Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Battle begins over who will pay more taxes
71 views
Skip to first unread message
MattB
Nov 18, 2012, 12:47:02 PM11/18/12
to
Battle begins over who will pay more taxes
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economywatch/battle-begins-over-who-will-pay-more-taxes-1C7118819
One of the biggest political battles in decades - how to spread the
tax burden of helping to balance the federal budget - has just begun.
It's likely that not many taxpayers will emerge unscathed.
President Barack Obama met Friday with Congressional leaders to begin
work on an agreement over how – or whether – to raise more revenues to
help pay down the deficit. Both sides in the long-simmering debate
have until the end of the year to head off hundreds of billions of
dollars in tax hikes scheduled to take effect in January.
The White House has said the president wants to raise some $1.6
trillion in new revenues over the coming decade – mainly from
top-income earners. "When it comes to the top 2 percent, what I'm not
going to do is to extend further a tax cut for folks who don't need
it," Obama said at a news conference Wednesday.
The president campaigned on a plan that would raise the current top
two tax brackets of 33 percent and 35 percent to 36 percent and 39.6
percent. Single taxpayers making less than $200,000 a year and married
couples making less than $250,000, would not see their tax rates go
up.
Republican opponents of the plan argue that the higher rates would
hurt small businesses, many of which pay individual, not corporate tax
rates. But the two new tax brackets would hit only 2.5 percent of
small businesses, according to a recent report by the Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities, a research group focused on issues affecting
low- and moderate-income households, based on a Treasury Department
analysis.
The new rates would restore the top tax brackets to pre-Bush levels,
which were already lower than for much of the last century. Until the
sweeping tax reform in 1986, the top marginal rate was 50 percent or
more, although most of the wealthiest households paid a much lower
effective rate, thanks to dozens of loopholes and tax breaks that were
eliminated by the tax code overhaul.
Now, the proposed new tax brackets would also apply to a relatively
small number of households – among the top two percent of incomes.
Most of the new revenues would come from the very top one-tenth of one
percent, or those making an average of $8.4 million a year, according
to a study by the Tax Policy Center.
“The heated debate over whether to extend all of the tax cuts or
whether to extend merely the vast majority largely concerns whether to
extend an extra $310,000 in tax relief to the wealthiest 120,000
taxpayers,” wrote Tax Policy Center researcher Adam Looney.
Despite the sizeable income pool at the top, the new revenues raised
by the proposed higher rates would be a drop in the deficit bucket,
the study found, raising roughly $68 billion a year – or about 7
percent of the current deficit. That leaves the White House roughly
$920 billion short of its goal to raise revenues by $1.6 trillion over
the next ten years.
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economywatch/battle-begins-over-who-will-pay-more-taxes-1C7118819
One of the biggest political battles in decades - how to spread the
tax burden of helping to balance the federal budget - has just begun.
It's likely that not many taxpayers will emerge unscathed.
President Barack Obama met Friday with Congressional leaders to begin
work on an agreement over how – or whether – to raise more revenues to
help pay down the deficit. Both sides in the long-simmering debate
have until the end of the year to head off hundreds of billions of
dollars in tax hikes scheduled to take effect in January.
The White House has said the president wants to raise some $1.6
trillion in new revenues over the coming decade – mainly from
top-income earners. "When it comes to the top 2 percent, what I'm not
going to do is to extend further a tax cut for folks who don't need
it," Obama said at a news conference Wednesday.
The president campaigned on a plan that would raise the current top
two tax brackets of 33 percent and 35 percent to 36 percent and 39.6
percent. Single taxpayers making less than $200,000 a year and married
couples making less than $250,000, would not see their tax rates go
up.
Republican opponents of the plan argue that the higher rates would
hurt small businesses, many of which pay individual, not corporate tax
rates. But the two new tax brackets would hit only 2.5 percent of
small businesses, according to a recent report by the Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities, a research group focused on issues affecting
low- and moderate-income households, based on a Treasury Department
analysis.
