Obama Hate Has Forced Conservative Extremists Out of the Closet

[CuteOldGuy]

Boubled? The stock market has become a pop vocalist? What the "fuc"?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Boubled? The stock market has become a pop vocalist? What the "fuc"?

How does it feel to be out of the closet?

[CuteOldGuy]

C'mon. "Boubled" was funny. Get over yourself, Fuc'er.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

C'mon. "Boubled" was funny. Get over yourself, Fuc'er.

Bubble just might be what it is if they were to go to your fair tax and cut out the cheap capital gains tax and tax it as income.

[JD Barleycorn]

If you think high gas prices are funny (as does WTF) then wait until electric rates start going up. At some point these higher prices will start nibbling away at the bottom of our food chain; farmers. We will see less produce and higher prices there.

[CuteOldGuy]

WTF obviously didn't get it. Michael Buble (pronounced BooBlay) is a new crooner in the style of Frank Sinatra. Hence my hilarious joke about being "Boubled." It was an extremely witty play on words based on WTF's inability to spell. It was funny. That's all it was meant to be.

[BigLouie]

Originally Posted by cptjohnstone

once again, a cut and paste from somewhere

Once again when they can't refute anything they complain about COPY and paste.

[CuteOldGuy]

I think if you included the source, there would be fewer complaints. Just sayin'.

[Af-Freakin]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

WTF obviously didn't get it. Michael Buble (pronounced BooBlay) is a new crooner in the style of Frank Sinatra. Hence my hilarious joke about being "Boubled." It was an extremely witty play on words based on WTF's inability to spell. It was funny. That's all it was meant to be.

LOL! u think u r witty & funny. LOL! now that is funny!. LOL!







this post from the kc board is both creepy & unfunny:


Aquafina. I'd like to "tap" that! (Get it? "Tap" that? Tap water, you know, and Aquafina is a brand of bottled water.)

Gawd, I think I'm funny! But you are hot, Aquafina, and welcome to our odd little world.





LOL!

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

...an economic period that witnessed the creation of the great middle class, Interstate Highway System, and it was paid for by taxing the wealthy at a 91% tax rate.

Completely wrong.

The 91% top-bracket tax rate of the 1950s existed within the framework of a tax code so loophole-laden that it was far easier for the wealthy to wipe out almost all of their tax burden with things such as accelerated depreciation on highly leveraged assets than it was after the 1986 tax reform. Hardly any wealthy individuals paid taxes at an effective rate more than a small fraction of 91%. In fact, those who are familiar with the history of taxation will recall that news reports in the late 1960s raised awareness that a number of the wealthiest households in the nation were paying zero tax. That led to the creation in 1969 of what's called the "alternative minimum tax." It was designed to collect at least some tax revenue from wealthy households which previously had paid little or no tax. (Of course, it was possible for wealthy investors to get around most of that, as well.)

Now a big problem with the AMT is that it was never indexed for inflation. Since a dollar prior to the closing of the gold window in 1971 was worth almost as much as six bucks today, the AMT hits a number of taxpayers who aren't very well off.

The way we "paid for" all those things in the 1950s was by not spending many hundreds of billions of dollars per year on things like Medicare and Medicaid, created in the 1960s. It's true that military spending during that period of the Cold War was several percentage points higher (as a percentage of GDP) than today, but that pales in comparison to increases in social and health care spending over the last few decades.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Completely wrong.

The 91% top-bracket tax rate of the 1950s existed within the framework of a tax code so loophole-laden that it was far easier for the wealthy to wipe out almost all of their tax burden....
.

thats what's wrong with this place..so much copy and paste, so much "fact" because i went to the internet and it said this or that..so little knowledge and discernment and experience and sifting of these paste and copy jobs into what is or was reality...

difficult if not impossible to straighten out the zealousness

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

Once again when they can't refute anything they complain about COPY and paste.

the problem with your paste and copy jobs are: they either relate to opinion or if they have "fact" its without discernment and proper context and seldom if ever are your "facts" any real basis for your conclusion

for example the 91% tax bracket captured almost no one.

i can remember in my life time the 70% tax bracket, it captured almost no one

the write offs available were totally different, diffuse and available to anyone with some money.

[Texas Contrarian]

Despite Big Louie's protestations to the contrary, nevergaveitathought is exactly right. The author of that screed in the OP can't even get the simplest, most fundamental things right, so why should one pay attention to anything he writes?

While we're in full debunking mode, just take a look at this ridiculous statement:

Originally Posted by BigLouie

The Republicans’ goal in 2012 is to return to pre-New Deal America that fostered the Great Depression...

Got that?

The insinuation is that the Great Depression was caused by the failure of policymakers to enact New Deal legislation before it started rather than after. There are several factors that caused an ordinary recession to deepen into the Great Depression, but the lack of a "New Deal" was not one of them.

Besides, I haven't seen anyone suggest that we return to the pre-New Deal era. Even the New Deal was "social democracy lite" compared with what we have today. Medicare and Medicaid were not established until about 30 years later. No one is suggesting that we eliminate them; only that we reform programs whose costs are exploding out of control. If we leave Medicare on its current trajectory, taxes required to finance it will crush any prospects for sustained, robust economic growth over the next 10-20 years.

Someone who makes a practice of copying and pasting stuff would do well to try to actually understand the issues under discussion in order to offer something resembling a cogent argument supporting the opinions expressed by the authors.