One reason for Congress’ low approval ratings is that the public is sensing the Democratic leaders may not be much better than the old GOP ones. For example, Democrats are struggling to deliver on their promise to clean up the appropriations process. Rep. David Obey (in photo), D-Wis., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, announced last week that he was holding all decisions about budget earmarks until after all conference committees present their spending bills for final vote, which could have created a "smoke-filled room" situation. Under pressure from Republicans — who were champions of pork when they were in charge — Obey is backing off and now plans to allow the process to be more open.
Posted by Andie Clum
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
80 Comments
The democrats made a lot of promises and have yet to fulfill any of them. It was nothing more than a ploy to get people to vote for them. When it comes time to actually live up to what you campaigned on they are backing off of everything.
If you are going to cast a vote you should really get to know more about the candidate. If they are an incumbent you can talk to them about their voting record. Make them accountable for their actions.
Don’t follow like a sheep. Voting is serious business and should take a little of your time to make an informed decision. Make they candidates provide more than lip service.
“The democrats made a lot of promises and have yet to fulfill any of them”
The Democratic controlled House passed their 10 new bills in their first 100 hour agenda plus they implemented therecomemdations of the 9/11 commission. The Senator has only passed 6 of the 10 new bills due to the obstruction tactics of the Republicans. Funny how the Republican complained about Democrats obstructing them when their were in control, but don’t find anything wrong with them doing it.
The low approval rating for Congress is because they caved over the Iraq war. The majority of Americans want us out and we want Congress to make that happen.
You can’t expect the dems to pass bills when the Republicans keep blocking them. It’s not as if the Dems have a huge majority, with one out recovering from brain hemmorhage we’re mostly dead even.
If you wish to blame- throw it where it belongs instead of trying to say ’see, har har’. Once the dems get a real majority where they can work it, and a president that won’t veto, then we can see some real change.
I guess that block of jews must include Chuckie Shumer, D. New York, Herb Kohl, D. Wisc., Diane Fienstien, D. California, Russ Fiengold, D. Wisc. Barbara Boxer, D. Califorina, Carl Levin, D. Michigan, Ron Wyden, D. Oregon. and Frank Laugtenburg, D. N.J. Republican Jews in the Senate currently number two, with Joe Lieberman an independant.
Ed is just sore because he and Hamas are not getting any of that new money coming in. He wanted to blow up more Zionists.
Ed’s real name is Waleed Ihompacheep and he’s part of the terror network that supports suicide bombers.
Strange, I thought Ed was Jewish.
I hear the same dang excuses from the Democrats that I heard from the Republicans in prior years.
From MOM: “You can’t expect the dems to pass bills when the Republicans keep blocking them.”
From DELORES: “The Senator has only passed 6 of the 10 new bills due to the obstruction tactics of the Republicans.”
Don’t y’all see, Congress is not looking out for any of our interests? They care about power, not the people. And they fool the lambs into supporting whatever color (Dem vs Repub) they have been dyed in.
SOTHEYSAID had some good advice above. Don’t be a lamb. Use your brain. Do a little research (1 hour too much?) and find a candidate who supports your view. And I would give more weight to past performance and voting records vs campaign promises.
http://votesmart.org/index.htm
http://ontheissues.org/default.htm
With a little knowledge, you can actually make a rational argument instead of just making your lamb sounds – bahhhh, bahhhh, bahhhhh.
Registered Independent,
Max
ihg— that would put the term “self loathing” to its most perfect test.— I hear Hitler had Jewish blood, lol.
Obey LIKES earmarks:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/13/usnews/whispers/main2923324.shtml
And Obey is pissing off the Dem base, I kind of like that:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070614/cm_thenation/15205195_1
“Obey lost, Taxpayers won”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20070615/pl_usnw/obey_lost___taxpayers_won
As Max said “With a little knowledge, you can actually make a rational argument instead of just making your lamb sounds – bahhhh, bahhhh, bahhhhh.”