The new rates would restore the top tax brackets to pre-Bush levels,
which were already lower than for much of the last century. Until the
sweeping tax reform in 1986, the top marginal rate was 50 percent or
more, although most of the wealthiest households paid a much lower
effective rate, thanks to dozens of loopholes and tax breaks that were
eliminated by the tax code overhaul.
Now, the proposed new tax brackets would also apply to a relatively
small number of households – among the top two percent of incomes.
Most of the new revenues would come from the very top one-tenth of one
percent, or those making an average of $8.4 million a year, according
to a study by the Tax Policy Center.
“The heated debate over whether to extend all of the tax cuts or
whether to extend merely the vast majority largely concerns whether to
extend an extra $310,000 in tax relief to the wealthiest 120,000
taxpayers,” wrote Tax Policy Center researcher Adam Looney.
Despite the sizeable income pool at the top, the new revenues raised
by the proposed higher rates would be a drop in the deficit bucket,
the study found, raising roughly $68 billion a year – or about 7
percent of the current deficit. That leaves the White House roughly
$920 billion short of its goal to raise revenues by $1.6 trillion over
the next ten years.
Christopher Helms
Nov 18, 2012, 12:56:40 PM11/18/12
to
On Nov 18, 11:37 am, MattB <trdell1234N...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Battle begins over who will pay more taxes
>
> http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economywatch/battle-begins-over-who-w...
> Battle begins over who will pay more taxes
>
entitlement.
Matt
Nov 18, 2012, 3:14:08 PM11/18/12
to
Christopher Helms <chris...@gmail.com> wrote in news:826ac125-f52c-
4de9-888d-0...@4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
No no, you are putting it all wrong.
"People are entitled to keep their money."
Now, of course, they use resources that belong to the country. And they
want us to give them more access to OUR resources, coal, oil, minerals.
They want us to provide them with better highways, more security, and
better airports. Not to mention, of course, stadiums for their favorite
teams.
But that's ok, you see, because they are SUPPOSED to have those things.
For free.
Ask Mikey Poo "Moron Boy" Flannigan.
Ask David "Be Christian or Die" Hartung.
Ask Steve "Cannot Tell the Truth" Canyon.
They are allowed these things because, well, they create jobs .. in
China.
Matt
4de9-888d-0...@4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
"People are entitled to keep their money."
Now, of course, they use resources that belong to the country. And they
want us to give them more access to OUR resources, coal, oil, minerals.
They want us to provide them with better highways, more security, and
better airports. Not to mention, of course, stadiums for their favorite
teams.
But that's ok, you see, because they are SUPPOSED to have those things.
For free.
Ask Mikey Poo "Moron Boy" Flannigan.
Ask David "Be Christian or Die" Hartung.
Ask Steve "Cannot Tell the Truth" Canyon.
They are allowed these things because, well, they create jobs .. in
China.
Matt
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Wm. Esque
Nov 18, 2012, 7:03:01 PM11/18/12
to
some years ago when there was a tax was leveled on the purchase of
luxury yachts who lost their jobs as a direct result.
What happened was the rich, to avoid paying this tax, started buying
their yachts from Europe and Asia. American companies building these
crafts went bankrupt. Working people in this industry lost their
jobs investors lost their money. This tax was quietly dropped later by
congress, but local mfg plants in my area never re-opened.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
jane
Nov 19, 2012, 9:53:16 AM11/19/12
to
On Nov 18, 8:27 pm, China Blue Danube <chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <UGeqs.308119$Wc4.224...@fx10.am4>,
>
> --
> My name is Indigo Montoya. \\ Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> You flamed my father. \' At least I can stay in character.
> Prepare to be spanked. // When you look into the void,
> Stop posting that! `/ the void looks into you, and fulfills you.
It's never simple, as the 1990 congress discovered.
It wasn't just a tax on yachts, it was a tax on jewelry, luxury
automobiles and furs over certain prices; and yachts costing more than
$100,000.
