Planned Parenthood Pie Chart
See where it says abortion services 3%? This was a main sticking point in the budget stall, several Republicans/teabaggers were willing to shut down the government if Democrats did not agree to defund Planned Parenthood. Sen. Jon Kyl even went as far as saying that well over 90 percent of what PP does is perform abortions. When called on the remark his office said the statement was not meant to be "factual" he was just trying to illustrate that PP receives millions of dollars in taxpayer funding and the organization does perform abortions. Oh well, la dee dah...
So I guess it's on to the next budget fight, it's gonna be a doozy. Do ya think the Republicans learned anything these past few weeks? The teabaggers are not a majority, the Democrats hold the majority in the Senate, Barack Obama IS PRESIDENT.
here's my yesterdays post I never got around to finishing....
If corporate tax breaks really do create jobs... we would have full employment now. okjimm
This profound statement from okjimm was in a comment to lisa today. Lisa and her teabagger friends like to spew these stupid talking points and hope we'll start to believe them, I guess. It's all those Righties ever say. "Cut taxes to corporations and the rich and the wealth will trickle down, jobs will be created! LOLOL!
Republicans claim it is necessary to cut taxes for the top wage earners in order to grow the economy. But what they are doing is simply making the rich richer while middle class workers are seeing their taxes rise, plus there are NO NEW JOBS being created. Where are these jobs if the rich have had their tax cuts for 10 yrs now?? The Republicans choose to give tax breaks for oil and gas companies, tax cuts to the top 2%, and protect tax loop holes that help the wealthiest corporations. What has that done for our economy?
Ten yrs ago Republicans were handed a budget surplus, they squandered it, they came into the White House as the economy was booming and left with massive job loss, huge debt and deficits, a recession so deep we are still in recovery. Yet they brazenly assert the American people have spoken, they want them to take over and FIX what President Obama and Dems have destroyed! HaaaaaaHaaaaaa!
By the way, did you watch the little speeches today in the House budget debates? It was a pitiful display of immaturity by all. Eric Cantor stood up amongst his clapping idiot GOP friends and said "Lets not forget how we got into this mess in the first place" (speaking about the lack of budget). The idiot friends clapping and laughing were stopped quickly when Democrats started chanting BUSH, BUSH, BUSH! The look on Cantors face was priceless! He really should not have brought up that subject. Shows their mentality....
Anyway, back to the Republicans non-governing...
Paul Ryan and his proposed long term budget "PLAN" to save America from most certain doom. He wants to privatize Medicare and gut Medicaid saying it will save money, BUT it will shift the financial burden to seniors and working middle class Americans.
He wants to drastically cut spending from education, innovation and infrastructure. This does NOT create growth, but makes us less prepared to compete globally.
He's all for cutting taxes for millionaires, this is how STUPID the Righties are. This only ADDS to our mounting debt, it does NOT reduce our deficit. No where does this plan raise taxes. Raising taxes on billionaires by a measly 3 percentage points will help our deficit problem immensely. But NO, NO NEW TAXES (for the rich, but for you middle America, hell yea!)
With an all day shopping trip then coming home to a family near crisis, I can't find the time or the words to finish this, but you get the idea, Paul Ryan and the GOP are BAD for America!
34 comments:
I could not agree with you more. Today I am wondering if we are truly in the majority, since I can't turn around without being confronted by one of these crazy Tea Baggers with their "facts" that are totally off base.
Their newest lie is that we have no jobs because our corporate tax rate is higher than other countries. But the fact they seem to miss is that other countries actually require the corporations to PAY taxes, whereas our corporation are making billions and paying zero taxes.
This whole budget battle could have easily been avoided if the Democrats had not punted last year on the budget. They had the House, Senate and White house and yet knowing they were going to lose the House in 2011 they still punted on it.
I can't even imagine how ugly the budget battle is going to get leading up to Oct 2011.
of course we're the majority, don't let the wingnuts convince you otherwise. Now with the rise of the teabaggers the right has alienated themselves even more with their CRAZY talk.
Brian I agree partly,but remember the dems had the bluedogs standing in the way alot of the time, voting like a true DINO. You all say how democrats blew it with alot of Obamas agenda but when you can't get the REQUIRED 60 votes then you're screwed.
I think Goverment as a whole has blown it the last several years if not longer. Theres to much grandstanding and bickering by both parties and I've lost faith that any of them can really do whats right for any of us.
that I don't agree with. I haven't seen the grandstanding and bickering from the left. Obama was voted in with a comfortable majority and he had an agenda. The right has fought him every step of the way with every dirty trick in their book. Their book is THICK too! The country voted for the Democratic Party, that is what they wanted. The arrogant GOP's demands are starting to backfire on them.
Obama won on the message of hope and a promise to change the way Washington works. I dont know about you but Washington is the same as usual. I dont blame him for not changing Washington, no one man can do that but he was either nieve to think that he could or he just flat out lied. Which is it?