I challenge us all to educate ourselves. We are being duped by both parties and the planned actions for this week will demonstrate this. Become active, use your phones, email, faxes – whatever it takes to let the elected “leaders” know that we are watching and we vote. Term limits are looking better and better.
The Democritic Party, party of rancor of rancor and broken promises. Nothing has changed with them.
“Obey lost, Taxpayers won”
No the taxpayers have lost. If there is money for earmarks (Pork), than there is money for more tax cuts for the middle class.
THERE SHOULD BE NO EARMARKS!!!!
Republican Party–big deficits and billions in pork barrel spending. Something did change with them. Party of big spenders.
delores
As JFK said, “Deficits are caused by periodic recessions.”
W came into office at the beginning of the Clinton recession.
Federal Revenues are, today, at the highest level in history.
Yes, we spend to much, but MOST spending is on entitlements.
The Democrits are just jealous because Bush lowered taxes and the economy exploded into all time high in Revenue generation which makes the revenue in the Clinton administration look tiny in comparison.
Democrits can’t stand success even when it benefits them.
Once again, walk on by………….
“W came into office at the beginning of the Clinton recession.”
The doubling of the deficit was due to the tax cuts and Republican spending.
“Federal Revenues are, today, at the highest level in history.
Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain has said that the major tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 have “increased revenues.” He also said that tax cuts in general increase revenues. That’s highly misleading.
In fact, the last half-dozen years have shown us that we can’t have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers. The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been ‚Äì even if they spur some economic growth. And federal revenues actually declined at the beginning of this decade before rebounding. The growth in the past three years that McCain refers to brings revenues back in line with the 40-year historical average as a percentage of gross domestic product.
It’s unclear how much of the growth can be attributed to the tax cuts. Capital gains tax receipts did increase greatly from 2003 to 2006, but the CBO estimates that they will level off and decrease in the next few years. The growth overwhelmingly resulted from a sharp rise in corporate tax receipts, the cause of which is a topic of debate.
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html
“The Democrits are just jealous because Bush lowered taxes and the economy exploded into all time high in Revenue generation which makes the revenue in the Clinton administration look tiny in comparison.”
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Thanks, I needed that.
Of course the economy expands when you are running huge deficits, after all, you are dumping billions of dollars into the mix artificially.
I might be impressed with the economy and the revenues if we were NOT running record deficits and generating a National Debt that is forecasted to be at near GDP levels by 2012.
Anyone can live high on the hog on credit cards for years at a time – sooner or later, the debt has to be paid.
Evidently WSClark does not understand how deficits work at all or he wouldn’t be comparing them to credit cards. :)
Once again, we walk on by…………
Just walk on by…
Why is it that under a Republican President the deficit balloons?
While Reagan was in office the nation’s debt went from just under 1 trillion dollars to over 2.6 trillion dollars, a 200% increase.¬†
Bush 41 increased the debt on average 11.8% a year during his four years as President.  In his last year it was down under 11%.
In 1993 President Clinton inherited the deficit spending problem and did more than just talk about it; he fixed it.  In his first two years and with a cooperative Democratic Congress he set the course for the best economy this country has ever experienced.  Then he worked with what could be characterized as the most hostile Congress in history, led by Republicans for the last six years of his administration.  Yet, under constant personal attacks from the right, he still managed to get the growth of the debt down to 0.32% (one third of one percent) his last year in office.  Had his policies been followed for one more year the debt would have been reduced for the first time since the Kennedy administration.
In his first year Bush 43¬†had to borrow 133 billion.¬†The first tax cut Bush pushed through a willing Republican Congress caused an upswing in government borrowing that was supposed to stimulate the economy, but two years later Bush had to push through yet another tax cut.¬† The second tax cut was needed because it was clear that the first one did not work.¬† Economic history tells us the second did not work either.¬† As a result of all his tax cutting with no cutting in spending, in 2003 President Bush set a record for the biggest single yearly dollar increase in debt in the nation’s history.¬† He did it again in 2004, increasing the debt more than half a trillion dollars.¬† Since 2003 total borrowing has exceeded $500,000,000,000 per year.