In 1990 the Joint Committee on Taxation projected that the 1991
revenue yield from luxury taxes would be $31 million; in reality, it
was $16.6 million. The problem was that the $31 Million was a static
calculation, a calculation that was based on previous purchases and
based on the presumption that buying patterns would not change. The
$16 Million result was what actually happened. The reason the
projected revenue was so much lower was because the taxation changed
behavior and buying patterns; Surprise, Surprise, Surprise.
According to a study done for the Joint Economic Committee, the tax
destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing, 1,470 in the aircraft
industry and 7,600 in the boating industry. The job losses cost the
government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost
income tax revenues. So the net effect of the taxes was a LOSS of $7.6
million in fiscal 1991, which means the government projection was off
by $38.6 million.
Additionally, the repeal of the luxury tax didn't fully correct the
problem because there were companies that went bankrupt and there were
employees who lost their jobs.
Our congressmen simply aren't smart enough to create a law that
doesn't have unintended consequences.
> In article <UGeqs.308119$Wc4.224...@fx10.am4>,
> "Wm. Esque" <"Bm. Esque"@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What happened was the rich, to avoid paying this tax, started buying
> > their yachts from Europe and Asia. American companies building these
>
> That's simple: make international deals so rich have no where to hide.
>
> > What happened was the rich, to avoid paying this tax, started buying
> > their yachts from Europe and Asia. American companies building these
>
>
> --
> My name is Indigo Montoya. \\ Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> You flamed my father. \' At least I can stay in character.
> Prepare to be spanked. // When you look into the void,
> Stop posting that! `/ the void looks into you, and fulfills you.
It's never simple, as the 1990 congress discovered.
It wasn't just a tax on yachts, it was a tax on jewelry, luxury
automobiles and furs over certain prices; and yachts costing more than
$100,000.
In 1990 the Joint Committee on Taxation projected that the 1991
revenue yield from luxury taxes would be $31 million; in reality, it
was $16.6 million. The problem was that the $31 Million was a static
calculation, a calculation that was based on previous purchases and
based on the presumption that buying patterns would not change. The
$16 Million result was what actually happened. The reason the
projected revenue was so much lower was because the taxation changed
behavior and buying patterns; Surprise, Surprise, Surprise.
According to a study done for the Joint Economic Committee, the tax
destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing, 1,470 in the aircraft
industry and 7,600 in the boating industry. The job losses cost the
government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost
income tax revenues. So the net effect of the taxes was a LOSS of $7.6
million in fiscal 1991, which means the government projection was off
by $38.6 million.
Additionally, the repeal of the luxury tax didn't fully correct the
problem because there were companies that went bankrupt and there were
employees who lost their jobs.
Our congressmen simply aren't smart enough to create a law that
doesn't have unintended consequences.
Message has been deleted
Eddie Haskell
Nov 19, 2012, 11:23:42 AM11/19/12
to
"Christopher Helms" <chris...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:826ac125-f52c-4de9...@4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
growth, while democrats know that too, but see raising taxes as throwing red
meat to their stupid base promoting their divide and conquer class warfare.
"Voting is the best revenge"
You didin't need your nose anyway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aufAtuTwKlE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8glbYVk3WSo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54jr3Ceu894
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Nov 19, 2012, 11:29:20 AM11/19/12
to
"Matt" <mattt...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:XnsA10F86A95174Dma...@88.198.244.100...
fuckwit?
Eddie Haskell
Nov 19, 2012, 11:34:31 AM11/19/12
to
"jane" <jane....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f30a7fa8-9abe-419b...@g8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
their own right arm to do it.
-Eddie Haskell
Message has been deleted
jane
Nov 19, 2012, 7:36:26 PM11/19/12
to
On Nov 19, 6:08 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
> BWHAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> MORE economic growth since the end of WW2 has occurred during HIGH tax
> rates---including those under Clinton.
>
Great, then eliminate the Bust Tax Cuts on EVERYONE, not just those
with over $200k income. That will bring in $3.8 trillion over 10
years rather than just $700 billion over 10 years.
