Another Disgusting Oil Spill!!

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3268313
Local elections I am all over the board, but I try not to vote for either far-left or far-right canidates. National elections, I voted Dem, Rep, Dem and Dem but did not feel good about any of the votes I cast, I detest the lesser of two evils thing that it always boils down to. I would have voted for Romney last time if he had got that far.
Fishtaco
I am all over the board locally as well...as many of the things I attribute to the republican party are not an issue on a local level to many degrees. Voted, Perot, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Bahr the last elections.............I would say I am am more "independant" just off of that.
I still don't see how you could vote for Obama and say your moderate.His personal ideology alone is otherwise.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3268317
I dunno, as far as I'm concerned a good argument for liberal ideas spoken from a liberal is a a 4 leaf clover...
So I'm always curious when someone says well articulated liberal ideas...
I would just love to have a debate with a liberal without the liberal attacking the source and vice versa...attack the idea....does it matter where the source of the idea is from if it is a good idea or a bad idea?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3268329
I would just love to have a debate with a liberal without the liberal attacking the source and vice versa...attack the idea....does it matter where the source of the idea is from if it is a good idea or a bad idea?
facts are completely different than ideas...
The other day someone was trying to tell me that infliction x isn't a problem with action y. Then went on quote facts from special interest group about infliction x. The funny thing is, action z actually has more cases than action y. And she prattled on and on. The problem is action z makes up 96% of the population and action y makes up 4% so the percentages just don't compare. Something I could not make her see. So where you get your facts from is important. The ideas, well some just need to be dismissed. Why waste your time...

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3268333
facts are completely different than ideas...
The other day someone was trying to tell me that infliction x isn't a problem with action y. Then went on quote facts from special interest group about infliction x. The funny thing is, action z actually has more cases than action y. And she prattled on and on. The problem is action z makes up 96% of the population and action y makes up 4% so the percentages just don't compare. Something I could not make her see. So where you get your facts from is important. The ideas, well some just need to be dismissed. Why waste your time...
True but you went on to explain why the source was bad in detail by using other facts and information. The norm however is to just state h that is some liberal rag" or :that is some right wing conservative nut paper"....and that is it. The individuals that use this as a shield do not have the ability to explain in detail what is bad about the info....just that the source is bad. This is my point.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3268341
True but you went on to explain why the source was bad in detail by using other facts and information. The norm however is to just state h that is some liberal rag" or :that is some right wing conservative nut paper"....and that is it. The individuals that use this as a shield do not have the ability to explain in detail what is bad about the info....just that the source is bad. This is my point.
Well in reality minus a VERY small handful (maybe 2) I don't really put much stock in any thing an advocacy group or think tank says as fact. If I sat there and refuted logically, every thing a liberal throws up there from some kook website. Then I'd forget to breath. There is soo much garbage...