The only things keeping the dollar from crashing into oblivion and the hell of hyperinflation is the price of oil and the pricing _method_ of oil. Right now, you can’t buy oil on the world markets in any currency but the US dollar. As nations like India and China grow and need more oil, they need more dollars. As the price of oil goes up, the need for even more oil by importing nations goes up.
All the trade deficits that are being run up by the US, all those dollars that are going offshore for products and services, are going directly to fuel the economies of oil-importing nations. The day they don’t need the dollar to buy oil is the day this whole spending party is over.
Wow, it seems as if Ed is the only sane person posting here!
Ed, do you EVER post anything that is NOT anti-Semitic?
Why is it that under a Republican President the deficit balloons?
You want to know why, here’s why. Both Carter and Clinton cut our military to the bone and beyond. Reagan and GW Bush both had to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to rebuild our armed forces. Carter believed (still does?) that the West was destined to lose the Cold War and succumb to Communism. Reagan believed differently and set out to defeat the Soviet Union. President Clinton thought that Islamic terroism was a law enforcement problem. President Bush decided to fight, but with a emaciated military after eight years of Clinton cut backs.Thats why deficit spending seems to explode under Republican presidents and why we can never trust this Country to the Dems. again
Chris, are you and Econ one and the same?
So, I wonder if Republican is still faking a disability so that he can collect welfare benefits?
No CF2K, I make way too much money to qualify for a Vision card. :)
Republican is still a lying hypocrite.
CF2K,
My post (link below) has a link to Repuke’s post using J M Walker’s nic… and explains his lies about the levees.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/05/open_thread_28.html#comment-71041282
Chris, you ignorant slut–
Al Gore has laid out in his book “The Assault on Reason” that BushCo knew that most of the hijackers were in the US, knew where they lived, knew they were buying airline tickets, and didn’t care . . . no doubt because of Bush’s “I love the Saudis” policy he and his dad and his grandfather had maintained for many decades.
There’s nothing that these oil-rich son-of-a-b*tches could do to make Bush made, after all the money they had made for his family.
HW Bush actually WORKED FOR the Carlyle Group who counted as a big customer one Bin Laden family . . . he was on the board the day that Al Qaeda struck on Sept. 11, 2001.
Even AFTER THE ATTACKS, highly placed SAUDIS including Osama bin Laden’s OWN FAMILY MEMBERS were quickly allowed to leave the US.
Bush didn’t give a damn about Mohammad Atta, Salem Alhazmi, and all the rest of them . . . because they were all Saudis, and Saudis equal MONEY and lots of it to the Bush family.
Careful Capn, you’ll Chris leave the blog and go crying to the Wichita Voice like lindainks and the rest of you Fisters did. :D
At least that the reason WSClark gives for leaving which he has stated many times. :D :D :D
You want to know why, here’s why. Both Carter and Clinton cut our military to the bone and beyond.”
Remember the peace dividen from the ending of the cold war? Bush started the down sizing of the military and Clinton continued it thru his Presidency.
“”Carter believed (still does?) that the West was destined to lose the Cold War and succumb to Communism.”"
Can you give me a web site that shows Carter saying that?
Both in the Carter and Clinton administration, there were military units that were totally crippled by their cuts.
There were aircraft that couldn’t fly, pilots would couldn’t train and aircraft that couldn’t be repaired because there were no spare parts.
Bush I cut the military sure, but to acceptable levels.
Carter and Clinton cut it so deeply it went farther than the bone, it went right through.
As a results of those cuts, many middle ranking NCO’s and Officers left the service because of the cuts. They were unable to do their jobs and it just kept getting worse.
Ask any military or ex-military who served through those times, it was miserable.
During Carter’s reign, everyone thought so little of Carter they wondered how he even made it to dog catcher in Georgia.
Carter’s ego is even bigger than his faulty ideas, he should just slip away quietly.
Republican you say the funniestthings.Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Oops, I need to go change my boxers.
So much for the “transparency and openness” promised during the Democratic Campaign. :)
You are still a lying hypocrite.