> IDIOT>
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:23:42 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <tyv...@sqpcb.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Republicans have correctly decided that raising taxes will hamper economics
> >growth,
>
> Based on WHAT evidence over the last 30 years?
> wrote:
>
> >Republicans have correctly decided that raising taxes will hamper economics
> >growth,
>
>
> BWHAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> MORE economic growth since the end of WW2 has occurred during HIGH tax
> rates---including those under Clinton.
>
Great, then eliminate the Bust Tax Cuts on EVERYONE, not just those
with over $200k income. That will bring in $3.8 trillion over 10
years rather than just $700 billion over 10 years.
> IDIOT>
MattB
Nov 19, 2012, 7:49:38 PM11/19/12
to
wy
Nov 19, 2012, 7:48:03 PM11/19/12
to
On Nov 19, 7:40 pm, MattB <trdell1234N...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:36:26 -0800 (PST), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
Wow. Both of you were phenomenal failures at kindergarten math,
weren't you? So you want to remove $3.1 trillion from the economy
with its multiplier effects and just give it all over to the
government along with the $700 billion, huh? The crash and burn
strategy, right? Take everyone down, those who can afford to go down
along with those who can't. Brilliant madness at its excelled finest
in the way that only Repugnants can craft it.
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:36:26 -0800 (PST), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
weren't you? So you want to remove $3.1 trillion from the economy
with its multiplier effects and just give it all over to the
government along with the $700 billion, huh? The crash and burn
strategy, right? Take everyone down, those who can afford to go down
along with those who can't. Brilliant madness at its excelled finest
in the way that only Repugnants can craft it.
MattB
Nov 19, 2012, 8:07:54 PM11/19/12
to
need to remember they want something they can help pay for it.
Matt
Nov 19, 2012, 9:14:57 PM11/19/12
to
"Eddie Haskell" <tyv...@sqpcb.com> wrote in news:Vlwqs.404$dN6.386
@fed11.iad:
We have FOUR MORE YEARS to ruin your non-existent life, Mikey Poo
Flannigan. And not a damned thing you can do about it. Three more
Supreme Court justices. A House that will become OURS in two years.
And all you can do is kill yourself.
Matt
@fed11.iad:
Flannigan. And not a damned thing you can do about it. Three more
Supreme Court justices. A House that will become OURS in two years.
And all you can do is kill yourself.
Matt
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Yak
Nov 20, 2012, 10:12:58 AM11/20/12
to
On Nov 19, 6:08 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:23:42 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <tyv...@sqpcb.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:23:42 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <tyv...@sqpcb.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Republicans have correctly decided that raising taxes will hamper economics
> >growth,
>
> >growth,
>
> Based on WHAT evidence over the last 30 years?
>
> BWHAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> MORE economic growth since the end of WW2 has occurred during HIGH tax
> rates---including those under Clinton.
>
> IDIOT>
>
> BWHAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> MORE economic growth since the end of WW2 has occurred during HIGH tax
> rates---including those under Clinton.
>
Are you suggesting that is because of high tax rates? Here, learn a
little: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375951025762400.html
Message has been deleted
Yak
Nov 20, 2012, 10:55:21 AM11/20/12
to
On Nov 20, 10:44 am, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
> I'm suggesting you cannot make a case that Lower taxes make better
> financial conditions.
>
> http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Can you make the case that higher taxes do? What I have shown is that
lower taxes do generate more revenue.
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 07:12:58 -0800 (PST), Yak <y...@inbox.com> wrote:
> >> MORE economic growth since the end of WW2 has occurred during HIGH tax
> >> rates---including those under Clinton.
>
> >> IDIOT>
>
> >Are you suggesting that is because of high tax rates? Here, learn a
> >little:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230425930457637595102576...
> >> MORE economic growth since the end of WW2 has occurred during HIGH tax
> >> rates---including those under Clinton.