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3268284
I'm still pretty much listening to NPR during the day to get my news, I know you think it is liberal, but they seem to go to some length to present both sides of the story, much more so than the 24 hour news places.
I
My wife likes Rachel a lot and sometimes I pay attention to the show, I do think her work to expose C-Street has been pretty good and there are both dems and reps living there. As far as the rest of MSNBC, I do get some lols when Matthews asks GOP members of Congress if they think Obama is a legal citizen and they dance around the subject to avoid the wraith of the wackos, other than that, they are just the mirror image of Fox.
Fishtaco
If someone asked you if you think Obama is a citizen and you said yes you would be giving an uninformed answer unless you have personally seen a certified copy of his birth certificate. Because questions have been raised and he goes out of his way not to provide proof it raises legitimate questions. I would assume the DNC would never have allowed him to become the nominee without knowing he met the qualifications but I don't know it for a fact. I would assume the Republicans questioned would have the sense to have a similar response.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3268345
If someone asked you if you think Obama is a citizen and you said yes you would be giving an uninformed answer unless you have personally seen a certified copy of his birth certificate. Because questions have been raised and he goes out of his way not to provide proof it raises legitimate questions. I would assume the DNC would never have allowed him to become the nominee without knowing he met the qualifications but I don't know it for a fact. I would assume the Republicans questioned would have the sense to have a similar response.
People who refute the issue with Obama's birth certificate do it because it shouldn't have been brought up in the first place. Why didn't they want to see proof of McCain's, Romney's, or Clinton's or birth certificate? Those three claimed to have been born in thier respective states, but no one questioned them. Also, the majority of American people learned in High School Government what the requirements are for running for the Presidential office, one being a naturalized citizen of the United States. So it would stand to reason that if a guy puts his name in the hat to run, SOMEONE would have verified that little tidbit before even letting the person run in their respective primaries. The Birthers started that 'Roswell Conspiracy' just out of plain spite, and being nothing more than sore losers.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3268358
People who refute the issue with Obama's birth certificate do it because it shouldn't have been brought up in the first place. Why didn't they want to see proof of McCain's, Romney's, or Clinton's or birth certificate? Those three claimed to have been born in thier respective states, but no one questioned them. Also, the majority of American people learned in High School Government what the requirements are for running for the Presidential office, one being a naturalized citizen of the United States. So it would stand to reason that if a guy puts his name in the hat to run, SOMEONE would have verified that little tidbit before even letting the person run in their respective primaries. The Birthers started that 'Roswell Conspiracy' just out of plain spite, and being nothing more than sore losers.
They did prove McCain's citizenship, and birthplace. (ironically it was Panama) on a U.S. Military base (hence his eligibility)

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3268345
If someone asked you if you think Obama is a citizen and you said yes you would be giving an uninformed answer unless you have personally seen a certified copy of his birth certificate. Because questions have been raised and he goes out of his way not to provide proof it raises legitimate questions. I would assume the DNC would never have allowed him to become the nominee without knowing he met the qualifications but I don't know it for a fact. I would assume the Republicans questioned would have the sense to have a similar response.
I don't remember who said it, maybe you. But I thought you brought up a good point, Obama wasn't releasing it, because it serves him better by having a few birthers running around.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3268358
People who refute the issue with Obama's birth certificate do it because it shouldn't have been brought up in the first place. Why didn't they want to see proof of McCain's, Romney's, or Clinton's or birth certificate? Those three claimed to have been born in thier respective states, but no one questioned them. Also, the majority of American people learned in High School Government what the requirements are for running for the Presidential office, one being a naturalized citizen of the United States. So it would stand to reason that if a guy puts his name in the hat to run, SOMEONE would have verified that little tidbit before even letting the person run in their respective primaries. The Birthers started that 'Roswell Conspiracy' just out of plain spite, and being nothing more than sore losers.
Obama and his thugs, I mean hinchmen, I mean operatives are just playing the fools to a T. I've deprogrammed a couple people but damn, some just wont let it go. A WAY better target would be bringing up his enrolling in Oxyidental college as a foreign student. If he did that it's fraud and would make him, instead of the birthers, look like a douchebag.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3268363
They did prove McCain's citizenship, and birthplace. (ironically it was Panama) on a U.S. Military base (hence his eligibility)
Funny how they forget the subject of McCain's place of Birth was brought up long before Omama's and they didn't seem to mind that question being raised.

 

[zman1]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3268265
Seems the boy is leaving out the 2001 cuts which created the 10% bracket while only droping the top bracket by 1 percent and that the 2003 cuts increased the income level for the 15% bracket by more than 10 grand. That had a huge effect on the lower middle class because the next bracket is 25% which is the biggest jump in the tax code.

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3268197
wow, your "knowledge" is dumbfounding.

