SO WHO ARE YOU GOING TO VOTE FOR

And more illiterate nonsense.

Typical left wing drivel!  After tax cuts by JFK, Reagan and Bush, tax revenue increased.  That is a fact, not an opinion. You may have your own opinions, but facts are independent of desire.  But, them regressive progs are creatures of emotion, not logic and fact. 

 

Economists since the time of the Romans have known there was a point at which further taxation resulted in less revenue -- a point of diminishing returns.  Only in the late 20th century was that point quantified.  

 

Taxes are a result of taking wealth, not a source of wealth.  A salary is a marker of wealth produced. Unfortunately, progs are, in the main, incapable of discerning the difference.

And the lies keep coming. 

Obama.  Not perfect by any means, but who I will vote for.

Good for you. Unfortunately. in Alabama, it doesn't matter.

Perhaps it doesn't get electoral votes at this point in time since so many others will vote differently, but it's right for me, and I figure if we all assume that and don't vote nothing will ever change.  You are right about the demographics, but it matters to me if I vote, so off I go

Jimi.

 

Feel free to keep posting like this. You give my posts more eye-time on the forum. While your pitiful bits are ignored.  Not very internet savvy, are you!  Amusing considering I'm older, and you claim to be.  Either, you're a old fart who can't learn.  Or, a basement dwelling troll sponging off your parents.

And you are still a pathological liar.

I'll vote for anyone but a democrat. But things dont look good for republicans. Obama has seven states up his sleeve that no one else knows about.

BTW. I believe this is the first post where I've seen Jimi put over two sentences together.

It doesn't take a lot of sentence to tell the truth. Lying is harder and takes more space.

=============

That is one stupid statement there Jimmaboy

From his own mouth:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54jr3Ceu894

---

---

Let ask George W. BushIIe's head economist:

"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. "It's logically possible" that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. "But there's no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...AR2006101601121.html

Or, one of the other chief architects of BushIIe tax policy:

Alan Greenspan: So I'm coming out in favor, in the first time in my memory, of raising taxes

 Alan Greenspan saying that he is in favor, for the first time that he can remember, of raising taxes.

Alan Viard: Greenspan has a very valid point about the deficit.

Alan Viard is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He says higher taxes wouldn't be his first choice, but they're not all bad.

Doesn't matter what was said, its what happened that mattered.  The largest increase in revenue in history.

 

Posted for the 20th time:

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Ventor,

 During that time you had an almost doubling of the money supply. What is the same revenues adjusted for inflation. That will tell the true story.

 

 

And this relates to...what?

Nothing that you would understand.

-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Geez, another republican who listens to Hannity. O.K. I'll make this simple. I tax $1.00 at 10% I get .10 I double the money to $2.00 and I get .20  Bush doubled the money supply during his administration, that's how he doubled the national debt. That money went somewhere, to the war industry no doubt.  Now i create an industry with profits and yes taxes on profits, i have just created new revenue. That would make Interventor's chart look like it does.

Now compare interventors chart with this one for the same period. They are basically the same. This is how republicans cover up the shortfall in their economic theory......... Inflation.

 

 

Does collective amnesia affect those of the left/prog/(?), I posted this about six times and each time you forget!

 

Tax revenues adjusted to constant 2005 dollars

<colgroup><col span="2" style="width: 48pt;" width="64" /></colgroup>

2001	2,215.3
2002	2,028.6
2003	1,901.1
2004	1,949.5
2005	2,153.6
2006	2,324.1

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

 

Table 1.3. to be exact.

 

Similar for the Reagan tax cuts:

 

<colgroup><col span="2" style="width: 48pt;" width="64" /></colgroup>

1981	1,251.4
1982	1,202.8
1983	1,113.6
1984	1,174.3
1985	1,250.9
1986	1,277.7
1987	1,375.7
1988	1,421.1

 

Despite tax cuts, revenue rose

Extra,

 

Are you incapable of reading a graph -- a form of dyslexia, perhaps!

 

Money supply DROPPED during the period.  However, revenue rose.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ventor, you should vbery well know that your chart will run a year behind mine. Tax reciepts have a tendency to run almost a year behind as people pay up their taxes, especially the rich, near the end of the following year.  My chart shows the decline of the money supply between 99 and the end of 2000. Your shows the same thing a year later. Mine shows a dramatic increase in the money supply in 2002, yours shows the sudden increase in revenue in 2003.

 

 Plain as the warts on your nose.

 

 

---

---

"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that,"

All the charts and graphs and comparisons are just rationalization.  Without the BushIIe tax cuts, revenues would have been higher and the deficits and debt would have been lower. 

 

 

And as we all know, Clintoon raised taxes and revenues went up every year, YoY, each year being a tax collection record. 

