• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The US economy has grown faster under Democrats than Republicans

Letting Americans starve is core conservative philosophy.
 
ChrisL68 said:
That's what happens when you take over an economy that is losing 700K jobs per month for 8 momths straight.

And we generally have "record revenues" historically about 80% of the time. Not some crazy unsustainable amount.

Now he certainly isn't some deficit hawk like some on the left try to make him sound like but anybody who is honest with themselves should admit that an R would have faced the exact some multiple years of $1 trillion plus deficits. Well, either that or a depression.

The Pubs would have enacted some stimulus. It would have been more heavily tax breaks but would have included some unemployment and food stamps. Letting Americans starve isn't good politics.
Click to expand...

Another reason for record revenues is the unemployment rate went from 10% to about 6.2%. It's amazing what having millions more paying taxes versus taking benefits will do to the economy.

Further there have been record profits for businesses over the past six years. This also means more revenues.

As to the Stimulus bill, why do RWers never talk about the fact that 1/3 of the bill was TAX CUTS.

Here's a passage about the truth of taxes under Obama:

"The ad — titled “Obama’s Promise” — lists several pledges that it claims the president has broken. The worst distortion it contains — one we haven’t addressed in this campaign — is an almost entirely groundless assertion that he broke his often-repeated promise not to raise taxes on persons making less than $200,000 a year, or couples making less than $250,000.

The ad shows Obama saying in a 2008 campaign speech, “If you are a family making less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes go up.” Then, to the sound of shattering glass, the narrator says, “Broken! Obamacare raises 18 different taxes.”

But that’s dishonest nonsense. Only a few of the tax changes in the new health care law will fall on families making under $250,000 a year, or individuals making less than $200,000 for that matter. And they make up only a small part of the $503 billion figure that appears on screen. That 10-year total falls overwhelmingly on individuals who are above those income thresholds — just as Obama promised — or on corporations. Money to be collected from individuals regardless of income would come mostly from taxes (or penalties) that are not yet in effect.

The truth here is that Obama has lowered taxes for all workers through a 2 percentage point reduction in the Social Security payroll tax that started in 2011 and is scheduled to continue through the end of 2012. The cut is equal to $1,000 this year for a worker making $50,000 a year — or as much as $2,202 to any worker earning at least the maximum taxable level of wages or salary ($110,100 for 2012).

Obama had previously signed a tax cut that benefited nearly all working families and was in effect from 2009 through 2010. The “Making Work Pay” tax credit was part of the stimulus bill he signed shortly after taking office.

That credit was worth a maximum of $400 per person, or $800 for couples during those years. It phased out at higher income levels, and so its benefit went entirely to individuals making less than $95,000 a year, or couples making less than $190,000. The White House figures it went to “95 percent of working families.” And even allowing for those who are retired or unemployed, it benefited more than 75 percent of all individuals and families, working or not, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

The Crossroads GPS ad simply ignores these very real tax cuts — and points to the health care law instead. To back up the claim that 18 taxes are being raised, the ad cites on screen an analysis by the conservative Heritage Foundation.
But of the $503 billion in taxes listed by the Heritage document, $210 billion falls specifically on individuals making more than $200,000 a year, or couples making over $250,000. And we count another $190 billion that falls only on businesses, including corporations in general, or in particular on health insurance companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers and importers, makers of medical devices and even producers of biofuels.

To be sure, some unknown portion of the taxes that fall directly on individuals would be paid by persons who are below Obama’s promised threshold. For example, a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services went into effect in 2010.

But several taxes would affect only persons with income high enough to claim itemized deductions on their federal income tax returns. For example, $15 billion is to come from limiting deductions for medical expenses to the amount exceeding 10 percent of adjusted gross income (up from 7.5 percent currently). That doesn’t go into effect until 2013, and is the largest tax increase that applies only to individuals. And high-income persons are far more likely to itemize than low-income or middle-income persons, so much if not most of the $15 billion will be paid by those not covered by Obama’s promise.

Another $13 billion would come from limiting the amount of money that can be put into tax-advantaged flexible spending accounts to $2,500 a year. That won’t take effect until 2013, and of course would affect only those with enough income to set aside thousands of dollars in such accounts.

Although not mentioned by the ad, Obama also signed legislation in February 2009 that raised tobacco taxes, which are regressive taxes that fall more heavily on low-income smokers. The bill raised the federal tax on a pack of cigarettes by 61 cents to $1 per pack to pay for an expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program."
 
Food stamps are the only way to feed people? I will have to make a note of that. Marginalize your opposition.

Republican = pro starving

Sometimes I really enjoy this board, and feel greatly enhanced by the shared knowledge that takes place here. Sometimes I get told that being Republican means I like to starve people. Laughably bad.

Lets try an equal and opposite idiotic Republican counter to your supposed statement of fact.

I guess being Democrat means you like to kill babies.

See how that works? See how silly that is? By all means carry on with the 'debate'. :).
 
What are republicans doing to address hunger issues?
 
