This speaks volumes

[zimmy]

Jim, pointing out that revenue went up for a limited time before plummeting doesn't mean you "proved" that tax cuts raise revenue. I don't think you need me to explain why,

"The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for almost half — 48 percent — of this $539 billion in increased costs." How about the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget? Their budget calculator shows that the tax cuts will cost $3.28 trillion between 2011 and 2018. How about George W. Bush's CEA chair, Greg Mankiw, who used the term "charlatans and cranks" for people who believed that "broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue." He continued: "I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't."

From David Stockman
David Stockman, who led the all-important Office of Management and Budget under Reagan and was a chief architect of his fiscal policy, criticized today’s GOP for misreading Reagan’s legacy by adopting a “theology” of tax cuts. Stockman has spoken out before, but took perhaps his strongest stance yet against his own party today, saying “I’ll never forgive the Bush administration” for “destroying the last vestige of fiscal responsibility that we had in the Republican Party.” He also broke with Republican orthodoxy on a number of key issues:

– We need “a higher tax burden on the upper income.”

– “After 1985, the Republican Party adopted the idea that tax cuts can solve the whole problem, and that therefore in the future, deficits didn’t matter and tax cuts would be the solution of first, second, and third resort.”

– The 2001 Bush tax cut “was totally not needed.”

– On claims that Reagan proved tax cuts lead to higher government revenues: “Reagan proved nothing of the kind and yet that became the mantra and it just led the Republican Party away from its traditional sound money, fiscal restraint.”

– Former Vice President Cheney “should have known better” than claim the Bush tax cuts would pay for themselves.

– “I’ll never forgive the Bush administration and Paulson for basically destroying the last vestige of fiscal responsibility that we had in the Republican Party. After that, I don’t know how we ever make the tough choices.”
Bush's economic crew said these things:

Bush administration officials acknowledged cutting taxes decreases net revenue.

"Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues."

Read more: Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues - TIME


Paulson: "I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves." During his June 2006 confirmation hearing, then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson said, "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves." The financial information website MarketWatch reported this statement as "echoing the opinion of most economists."

Nussle: Tax cuts do not "totally pay for themselves." According to a November 15, 2007, Washington Post editorial, Jim Nussle, then the director of the Office of Management and Budget, told reporters, "Some say that [the tax cut] was a total loss. Some say they totally pay for themselves. It's neither extreme."

Viard: "No dispute" revenues lower than they would have been without Bush tax cuts. In an October 17, 2006, article, the Post quoted Alan D. Viard, a former Council of Economic Advisers senior economist under Bush, saying that "[f]ederal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the [Bush] tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that."

Lazear: "[W]e do not think tax cuts pay for themselves." During his testimony to the Senate Budget Committee in 2006, Edward Lazear, then-chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, stated: "Will the tax cuts pay for themselves? As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data presented above do not support this claim."

Samwick: "You know that tax cuts have not fueled record revenues." In a January 2007 New Year's Plea," to "anyone in the [Bush] Administration who may read this blog," Andrew Samwick, an economics professor at Dartmouth College and former chief economist to the Council of Economic Advisers during the Bush administration, wrote:

You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.

[scottw]

if you Google those quotes individually...the results are pretty funny...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Jim, pointing out that revenue went up for a limited time before plummeting doesn't mean you "proved" that tax cuts raise revenue. I don't think you need me to explain why,

"The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for almost half — 48 percent — of this $539 billion in increased costs." How about the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget? Their budget calculator shows that the tax cuts will cost $3.28 trillion between 2011 and 2018. How about George W. Bush's CEA chair, Greg Mankiw, who used the term "charlatans and cranks" for people who believed that "broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue." He continued: "I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't."

