Doghouse Boxing - Dog Pound

 johnnyblaze, on 03 July 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

911 wasn't his fault. Iraq was completely legal but still not wise, and as I showed you, Bush recognized the danger of Fannie and Freddie but was thwarted by Dems when he tried to fix it.

Worst economic day under Bush was still the best economic day under Obama. You been listening to your friends too much. Barry is ass.

 Ten oz, on 03 July 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

RX plan-Continued by Obama
Wars-Expanded by Obama
Bush tax cuts-Extended by Obama
Bail outs-150 billion under Bush, 800 billion under Obama

With all of that spending Bush did, Obama spent more in 3 years than Bush did in 8.

 Johnny Hopper, on 03 July 2012 - 07:00 PM, said:

So basically Obama hasn't done enough to overturn all of Bush's crap?

 Johnny Hopper, on 03 July 2012 - 07:00 PM, said:

Obamacare attempt to address healthcare cost. Some estimates saw Obamacare saves many other say it cost money. Only time will tell. Bush's Drug plan cost over a Trillion and that can not be debated.

Obama expanded the Iraq war? Few people liberal or conservative call Afghan the "illegal war". That one we all agree was worth doing. BTW his expansions paid off with OBL gettin' got!

Obama made a huge mistake by continuing the Bush tax cuts. I was a bad political decision. He know he'd be a one term president without question if he didn't cut a deal. If re-elected the Bush tax cuts are gone in 2013.

All you named were Bush programs from his first term. I asked what Obama has done and all you did is list things done by Republicans that Obama did not successfully kill. Who will kill those things, Romney? Would McCain have?

Remember when we were bleeding 750,000 JOBS a month?

Remember when we lost 3 MILLION jobs post 9/11 and GW went on the tv and told us that they would never come back?

Remember when we paid close to $5.00 for a gallon of gas under GW?

Remember when all those record FORECLOSURES started?

Remember when our nation was nearing a 2nd Great Depression?

Remember when when GW walked into the office he had a budget surplus - when Obama walked into office he had a nation TRILLIONS IN DEBT, 2 WARS WITH NO EXIT STRATEGIES, TAX BREAKS FOR THE WEALTHY AND BIG OIL (THAT THE GOP STILL REFUSES TO ALLOW THE DEMOCRATS TO OVER TURN/STOP), NO BID CONTRACTS, etc..

All under GW..
all of you tards on the right forgot that fuel was almost 5 bucks a gallon in 2008???

Bush was a pos drunk, his daddy was shit too that why slick willie handed him his ass!!

 Ten oz, on 03 July 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

Yep. Especially after talking all that shit about how jacking the deficit 4 trillion in 8 years was "unpatriotic" and then he does it in 3.

 Ten oz, on 03 July 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

Of course it can be debated. It cost nowhere near that.


Four years into full operation, President George W. Bush’s Medicareprescription drug program is coming in well below its projected cost, giving hope to backers of the new health insurance law that it, too, could beat budget expectations.
The numbers are stark and conclusive: In 2009, the government spent $60.8 billion on the drug benefit, or far less than the annual $111.2 billion cost projected just five years ago, after the program was enacted.

 Johnny Hopper, on 03 July 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

You your biggest complaint against Obama is that he did not do enough to clean up the mess Bush left? Meanwhile you voted for Bush twice.
You love to bring up debt but can't name sh!t Obama has done policy wise to grow it. Bush's policies are what is driving debt. Obama simply has failed to stop those policies.  You supported those policies and continue to support people who will not change them.
Is Romney going to let the Bush tax cuts expire?
Is Romney going to do anything about the RX plan?
As for the Afghan war, Romney wants us to call out Iran and calls both China and Russia enemies. He also claims he won't tough defense spending.

 Ten oz, on 03 July 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

The "mess" Bush left was mostly imagined.

The wars that were so terrible were continued and more troops were sent. Troops were pulled out of Iraq based on Bush's schedule.

Guantanamo, left open.

Tax cuts, left in place.

Wiretaps and infringing on citizens rights, expanded.

Out of control spending, doubled.

Attacking countries that posed no threat to us, continued.

So what exactly did Obama do differently than Bush did?

 Ten oz, on 03 July 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

BTW- The RX plan costs 60 billion dollars a year which is less than medicare fraud costs per year. A drop in the bucket so to speak. It is dwarfed by Obamacare.

 Johnny Hopper, on 03 July 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

So far Obamacare (which is not fully implemented yet) is all you have named. That is the only Obama policy that has contributed to the deficit that you have mentioned. Everything else so far has been Bush programs you feel Obama failed to fix.

 Johnny Hopper, on 03 July 2012 - 07:15 PM, said:

So maybe it might only cost 900 billion rather than the CBO estimated 1.2 trillion? Totally not worth debating about. You were right I was wrong  it can be debated to cost a hair under a trillion. My bad.

