reid / Obama are moderate. Anyone who challenges Obomanation is a RACIST! Give me a break. You are just a union lackey with a passport. My favourite story was how the university closed its UNION printing shop. I WONDER WHY? Did your union handlers drive the salaries so high that it was cheaper to outsource? You are just embarrissing yourself here dude. Better to be thought a fool and remain silent than open your mouth and remove all doubt. It's just getting really sad fella. Why not retire from this thread and go back to ranting that it should be closed, like you used to do. It is absolutely painful reading your goofy posts. That said, continue at your own peril dude. It's your funeral. Viva la socialista! Monger on All. Toymann

I tried to keep my long truthful post short.

I taught at Stanford for two years and when I finished my Printing Apprenticeship I traveled and worked. They called us tramp printers at the time.

I bet you never would have worked for $14 a hour.

[QUOTE=Toymann;426211]Your posts are just idiocy dude. Like the rantings of an angry uneducated old man. Read your recent long post. One minute you are teaching at Stanford and the next you are holding a 14$/hour job. IALOTFLMAO! Now mexico will take over an independent texas. LMAO dude. Really? All expats are traitors. The republicans are extreme and Pelosi / Reid / Obama are moderate. Anyone who challenges Obomanation is a RACIST! Give me a break. You are just a union lackey with a passport. My favourite story was how the university closed its UNION printing shop. I WONDER WHY? Did your union handlers drive the salaries so high that it was cheaper to outsource? You are just embarrissing yourself here dude. Better to be thought a fool and remain silent than open your mouth and remove all doubt. It's just getting really sad fella. Why not retire from this thread and go back to ranting that it should be closed, like you used to do. It is absolutely painful reading your goofy posts. That said, continue at your own peril dude. It's your funeral. Viva la socialista! Monger on All. Toymann[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 426214]I tried to keep my long truthful post short.

I taught at Stanford for two years and when I finished my Printing Apprenticeship I traveled and worked. They called us tramp printers at the time.

I bet you never would have worked for $14 a hour.[/QUOTE]What year were you making $14 an hour? Was that your highest pay in your career? Because $20 an hour today is still way above survival level, although nothing to bragg about.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;426214]I bet you never would have worked for $14 a hour.[/QUOTE]In 1990, after a decade of university education, my first hospital position paid exactly 14$/hour. Prior to that I was a bartender / waiter for a decade. Hate to tell ya this buddy, but none of those jobs, even with tips, paid more than 10$/hour. Please stop howling at the moon with your assumptions. It's getting more embarrising with each passing post. Howl away WT69. Toymann

I will stop saying things for now.

I will post Cartoons.

P.S.
I Lied.
$14 would be a lot of money in the Midwest, but not in California or New York. Where the apartment Rents are higher than your wages.