2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)

[firstdown]

[QUOTE=Giantone;923751]So how many companies that were bailed out have paid back the money?

The employment #s are going south becuase of Congress hell Ray Charles can see that.[/QUOT

As far as I know we bailed out the banks and few car companies. That was not my point. He has loaned several green companies millions and millions of dollars and they have gone under. Even his own staff had thrown up red flags about loaning some of the companies money but he ignored them at tax payers expense.

Also please explain what congress has done or has not done thats causing employment #s to go south?

[NC_Skins]

....and these guys will be voting.

‘Obama pays your bills’ scam claims more victims | The Lookout - Yahoo! News

[Giantone]

[quote=firstdown;924085]

Originally Posted by Giantone

So how many companies that were bailed out have paid back the money?

The employment #s are going south becuase of Congress hell Ray Charles can see that.[/QUOT

As far as I know we bailed out the banks and few car companies. That was not my point. He has loaned several green companies millions and millions of dollars and they have gone under. Even his own staff had thrown up red flags about loaning some of the companies money but he ignored them at tax payers expense.

Also please explain what congress has done or has not done thats causing employment #s to go south?

Yeah bad choice of words there the numbers went north(in this case)I don't mind loaning money to the "green energy Co's" we need to invest in this for the future no doubt,I know it didn't work out .I was under the impression that most of the car companys have paid back part of the loans ...I believe it is in the 50% range and the banks ..well some have paid back almost all ,AIG did about 2 weeks ago.By Congress fighting Obama on everything it is they that are sending unemployment numbers through the roof.

[firstdown]

[quote=Giantone;924157]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Yeah bad choice of words there the numbers went north(in this case)I don't mind loaning money to the "green energy Co's" we need to invest in this for the future no doubt,I know it didn't work out .I was under the impression that most of the car companys have paid back part of the loans ...I believe it is in the 50% range and the banks ..well some have paid back almost all ,AIG did about 2 weeks ago.By Congress fighting Obama on everything it is they that are sending unemployment numbers through the roof.

I don't have a problem with spending money on green energy but Obama has throwning money at them just so he can say he has invested in green energy. You say congress is sending unemployment through the roof but the way I see it they are just keeping Obama from throwing more money at a problem with no/poor results. When will people realize that throwing money at problesm does not always solve then it just waste more money.

[NC_Skins]

Remember back in the early 90's how all the GOP were screaming that the tax hike on the rich would stifle the economy and jobs would be lost. They were very wrong then and they are VERY wrong now.


Tax Increases to Reduce Deficit Will Help, Not Hurt, Growth - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)


I love how politicans (both alike) like to pump fear into their constitutes all for the sake of gaining leverage.


I feel dirty for posting this, but here goes. It's a well thought out talking point and if anybody can find fault (or any biased slant) to it, I'll pull it.

Cagle Post » Republicans Were Wrong in 1993 On The Effect Of Upper-Income Tax Increases

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Remember back in the early 90's how all the GOP were screaming that the tax hike on the rich would stifle the economy and jobs would be lost. They were very wrong then and they are VERY wrong now.


Tax Increases to Reduce Deficit Will Help, Not Hurt, Growth - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)


I love how politicans (both alike) like to pump fear into their constitutes all for the sake of gaining leverage.


I feel dirty for posting this, but here goes. It's a well thought out talking point and if anybody can find fault (or any biased slant) to it, I'll pull it.

Cagle Post » Republicans Were Wrong in 1993 On The Effect Of Upper-Income Tax Increases

The Graph That All Tax Hike Mystics Need to Grapple With

from the link: "Economic growth, measured as real Gross Domestic Product (GDP), was a moderate 3.3 percent in the period from 1993 through 1996, and real wages actually fell for the entire period. In contrast, the 1997 tax cuts, which significantly lowered the capital gains tax rate, coincided with a period of strong business investment, strong real GDP growth at 4.4 percent, and strong real wage growth of 1.7 percent."

also: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...economy-1990s/

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

The Graph That All Tax Hike Mystics Need to Grapple With

from the link: "Economic growth, measured as real Gross Domestic Product (GDP), was a moderate 3.3 percent in the period from 1993 through 1996, and real wages actually fell for the entire period. In contrast, the 1997 tax cuts, which significantly lowered the capital gains tax rate, coincided with a period of strong business investment, strong real GDP growth at 4.4 percent, and strong real wage growth of 1.7 percent."

also: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...economy-1990s/

The Graph That All Tax Hike Mystics Need to Grapple With? Wow...the absurdity of this graph and its claim are quite insulting, even to a 9th graders intelligence.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

The Graph That All Tax Hike Mystics Need to Grapple With

from the link: "Economic growth, measured as real Gross Domestic Product (GDP), was a moderate 3.3 percent in the period from 1993 through 1996, and real wages actually fell for the entire period. In contrast, the 1997 tax cuts, which significantly lowered the capital gains tax rate, coincided with a period of strong business investment, strong real GDP growth at 4.4 percent, and strong real wage growth of 1.7 percent."

also: PolitiFact | Bill Clinton takes credit for "flowering" of economy in 1990s

Neither one of your links disprove the affects the tax cut bill had on the economy. Not that I remotely gave Clinton credit for it, but even in the politifact link. That first link is just LOL. Last time I checked, we were on the road to removing our deficit and having a surplus, which is exactly what the GOP is screaming for.