From David Stockman
David Stockman, who led the all-important Office of Management and Budget under Reagan and was a chief architect of his fiscal policy, criticized today’s GOP for misreading Reagan’s legacy by adopting a “theology” of tax cuts. Stockman has spoken out before, but took perhaps his strongest stance yet against his own party today, saying “I’ll never forgive the Bush administration” for “destroying the last vestige of fiscal responsibility that we had in the Republican Party.” He also broke with Republican orthodoxy on a number of key issues:

– We need “a higher tax burden on the upper income.”

– “After 1985, the Republican Party adopted the idea that tax cuts can solve the whole problem, and that therefore in the future, deficits didn’t matter and tax cuts would be the solution of first, second, and third resort.”

– The 2001 Bush tax cut “was totally not needed.”

– On claims that Reagan proved tax cuts lead to higher government revenues: “Reagan proved nothing of the kind and yet that became the mantra and it just led the Republican Party away from its traditional sound money, fiscal restraint.”

– Former Vice President Cheney “should have known better” than claim the Bush tax cuts would pay for themselves.

– “I’ll never forgive the Bush administration and Paulson for basically destroying the last vestige of fiscal responsibility that we had in the Republican Party. After that, I don’t know how we ever make the tough choices.”
Bush's economic crew said these things:

Bush administration officials acknowledged cutting taxes decreases net revenue.

"Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues."

Read more: Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues - TIME


Paulson: "I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves." During his June 2006 confirmation hearing, then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson said, "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves." The financial information website MarketWatch reported this statement as "echoing the opinion of most economists."

Nussle: Tax cuts do not "totally pay for themselves." According to a November 15, 2007, Washington Post editorial, Jim Nussle, then the director of the Office of Management and Budget, told reporters, "Some say that [the tax cut] was a total loss. Some say they totally pay for themselves. It's neither extreme."

Viard: "No dispute" revenues lower than they would have been without Bush tax cuts. In an October 17, 2006, article, the Post quoted Alan D. Viard, a former Council of Economic Advisers senior economist under Bush, saying that "[f]ederal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the [Bush] tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that."

Lazear: "[W]e do not think tax cuts pay for themselves." During his testimony to the Senate Budget Committee in 2006, Edward Lazear, then-chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, stated: "Will the tax cuts pay for themselves? As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data presented above do not support this claim."

Samwick: "You know that tax cuts have not fueled record revenues." In a January 2007 New Year's Plea," to "anyone in the [Bush] Administration who may read this blog," Andrew Samwick, an economics professor at Dartmouth College and former chief economist to the Council of Economic Advisers during the Bush administration, wrote:

You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.

The "problem" that these quotes talk about is the Federal budget (deficit and debt) and Federal revenues, not the private sector economy and private sector profits. Whether tax cuts bring in more revenue or pay for themselves may be debatable. There are certainly a host of quotes than can be given to support that. There is the Laffer curve theory that supports a level of taxation as being optimal and above which taxation is counterproductive. Those who view the "economy" as dynamic favor that view. Those who view the economy in a more static fashion think it is obvious that the higher the tax, the higher the federal income. When we speak of the "economy," however, most, I think, are referring to the private sector. That the Government has amassed a huge debt and is unable to balance a budget is a different matter. Your list of quotes don't address the "economy" that most of us think of and which has to pay for the "problem."

The first quote is very telling . . . "in the absence of such legislation, the NATION would have a surplus this year . . . tax cuts account for allmost half . . . of this $539 billion in increased costs." The nation he speaks of is the Federal Government, not the States, the businesses, and the individuals who pay for this overarching Government. And, to me, a cost is outlay, purchase, spending, not income. Not being an economist or accountant, I am not aware of this definition of a cost being income. Government economists seem to think it is. In my simplistic view, government costs are government programs--things that cost money, not the money that is used to pay for those costs. If the money, the revenue, is a cost, then logic would dictate that to reduce that cost (tax revenue), you would reduce the tax. And it is a bit laughable to trot out quotes by the very government apparatichiks who helped to spend the Federal Government into its debt as if they know the answer to getting out of that debt.

