Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Obama: Biggest Tax Cut Ever
February 21st, 2009
67 Comments
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Breaking News
- Adrianna Nicole In The Kitchen
- Aurora Snow In Bed
- Lisa Ann Upstairs
- Woman Smuggled Cocaine From Venezuela In Bikini Bottoms
- Twilight: New Moon Makes $140 Million, Third Largest Opening Ever
- Radiation Leak @ 3 Mile Island
- Tila Tequila Live Streaming Mental Meltdown
- 31 Die In Chinese Mine Blast In Heilongjiang Province, 82 Trapped
- Victoria Justice Stars In New Nickeloden Show “Victorious”
- CERN’s Large Hadron Collider Back Up And Running
Live News
Democrats: the party of jobs, security, and the BIGGEST TAX CUT EVER. Memo to Grover Norquist and Pat Toomey: SUCK IT, LOSERS!
Why do rethugs hate tax cuts?
Same reason they hate America, I reckon.
BIGGEST TAX CUT EVER!!!
Shorter Repubs: Oh, sure. Just not to the right ones.
Tax cuts only count when they are for the extremely rich. Tea party!
BUT…BUT…BUT…TEH SPENDING!!! TEH SOCIALISMS!!! BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!! 911TERRORISTS!!!!
So I guess that means the President replaces St. Reagan in the conservative pantheon, no?
I’m still curious how the numbers shown at recovery.gov count money for other categories (like infrastructure) as tax relief.
Anybody ever see an explanation for that?
My guess would be that they’re using stimulus money to pay for things for which people would have been taxed at the state or county level. But no, no official explanation.
“middle class tax cuts are reparations”-Glenn Reynolds
Cutting taxes while increasing spending was a terrible idea under Bush. And it is a terrible idea under Obama.
Sounds promising. But then, that’s what Obama is great at — promising. I’d like to see the details.
That he’s promising it by April Fool’s Day makes me a little suspicious… and I’m not surprised that the burden for administering the tax cuts has been shifted on to employers and payroll companies.
It also seems a bit of a mixed message. If it’s supposed to provoke spending, it’s less likely to do that than the one-time, lump sum checks the Bush administration oversaw — people are less likely to go out and spend when it’s just a few bucks a week. This is more a long-term action, but it has an expiration date. Temporary tax cuts are rarely a good idea; when they expire, the net effect is of a tax hike — and if the economy’s not a whole lot better in two years, people will NOT be happy to see them go up.
And any attempt to minimize that effective tax hike merely undercuts the significance of the tax cut. If it’s no great deal when it goes back up, then it wasn’t any great deal when it came down.
The exclusion of those who make “too much” is also short-sighted. If it’s about getting people to spend more, why exclude those who already have disposable income? Why not give them the chance to spend a little more?
J.
Obama played the Republicans like a fiddle on the whole stimulus issue and made them look like the fools that they are. I, for one, and eager for eight more years of this.
“Cutting taxes while increasing spending was a terrible idea under Bush. And it is a terrible idea under Obama.”
Why do I have the feeling you never raised your voice about this while Bush was in office? If I’m wrong, forgive me, but it’s precious to see Republicans now concerned about fiscal responsibility when the previous vice president is on record as saying “deficits don’t matter.”
Deficit spending is usually a bad idea, but in this case, with American banks insolvent and unemployment continuing to rise, this is the right thing to do. In a previous Recession you could lower interest rates to lubricate borrowing money to start businesses, but they’re already pretty much at 0%.
What pisses of Republicans is that the biggest tax cut in history is going to working class people who are less likely to save the money — e.g., they’re going to be buying bread and gasoline and diapers, and this is exactly where stimulus is needed right now.
Obama wins. America wins. I know that me and Jay and Dennis are going to be crossing our fingers and hoping together that the Obama stimulus bill, one that only three Republican politicians voted for, is going to be successful in as timely a manner as possible.
I know that me and Jay and Dennis are going to be crossing our fingers and hoping together that the Obama stimulus bill, one that only three Republican politicians voted for, is going to be successful in as timely a manner as possible.