He won because he is a likeable articulate man who had a good a good slogan and made alot of promises in regards to timetables he knew he couldnt meet. He won because the majority of americans were fed up with the wars and were tired of the Republicans.
This is of course just my opinion and I'm sure you will disagree with everything I wrote.
I agree though that the right was the Party of no and it didnt matter what Obama wanted, they wanted the opposite. The left though isn't any better and their playbook is almost as thick. Anything either side can do to stick it to one another they will do.
We need to drive on, drive harder, drive faster. We've got a lot of wind at our backs right now, but who knows how long it will last? It's time for change that WE can believe in.
The left though isn't any better and their playbook is almost as thick. Anything either side can do to stick it to one another they will do.
With all due respect, this is bullshit. Don't try to equivocate an organization that will drive this economy into the ground, whip up violent racism, and scare the Bejesus out of people with lie after lie as being equivalent to "the left." We want what is best for our neighbors, our friends, and or children and parents. If there were Rushpubliscums who wanted this too, we'd be behind them.
The sad thing about corporate taxes is that they are high, the highest in the developed world, but crony crapitalists can easily buy exemptions from our crooked, rotten politicians.
Our tax system needs to be reformed.
gees... I gotzta be quotable!... I best be careful whatz I say.
But,honestly, I have become so irritated when that trite logic is thrust upon us... tax cuts for corporations create job!!!
Sheesh! Way back in the dark ages I took a class, Rhetoric and Public Address, where logic was explored as an element of speech. Now, logic and I have never been really really compatible friends... mostly due to my ineptitude with mathematical equations...but A=B and B=C does not necessarily mean that A+C WILL EQUAL D.... now that is a really bad example. check out http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
.. or http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/
this version of Government Republicans are not practicing good logic.
I may say that I keep a large shotgun in my house to keep the Polar Bears from stealing my beer. To date, no Polar Bears have stolen my beer, thus having that gun has really saved me a lot of money on beer and I SHOULD KEEP BUYING AMMUNITION FOR THE GUN.
wheew... lissen, I really am not that smart a guy... and it is a really really nice day for a change... and I have said beer twice and it is almost noon. Hence, I need to disinherit my son so I can go buy some beer.
:) just being logical.
I better go buy a shotgun to protect MY beer!
Jerry..... just remember....good beer is worth it! Damn them Polar Bears anywaz!
Global warming will take care of the Polar Bears. Then we won't need guns anymore. Our beer will be safe.
Jerry. How can this world be safe with someone like Donal Trump, who thinks he's qualified to be preznit because he has a "high aptitude."
He didn't elaborate about what exactly that "high aptitude" is.
Maybe that's because he's too dumb to understand what an idiotic statement that was.
Actually, I believe I know what Trump's "high aptitude" is:
Being a foolish asshat.
Don't feed the trolls!
They come here desperate for attention. Don't give it to them.
Sorry Shaw. My focus right now is on beer, not the world. The world, I am afraid, will never be safe, with or without Trump or guns.
RR: I'm not feeding you - I'm just telling you. You're a despicable pile of excrement. Go drown in it.
lisa does attract the most vile groupies.
Lawrence O'Donnell is an icon to the Hobbit. Anyone who failed to hear him read the e-mail from his personal acquaintance, asking him to defend Planned Parenthood, for her, and for all those like her, last week on his show "The Last Word," missed something important. The next guest that evening, a Congresswoman, read the words in toto into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.
Every once in a while we need to remind ourelves that we fight for each other, and that, together, we cannot lose.
Republicants really do suck.
Actually, you're wrong. Completely.
Check the historical data, going back to the 1930s, and you'll see that when corporate or personal tax rates increase, revenues fall. The Laffer Curve shows us the flip side of that- when rates decrease, revenue rises. It's simple economic fact. Law, if you will.
Like it or not, the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 reduced the burden on the middle-fifth of earners to levels not seen since the 1960s. They also resulted in the largest increase in Federal tax revenues in history.
When the government appropriates more income, people and businesses have less to invest. It's that simple. When they can keep their earnings, they tend to seek ways in which to invest that will further increase earnings.
So, yes. Tax breaks DO 'create jobs', which is what investment does.
If it's this 'social justice' you're after (which I assume is somehow different from 'justice- justice'), then perhaps you could explain what is 'unjust' about wanting to keep your earnings, but 'just' for someone to want to confiscate them in the name of funding their social projects?
OK Darth. Here are the federal revenues. Where are those "largest increase in Federal tax revenues in history"?
Right there in front of your face, Jerry.
You don't even need to look hard to see the largest percentage changes in any 4-year period between 2004-07.
Next?
A little nugget for all the Class Warriors:
The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts also upped the percentage of all income taxes paid by 'the rich' to levels not seen in 40 years.