>
> >> IDIOT>
>
> >Are you suggesting that is because of high tax rates? Here, learn a
>
> I'm suggesting you cannot make a case that Lower taxes make better
> financial conditions.
>
> http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Can you make the case that higher taxes do? What I have shown is that
lower taxes do generate more revenue.
Eddie Haskell
Nov 20, 2012, 11:31:08 AM11/20/12
to
news:e448378e-4e6f-4f08...@b6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
You could explain to him that after WWII and the 90% bracket we were the
only game in town with no world competition, and then you could explain to
him that the average top marginal rate during Clinton was even lower than
Reagan, not to mention MUCH lower than the post WWII 90%, but you'd be
wasting your time because Yoorghis doesn't give a shit what the truth is and
is a shameless piece of shit liar whose only economic prescriptions are
based on greed, envy, and being a nigger.
-Eddie Haskell
only game in town with no world competition, and then you could explain to
him that the average top marginal rate during Clinton was even lower than
Reagan, not to mention MUCH lower than the post WWII 90%, but you'd be
wasting your time because Yoorghis doesn't give a shit what the truth is and
is a shameless piece of shit liar whose only economic prescriptions are
based on greed, envy, and being a nigger.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Nov 20, 2012, 11:32:18 AM11/20/12
to
"MattB" <trdell1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tpkla8p2np79jgncj...@4ax.com...
Simple minded little children.
Go play with your rattler.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Nov 20, 2012, 11:34:12 AM11/20/12
to
"wy" <w...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:53f28d80-bb9c-4531...@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
you deranged hypocrite?
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Nov 20, 2012, 11:37:42 AM11/20/12
to
news:mtlla8dlv9sebl70s...@4ax.com...
The government has ran up enough of a deficit in past 4 years to rebuild the
entire interstate hwy. system 12 times over in today's dollars so you can
spare the crap about the government needing money for roads.
Dear god..
My dear god..
-Eddie Haskell
entire interstate hwy. system 12 times over in today's dollars so you can
spare the crap about the government needing money for roads.
Dear god..
My dear god..
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Nov 20, 2012, 11:50:06 AM11/20/12
to
"Yak" <y...@inbox.com> wrote in message
news:ae036cb4-4b1e-48a9...@j10g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
democrat base.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54jr3Ceu894
-Eddie Haskell
MattB
Nov 20, 2012, 12:16:16 PM11/20/12
to
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:37:42 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <tyv...@sqpcb.com>
That was a example only.
>
>-Eddie Haskell
>
>
>Dear god..
>
>My dear god..
Please don't pray to the Teabagger god Koch here.
>Dear god..
>
>My dear god..
>
>-Eddie Haskell
>
jane
Nov 20, 2012, 12:08:16 PM11/20/12
to
On Nov 19, 10:45 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:36:26 -0800 (PST), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:36:26 -0800 (PST), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Those are the numbers from Obama's Whitehouse.gov web site.
This is an example of why I typically don't argue with you. You make
statements that only an idiot would make.
> The problem is not enough revenue to circulate into the economy during
> a massive economic disaster
>
> The vast bulk of society is heading downward in wages, savings,
> spending--as fewer and fewer at the top amass more and more wealth.
>
> The economy cannot generate revenue from the bottom---and it is
Whitehouse.gov says that you are wrong. (presuming we are very loose
with the word "bottom" and are talking about the "bottom" 98%)
This is an example of why I typically don't argue with you. You make
statements that only an idiot would make.
> transferring more wealth to the top---which (despite the failed
> rhetoric about supply-side) which has no reason to create jobs or
> generate business.
>
> The infrastructure (education, roads, bridges, etc) are spiraling
> downward because there is no revenue. The more it goes down--the worse
> we become. All the while we're shoveling billions to less than 240
> families by our idiot tax code.
Eddie Haskell
Nov 20, 2012, 12:22:07 PM11/20/12
to
news:1jena859doslj9qtg...@4ax.com...