I'm not sure--are you implying with these quotes and your previous comments in this thread that balancing the Federal Budget and Paying down the debt will create a booming economy, one that will not "implode." And that raising taxes is the way to do it?--"Maybe there is something to the Reagan post-tax cut recession and Bushs II post -tax cut recession."

And that the resulting fiscally responsible Government will then give the private economy the "confidence" to flourish?--"Balanced budgets help confidence in the economy . . ."--whose confidence and which economy?

As Milton Friedman once asked--where are these angels (that would govern so responsibly)?

So, then, if the Government had not been so profligate in the first place--as it has been for the past century--the "economy" would never have imploded?

Perhaps such thinking is backwards. The "economy" is not driven by the Government. The Government is fed by the "economy" as you almost correctly stated--"When the economy grows, the budget deficit decreases." Except it hasn't worked that way because angels were not at the Government helm, and they sqaundered the wealth given to them (more accurately--that they confiscated), and to think that taxing the rich, raising taxes, blah, blah, will contribute to a balanced budget and a paid National debt is a fiction devoutly to be wished. There is nothing short of a balanced budget amendment that will stop the devils from spending any increased "revenue," as the Federal Government has always done since it wrested powers from State and local governments and from individuals to spend in the manner it does. The chance of such an amendment passing is . . .? Or of returning powers to the States is . . . ? Only the Tea Partiers have the passion for it, and they are being demonized and ridiculed.

[Jim in CT]

Zimmy, first off I apologize if I tee'd you off to the point of wanting to ignore me, that wasn't my intention, but my wife always tell sme my emails are more inflammatory than I intend them to be...

"pointing out that revenue went up for a limited time before plummeting doesn't mean you "proved" that tax cuts raise revenue. "

I wasn't trying to prove that the tax cuts increased revenue (although I believe that to be true, because the same thing also happened when Bill Clinton slashed tax rates). I was trying to prove you were wrong when you said that the tax cuts decreased revenue. After the tax cuts were put in place, revenue went up and stayed up until the subprime mortgage crisis hit. Then revenues went down. If I can't say that the cuts caused the revenues to go up, why is it OK for you to say that the cuts caused them to go down?

Zimmy, you may be right that if it wasn't for those cuts, the deficit would be less. I can also say that if it wasn't for liberals pushing home ownership for poor people who can't aford it, the economy would not have collapsed, and therefore the deficit wouldn't be as bad as it is.

Again, I'm not saying either side is at fault. What I'm saying is this...the previous generation of career politicians over-spent by at least $283,000 per person, and that is irrefutable fact. In my opinion, a group of politicians has to be pretty incompetent to do that, which is why I think we need a new breed who actually know how life works.

Zimmy, for every quote you post from someone bashiong the tax cuts, I can post 50 quotes from folks blaming liberals for spending too much and for pushing subprime mortgages (which you have not once mentioned as a culprit in all this).

Zimmy, you also completely ignored my irrefutable (I think) math that showed how impossible it will be to grow out of this mess with tax revenue, unless we have massive spending cuts.

Look at the numbers from my previous post. Even if tax revenues doubled (which is impossible) and even if we didn't have to pay interest on our debt (which we do), it would take over 140 years to raise an additional $85 trillion. That's 4 generations from now, our great-great-grandkids, who will still be paying this debt off, and that's IF tax revenues double and with no interest!!!!! So Zimmy, are you telling me that tax revenues will more than double? Or are you OK with taking hundreds of years to pay off this debt? Which is it? WHICH IS IT?

How do you respond to that? Please don't tell me what MSNBC or the New York Times tells you to think...don't post quotes from some mouthpiece...what do you think about that?

If my math is wrong (and I pray that it is), please tell me. If not, please tell me how we raise an additional $85 trillion?

You keep saying "business". Again, many liberals seem to believe that they have an unlimited ATM machine out there called "business" that they can raid whenever they like, and that it's free money with no consequences. It's not true...