Good lord, for once Jaim spoke the truth. Must’ve been an accident, or he’s not feeling well.
Yes, I’m hoping the stimulus bill works. I hope it works despite everything I’ve read about its details, which seem rife with disaster. Because we’re stuck with it now, every single one of us, for better or worse. And unlike Rahm Emanuel, I don’t believe in “never letting a crisis go to waste.” I don’t want there to be a huge crisis just so the party more in tune with my own beliefs can return to power.
If the Democrats can make things better, short-term and long-term, more power to them. I just don’t see how they’re getting from the present situation to a better place via their current agenda and methods. It’s like getting in your car in Chicago, setting the GPS for London, and starting the drive.
J.
Eight years of tax cuts for George Soros and hyper-deregulation drove our economy into a ditch. You’d think that maybe doing things _exactly the opposite way_ as Bush II and the Republican party would at least be a good start.
Not to mention pulling out of Iraq, the most disastrous waste of American blood and treasure since Vietnam.
“I don’t want there to be a huge crisis just so the party more in tune with my own beliefs can return to power.”
Because no Republican dared to use 9/11 as a political opportunity to put on a flight suit and play pretend-soldier. Nevar!!!
That’s a relief. Jaim, after a brief flirtation with honesty, returns to his whole-hearted devotion to fraud.
Note that I quoted Obama’s chief of staff about exploiting crises. Jaim seems to have missed that.
“Doing things exactly the opposite way” is usually the dumbest thing to do. It presupposes not only that every single thing that Bush did was wrong, but 180 degrees from wrong.
“Joe, we’re speeding down a pier heading for the river!”
“Well, what did Bob do last time?”
“He swerved left, and we went right in the drink!”
“Well, then, let’s do the opposite of Bob — swerve right!”
(splash)
“I don’t understand it — I did just the opposite of Bob, and it went just as badly!”
J.
It would be even more precious if Republicans and Democrats had been more concerned with fiscal responsibility for the past 8 plus years. I assure you Jaim, if Bush had purposed cutting taxes while committing an additional $787,000,000,000.00 to the budget through a single bill I’d have been just as pissed at him as I am at Obama. However, I never got the chance to be that pissed because Bush never got the chance to do that.
It’s a huge welfare check. A large sum of this “tax cut” goes to people that don’t even pay taxes to begin with.
…….waiting for the revolt……
Keep rocking those talking points, Joy. Someday they’ll come true.
Joy, for the last time. Really. Absolute last, no take backs, period.
Are there any other types of tax aside from income tax?
Who doesn’t pay taxes, j? Pray tell me how I can avoid gas taxes and sales tax and communications surcharges and property taxes. My family could really use the money right now.
I eagerly await your response.
It would be even more precious if Republicans and Democrats had been more concerned with fiscal responsibility for the past 8 plus years.
According to this morning’s Times, the President still intends to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term, cutting 90 billion in Iraq and letting the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010.
At risk of fanboy hyperbole, if he actually pulls that off – massive spending bill and cutting the deficit that much – that accomplishment alone already puts him in the top 20 presidents all time.
Jay Tea says, February 22, 2009 at 6:43 am
That’s a relief. Jaim, after a brief flirtation with honesty, returns to his whole-hearted devotion to fraud.
That’s some good comedy coming from you, Jay – considering that you’ve been devoted to Republican’t fluffing ever since you started polluting these comments with your kimchee, and the only relation you have to honesty is a complete and utter avoidance of it when ever you comment here…
How do Republicant’ arseholes like you manage to function amidst all that bullshit in your systems? The hypocrisy alone is enough to paralyze most rational human beings. I’m just wondering exactly what it is – is it the lack of compassion for your fellow humans? The lack of any sort of conscience? The honest belief that you’re crusading against true evil out in the world? Or just the fact that you’re a bunch of ornery old farts telling liberals to metaphorically get off their lawns?
Sure hope you’re ready if there are any liberals out there who are even half as pissed as that Adkisson guy who shot up the liberal church on Rush’s orders. Because they’ll be looking for mendacious pricks like you.