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3268269
you forget a key fact, during the Bush tax cuts, we recieved far more revenue than we ever recieved during the clinton years. But don't let actual facts stand in your way...
You guys have to stop slapping each other on the back -- The corp out source and cook the book High market values. Not from the individual revenure. Although you might think it came from the 50% of the individual taxpayer.
From the CBO
Sources of Growth in Tax Revenues
That increase of 1.9 percentage point of GDP can be traced to changes in different
types of revenues (see Table 2). The bulk of the revenue increase was associated
with corporate income taxes: Revenues from corporate income taxes rose from
1.2 percent of GDP in 2003 (their lowest level since 1983) to 2.7 percent in 2006
(their highest level since 1978). That increase of 1.5 percentage points of GDP in
corporate income tax revenues accounts for the bulk of the overall 1.9 percentagepoint
rise in revenues. Revenues from individual income taxes increased 0.6
percentage points, from 7.3 percent of GDP in 2003 to 8.0 percent in 2006. And
revenues from taxes other than corporate and individual income taxes were
relatively stable over the period from 2003 to 2006, slipping 0.2 percentage
points, from 7.9 percent to 7.7 percent of GDP.
Current......

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3268404
You guys have to stop slapping each other on the back -- The corp out source and cook the book High market values. Not from the individual revenure. Although you might think it came from the 50% of the individual taxpayer.
From the CBO
Sources of Growth in Tax Revenues
That increase of 1.9 percentage point of GDP can be traced to changes in different
types of revenues (see Table 2). The bulk of the revenue increase was associated
with corporate income taxes: Revenues from corporate income taxes rose from
1.2 percent of GDP in 2003 (their lowest level since 1983) to 2.7 percent in 2006
(their highest level since 1978). That increase of 1.5 percentage points of GDP in
corporate income tax revenues accounts for the bulk of the overall 1.9 percentagepoint
rise in revenues. Revenues from individual income taxes increased 0.6
percentage points, from 7.3 percent of GDP in 2003 to 8.0 percent in 2006. And
revenues from taxes other than corporate and individual income taxes were
relatively stable over the period from 2003 to 2006, slipping 0.2 percentage
points, from 7.9 percent to 7.7 percent of GDP.
Current......
You just made his point. Decreased the individual rates and not only did the revenue from individual taxes increase, the increase in economic activity lead to higher corporate tax revenues.

 

[zman1]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3268281
I wouldn't underestimate Beck. Once you get past the goofyness the guy is pretty smart.
Like a Palin. Lather up the idiots and cash in... Perhaps they both are smarter than the folks paying their salarlies. P.T Barnum said it.... He was smart!

 

[zman1]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3268413
You just made his point. Decreased the individual rates and not only did the revenue from individual taxes increase, the increase in economic activity lead to higher corporate tax revenues.
I think you are missing it -- the corps made the gains you are touting... Cooking books - and crashing - now cooking again.

 

[zman1]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3268271
Here is a chart showing the percentage of GDP the deficite was following the tax cuts. Notice what they did after 2003 after Bush was finally able to get the size cuts he wanted on 01 and had to compromise on
Fiscal year (begins
10/01 of prev. year) Value % of GDP
2001 $144.5 billion 1.4%
2002 $409.5 billion 3.9%
2003 $589.0 billion 5.5%
2004 $605.0 billion 5.3%
2005 $523.0 billion 4.3%
2006 $536.5 billion 4.1%
2007 $459.5 billion 3.4%
2008 $962.0 billion (proj.) 6.8%
Is that inflation or the devaluation of the dollar?

 

[zman1]

Sorry for the rash of posts - I work during the day and give my employer my full attention, for which they pay me to do. When I get home, there are so many new posts to review that I missed during the day. I do send a lot of emails, work related though...

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3268442
Like a Palin. Lather up the idiots and cash in... Perhaps they both are smarter than the folks paying their salarlies. P.T Barnum said it.... He was smart!
So anyone who doesn't follow the leftist agenda is an idiot. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3268444
I think you are missing it -- the corps made the gains you are touting... Cooking books - and crashing - now cooking again.
There are a whole lot of reporting regulations that make cooking the books awfully hard, especially post Enron. Even so tax revenues went up across the board after the tax cuts. Problem is, much like after Reagans cuts government spending went nuts. If we held the feds to the same regulations we have on the evil corporations 2/3rds of congress would be in jail.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3268448
Is that inflation or the devaluation of the dollar?
Deficit as a percentage of GDP.