[zimmy]

Jim, you definitely aren't on my ignore list. You have not done anything that would make me ignore you. I enjoy reasonable discussions. Your math ignored a significant part of revenue. I pointed that out. I am not sure why you keep bringing it up. Another part you are missing is I started in this discussion saying we need both cuts and the tax rate we had in the 90's. Republic and tea parties would never go for that. They cry and cry about being held back by liberal spending, but they won't budge on tax rates for upper incomes.
By the way, you are fairly misinformed (or make incorrect assumptions?) about the housing market. It wasn't liberals pushing poor people who couldn't afford houses into buying them that caused the bubble. It was a combination of banks and underwriters looking to make money off of people by getting them mortgages even if they were very risky and people looking to make money off of houses. A huge percentage of foreclosures came from people trying to flip homes. Another large percent was people who took jumbo type loans and couldn't afford them. Learn the facts before you spout off about blacks being held down by liberals or liberals pushing poor people into getting houses they couldn't afford. As much as I enjoy the discussion, I am bored with it at this point.

[UserRemoved]

I bet I am

Earth Day Ends Obama's 53,300 Gallon Trip - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)

It should be mandatory that these guys reimburse the American taxpayer for ANY costs incurred for campaigning.

Like the guy said...you may have raised 1 million dollars but you lost 1 million votes....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Jim, I enjoy reasonable discussions.

Your math ignored a significant part of revenue. I pointed that out. I am not sure why you keep bringing it up. Another part you are missing, I started, they cry and cry..... by the way, you are fairly misinformed (or make incorrect assumptions?), It wasn't liberals, learn the facts before you spout off.

As much as I enjoy the discussion, I am bored with it at this point.

it would mean so much more if you occasionally provided something more than your own statements of opinion before declaring yourself victor and more informed...and I don't mean quotes from mediamatters,democratunderground and thinkprogress

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Saltys

I bet I am

Earth Day Ends Obama's 53,300 Gallon Trip - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)

It should be mandatory that these guys reimburse the American taxpayer for ANY costs incurred for campaigning.

Like the guy said...you may have raised 1 million dollars but you lost 1 million votes....

Sorry.. I can't hear you You get a pass since you just infected with lead and wood dust I got no problem with reimbursement as long as they all have to do it.

[UserRemoved]

I don't disagree with that. Not sure why they're allowed to get away with it in the first place. If I took a company car out on a vacation or a job interview you betcha the boss would be looking for reimbursement.

Spence will tell you it's ok though and he doesn't mind his tax dollars going to this

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Jim, you definitely aren't on my ignore list. You have not done anything that would make me ignore you. I enjoy reasonable discussions. Your math ignored a significant part of revenue. I pointed that out. I am not sure why you keep bringing it up. Another part you are missing is I started in this discussion saying we need both cuts and the tax rate we had in the 90's. Republic and tea parties would never go for that. They cry and cry about being held back by liberal spending, but they won't budge on tax rates for upper incomes.
By the way, you are fairly misinformed (or make incorrect assumptions?) about the housing market. It wasn't liberals pushing poor people who couldn't afford houses into buying them that caused the bubble. It was a combination of banks and underwriters looking to make money off of people by getting them mortgages even if they were very risky and people looking to make money off of houses. A huge percentage of foreclosures came from people trying to flip homes. Another large percent was people who took jumbo type loans and couldn't afford them. Learn the facts before you spout off about blacks being held down by liberals or liberals pushing poor people into getting houses they couldn't afford. As much as I enjoy the discussion, I am bored with it at this point.

Zimmy I'm relieved to hear that, sincerely!

Zimmy, yuo posted earlier that there's evidence to suggest that a substantial element of the Tea Party is racist. That's a hell of a thing to say. I asked you to support that, and you didn't respond. I'm waiting patiently...