Not to plagiarize directly from Glenn Reynolds, but it will be a lot easier to cut in half now that he’s making it so much bigger. Maybe my math is wrong here, but if he cuts spending in Iraq to $0, and rolls back the Bush tax cuts, I fail to see how that gets us anywhere close to offsetting the $1,000,000,000,000.00 President Obama is looking at spending in the near-mid term just w/ the recovery bill and the housing bills. Let alone reducing the deficit to where it was when he took office.
If he accomplishes this he is either one of the greatest presidents of all-time, or his administration has abandoned all pretense of honesty and is simply making up numbers from whole cloth.
The rich in the USA have been sponging off the poor and middle class since 1983. It’s about time someone gave a break to those who “don’t pay taxes.”
Bush started his term with a huge surplus. He ended it with the largest deficit ever.
Again SFC B, you keep trying to say there’s an equivalency between Bush and Obama, but there’s not. Obama is passing stimulus to hopefully get our economy moving against. For _eight_ years Bush and the Republicans spent like drunken sailors, and your party didn’t say a thing.
It’s called hypocrisy. It’s ugly on anyone.
Jay Tea, to answer your first post. All I can say is that we tried that already, and it didn’t take.
Zython, I agree — the stimulus checks didn’t do much. But how does just a little per paycheck promise to do any better? Just trying “something different” purely because it ain’t what didn’t work before is pretty damned stupid — you gotta have SOME reason for thinking it works before you try it.
Tom: I’m flattered by the attention, but I’m afraid I just don’t swing that way. You’ll have to content yourself with an unrequited love.
J.
Largest deficit until 2012 that is.
And in less than a month President Obama and the Democrats are making a real good play at retaking that “spending like a drunken sailor” crown.It’s called hypocrisy. It’s ugly on anyone.Glad you’re looking in that mirror bro.
That’s a relief. Jaim, after a brief flirtation with honesty, returns to his whole-hearted devotion to fraud.
For chrissakes, Jay Tea, whenever you ever departed from a whole-hearted devotion to fraud? You are more wrong, more often on basic facts than anyone I’ve ever seen in these comment threads. But it isn’t just your inability to get even basic facts correct.
There’s also you’re complete failure in critical thinking.
For example:
Temporary tax cuts are rarely a good idea;
Really? By this logic taxes should only ever go down, permanently, forever. Is that what you really mean? That as the country grows and costs rise, taxes should always and forever go down? That makes no fucking sense. Even if you stripped away all the social programs you hate, the cost building all the military equipment you love is going to up. And the government should pay for this on less and less revenue over time?
You boast that you’re an “independent thinker” but for fucksakes, one is hard pressed to find any evidence of thinking at all in your comments.
You are a hack of the first order.
“It’s called hypocrisy. It’s ugly on anyone. Glad you’re looking in that mirror bro.”
You obviously don’t know what the word means. Try a dictionary, bro. You might as well get the letters “IOKYAR” tattooed on your forehead if you don’t understand the difference between a newly elected Democratic president calling for a stimulus bill (like Clinton did in ‘93 to end yet another Republican-created Recession) and what Bush and the Republican party did to ruin the national economy, send unemployment rates up to historical levels, wipe out a huge budget surplus, and create the largest deficit ever in American history.
I realize the economy is slow right now, but maybe you can still buy a clue somewhere. Both parties spend, but only one party (falsely) claims to have the high-ground when it comes to fiscal responsibility. And they haven’t since St. Reagan raised taxes in an attempt to balance the budget.
And they haven’t since St. Reagan raised taxes in an attempt to balance the budget.
Two words, Jaims.
Jimmy
Carter.
You’re seeing the beginning of his second term. It’s just too bad smartasses like you weren’t alive to know what it was like in order to have some hesitation about what the second Carter Administration is going to be like.
Jay Tea says, February 22, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Tom: I’m flattered by the attention, but I’m afraid I just don’t swing that way. You’ll have to content yourself with an unrequited love.
It is quite obvious to anyone who has ever seen any of your drivel here (or at Whizz-Bang!) that you don’t ’swing’ in the direction of truth, honesty, accountability, ethics, and non-hypocritical diatribes.