You guys continue to delude yourself that the record revenues are due to an improved economy rather than increased taxes in a stalled wage economy. Just ignore the participation rate and whistle right past that graveyard on your way to another midterm wave election driven by a out-of-touch party and disinterested president.
 
93Deac said:
You guys continue to delude yourself that the record revenues are due to an improved economy rather than increased taxes in a stalled wage economy. Just ignore the participation rate and whistle right past that graveyard on your way to another midterm wave election driven by a out-of-touch party and disinterested president.
Click to expand...


We don't have to delude oursevles. We have facts. Taxes last year as a % of GDP was 16.7%. That was actually below average historically. This year I suspect that number to be a bit higher, but nothing out of whack.

Your assertion that this is somehow due to outrageous tax increases is what is unsubstantiated.
 
93Deac said:
You guys continue to delude yourself that the record revenues are due to an improved economy rather than increased taxes in a stalled wage economy. Just ignore the participation rate and whistle right past that graveyard on your way to another midterm wave election driven by a out-of-touch party and disinterested president.
Click to expand...

Corporate profits are at historically high rates. This isn't a delusion. It's a major reason why the NYSE has nearly doubled.

What part of part of the unemployment rate dropping don't you get?What part of adding a net of over 2M in each of the past three years is "delusional"?
 
PhDeac said:
What are republicans doing to address hunger issues?
Click to expand...

Here is one plan to fight poverty/hunger/etc....

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/25/us/politics/paul-ryan-poverty-program-budget.html?_r=0

There are plenty of conservative ideas out there. You just don't care to know them, or care for them. This doesn't mean that 'letting Americans starve is a core conservative policy'. Ryan's plan doesnt cut the spending, it just shifts the control to the state. It introduces incentives and accountability, and also provides greater tax incentives to those who are impoverished.

I have not read much on this other than the highlights, but there are plenty of ideas out there that do not include starving everyone that can't afford to buy food.
 
Last edited:
So what are Republicans doing to address hunger issues at the state level?
 
You don't have many state level hunger plans (R or D) because the support is federally focused. That is kind of the point of Ryan's legislation, the states need more resources to enact real impactful plans. But you know that (or you should know that). You are out of bullets PH. Stop painting R's as the boogeyman. They aren't. The large majority are very interested in the well being of all citizens, they just believe in a different strategy than you. When those you disagree with are always your enemy there is going to be little room for compromise. You are as bad as the Tea Party.

ETA:

Here is a list of some state run hunger programs by the way. Amazingly every state has plans. EVEN RED STATES!

http://frac.org/state-news/state-anti-hunger-organizations/
 
Wrangor said:
You don't have many state level hunger plans (R or D) because the support is federally focused. That is kind of the point of Ryan's legislation, the states need more resources to enact real impactful plans. But you know that (or you should know that). You are out of bullets PH. Stop painting R's as the boogeyman. They aren't. The large majority are very interested in the well being of all citizens, they just believe in a different strategy than you. When those you disagree with are always your enemy there is going to be little room for compromise. You are as bad as the Tea Party.

ETA:

Here is a list of some state run hunger programs by the way. Amazingly every state has plans. EVEN RED STATES!

http://frac.org/state-news/state-anti-hunger-organizations/
Click to expand...

:rulz:
 
PhDeac said:
:rulz:
Click to expand...

Undefeated. Haha...I give up. You win. You ask for what Republicans are doing. I tell you. You ask what state programs are out there. I tell you there are programs but they need more money. You still try to find a way to argue a point you have clearly lost.

Cheers buddy. You are right. Republicans love starving people.
 
I don't trust states to run their own hunger programs, especially republican led states. Republican states go overboard when they are given the opportunity to cut or eliminate assistance programs.
 
Wrangor said:
You don't have many state level hunger plans (R or D) because the support is federally focused. That is kind of the point of Ryan's legislation, the states need more resources to enact real impactful plans. But you know that (or you should know that). You are out of bullets PH. Stop painting R's as the boogeyman. They aren't. The large majority are very interested in the well being of all citizens, they just believe in a different strategy than you. When those you disagree with are always your enemy there is going to be little room for compromise. You are as bad as the Tea Party.

ETA:

Here is a list of some state run hunger programs by the way. Amazingly every state has plans. EVEN RED STATES!

http://frac.org/state-news/state-anti-hunger-organizations/
Click to expand...

Many of these states are the same states that refuse expand Medic-Aid even when it's 100% paid for by the feds. These are the same states that are spending tens of millions or maybe into nine figures to create voter suppression laws.

Forgive us if some of us don't trust these states who have a recent pattern of harming the poor and the near poor for political reasons.
 
Something else the right doesn't think about when talking about their idyllic block grants is that this would create fifty new and expansive bureaucracies to spend the money. This would waste countless billions and take away benefits from the poor.

There would still have to be federal oversight to ensure the states are doing what they are funded to do.

This idea is like so many GOP concepts. It is simplistic and cynical but inoperable when you get to actually implementing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top