"A huge percentage of foreclosures came from people trying to flip homes. Another large percent was people who took jumbo type loans and couldn't afford them"

Right, and those would be called "subprime" mortgages. Any mortgage given to someone who can't afford it is subprime...that doesn't mean poor, it means unable to pay it back, which can be very different from poor. And our local lib, Barney Frank, had a lot to do with that, and he has not been held accountable for his huge role in this mess. Instead, he blames Bush, and gets re-elected...

"It wasn't liberals pushing poor people who couldn't afford houses into buying them that caused the bubble. It was a combination of banks and underwriters "

Sure Zimmy. It was that evil thing called "business" that's to blame. Big, bad, busines that's out to get us all! No liberals pressured banks to extend homeownership to poor people, that's what you're saying? By the way, since many banks almost went bankrupt because of the subprime mess, I can only wonder what their incentive was to issue those loans. Is it good for banks to issue loans to folks who can't pay them back?

"Learn the facts before you spout off about blacks being held down by liberals or liberals pushing poor people into getting houses they couldn't afford."

I haven't said a single thing that's factually incorrect. You may offer a different opinion, that doesn't mean I'm factually incorrect.

One last time, how about that evidence that a substantial portion of the Tea Party is racist? Please either provide that evidence, or admit that you made that up. I love it whan liberals play that card, because it means that I've won the debate, because that card is played to end the debate, not to further it...

[zimmy]

Jim, I don't mean to come across as a dck as much as I do but with all due respect, you brought up the racism thing several times. I commented that the people I know personally who associate with the tea party are racist. I said there was some evidence of racism at rallies. That is all I said. I didn't bring up the racism issue. I didn't say the tea party as a party has a racist agenda. There is a percentage of people who like the tea party because they want the federal budget cut. You are one of those people. If anyone says you are racist because you are a tea party supporter, that is bs. I think that is what you are getting at with this and I agree with you completely. That said, I believe the agenda of the tea party is appealing to a racist portion of the population for obvious reasons. I didn't play the card, you did.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

There is plenty of evidence that a substantial portion of the members of the tea party are racist.


Jim, you brought up the racism thing several times. I commented that the people I know personally who associate with the tea party are racist. I said there was some evidence of racism at rallies. That is all I said. I didn't bring up the racism issue. I didn't say the tea party as a party has a racist agenda. If anyone says you are racist because you are a tea party supporter, that is bs. That said, I believe the agenda of the tea party is appealing to a racist portion of the population for obvious reasons.

I didn't play the card, you did. QUOTE=zimmy

[Jim in CT]

Zimmy -

" I said there was some evidence of racism at rallies. That is all I said."

Really??? Here is what ytou said..

"There is plenty of evidence that a substantial portion of the members of the tea party are racist."

Zimmy, you may know some racists. That means NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and it says nothing about the tea party. I asked you multiple times for the so-called "evidence", and all you can do is say you have racist friends who go to Tea Party meetings. If you think that says something about the entire Tea Party, you don't know much about critical thinking...

"Your math ignored a significant part of revenue."

No, my math did not. You, and many other liberals, seem to think that taxing "business" is somehow different from taxing people. Zimmy, this may come as a shock to you, but a business can't pay its own taxes. A business is building and equipment...the building itself cannot write a check to the IRS.

I don't know why liberals don't grasp this...when you tax a business, you are taking money away from people linked to that business...the customers, the employees, and the owners/shareholders. Every single penny of business tax is a penny less that some person, somewhere, gets to keep for themselves.

That's not even economics 101, it's simpler than that...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

.


In his mind, calling the Tea Party a bunch of racists is NOT playing the race card....

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

.


In his mind, calling the Tea Party a bunch of racists is NOT playing the race card....

Scott, I am starting to get the idea that you have serious issues. Where did I say the Tea Party is a bunch of racists? Did you read my post? I am done wasting my time with you. You have some weird issue with the tea party and race.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Scott, I am starting to get the idea that you have serious issues. Where did I say the Tea Party is a bunch of racists? Did you read my post? I am done wasting my time with you. You have some weird issue with the tea party and race.