Thanks for confirming to the studio audience that you are, in fact, a mendacious prick who can do nothing but lie and obfuscate for his Republican’t masters.
And, next time, before you embarrass yourself by pretending not to know what someone’s saying to you, try looking in the dictionary first to find out what the big words mean…
Dennis says, February 23, 2009 at 8:04 am
And they haven’t since St. Reagan raised taxes in an attempt to balance the budget.
Two words, Jaims.
Jimmy
Carter.
You’re seeing the beginning of his second term. It’s just too bad smartasses like you weren’t alive to know what it was like in order to have some hesitation about what the second Carter Administration is going to be like.
Has Republican’t cognitive dissonance gotten so bad that they can’t tell between an ex-president from thirty years ago (who was president before Ray-Gun – which of course would go a long way towards explaining why Republican’t arseholes are so confused about things these days), who was white and from Georgia, with the president today, who happens to be a black man from Illinois. Racial confusion, geographical confusion, and government policy confusion, all in one neat little passage! No wonder you losers are still trying the failed policies of the Putsch junta and expecting people to consider you as rational and reasonable.
Here’s a clue, Dennis: Republican’ts have traditionally given poor people’s money to the rich, borrowed far beyond their means and then expected somebody else to pay for it, quadrupled our children’s debt (Ray-Gun and both PapaDoc and BabyDoc Putsch combined), tripled Social Security premiums while simultaneously trying to shut SocSec down, and lied their asses off about it while doing it. Try being honest for a change, and maybe in thirty years you’ll have earned enough trust for your Republican’t bullshit to be considered merely amusing instead of a sign of a debilitating mental illness.
Oh, and, by the way, I was in fact alive through both the Carter and Ray-Gun administrations. Ray-Gun’s reign was far worse for the regular people (that I knew at the time) than Carter’s.
“You’re seeing the beginning of his second term.”
I’m seeing one month in. I’m seeing a Republican party that has bet their dwindling ranch on America failing. That people can’t find jobs (I moved abroad to get one, due to the Bush II economy). I’m seeing pissed off Americans wondering why tax cuts for George Soros and hyper-deregulation of Wall Street have led to economic disaster.
I’m thinking America has four years to get back in shape after eight years of Republican misrule. And one month in, he’s doing a good job.
But Jay and Dennis are with me now, and we’re hoping the Bush Recession lasts months rather than years. God forbid the party of Rush “I hope America fails” Limbaugh dissolves into obscurity and the party of “Let’s take back and Pwn the 21st century like we should” prevails.
You’ve got douchebags like Jay and Dennis and SPCB betting on fail, and you’ve got honest Americans like me and my friends and family hoping to get things done come 2010 and beyond.
We’ve got win, in the form of an Democratic administration ca. 2009-2017, and you’ve got the very definition of FAIL in the forms of our lovely trolls here at O-dub.com.
Americans like me are moving forward through the bad times. And given the fact that we’re only one month in, thinks are looking really damn good for a change.
It’s really not about HOPE and CHANGE, it’s about pragmastism and adults running our great country rather than ideologues, bigots, and simpletons.
That people can’t find jobs (I moved abroad to get one, due to the Bush II economy). Jaims
You’re a teacher. You had to move abroad to get a job as a teacher? How long ago was that?
C’mon.
—
I’m thinking America has four years to get back in shape after eight years of Republican misrule. And one month in, he’s doing a good job.
You’re not even thinking that- you’re just saying it. Repeatedly as if your mantra you must say every morning.
—–
You’ve got douchebags like Jay and Dennis and SPCB betting on fail, and you’ve got honest Americans like me and my friends and family hoping to get things done come 2010 and beyond.
I’m not betting on fail. I have a vested interest in his success. More than you do, Jaim, who decided to bail on this country and move elsewhere because the grass seemed greener to you. The guy betting on failure was George Soros, by his own admittance. The guy funding your party and trying to mold America to his socialistic vision. The man who can afford the Pyrrhic victory he just saw to fruition.
————
Americans like me are moving forward through the bad times. And given the fact that we’re only one month in, thinks are looking really damn good for a change.