 Johnny Hopper, on 03 July 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

if the "top 1%" paid 100% of their income in taxes would it have paid the deficit? even prior to obamacare..

or it it could've been a good idea for this

There's No Escaping Hauser's Law

Tax revenues as a share of GDP have averaged just under 19%, whether tax rates are cut or raised. Better to cut rates and get 19% of a larger pie.
By W. KURT HAUSER

Even amoebas learn by trial and error, but some economists and politicians do not. The Obama administration's budget projections claim that raising taxes on the top 2% of taxpayers, those individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning $250,000 or more, will increase revenues to the U.S. Treasury. The empirical evidence suggests otherwise. None of the personal income tax or capital gains tax increases enacted in the post-World War II period has raised the projected tax revenues.

Over the past six decades, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have averaged just under 19% regardless of the top marginal personal income tax rate. The top marginal rate has been as high as 92% (1952-53) and as low as 28% (1988-90). This observation was first reported in an op-ed I wrote for this newspaper in March 1993. A wit later dubbed this "Hauser's Law."

Over this period there have been more than 30 major changes in the tax code including personal income tax rates, corporate tax rates, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, investment tax credits, depreciation schedules, Social Security taxes, and the number of tax brackets among others. Yet during this period, federal government tax collections as a share of GDP have moved within a narrow band of just under 19% of GDP.

Why? Higher taxes discourage the "animal spirits" of entrepreneurship. When tax rates are raised, taxpayers are encouraged to shift, hide and underreport income. Taxpayers divert their effort from pro-growth productive investments to seeking tax shelters, tax havens and tax exempt investments. This behavior tends to dampen economic growth and job creation. Lower taxes increase the incentives to work, produce, save and invest, thereby encouraging capital formation and jobs. Taxpayers have less incentive to shelter and shift income.

On average, GDP has grown at a faster pace in the several quarters after taxes are lowered than the several quarters before the tax reductions. In the six quarters prior to the May 2003 Bush tax cuts, GDP grew at an average annual quarterly rate of 1.8%. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, GDP grew at an average annual quarterly rate of 3.8%. Yet taxes as a share of GDP have remained within a relatively narrow range as a percent of GDP in the entire post-World War II period.






This is explained once the relationship between taxes and GDP growth is understood. Under a tax increase, the denominator, GDP, will rise less than forecast, while the numerator, tax revenues, will advance less than anticipated. Therefore the quotient, the percentage of GDP collected in taxes, will remain the same. Nineteen percent of a larger GDP is preferable to 19% of a smaller GDP.

The target of the Obama tax hike is the top 2% of taxpayers, but the burden of the tax is likely to fall on the remaining 98%. The top 2% of income earners do not live in a vacuum. Our economy and society are interwoven. Employees and employers, providers and users, consumers and savers and investors are all interdependent. The wealthy have the highest propensity to save and invest. The wealthy also run the lion's share of small businesses. Most small business owners pay taxes at the personal income tax rate. Small businesses have created two-thirds of all new jobs during the past four decades and virtually all of the net new jobs from the early 1980s through the end of 2007, the beginning of the past recession.

In other words, the Obama tax increases are targeted at those who are largely responsible for capital formation. Capital formation is the life blood for job creation. As jobs are created, more people pay income, Social Security and Medicare taxes. As the economy grows, corporate income tax receipts grow. Rising corporate profits provide an underpinning to the stock market, so capital gain and dividend tax collections increase. A pro-growth, low marginal personal tax rate stimulates capital formation and GDP, which triggers a higher level of tax receipts for the other sources of government revenue.

It is generally accepted that if one taxes something, one gets less of it and if something is subsidized one gets more of it. The Obama administration is also proposing an increase in taxes on capital itself in the form of higher capital gains and dividend taxes.
The historical record is clear on this as well. In 1987 the capital gains tax rate was raised to 28% from 20%. Capital gains realizations as a percent of GDP fell to 3% in 1987 from about 8% of GDP in 1986 and continued to fall to below 2% over the next several years. Conversely, the capital gains tax rate was cut in 1997, to 20% from 28% and, at the time, the forecasts were for lower revenues over the ensuing two years.

In fact, tax revenues were about $84 billion above forecast and above the level c
ollected at the higher and earlier rate. Similarly, the capital gains tax rate was cut in 2003 to 15% from 20%. The lower rate produced a higher level of revenue than in 2002 and twice the forecasted revenue in 2005.

The Obama administration and members of Congress should study the record on how the economy reacts to changes in the tax code. The president's economic team has launched a three-pronged attack on capital: They are attacking the income group that is the most responsible for capital formation and jobs in the private sector, and then attacking the investment returns on capital formation in the form of dividends and capital gains. The out-year projections on revenues from these tax increases will prove to be phantom.

Mr. Hauser is chairman emeritus of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and chairman of Wentworth, Hauser & Violich, a San Francisco investment management firm. He is the author of "Taxation and Economic Performance" (Hoover Press, 1996)

 Ten oz, on 04 July 2012 - 01:07 AM, said:

It's just another hit against Bush that isn't true. I'm no Obama fan, but when people start saying he's going after guns or he's secretly Muslim, I don't nod and say "He sure is".

 Johnny Hopper, on 04 July 2012 - 06:56 AM, said:

You still have not named the Obama policies that have created our deficits. When people blame Obama for spending us into oblivion you jump in and say "he sure is". 2 pages now and all you've done is defend expensive Bush policies and complain about how Obama continued them.
Where are the Obama policies that caused our deficits?