Otherwise you would cite your references for your so called facts (and I don’t mean Wilkpedia which isn’t even a source for grade school kids). :>
Great proof you posted lying hypocrite Republican! ;>
“Meet the new congressional bosses, just like the old ones?”
Why are we surprised? It has always been so; will always be so. It’s the nature of the beast.
Republican
There wasn’t any shortage in the Israel’s butchers. They had everything needed to commit all of the War Crimes in Bloodlust heaven.
Your heros are their blood-soaked hands.
WSC
“Ed, do you EVER post anything that is NOT anti-Semitic?”
No, the Zionist-Jews never do anything that’s decent, so it’s hard to find something which can pass the smell test.
WSC
“Ed is just sore because he and Hamas are not getting any of that new money coming in. He wanted to blow up more Zionists.
Ed’s real name is Waleed Ihompacheep and he’s part of the terror network that supports suicide bombers.”
This post stays even though it Libelous.
WSC
Jimmy Carters Book about “Israeli Apartheid” caught the Zionist-Jews with their pants down.
“because they were all Saudis, and Saudis equal MONEY and lots of it to the Bush family.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | June 17, 2007 at 05:57 PM”
The Zionist Jews posing as a moving company were wisked out of the USA with their film of the twin-towers coming down.
Notice how they’re trying to blame the Saudis for what the Zionist had done.
Not a mention about the Zionist-Jews filming the 9/11 “attack”
I think left, right, and center of the regulars on this blog will agree: Ed is a whack-job.
Tom
It is so important the you draw attention away from the truth about Jews. If it wasn’t about Jews you could care less and you NEVER deal with the back to back awful things which they do. You must attach the anti-Semitic slogan to anyone who points those awful things out.
The world is wise to you and your ilk and hates your miserable guts for all the rotten things which you do and anti-Semitism has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
The Eagle knows, I know, and the world knows and that’s three strikes.
You’re out.
delorisSince you are asking for websites to prove the points of conservatives, on this blog, —How about a website with the supposed quotes you seem to have made up, concerning all of the high ranking government officials who say our tax revenues would be HIGHER today, without tax cuts?
Deloris, that is nuts.
If Deloris inherited a retail store, she would doubtless raise her prices by 10% and then wonder why revenue did not increase by 10%.
“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to balance the budget is to cut taxes now. Only full employment can balance the budget, and tax cuts will pave the way to full employment.” John F. Kennedy.
“Deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spending, but instead by periodic recessions.” John F. Kennedy.
There, now post an AUTHORITY who claims that tax rate increases will increase revenue.
Now, post an authority who says tax rate reductions will NOT increase revenues!
You have NO quotes, Deloris, only your own, warped, biased opinion.
Paul – when JFK made his statements tax rates were somewhere in the 90% range. That is clearly on the negative side of the Laffer curve. However, you cannot blindly apply Laffer as you do; otherwise you would project that a 0% tax rate would lead to infinite tax revenues.
I don’t have Mankew’s text here at the office but he makes the point that there is a optimum rate and that if you cut rates below that you DECREASE revenues.
Interesting how tax rates (or profit margins) are misidentified with actual revenues (or profits). As Ben mentioned, the Laffer curve needs to be better understood by the public at large.
Depending on the situation, you can lower tax rates and increase tax revenues or raise tax rates and raise tax revenues. (read here profit margins and profits too).
In the end it’s all about $s, not %s. As Ben also pointed out, lowering marginal tax rates from 90% to 40% is a huge change that should work to stimulate the economy. It’s unclear that changing from 35% to 33% is going to have any noticeable stimulative effect at all.
Ben and BFAH
There were SEVERAL different brackets back when JFK proposed tax rate cuts.
Besides, I ADMIT that economics is not exact, either as history or as a predictor of the future.
We CANT know, exactly, what would have happened if we had done something different.
We CANT know, exactly, what actions today will bring about the best results tomorrow.
Too many variables, and it is impossible to run a “blind test” with tax cuts or increases like you can with medicine or other tests.
Economics, however, is primarily PSYCHOLOGY and only secondarily ACCOUNTING.