In Korea you are moving forward. How nice for you. If America’s looking so great from your current perch, why don’t you move back here and try to make a contribution to it’s greatness instead of sucking off some other country’s teat?
Fucking hypocrite douchebag.
DOW opens up in positive territory for a change, ok, fine.
Obama speaks, blames Stimulus confusion on cable news ‘chatter’ (aka. Rick Santelli and Sean Hannity).
DOW goes down.
Heckuva job, Baracky.
Jaim cheers from Korea. “It’s wonderful!” “Can I come back now?”
Dennis says, February 23, 2009 at 11:09 am
DOW opens up in positive territory for a change, ok, fine.
Obama speaks, blames Stimulus confusion on cable news ‘chatter’ (aka. Rick Santelli and Sean Hannity).
DOW goes down.
Heckuva job, Baracky.
DOW is well over 13,000 when the Illegally Installed Drunken Cokeheaded Deserter steals the 2000 election.
Putsch gives the taxes of the poor to the rich for eight years.
DOW is under 9,000 when The Texas Souffle slinks off to sell his fake ranch and move into a rich white enclave in Houston.
Dennis cheers from his mother’s basement. “It’s wonderful!” “We need more tax giveaways to the rich”
Heckuvajob, Drinky McDumbAss!
Dennis cheers from his mother’s basement. “It’s wonderful!” “We need more tax giveaways to the rich” Tom
If you’ve read anything I written lately, Shit for Brains, I have hardly been cheering. Leaving that up to you guys to wave the pom-poms, some all the way from foreign countries- how special.
DOW down 102 now. Why doesn’t he just put his speeches up on his website and let people just read them instead of going on the air and scaring the bejeezus bells out of everyone.
“You’re seeing the beginning of his second term.”
If that wasn’t so sad, it would be funny.
I keep hearing that Obama is Carter II: Economic Boogaloo for months, but I don’t see any connection whatsoever. Other than they’re both Democratics (sic)
DOW down 102 now.
Jeeezus, would you knock it off? Do you really think that the DOW begins and ends with what Obama says?
You keep saying there are tons of factors at work that influence the market and then you flog this dead fucking horse every day the Dow goes up or down.
You keep trying to sell this Obama-Butterfly Effect on the stock market, but we ain’t buying it.
The stock markets are gonna do what the stock markets are gonna do. And you cannot judge or measure the President’s success or failure on 6 weeks of market watching.
You just can’t.
Pretty humorous hearing you deny Obama’s doom and gloom rhetoric and socialistic redistribution ambitions have nothing to do with a stock market that has only known one direction since it was known he would assume the office.
That coming from the side that blamed Bush for every single spike in world oil prices. And just before every election he made them go down too.
Why doesn’t he just put his speeches up on his website and let people just read them instead of going on the air and scaring the bejeezus bells out of everyone.
Nice try, but if Obama DID say “everything’s OK, go buy that PS3 and new Catamaran that you’ve always wanted”, you’d call him a liar (rightfully so). Things ARE going to get worse before they get better, and you and your like are solely to blame for that.
and you and your like are solely to blame for that. Zython
How so, Zython? You have no clue what I’m responsible for.
Saying everything is ok is one thing. He doesn’t stop talking about how bad things are because he needs to scare people into accepting his crap sandwiches.
Pretty humorous hearing you deny Obama’s doom and gloom rhetoric and socialistic redistribution ambitions have nothing to do with a stock market that has only known one direction since it was known he would assume the office.
Not denying anything of the sort, Denny. But I’m not attributing everything bad that happens on Wall Street to the Current Resident either.
You’re just gloomy ‘cuz he’s telling it like it is and you can’t stand that. “Piss on me and tell me it’s raining! That’s what encourages confidence!”
“Socialistic redistribution ambitions.” Heh. It is to laugh.
Just fucking stop. It’s embarrassing.
Face it, Dennis. Obama could promise you personally get a gold-plated puppy and you’d still find something at fault.
socialistic redistribution ambitions have nothing to do with a stock market that has only known one direction since it was known he would assume the office.