Isn't that a 'good thing' in this ideological cohort?
And the largest percentage drop from 2000 to 2003.
Here's The Wall Street Journal, no fan of liberal democrats, on the efficacy of Bush's tax cuts:
January 9, 2009, 12:04 PM ET.
Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record
Here are stats on the national debt run up by George W. Bush and increased by President Obama in having to continue the bailout instigated by GWB.
And this:
"David Stockman, the legendary Reagan budget chief who presided over the Gipper's supply-side tax cuts, announced that the "debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts." The next day, the former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan, who famously helped sell the 2001 Bush tax cuts to Congress, declared them simply "disastrous."
SOURCE
Is it simply too much to admit, that you were wrong, and I was right?
Oh, and pShaw- nice try.
But you'll have to do better than simply linking to something you think validates your opinion.
Sometime, you should give this a try: Try synthesizing your OWN argument once in a while. Simply tossing out links or quotes isn't the same as actually thinking. "Gotcha" isn't an argument- it's a punchline.
Here's how it's done:
Putting aside the fundamental dishonesty of trotting out Greenspan and Stockman as 'convert communicators' now that you find them useful, here's what the fatal flaws in their arguments are:
1) Nobody actually believes the 500B debt under GWB is somehow 'as bad', or 'to blame' for the 4 trillion Barack Mugabe has plunged us into. Well, nobody honest, who isn't pimping a book or polishing a legacy, at least.
2) Record tax revenues aren't 'disastrous'. The problem with Bush's handling of the economy was his profligate spending. Does it need pointing out to you that Mugabe has quadrupled down on Bush's irresponsible behavior?
To his credit, Jerry noticed the drop-off in tax receipts during the period 2000-2003, but he stops there as if noticing that somehow invalidates the record increase I asserted, and proved. The clear implication, which is just sitting there waiting for you, is that when a policy isn't working, you change it- which is what Bush did. His first cut was a modest, Keynesian demand-side adjustment which had no positive effect. Thus is was concluded that a larger supply-side action had to be taken- hence the 2003 cuts. Barack Mugabe, by stunning contrast, has doubled, tripled, quadrupled down on the initial mistake.
And so, here we are.
Let me make a couple of points. One, 2005 to 2007, 3 years, saw very high revenue growth rates, following substantial revenue drops in 2001 to 2003. In fact it took until 2006 to match the 2000 revenue levels. This came on the heels of continual growth through the 90s when Clinton raised taxes with some years of comparable growth to the 2005 to 2007 period.
Secondly, if you want to see how tax rates have affected economic growth over the last 80 years and what the top optimum marginal tax rate is, instead of cherry picking 3 years, I have a couple of references for you. Check here, here, and here.
Don't want to read? I will tell you the answer. The top marginal tax rate to maximum economic growth is about 60%. We are now at 36%. There is a lot of increase available and in the process we can go a long ways towards balancing the budget. And we have to balance the budget before we can even think about reducing the deficit.
Rubbish.
Raising the percentage paid by the top earners to 100% wouldn't even make a dent in our deficit. To paraphrase, it's the spending, stupid. Why doesn't the President or Congress understand that?
So, there's that.
As for the notion that there's still 'room' to further tax people before it negatively affects the economy, what reason is there for subjecting people to disproportionate taxation? You should decide who gets to keep what, and what's 'fair'?It goes back to what I asked earlier, but nobody answered:
How is it immoral for someone to want to keep their earnings, but 'moral' of you to want to take their earnings to fund your own social experiments?
What's fair is we all pay a consumption tax. That way, we aren't punishing anyone- rich or poor- for productivity, but for what they use in goods and services. That may even have the side-effect of encouraging conservation. That's part of 'social justice', as far as I'm concerned. Equal treatment under the law, as the Constitution describes.
No one is talking about raising the top marginal rate to 100%. That's BS! You just want to ignore 80 years of history.
Just remember:
Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it.
Nobody said you were advocating raising rates to 100%. The point you seem to have missed is that I was dismissing your recommendation of tax hikes as a means of deficit reduction. That would be accomplished by cutting spending.
Nobody could be as fiscally illiterate as our President, claiming heroism for allowing .86 percent to be trimmed from his party's INSANE budget proposal. He'll be adding 1.5 Trillion to the debt year after year (assuming no increase in spending!).
And please allow me to apologize in advance, for- according to one of the commentors here- being one of those 'Teabaggers' with my wacky 'off-base' ideas.
Putting aside the bit about slurring people by implying they're gay by using 'teabagging' as a reference to a gay sex act- which is apparently OK to slur people with, as long as it's in the service of your politics (belittling gay people as 'collateral damage' being worth it, I suppose, no?), what's your problem with anything the dreaded Tea Party people put forth?
I see...
Post a Comment