You lost the election and destroyed the country by smearing the only people
that could have saved it so instead of continuing with your stupidity I'd
suggest you get down and start groveling for forgiveness for what you've
done.
Here ->
Now.
Now, Hussein and the democrats want to raise the cap tax which will produced
less revenue from the tax, and less revenues from the economy that will be
slowed by less investment.
Republicans should comprise with this destructive act how?
MattB: Well, at least wedah got sumpin' done. Wouldn't be obstructionists
like they smear us with. Never mind the damage it would do to dah country.
Dats not mah concern. That's for them tea partiers. I don't wanna get
criticized.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54jr3Ceu894
-Eddie Haskell
that could have saved it so instead of continuing with your stupidity I'd
suggest you get down and start groveling for forgiveness for what you've
done.
Here ->
Now.
Now, Hussein and the democrats want to raise the cap tax which will produced
less revenue from the tax, and less revenues from the economy that will be
slowed by less investment.
Republicans should comprise with this destructive act how?
MattB: Well, at least wedah got sumpin' done. Wouldn't be obstructionists
like they smear us with. Never mind the damage it would do to dah country.
Dats not mah concern. That's for them tea partiers. I don't wanna get
criticized.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54jr3Ceu894
-Eddie Haskell
MattB
Nov 20, 2012, 12:35:14 PM11/20/12
to
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:22:07 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <tyv...@sqpcb.com>
The Election was lost because of the Nutcases. The Teabaggers and
thier allies the Evangelist freaks. The next 4 years are on you.
Moderates and Independents will never vote Tea Party. So Teabaggers
can't ever win Presidency.
thier allies the Evangelist freaks. The next 4 years are on you.
Moderates and Independents will never vote Tea Party. So Teabaggers
can't ever win Presidency.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Eddie Haskell
Nov 20, 2012, 1:18:23 PM11/20/12
to
news:hkfna893jhpddt6tq...@4ax.com...
Yeah, you.
> The Teabaggers and
> their allies the Evangelist freaks.
Romney said he likes to fire people. You cheery pick to smear an entire
group - the only group that believes in the principles of the founding and
could have saved this country. And you smear them because you are a fucking
coward.
> The next 4 years are on you.
Like fuck it is. I told you that Romney the moderate would join the ranks of
Ford, Bush I, Dole and McCain.
> Moderates and Independents will never vote Tea Party.
You don't have the balls. You're too afraid of what liberals might think of
you.
> So Teabaggers
> can't ever win Presidency.
Ronald Reagan would be a tea partier, you ball-less, immoral smear merchant.
But at least liberals like you.
-Eddie Haskell
> The Teabaggers and
> their allies the Evangelist freaks.
Romney said he likes to fire people. You cheery pick to smear an entire
group - the only group that believes in the principles of the founding and
could have saved this country. And you smear them because you are a fucking
coward.
> The next 4 years are on you.
Ford, Bush I, Dole and McCain.
> Moderates and Independents will never vote Tea Party.
you.
> So Teabaggers
> can't ever win Presidency.
But at least liberals like you.
-Eddie Haskell
MattB
Nov 20, 2012, 1:29:40 PM11/20/12
to
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:18:23 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <tyv...@sqpcb.com>
No never. Maybe Hitler or Al Sharpton.
Eddie Haskell
Nov 20, 2012, 1:27:56 PM11/20/12
to
news:avina8dr29q8lefjs...@4ax.com...
Go fuck yourself, you piece of shit.
-Eddie Haskell
-Eddie Haskell
MattB
Nov 20, 2012, 2:11:41 PM11/20/12
to
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:27:56 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <tyv...@sqpcb.com>
Ohh the best you could do. Yep a Teabagger mentality almost like you
twin Yoorghis AKA Gary Roselles Pedo-loon of Rapid City, SD.
One Left one Right both nutters.
>
>-Eddie Haskell
>
twin Yoorghis AKA Gary Roselles Pedo-loon of Rapid City, SD.
One Left one Right both nutters.