Incentives and dis-incentives.
Liberals tend to look at “static accounting” far to often. I am heartened by the fact that a few of you, on this Blog, even know what the Laffer Curve is. Good for you! We can debate forever what the “optimal rate” might be, to produce the best TOTAL result in employment and revenue and growth.
On the other hand, we have Deloris. She thinks of economics as a pie to be sliced up, not realizing that her methods MIGHT shrink the size of the pie, reducing profits, taxes, employment, growth and the quality of life in America.
Why do you libs support “carbon taxes” if you don’t believe that taxes affect behavior?
And again, more to the point, I am asking Deloris to quote a leading figure in government, business or economics who thinks that higher tax rates would have produced higer federal revenues this year!
I definitely believe that taxes effect behavior, that is why I took not only Econ 101 but also 102 and more … along with all that accounting I took.
BenYou know why i use a fake name.I am not hiding my real name, I am just protecting myself, a little bit, from the really viscous types who trolled me under my real name.Since you all know I dont use my real name on this Blog, you will know, right away, if it ever appears, that I did not say those hateful things.And if they troll under Econ101? Oh well, no plan is perfect, but at least, this way, my elderly clients won’t think that I want to put them on an iceberg and send them out to sea, as a hateful troll once tried to say, on my behalf.
Ben, how about you use “Green101″ if you have troll problems?
Staying with the green theme, you could be “Incrediben Hulk”
Or the “Creature from the Black lagoon”
Or my favorite classic: THE BLOB!
Anyway, I applaud you for having the guts to post here, under your real name.
I have decided that I can’t, due to the poor sportsmanship of others on this Blog.
I only ask that you respect that decision.
Paul F. Rosell,
“Now, post an authority who says tax rate reductions will NOT increase revenues!”
Post your proof that current taxes are too high, and we are to the right of the optimal peak on the Laffer curve.
You’re still quoting what Kennedy said when the marginal tax rate was at 91% ? And he only lowered it to 70%.
‘JUST LIKE AL [GORE] SAID! Russert pushed them RNC points. Somebody go wake Fred Barnes!’http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120202.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh010603.shtml“BARTLETT: As economist Bill Niskanen wrote in his book, “Reaganomics” (Oxford University Press, 1988): “Supply-side economics does not conclude that a general reduction in tax rates would increase tax revenues, nor did any government economist or budget projection by the Reagan administration ever make that claim.” “
Bartlett?What a joke, that man is a political hack who made a career out of bashing everything Reagan did.Bartlett is a socialist.Socialists dont care about economic growth.They dont seem to care about poverty either, as long as everyone is equally poor!
If you go beyond freshman year you learn that, at tax rates below optimum, lowering rates LOWERS revenues and raising rates RAISE revenues.
I suppose this nic would make more sense than your suggestions 101 since it is reflective of a professional status a bit beyond freshman year.
Paul F. Rosell,
Bartlett quoted Bill Niskanen.
And AGAIN! Post your proof that current taxes are too high, and we are to the right of the optimal peak on the Laffer curve.
cosmos – when I read the parts of Mankew’s text on Laffer it seemed clear that (a) JFK was on the right-hand side of the curve and (b) we are currently on the LEFT-HAND side of the curve.
Controversy surrounds military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan following civilian casualties
US air strike in Afghanistan leaves 7 boys dead and Afghans angry, while continued violence in Iraq takes a toll on the civilian population.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0619/p99s01-duts.html?s=mesdu
The big Lie: How could have been used as “human shields” if nobody knew they were there?
Agence France-Presse reports that the White House says that the boys were being used as “human shields” by Taliban forces, which bear the responsibility for their deaths.
“Certainly we grieve for those who are lost,” said White House spokesman Tony Snow. “We also understand that as a matter of tactics, the Taliban and other terrorists sometimes also try to transform innocents into human shields.”
US forces called in the airstrike on the religious school in eastern Afghanistan because they believed it was being used as an Al Qaeda and Taliban staging ground. The New York Times quoted a US military spokesman as saying they didn’t know there were any children inside, but it noted that Afghan anger at civilian casualties is rising.