 

1992   1,091.2
1993   1,154.3
1994   1,258.6
1995   1,351.8
1996   1,453.1
1997   1,579.2
1998   1,721.7
1999   1,827.5

 

We should give Bill a third term.

Extra’s post:

“Ventor, you should vbery (sic) well know that your chart will run a year behind mine. Tax reciepts (sic) have a tendency to run almost a year behind as people pay up their taxes, especially the rich, near the end of the following year.  My chart shows the decline of the money supply between 99 and the end of 2000 (sic). Your shows the same thing a year later. Mine shows a dramatic increase in the money supply in 2002, yours shows the sudden increase in revenue in 2003.

 

 Plain as the warts on your nose.”

 

Extra,

First, your graph shows changes from 1961 to 2009.

 

Actually, tax receipts run a bit unsteady month-to-month mirroring the business cycle, not a year behind.  But, it doesn’t matter, as annualized receipts rose steadily.

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0409.pdf

 

What your graph shows is a severe dip in the money supply in 2001.  Then, a rise in supply to the same pre-2001 levels.  Then, a slow decline after 9/11, until about 2009. 1 During this period of decline, revenues rose despite a decline in the money supply.   

 

No warts on my nose. Are you toad licking again!

At least Interwhatever has conclusively proved that he isn't an economist.

---

---

Your "series of tubes" are not properly connected.

__________________________________________________________________

 

Listen ya big bo*b, your brain cells aren’t properly connected…

The original topic was Who are you going to vote for, I chose the opposite.

Skippy

____________________________________________________________________

 

I smell a socialists. You can’t fool anyone with your life long Republican Claim. You are exactly what you are appear to be, a socialist. Your fellow socialists are a very small SLICE of America. You know, like your comrades sucking on the Government T*T.

Let’s break down your statement.

First you said,

“I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A REPUBLICAN AND HAVE ALWAYS VOTED AS AN REPUBLICAN, BUT I CAN NOT VOTE FOR THE LIKE OF THESE…”

I suppose what your saying is your going to vote for Obama even though he is trying to tear apart the US Constitution and put in place a socialist form of Government.

Then you say,

“RON PAUL WHO SUPPORTS TO LEGALIZE THE USE OF MARIJUANA.”

How is it you can support the status quo with our Government in such debt? Live and let live! What are you some kinda self rightous red neck? How in the He*l can you be against what someone does in the privacy of their own home? How is it hurting you? Oh I forgot it was your boys that shipped all those arms to the Mexican Drug Gangs to kill our Border Agents. (Not that I support Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy in any way.

Next you say,

“NEWT WHO IS AN ADUTRESS(SIC) couldn‘t resist , I GUESS THAT IS WHAT YOU CALL AS A CONSERVATIVE.”

Oh how short the memory of a socialist is. (The Stained Dress!)

"Next,ROMNEY WHO IS A MORMAN.”(SIC)

And you are a Moron. Maybe your one of those frog lickers.

NEXT!

“AND LET'S NOT FORGET HERMAN CAIN, WHO COULD NOT REMEMBER WHO HE MADE OUT WITH, NO WONDER HE DROPPED OUT.”

Let’s not forget Herman. In him you socialist saw someone that would kick Obama’s A*s. In the words of your comrade Jimbo, “you’re a racist.”

And finally,

“I DON'T WANT TO VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT, NEVER HAVE BUT IF WE CAN'T HAVE ANY BETTER CHOICE, I WILL HAVE TO..…”

You will vote socialist, as you have in every other election.

Skippy

So, Skippy thinks that this person will vote socialist, just like he will.

Poor Jimi!  He enters a battle of wits armed with the equivalent of a rusty Red Ryder BB gun missing the front sight.  While, his opponents sport .308s and .50s.  The reason I rarely converse with the poor old troll is the same reason I rarely talk to dumb animals -- the answer, if any, makes no sense! 

Why would you talk to "dumb animals"? After all, they are smarter than you.

Romney announced in Iowa today that if he is elected POUTUS that he will convert to Christianity for the duration of his term.  Afterward, he will convert back to Mormonism because he already has his planet picked out.  

Joke bombs juan, mormons are christians. 

---

---

Mormons are to Christians as soccer is to football.

I'm going to Kolob for my next vacation.

So to be a christian you have to believe in "heaven", that mythical place in the sky somewhere, where all the streets are made of gold, the rivers run with milk and honey, and everyone has a mansion? And yet they dare make fun of mormons. Sheesh.

I forgot to add that you get those cool angel wings. Do those things come in different colors? I mean what if you get up one day and you're in the mood to wear purple?

=================

Then you know you're gay.

Like Jimma's purple sweater.

Thank you, gay Vic. Finally decided to come out of the closet?