Pathetic job by the Republicans

One thing I have learned is that the figures they put out does not include those that are no longer on unemployment pay. Those numbers are skewed at best. When you get right down to it, NO ONE in Congress seems to understanding the reality of situation. If this country does not get its act together real fast we are on the way down.

Heritage has their OWN interpretation of the graphs?!?! I'm SHOCKED, I tell you, SHOCKED!

LadyJazzer wrote: Just wait until 2012 and the Dems beat the GOP over the head with the Ryan Kill-Medicare plan that picked up a seat in NY-26, and they win back control of the House. I can hardly wait to hear the weeping and wailing... THEN you will see the Reagan-era taxes reinstated, the billionaires start paying a little more, the withdrawal from Bush's unnecessary wars accelerated, and hopefully, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate as well...

The GOP can't field a single candidate that isn't a loon or a buffoon.

When you call for reinstating the Reagan era taxes, you need to be more specific.

Without further info, I'd assume you mean the rates at the end of his term, after the passage of his 1986 Tax Reform Act for which he is best known (regarding taxes). But I'm guessing that's not what you mean because the lowest bracket after that was 15% compared to 10% today. And the highest bracket was 28% compared to 35% today. Are you suggesting a 50% tax increase for lower income people and a 20% tax cut for the highest earners?

Nah, I guess you want the rates before that act. Then the lowest rate was 11% (still, 10% higher than today) and the top rate was 50%. Do you really want to increase the top rate from 35% to 50%, a whopping 43% increase? Let's see the Democrat party run on that!

And it's more complicated than just that. When the 50% rate was in effect, there were many tax shelters which were eliminated by the 1986 Tax Act. Nobody paid that much. In fact, the effective federal income tax for the top 1% of tax payers was about 19%, similar to what it is today.

If you really want to increase taxes for the rich, just go back to Clinton's rates. It's easier to compare. In 1996 the top 1% paid and effective rate of 24.2%, though some of that was driven by the strong economy.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

LJ, did Carville give you Obama's talking points for 2012? I fully expect Obama and his minions to blame this all on Bush, but what has Barack done to clean up Bush's mess? Raised the tax rate on the rich? Nope, not even when he had Congress & the Senate. What has he done to fix the job situation? Nothing, the stimulus may have prevented the great recession, but it hasn't brought us back out. It is like when the CU Buffs fired Barnett who was a winning coach but couldn't win a title and replaced him with a coach who couldn't even win.

Bush's worst unemployment rate was 7.2. BHO will be lucky to ever reach 7.2.

Did you miss the part about Bush creating only 3 millions jobs in 8 years to Clinton's 23.1 million? You can discuss the rates all you want to. Under Clinton people were working, and the middle class was surviving. Under Bush, the redistribution of wealth went to the upper-class and the middle class got screwed, and the jobs were vanishing at a rate of 750,000/month.

You can't change that... But I'm sure the Heritage Foundation has a convoluted and hysterically funny explanation.

pineinthegrass wrote: When you call for reinstating the Reagan era taxes, you need to be more specific.

I've been specific enough in other threads that you know EXACTLY what I mean...unless all you're interested in is playing games. Does the figure "3.6%" ring a bell?

LadyJazzer wrote: Did you miss the part about Bush creating only 3 millions jobs in 8 years to Clinton's 23.1 million? You can discuss the rates all you want to. Under Clinton people were working, and the middle class was surviving. Under Bush, the redistribution of wealth went to the upper-class and the middle class got screwed, and the jobs were vanishing at a rate of 750,000/month.

You can't change that... But I'm sure the Heritage Foundation has a convoluted and hysterically funny explanation.

pineinthegrass wrote: When you call for reinstating the Reagan era taxes, you need to be more specific.

I've been specific enough in other threads that you know EXACTLY what I mean...unless all you're interested in is playing games. Does the figure "3.6%" ring a bell?

You specifically said you wanted to go back to the Reagan rates and I gave you a detailed response. As you should know, the 3.6% was the Clinton increase over the Bush (elder) rates. And if we are now talking about going back to the Clinton rates, are you with the Obama plan to do it for only those making over $200K, or across the board for everybody?

Go ahead and read the Heritage article so you can at least pretend to want to hear what the other side has to say. After all, you first brought up Heritage, not me. Otherwise just keep shooting the messenger and ignore the message. It's not worth debating that viewpoint.

And yes, the economy did great under Clinton. But was it due to his policies? At least it was great up till the end of his term when the internet bubble burst and we headed into the 2000 recession. Technically the recession started under Bush, but it would of happened no matter who was president.

LadyJazzer wrote: Did you miss the part about Bush creating only 3 millions jobs in 8 years to Clinton's 23.1 million? You can discuss the rates all you want to. Under Clinton people were working, and the middle class was surviving. Under Bush, the redistribution of wealth went to the upper-class and the middle class got screwed, and the jobs were vanishing at a rate of 750,000/month.

You can't change that... But I'm sure the Heritage Foundation has a convoluted and hysterically funny explanation.

pineinthegrass wrote: When you call for reinstating the Reagan era taxes, you need to be more specific.

I've been specific enough in other threads that you know EXACTLY what I mean...unless all you're interested in is playing games. Does the figure "3.6%" ring a bell?

Clinton was lucky enough to be president during the Dot-Com rally, or should that be the Dot-Com bubble? W was still creating more jobs than Obama who would rather visit Ireland and issue ultimatiums to Qadaffi & Israel than fix the job situation. Little secret? Obama can't afford to cut back the military because it will make the job numbers even worse. Nothing like unemployed veterans to piss off the electorate.