They don't want it, and it's obvious by their actions they don't.

Here are some of the key indicators we looked at:

• Gross domestic product. Between the third quarter of 1993 and the fourth quarter of 2000, the economy culumatively grew by just about one-third, or approximately 4.4 percent per year. By comparison, growth between the first quarter of 1991 and the third quarter of 1993 was just under 3 percent per year.

So growth was strong in both periods, but it was stronger after passage of the bill.

• Unemployment. Unemployment fell from 6.8 percent to 3.9 percent between passage of the bill and the end of Clinton's term, a period of seven and a half years. That continued a decrease that was already under way: Unemployment fell a full point between a peak of 7.8 percent in June 1992 and August 1993.

So, once unemployment turned a corner, it fell noticeably during both periods. But the period after passage of the bill was especially impressive. During those 90 months, there was only a single occasion when unemployment rose for two consecutive months -- and even that was an exceedingly modest gain, rising from 4.3 percent to 4.4 percent and then 4.5 percent between April 1998 and June 1998.

• Personal income. After the bill's passage, personal income increased by about 7.5 percent a year, compared to about 5.2 percent a year prior to passage. So income growth was strong in both periods, but it was stronger after the bill passed.

• Industrial production. Industrial production followed a similar pattern. It rose by about 5.6 percent per year after passage, compared to 3.2 percent per year before passage.

• House prices. The same goes for the real estate market. House prices rose about 4.7 percent a year after passage, compared to 2.4 percent per year prior to passage. (If you thought housing prices rose faster than 4.7 percent per year under Clinton, you may be mistaking his presidency for George W. Bush's; during the first seven years of the Bush administration, housing prices grew by almost 8 percent annually.)

• The stock market. From the passage of the bill until the end of Clinton's term, the Dow Jones Industrial average rose from 3,651 to 10,788 -- a stunning 26.7 percent per year. That dwarfs the historically healthy increase of 10 percent a year for the two and a half years prior to passage.

I don't think anybody is saying that raising the tax rates on the rich was solely responsible for the economy. However, it is (and was) apparent that the bill had a major affect on the economy and in a good way.


We've tried cutting taxes since 2001 (bush and obama) and it hasn't work. Why in the **** would you continue with such reckless behavior and decisions? Oh, I know what, let me continue doing exactly what's drove us into the ground!!

We have to raise taxes (especially the rich). It's about time those .0001% (not the 1%) pay their fair percentage of taxes that most of us had to pay over the past 15 years. For to long, they've dodged taxes through various loopholes and legislation that the normal people couldn't, so it's a fair play of turnabout. Too bad you can't buy that 6th home overseas or that 3rd yacht.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Neither one of your links disprove the affects the tax cut bill had on the economy. Not that I remotely gave Clinton credit for it, but even in the politifact link. That first link is just LOL. Last time I checked, we were on the road to removing our deficit and having a surplus, which is exactly what the GOP is screaming for.

They don't want it, and it's obvious by their actions they don't.






I don't think anybody is saying that raising the tax rates on the rich was solely responsible for the economy. However, it is (and was) apparent that the bill had a major affect on the economy and in a good way.


We've tried cutting taxes since 2001 (bush and obama) and it hasn't work. Why in the **** would you continue with such reckless behavior and decisions? Oh, I know what, let me continue doing exactly what's drove us into the ground!!

We have to raise taxes (especially the rich). It's about time those .0001% (not the 1%) pay their fair percentage of taxes that most of us had to pay over the past 15 years. For to long, they've dodged taxes through various loopholes and legislation that the normal people couldn't, so it's a fair play of turnabout. Too bad you can't buy that 6th home overseas or that 3rd yacht.

You intrepret what you want. If hard numbers and stats don't back up your point you demean the source as "biased". Of course Heritage is biased, but their research and numbers are accurate. I don't see how an impartial person would look at these numbers and blow them off.

Oh well, the links and responses aren't for you and others that aren't impartial anyway.

P.S. BTW, how do you explain away the improvement in economic numbers from '93-'96 to '97-'00.....after GOP driven tax cuts were put in place?