Obama tax cut

[Damocles]

Dude, sponsoring a bill is the bare minimum a politician can do. It takes zero work whatsoever. Claiming that the mere sponsorship of a bill that sits in committee where nothing at all happens whatsoever is "working towards" something is laughable. Things that are priorities do not just sit in committee. Congress holds hearings, debate the measure, pimp it the media and so on.

But hey, I'm not the one that needs convincing. It's folks like you that buy into the window-dressing that are the marks. I wouldn't think you to be such a cheap date, though.

At least you admit it when you are flat wrong, it is a weak left-handed way of admitting it, but you admit it although you do try to move the goal posts. It has now gone from "nobody said anything ever except you" to "there wasn't widespread support for it even though there were 123 sponsors".

Again, the simple record of Congress shows your memories to be a bit conveniently remiss, there were far more of us, including myself and SF, speaking of this since we've met, let alone just during Bush's terms.

 

[Bonestorm]

At least you admit it when you are flat wrong, it is a weak left-handed way of admitting it, but you admit it although you do try to move the goal posts. It has now gone from "nobody said anything ever except you" to "there wasn't widespread support for it even though there were 123 sponsors".

Again, the simple record of Congress shows your memories to be a bit conveniently remiss, there were far more of us, including myself and SF, speaking of this since we've met, let alone just during Bush's terms.

I admit that balanced budget amendments were sponsored during the Bush years, but I stand by my statement that no one was taking to the streets clamoring for one and that it was not a priority of Republicans.

And the fact of the matter is that we know that what I say is correct given the tax cuts and increased spending are the legacy of the Bush Administration and Republican rule.

Moreover, if you and SF really gave a shit about balanced budgets you would not have supporting cutting taxes first (the easy part) while nothing was done on the spending front (the hard part that just never seems to quite materialize).

 

[Damocles]

I admit that balanced budget amendments were sponsored during the Bush years, but I stand by my statement that no one was taking to the streets clamoring for one and that it was not a priority of Republicans.

And the fact of the matter is that we know that what I say is correct given the tax cuts and increased spending are the legacy of the Bush Administration and Republican rule.

Moreover, if you and SF really gave a shit about balanced budgets you would not have supporting cutting taxes first (the easy part) while nothing was done on the spending front (the hard part that just never seems to quite materialize).

I don't think either he or I support cutting taxes without spending cuts as well. Methinks you are again being just a bit remiss (purposefully in my opinion) memory-wise... Hence the whole reason I brought up the balanced budget amendment and my continued support for it regardless of who is in the WH. (Considering the WH doesn't spend the money, the House does, it is the House I want to control the most.)

Really, you say, "Nobody ever said anything against Bush's spending except Democrats who now support triple the spending."

I say, "Um... You are wrong, here are a few." and give you examples of people who were in a position to try to do something, as well as point to something you and I know about myself because of our shared history.

You then say, "There wasn't wide enough support, that must mean no republicans cared."

I then point to the facts again....

So forth.

 

[NOVA]

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

The tax rates have been the same from 2003-2010.....10,15,25,28,33, and 35%
What has changed is the "income ranges" they apply to....and those income ranges have changed EVERY year since 2003....up to and including 2010

So your "Obama tax cut" borders on "bogus"....hardly enough to quibble about and certainly nothing to actually brag about. It was more like a small rebate to some.

 

[Bonestorm]

I don't think either he or I support cutting taxes without spending cuts as well. Methinks you are again being just a bit remiss (purposefully in my opinion) memory-wise... Hence the whole reason I brought up the balanced budget amendment and my continued support for it regardless of who is in the WH. (Considering the WH doesn't spend the money, the House does, it is the House I want to control the most.)

You mean to tell me that in 2001 and 2003 you did not support the Bush tax cuts?

 

[Bonestorm]

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

The tax rates have been the same from 2003-2010.....10,15,25,28,33, and 35%
What has changed is the "income ranges" they apply to....and those income ranges have changed EVERY year since 2003....up to and including 2010

So your "Obama tax cut" borders on "bogus"....hardly enough to quibble about and certainly nothing to actually brag about.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...obama/tax-cut-95-percent-stimulus-made-it-so/

 

[Damocles]

You mean to tell me that in 2001 and 2003 you did not support the Bush tax cuts?

Not without spending cuts, I even suggested where to "cut", starting with the idiotic pill bill.

 

[Bonestorm]

I don't think either he or I support cutting taxes without spending cuts as well. Methinks you are again being just a bit remiss (purposefully in my opinion) memory-wise... Hence the whole reason I brought up the balanced budget amendment and my continued support for it regardless of who is in the WH. (Considering the WH doesn't spend the money, the House does, it is the House I want to control the most.)

Really, you say, "Nobody ever said anything against Bush's spending except Democrats who now support triple the spending."

I say, "Um... You are wrong, here are a few." and give you examples of people who were in a position to try to do something, as well as point to something you and I know about myself because of our shared history.

You then say, "There wasn't wide enough support, that must mean no republicans cared."

I then point to the facts again....

So forth.

To respond to your edit: instead of making up what I said out of thin air, why don't you try directly quoting me.

I believe my statements are that no one was taking to the streets clamoring for a balanced budget amendment (like the tea party of today) and that a balanced budget amendment was not a priority for Republicans. Both of those statements are true.

 

[Bonestorm]

Not without spending cuts, I even suggested where to "cut", starting with the idiotic pill bill.

It's a simple yes or no question. Tax cuts were passed. Did you support or oppose them at the time they were passed?

 

[Damocles]

To respond to your edit: instead of making up what I said out of thin air, why don't you try directly quoting me.

I believe my statements are that no one was taking to the streets clamoring for a balanced budget amendment (like the tea party of today) and that a balanced budget amendment was not a priority for Republicans. Both of those statements are true.

Because people can read the thread and see if my, clearly slightly exaggerated for effect (and humor), paraphrasing is correct.

My point wasn't that they were "taking to the streets" but that this began with Bush, and reached a head during Obama's tenure that myself and many others have been working towards this for a long time, and that it will continue to be a priority for me. Therefore those saying that "no republicans ever said anything" (which was where I began this, after a poster said nobody ever said anything about it back then and I produced examples of things said by republicans about Bush's spending on this site.), were in error.

 

[Bonestorm]

Because people can read the thread and see if my, clearly slightly exaggerated for effect (and humor), paraphrasing is correct.

My point wasn't that they were "taking to the streets" but that this began with Bush, and reached a head during Obama's tenure that myself and many others have been working towards this for a long time, and that it will continue to be a priority for me. Therefore those saying that "no republicans ever said anything" (which was where I began this, after a poster said nobody ever said anything about it back then and I produced examples of things said by republicans about Bush's spending on this site.), were in error.

And my point is quite simple and more than amply supported by the facts. For Republicans, priority number one is tax cuts and spending only matters when they don't control it.


Edit: Obviously, this is not 100% universal, but as a general matter it is true.

 

[NOVA]

You mean to tell me that in 2001 and 2003 you did not support the Bush tax cuts?

I always support cuts in the TAX RATES...they are usually more permanent.......stuff your rebates....