Based upon what I’ve seen of the President’s ‘ambitions,’ they are more mild than most of what has been standard operating procedure in the rest of the developed world for roughly the past half century. I think Nimrod and CSS would be rather astounded (or perhaps amused) to learn that they live in socialist nations.
I mean, really. Laos, Vietnam, China, Canada, the UK. And soon, the US!
Saying everything is ok is one thing. He doesn’t stop talking about how bad things are because he needs to scare people into accepting his crap sandwiches.
Duct tape & saran wrap is all I’ll say in response to this.
Tom, that is some major league stupid you got going on there.
Please clarify how Bush “gave the taxes of the poor to the rich for eight years”. Did he go door to door, collecting the tax money in moneybags with large $ signs on them and then hand them over to his rich fatcat wall street friends while they all sat around in top hats, laughing and smoking cigars?
Please clarify how Bush “gave the taxes of the poor to the rich for eight years”.
Apologies if this is hard to read… What is interesting to note is no difference in the lower brackets, but cuts in the higher brackets, with the largest cut being for the highest earners. This is via wikipedia, btw.
Tax Year 2002//Tax Year 2003
Income level Tax rate Income level Tax rate
up to $6,000 10% // up to $7,000 10%
$6,000 – $27,950 // 15% $7,000 – $28,400 15%
$27,950 – $67,700 // 27% $28,400 – $68,800 25%
$67,700 – $141,250 // 30% $68,800 – $143,500 28%
$141,250 – $307,050 // 35% $143,500 – $311,950 33%
over $307,050 38.6% // over $311,950 35%
As a clarification, above I meant largest by percentage, as well as total amount. Obviously it would be largest by total amount, even if it were a smaller percentage. I’m beginning to think conservatives see this upward redistribution as, to quote Dave from another thread, a feature and not a bug.
I mean, really. Laos, Vietnam, China, Canada, the UK. And soon, the US! Parthy
I don’t want to be like those countries, Parth, sorry.
Somewhere, Atlas is Shrugging and John Galt is going back into hiding.
President Clinton’s 1993 Stimulus Bill: $30,000,000,000.00
President Obama’a 2009 Stimulus Bill: At least $787,000,000,000.00.
Inflation from 1993 to 2009 does not account for that difference.
You don’t think there is any difference in these? Hell, it took months of debate to get the Clinton bill through the legislature. Despite it being the “worst economy in 50 years”, Clinton and his party managed to have some decorum and make an honest effort to take their time and do it right. This time around, spending $757,000,000,000.00 more, it gets rushed through the legislature and is being signed by the president before the end of his first month. That is not a feature. That’s a bug.
And that is just for the stimulus portion. We’re looking at an additional $75,000,000,000.00-$275,000,000,000.00 for the mortgage bill he’s talking about. Will the bailout for GM and Chrysler come from the stimulus bill? From TARP II? From some unannounced Save American Cars Act? Hell, GM is asking for as much money as Bill Clinton asked for the save the whole economy back in 1993. Those wise “they” are right. A dollar did used to go farther.
At least until 2009 ends you mean.
I hope the stimulus fails, and fails miserably. I hope that, as a result of its failure the Deomcrats lose their majority in 2010 and that whoever opposes and replaces them will cancel the spending that will happen after 2011. I also hope that these painful lessons result in a political party which adheres to some sort of sane economic policy and a newfound, and long-lasting, belief in the usefullness of balanced budgets.
I don’t believe that the failure of the stimulus bill means that American is doomed. The nature of free people and a relativly free economy means that, eventually, buyers and sellers will link up and create the wealth which has been lost over the past months. This would happen a lot quicker if mortgage holders weren’t delaying selling their reduced-value assets in the hopes of being able to unload them to some government agency at price higher than they’ll fetch on the open market.
Was it really that long ago that spending $90,000,000,000.00 was a huge deal?
SFC B says, February 23, 2009 at 3:48 pm
President Clinton’s 1993 Stimulus Bill: $30,000,000,000.00
President Obama’a 2009 Stimulus Bill: At least $787,000,000,000.00.
Inflation from 1993 to 2009 does not account for that difference.