Zimmy -

"Where did I say the Tea Party is a bunch of racists?"

Are you feeling OK? Here is what you posted the other day...

"There is plenty of evidence that a substantial portion of the members of the tea party are racist"

"You have some weird issue with the tea party and race"

My issue is that some folks, including you, find it more convenient to label us as racists, rather than debate the points we are making. It's easy to hurl a baseless accusation of racism. It's a lot harder to try to articulate why fiscal responsibility isn't sound political policy...

[scottw]

[QUOTE=zimmy;853779]Scott, I am starting to get the idea that you have serious issues. Where did I say the Tea Party is a bunch of racists? QUOTE]

Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
"There is plenty of evidence that a substantial portion of the members of the tea party are racist."

[zimmy]

substantial is not all. You asked what evidence there was related to tea party and racism. You said there is no evidence. I gave you examples of racism associated with the tea party based on my own experiences and images from rallies. That is all. I have many thoughts on the policy ideas of the tea party. I would have never brought the race issue up as it is pretty much irrelevant to me. I am not sure why you care so much about it.I would have never replied about except you said there is ZERO EVIDENCE. That is the only reason I chimed in. Zero evidence is a bit disingenuous. Suppose I had said "there is zero evidence that liberals want to take away our guns." You could have replied to show that zero evidence isn't really true with anecdotes about liberals you know who think no one should own guns. You could have shown signs from rallies that talk about kids killed by guns. That would not necessarily mean that you think that every democrat or the democratic party wants to take every bodies guns. It is the same for me and race with the tea party. I am not even sure why I am bothering responding, but maybe it is your mis-characterization that is irritating.

[Jim in CT]

Zimmy, one last time...the fact that you have racist friends who go to Tea Party meetings means absolutely nothing. For you to assume that your little observation can be used to say something about anational organization, is amazing. There is no logic at all in what you are doing.

That would be like me saying "a black woman cut me off on the highway today, therefire I can conclud ethat black women are lousy drivers".

That's not how you do a sample Zimmy. You need a lot more observations, and they need to be random, not limited to your pals.

The fact that you admit to being friends with racists says a lot more about YOU than it does about the Tea Party.

To top it all off, you keep saying on one hand that there's evidence that the Tea Party is racist, then on the other hand, you are denying that you are playing the race card. That's great. So you suggest we are racists, and then when we object to the implication, you tell me I'm being paranoid about race, because you made no such claim?

Clearly, you have no idea what it means to play the race card, because I couldn't invent a better hypothetical example of it than what you are doing. Eith that, of you have been painting inside with the windows shut. You need to open the windows a crack...

Zimmy, you know a few racists who belong to the Tea Party, so you conclude the Tea Party is racist. Fine. Zimmy, what inference do you make about the fact that 95% of blacks voted for Obama? If your 2 racist friends are enough evidence for you to conclude that Tea Partiers are racist, then how can you fail to conclude blacks are also racist? 95% of them refused to vote for McCain, right?

Jeez!

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=zimmy;853892

Suppose I had said "there is zero evidence that liberals want to take away our guns." .[/QUOTE]

You might as well say that, because it's just as bizarre as what you are saying. The liberal agenda is more serious about gun control than the conservative agenda, that's a fact. It's also a fact that there is nothing in the Tea Party agenda that discriminates based on race.

The really ironic thing is that the Tea Party agenda is PRECISELY what blacks need to embrace, in order to escape the shackles of poverty. But they won't consider it, because they have been convinced by the media, by Obama, and by the likes of you, that the Tea Party is racist.

Finally Zimmy...where am I wrong when I say that taxing business is the same as taxing people? You keep saying we can increase revenue without consequences by taxing business, and I made a good case that taking money from a "business" is still taking money from people. I see you didn't respond to that...