The death of the children on Sunday may well add to the crescendoing anger many Afghans feel about civilian casualties from American and NATO military operations. More than 130 civilians have been killed
The White House lies.
Tony Snow lies.
EdYour picture again?
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/know-about-jihad/
and — back to how I “picked my nic” —
Liberals, generally, are HORRIBLE at economic issues.
Liberals tend towards Socialism and Communism, neither of which really put much stock in incentives or dis-incentives or psychology.
Conservatives tend toward pure capitalism, which isnt always a good thing, either, since some things can’t be cured by market forces alone. (I even admit that.)
Of the two systems, if we had to choose between them, to the exclusion of the other: Capitalism wins hands down!
Why? Because capitalism recognizes ownership, protects property, protects hard work and rewards superior effort.
I use the Nic I use, primarily ,because MOST of the liberals who post on the WeBlog desperately need Econ 101.
This is obvious, since many liberals still deny that incentives and psychology have anything at all to do with the economy.
Those of you who, at least, ADMIT that incentives play a role in production are, granted, a little smarter than your garden-variety liberal.
Still, even YOUR argument seems to be: “If you encourage people too much, they will not put forth any extra effort to compensate society for that encouragement.”
Yes, at some point, the needs to fund Medicaid and other welfare programs, as well as national defense, dictate that some taxes must be paid.
If it were possible to come up with the “optimum rate” for taxes, at which employment, tax revenues and economic growth were all maximized, that is the level we should set tax rates and then government should be FORCED to live within those means. It is not possilbe to fix tax rates that precisely, however.
Instead, my point is this:
A smart business person would rather make 1% on a $100,000.00 sale than make 5% on a $10,000.00 sale. When you encourage people to do business, with incentives, they do MORE business.
When the government enourages people to work harder, they usually do so, as well!
Income taxes are nothing more than a “sales charge” on effort, a commission paid to a third party, the government, that had no hand in the labor or the production value purchased or the end product that labor produced.
An enlighted government, recognizing the role of incentives, would rather produce MORE billionaires and millionaires, with tax code incentives, since the “rich” pay most of the income taxes in this country anyway!
Again, most die-hard libs are motivated by envy, not the “common good.” Many of you would love to punish the rich with high taxes, even if you KNEW, in advance, that such taxes would cost jobs, hurt the economy, raise poverty, and wreck the country.
I chose my nic not to place myself on this Blog as an expert in all things Economic. I claim no such crystal ball perfection.
I chose my name as an insult to the socialists who refuse to even study the issues I have brought forth, above.
If the shoe fits, wear it!
If you understand the insult, it probably does not apply to you.—–by the way, this is what you want to CHANGE??
“Here are the numbers for 1992 from the Statistical Abstract of the United States:
The top 7 percent of those filing returns, those reporting adjusted gross income of $75,000 or more, paid 51 percent of total U.S. income taxes.People making $75,001, a group that includes many households in which both spouses work, may object that they don’t feel particularly rich. They should talk to a single mom who’s mopping floors. But let’s work our way up the income scale:The top 3 percent of filers, those making $100,000-plus, paid 40 percent of the taxes.The top four-fifths of 1 percent of filers, who make $200,000 or more, paid 26 percent of the taxes.The top one-twentieth of 1 percent of filers, those making $1 million or more–and Tom Wolfe’s little demonstration in Bonfire of the Vanities notwithstanding, nobody’s going to tell me those guys aren’t rich–paid 10 percent of the taxes. That’s a mere 67,000 households, who on average paid income tax of $707,000 apiece. ”
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_139.html
and more recent data:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html
“A smart business person would rather make 1% on a $100,000.00 sale than make 5% on a $10,000.00 sale.”
That is true. However, a REALLY smart business person would rather make 2% on $99,000 than 1% on $100,000 sales. So, it all depends on the actual numbers. As a business owner I have to make such determinations each and every day.
I have chosen MY nic to both reflect an earned degree AND as an insult to simplistic far-right labelers.