No – eight years of disastrous unrestrained Republican’t fiscal policy did that. Funny, you don’t seem to notice the disaster in the White House for the last eight years, and rushed back to the last legally elected president before Obama when you assigned blame for this increase. I wonder why that is?
Dennis says, February 23, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Dennis cheers from his mother’s basement. “It’s wonderful!” “We need more tax giveaways to the rich” Tom
If you’ve read anything I written lately, Shit for Brains, I have hardly been cheering. Leaving that up to you guys to wave the pom-poms, some all the way from foreign countries- how special.
I’ve been reading your pathetic Republican’t squealing for quite some time now, Empty Headed Food Trough Wiper, and, surprisingly, you continue to remain the ignorant Republican’t motherCheneying icehole you always have been. I haven’t been waving any pom-poms either, so the “you guys” part of that statement is just as clueless as the rest of your hogwash. I don’t leave anything up to anybody (thanks once again for a vague, irrelevant, and completely dishonest Republican’t screed – do they pay you guys by the lie?), but I’ve seen your shameless one-sided hypocrisy for years now.
Dave in SoCal says, February 23, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Tom, that is some major league stupid you got going on there.
Coming from someone who never backs up any of his Republican’t fantasies with, you know, facts and stuff, that means so… little.
It is highly amusing to watch all you Republican’ts with your panties in a bunch, flailing away blindly, and robotically sticking to the same horseshit that got you marginalized last November. Heckuva job, guys! Keep up the good work!
Republican’ts = $$$$$$
“I hope the stimulus fails, and fails miserably. I hope that, as a result of its failure the Deomcrats lose their majority in 2010 and that whoever opposes and replaces them will cancel the spending that will happen after 2011.”
Why do you hate America? Why do you want the President to fail?
Please clarify how Bush “gave the taxes of the poor to the rich for eight years”.
He raised payroll taxes. He raised them beyond the level needed to sustain benefits paid out over the last 25 years–and the next 10.
What did we do with the extra payroll tax money collected? We loaned it to the general fund. Why? To keep the marginal tax rates at the top of the income scale down.
In a rational world, the general fund would pay its own way. Excess payroll taxes would pay down debt, increasing the ability of the Treasury to borrow in the future.
Some guy once had a plan he called a “lockbox.” Conservatives made fun of him.
What are these “payroll taxes” you speak of quaker? The Cato Institute and Heritage don’t say anything about them.
Sarcasm aside, poor people and other wage earners under $100k pay 16% of their wages to taxes before they even see a income tax form. Someone making $1 million pays 1.6% of their salary (if it is taken as salary, there is no payroll tax for stock benefits, options,dividends, etc.) for payroll taxes, someone making $10k pays 16%. Hardly seems fair, does it?
Just before someone questions the 16%, the employers half does impact wages, it’s just paperwork to say that the employer must pay.
I wasn’t the one who originally mentioned Clinton’s ‘93 bill, but fair enough. Bush’s 2008 Stimulus bill cost $152,000,000,000.00. Obama’s cost $787,000,000,000.00. Obama’s is still $535,000,000,000.00 more than the stimulus bill signed almost a year to the date from the previous one.
Of course the reason Bush’s didn’t work is obvious. The government didn’t spend enough money it doesn’t have. So, to correct the failed policies of failure, and to fix the deficit he inherited, President Obama will spend an additional half a trillion dollars to stimulate the US economy. Bush’s measly $150,000,000,000.00 only put checks worth $600-$1200 into the pockets of Americans. With the burly and powerful $787,000,000,000.00 stimulus of President Obama, Americans will be getting checks for $400-$800.
Bush’s 2008 Stimulus bill cost $152,000,000,000.00.
Excuse me? Perhaps you have forgotten the $750 billion “stimulus” to the banking industry so that they could redecorate their offices and pay each other multi-million dollar bonuses?*
Nice selective outrage you gots there…
* – it certainly doesn’t seem to be being used for what the Republicant’s said they’d be using it for. Funny how that seems to have escaped your attention, too…
No. I didn’t. I was referring to the bill passed in FEB of 2008. It was sold as a stimulus bill to try and prevent or shorten this current recession (see how well it worked?). The $750,000,000,000.00 (Bush is only on the hook for the first $350,000,000,000.00, Obama is spending the second half) was to try and prevent banks from failing. You’d think that with the low bar set by the Bush administration to do anything useful in the financial industry the Obama administration wouldn’t be running nuts first into that bar.