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The really ironic thing is that the Tea Party agenda is PRECISELY what blacks need to embrace, in order to escape the shackles of poverty.

I have been avoiding this, but I will now point out that this statement you made before and feel the need to repeat could be deemed racist.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I have been avoiding this, but I will now point out that this statement you made before and feel the need to repeat could be deemed racist.

Again, you play the race card...accusing me of racism, with nothing to back it up.

Blacks are disproportionately poor. The tea party feels that poor people (regardless of ethnicity) are better off with paychecks than with welfare checks. Not only is that better for poor people, it's better for everyone...

You tell me why that's racist, please...that could only be deemed racist by liberal idiots who would always choose to play the race card rather then debate the merits of an argument...

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I have been avoiding this, but I will now point out that this statement you made before and feel the need to repeat could be deemed racist.

That statement he made is not racist...the statement might address race but it isn't racist....there is a difference.

I think a lot of that is getting lost in the PC Policed world

[zimmy]

If Scott said poor people, considering almost 40% of welfare recipients are white, then he is addressing those people and not a race. His statement specifically implied that all blacks need the tea party agenda to escape the "shackles of poverty." Something tells me Colin Powell does not specifically need the tea party policies to escape the shackles of poverty. Why does Scott keep bringing up race?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

If Scott said poor people, considering almost 40% of welfare recipients are white, then he is addressing those people and not a race. His statement specifically implied that all blacks need the tea party agenda to escape the "shackles of poverty." Something tells me Colin Powell does not specifically need the tea party policies to escape the shackles of poverty. Why does Scott keep bringing up race?

First, I'm Jim not Scott...

Second, what I obviously meant was that POOR blacks would benefit by embracing Tea Party ideals. You are right, Oprah Winfrey doesn't need the Tea Party. Pointing out hypertechnical issues is not advancing the debate, does it?

"Why does Scott keep bringing up race?"

Again, I'm Jim. It was brought up because conservatives like me do not like it when liberals dismiss us as racist, instead of discussing the pros/cons of our ideas. That is very intellectually dishonest...And you quickly played that card, then you denied doing it.

[zimmy]

Again, when did I play that card Jim?

[zimmy]

I mean before the most recent post where I pointed out how your statement could be seen as racist.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Finally Zimmy...where am I wrong when I say that taxing business is the same as taxing people? You keep saying we can increase revenue without consequences by taxing business, and I made a good case that taking money from a "business" is still taking money from people. I see you didn't respond to that...

I was talking about how your math ignored revenue from business in your tax analogy. You really distort what I have said. "Taking money from business is taking money from people." Well, some might say that a business tax code without loopholes would reduce the tax burden on a wider proportion of people. You are trying to make simple statements when the economics is complicated.

[zimmy]

Also, please stop indicating that I should respond to everything you say. Are you keeping track or something?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Again, when did I play that card Jim?

I cannot comprehend how you can ask that question, but once again, you played the race card when you said this...""There is plenty of evidence that a substantial portion of the members of the tea party are racist."

Not only is that clearly playing the race card, it's also nonsense. Your handful of friends do not represent "plenty" of evidence, nor do they represent a "substantial" portion of the Tea Party.

"some might say that a business tax code without loopholes would reduce the tax burden on a wider proportion of people."

If business tax hikes only impacted owners of a business, you would be correct. Zimmy, can you answer a question? Where do you think business tax revenue ultimately comes from? Do you grasp that when busines taxes are increased, that means everyone associated with that business pays more taxes? And that includes not just the rich owners, but also employees and customers? IS now a good time to increase the cost of doing business?

I agree that scofflaws like GE need to pay their share. But most businesses already pay their taxes, and increasing those rates now, may do more harm than good.

"please stop indicating that I should respond to everything you say"

If you won't respond to what I'm actually saying, I'd appreciate it if you didn't chime in just to call me a racist. But you are free to do that if you wish...