Whether this MBA is a “lib” or not probably depends on just how one defines the term.
You realized you sourced a person who thinks rape is a good means to “blow off some steam”. Econ, that is just too low, even for you. Rape is not a social pasttime, despite what drug addled Rush says.
Blow it out your fleetwood, Rossell. If a Republican was caught screwing a goat in the middle of Larry Dumont Stadium during a Wranglers game, you would defend him.
Cut the crap – according to you, everything ANY Republican does is GOOD and anything ANYy Democrat does is BAD.
Who cares what you think anymore?
DougYou are being ridiculous again.You love to quote people out of context.Rush would NOT be the most popular talk show host in America if he were guilty of the stuff you WISH he did.
WSYou did call Ed an anti-semite, after I challenged you libs to argue with him as much as the conservative Bloggers do.
So, you are not a garden variety liberal either, in that you do seem to have the ability to disagree with someone else who also hates Bush, lol.
Even so, thanks for your concession — that is what it means when you result to insults!
Econ, when the soldiers in Iraq were found to be torturing prisoners he dismissed it as “blowing off steam”. Well some of those soldiers raped some female Iraqi teenagers. That’s a form of torture. According to Rush that’s blowing off steam. These are Rush’s words, not mine. How am I taking Rush’s lax view of torture out of context?
Why not have no income tax at all? worked for most of the history of the country
A lot of revenue was generated by tariffs but those were cut back so the revenue shortage had to be made by income taxes. I’d be in favor of more tariffs but our corporatist Republicans are opposed to that as well.
“Even so, thanks for your concession — that is what it means when you result to insults!”
Say what?
My gibberish translator has the night off, so what the Hell does that mean?
Paul F. Rosell,
AGAIN! Post your proof that current taxes are too high, and we are to the right of the optimal peak on the Laffer curve.
“anti-Semitism” is the same as what the Jews use, like a cat; to cover-up their shit.
A cheap slogan to try to change the subject from the issue being critiqued to an attack of their religion.
There is no defending what Jews do, so they really don’t have a choice but to misdirect the subject.
DougI believe you are mixing different events in Iraq. Many different cases have been brought up, as happens in all armed conflicts.There was a case where shots were fired at US Troops, the enemy ran inside a house, and other people were then drawn into the conflict who may or may not have been guilty of anything.Rush never, specifically, said that anyone CONVICTED of any wrongdoing was only “blowing off steam.”
resort not result, you make your share of typos too
CosmosFederal revenue is at an all time high.The deficit is comming down dramatically.Interest rates are still at a historical low.Exports are at an all time high.Unemployment is at historical lows.
We might not be at the PERFECT optimal rate —-
But we must be doing something right, huh?—-Cosmos
LAFFER seems to think that we are not at maximum efficiency, or that more rate cuts would be beneficial. Is LAFFER an expert on the “Laffer Curve”?????
http://author.nationalreview.com/latest/?q=MjE0OA==
“Ironically, all this is happening while low-tax Reaganomics is spreading worldwide. Hence, this would be the exact wrong moment for U.S. politicians to raise taxes and impair American economic competitiveness. There’s really a much better way. Supply-side guru Arthur Laffer suggests that we embrace one simple flat-rate tax plan that would do away with false distinctions between corporate and capital-gains tax rates and abolish the multiple tax on investors. Don’t raise tax rates, lower them. Why not tax all this income once, and only once, at a 15 or 20 percent rate?
We better do something. Indeed, a tax-cut war is spreading across Europe, where lower levies on corporate profits in Spain, Germany, France, and the U.K. are aimed at better competing with the U.S. in the global race for capital. The successful supply-side experiment in Ireland has become a Euro-wide model. Average EU corporate tax rates have dropped to 25 percent, compared to the U.S. federal, state, and local average of 40 percent. Newly elected French president Nicholas Sarkozy intends to cut his country’s corporate tax, as does Spanish prime minister Zapatero, as does Italian premiere Romano Prodi. All this would follow large business tax reductions in Poland, Slovakia, and Hungary.
Aren’t the Democrats watching?”