>
>-Eddie Haskell
>
Eddie Haskell
Nov 20, 2012, 2:47:12 PM11/20/12
to
news:fclna8p57loo6hen0...@4ax.com...
Ronald Reagan would be a tea partier. Choke it down, you ball-less,
worthless piece of shit.
Your moderation destroyed the United States of America.
Sleep tight on that, you smearing ball-less creep.
-Eddie Haskell
worthless piece of shit.
Your moderation destroyed the United States of America.
Sleep tight on that, you smearing ball-less creep.
-Eddie Haskell
jane
Nov 20, 2012, 2:55:33 PM11/20/12
to
On Nov 20, 1:07 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
What does that have to do with the topic?
I stated that eliminating the tax cuts for everyone will (according to
the whitehouse) bring in $3.8 trillion compared to only $700 billion
for just the people making over $200k (over 10 years)
You said, "No, Jane, it will not"
either prove the figures are wrong, or prove that the ratio of tax
cuts for everyone vs tax cuts for the wealthy is wrong; I really don't
care which one you prove. OR just go away.
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:08:16 -0800 (PST), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >Great, then eliminate the Bust Tax Cuts on EVERYONE, not just those
> >> >with over $200k income. That will bring in $3.8 trillion over 10
> >> >years rather than just $700 billion over 10 years.
>
> wrote:
>
> >> >Great, then eliminate the Bust Tax Cuts on EVERYONE, not just those
> >> >with over $200k income. That will bring in $3.8 trillion over 10
> >> >years rather than just $700 billion over 10 years.
>
> >> No, Jane, it will not
>
> >Those are the numbers from Obama's Whitehouse.gov web site.
> >This is an example of why I typically don't argue with you. You make
> >statements that only an idiot would make.
>
> Revenue minus debt/defict equal what?
>
> >Those are the numbers from Obama's Whitehouse.gov web site.
> >This is an example of why I typically don't argue with you. You make
> >statements that only an idiot would make.
>
What does that have to do with the topic?
I stated that eliminating the tax cuts for everyone will (according to
the whitehouse) bring in $3.8 trillion compared to only $700 billion
for just the people making over $200k (over 10 years)
You said, "No, Jane, it will not"
either prove the figures are wrong, or prove that the ratio of tax
cuts for everyone vs tax cuts for the wealthy is wrong; I really don't
care which one you prove. OR just go away.
MattB
Nov 20, 2012, 3:09:33 PM11/20/12
to
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:47:12 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <tyv...@sqpcb.com>
Ok That is your opinion and that is fine.
>
>-Eddie Haskell
>
>
>Your moderation destroyed the United States of America.
LOL OK
>Your moderation destroyed the United States of America.
>
>Sleep tight on that, you smearing ball-less creep.
I sleep very well up here in the mountains.
>Sleep tight on that, you smearing ball-less creep.
>
>-Eddie Haskell
>
Eddie Haskell
Nov 20, 2012, 3:34:41 PM11/20/12
to
news:ppona8dlkoo07ipog...@4ax.com...
You'll sleeping in a dumpster for what you've done, numb nutts.
-Eddie Haskell
-Eddie Haskell
MattB
Nov 20, 2012, 3:48:17 PM11/20/12
to
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:34:41 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <tyv...@sqpcb.com>
No everything is paid for. I personally hate debt.
>
>-Eddie Haskell
>
>
>-Eddie Haskell
>
Eddie Haskell
Nov 20, 2012, 4:11:27 PM11/20/12
to
news:23rna89pprqkc45jg...@4ax.com...
Doesn't matter. It's not fair that you have that place all to yourself.
You'll sleeping in a dumpster for what you've done, numb nutts.
-Eddie Haskell
You'll sleeping in a dumpster for what you've done, numb nutts.
MattB
Nov 20, 2012, 6:39:46 PM11/20/12
to
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 15:11:27 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <tyv...@sqpcb.com>
OK Whatever. LOL
>
>-Eddie Haskell
>
>
>-Eddie Haskell
>
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
0 new messages