** I’m sorry, which party held the legislature when TARP was passed? A monkey would have been able to write a better piece of legislation than was passed to “rescue” the banks.
I’m sorry, which party held the legislature when TARP was passed? A monkey would have been able to write a better piece of legislation than was passed to “rescue” the banks.
I’m sorry, which party’s president rushed the legislation through Congress, demanding that they pass it without even reading it? A drunken monkey who was illegally installed into the presidency was the architect behind this (yet another) giveaway to the rich at the expense of the poor. Funny how you only seem to be capable of assigning blame to one side of the aisle…
Dems have always been wrong to try and work with the party that likes to date rape their opponents. Pelosi should have worked on impeaching the chimp instead of listening to any of the Repulican’t bullshit coming out of them (even today). Reid should have been making Republican’ts filibuster. So, no, I’m not a Dem shill who thinks they can do no wrong.
Would you like to try and misrepresent my position again?
Apology accepted.
Seriously though, as you typed that bit about rushing legislation through the House and Senate without taking time to read it, did you feel the least bit of irony given the mouth-raping the Obama Administration just performed with cramming this $787,000,000,000.00 down our throats?
I’m sure you like to stroke off to the thought of citizen Bush being perp-walked somewhere, however it might have been better for the country if Pelosi and Reid had simply done their jobs and resisted the executive branch trying to push a massive spending bill through during the out-going President’s last quarter. Of course, that would have required them to have something vaguely resembling a backbone. And, while there is nearly a trillion dollars of spending available, none of it is allocated to paying for some confidence courses for House or Senate Democrats.
So when a Republican President promotes a large spending bill that is not seriously opposed by a Democratic Congress- its the Congress fault.
And when a Democratic president promotes a large spending bill that is not seriously opposed by a Democratic Congress- its the Presidents fault AND Congress.
Nice way of passing the buck there, guy.
If you’re a partistan Democrat who is complaining about the bill in question (ex: Tom) then yes.
With that minor correction, yes.
I hope this clears some of this up for you.
SFC B says:, February 24, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Apology accepted.
Apparently, it only takes you a few comments in one post before you start misrepresenting me once again. Good job, Republican’t Putsch fluffer, showing us your true colors again.
Isn’t it amazing how Republican’t hypocrites can be so oblivious to their bullshit?
Seriously though, as you typed that bit about rushing legislation through the House and Senate without taking time to read it, did you feel the least bit of irony given the mouth-raping the Obama Administration just performed with cramming this $787,000,000,000.00 down our throats?
Right. Not paying any attention to the irony of your whining about this bill, loaded with Republican’t concessions, to the one that Putsch and the Republican’ts demanded we pass right away without even looking at it?
If you’re a partistan Democrat who is complaining about the bill in question (ex: Tom) then yes.
Yet another unfounded, unsourced, and (as is par for the course for traitorous hypocritical lying Republican’t boy blowers like SFC B. Thanks, bed wetting chickenhawk, for showing your true colors once again.
Cheap Republican’t crack whores apparently have no shame…
Dude, that doesn’t even make any sense. What is ironic about me “whining” about the stimulus bill? I didn’t support the bank bailout. I didn’t support the stimulus bill back in 2008. I’m pretty consistent about deriding excessive government spending regardless of the political party executing it. Did you mean to write something else and just forgot to complete the thought?
So, Tom, did you write “Perhaps you have forgotten the $750 billion ’stimulus’ to the banking industry so that they could redecorate their offices and pay each other multi-million dollar bonuses?” on the 23rd @ 9:22? Cause if you didn’t, someone is impersonating you. Maybe I misunderstood you then, and you weren’t complaining about the bank bailout. I am making an assumption that you’re a partistan Democrat. If you’re actually a member of some other party then I apologize for using you as my example, but my point remains.