Byrd teasing Manchin again

[lastone]

Being that this IS West Virginia, the selection of who will run and win the seat election was made some time ago.
Who "fills in" is of little import. That's all for "show". And some "show" it will be!
The dead will vote and the selected will win. As directed by the WV Democratic Party leaders. It is the way of the one party system. You only think your vote counts.

[AmpedNow]

Joe "smartass" Biden recently said that many of the 8 million jobs lost in the last two years will not be coming back.

Obama also said a few months ago that 10% unemployment will be the new norm.

Then in January, the Bush tax cuts will expire, effectively raising everyone's taxes. Capital gains, estate, and death taxes will be back with a vengeance.

Factor in the uncertainty of cap and trade, which will decimate WV's economy, along with a national VAT, the real misery hasn't even started yet.

These people are economic buffoons. But they really don't care.

The one solace is that we won't see another progressive president after Obama for a long, long time. Unfortunately, it will take a long, long time just to undo all the damage he is doing to our economy.

[Lester]

One of the major reasons given for continuously re-electing Byrd was the enormous amount of power he had in congress to "bring home the bacon".

That's been my contention the whole time. In my opinion, Byrd's biggest legacy is buildings and roads that bear his name. He's spent decades giving the people fish, with little effort on actually teaching them how to fish. Now that he and his power are gone, no one is established enough (even Jay R.) to funnel that level of money in to keep the state propped up.

I may be wrong, and I hope I am. Time will tell.

[CoolBreeze]

And now for something different:

I "think" it was 1979 when I got a call to use my car in a 4th of July parade in Charleston. I had a Volkswagen "Thing", which was the civilian version of the German WWII Kubelwagen. We had stopped making convertibles earlier, and so they were scarce. My passenger would be none other than Robert C Byrd. About halfway through the slow parade, the clutch went out. I had to really baby that clutch to keep the car moving without throwing Byrd out of the car. Seeing him in my German Jeep is still odd to me....

[Bob Campbell]

Joe "smartass" Biden recently said that many of the 8 million jobs lost in the last two years will not be coming back.

Obama also said a few months ago that 10% unemployment will be the new norm.

Then in January, the Bush tax cuts will expire, effectively raising everyone's taxes. Capital gains, estate, and death taxes will be back with a vengeance.
.

The good news is that not a single poster on this board will be effected by any of those changes.
Estate taxes effect less than 1 percent of the population. The Bush tax cuts only effected those making over 250k a year.
btw, during the years we had the same tax rates we're reverting to, we also had the largest economic growth in the nation's history.

BoB Campbell wrote: "Cute. Your economics expertise was earned where?".

Amazing what you can learn when you are not tricked into driving from North Carolina to Gallipolis by a sleazy lawyer.

I wasn't tricked by a sleazy lawyer. It was a dumbass court clerk who outsmarted me.

[Dave Harman]

The good news is that not a single poster on this board will be effected by any of those changes.

We might not be effected, but we'll probably be affected. Since the people we work for are affected by those changes, there's a pretty good chance some of us will be affected, too.

[Lester]

The Bush tax cuts only effected (sic) those making over 250k a year.

Neither I nor my combined household make 250k a year. Your statement is straight up bullshit.

[Bob Campbell]

The Bush tax cuts only effected (sic) those making over 250k a year.

Neither I nor my combined household make 250k a year. Your statement is straight up bullshit.

Pray tell, how much were your taxes cut over the last 8 years. Mine weren't cut at all, and for a few of those years I was making decent bucks. The major portion of the cuts were the capital gains and estate giveaways to the rich. Average people saw squat.

Effect, Affect. I got Arped.

[Lester]

Here you go, Bob... educate yourself (for all the good it will do):

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publicatio ... 26320.html

Not quite sure why President Obama would waste his time extending the Bush era tax cuts, especially "all those that benefit families making less than $250,000" since, according to you, they don't exist.

And as to your question regarding my finances...

• * raised the standard deduction for couples to double the single amount;
  * increased the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000 per child and made it refundable;
  * lowered the 28-percent rate to 25 percent;

So, your comment is bullshit.

[Bob Campbell]

and I repeat, that saved you how much?
Didn't save me a dime. I itemise, saw no change. Don't have a child I can deduct, never been able to use the standard deduction.
You have your bullshit, I have mine.

And yet, despite all those fabulous alleged tax cuts, the economy went in the dumper ( with a net job loss of 3 million 2001-2008), while, with those incredibly high rates under Clinton, we had the most robust economy in the nation's history. Funny huh?

[Lester]

My refund went up substantially. You don't get details of that level, but let's say it used to be 3 digits and it went to 4... well into 4.

[NOMAD]

and I repeat, that saved you how much?
Didn't save me a dime. I itemise, saw no change. Don't have a child I can deduct, never been able to use the standard deduction.
You have your bullshit, I have mine.

And yet, despite all those fabulous alleged tax cuts, the economy went in the dumper ( with a net job loss of 3 million 2001-2008), while, with those incredibly high rates under Clinton, we had the most robust economy in the nation's history. Funny huh?

Don't confuse the fellas that want to maintain the so called "Conservative" Party line with the facts Bob...

[NOMAD]

I'm tempted to take that bet. However, if the economy turns around, if the right wing machine stays nutty as hell, if the Republicans nominate Palin or another joke, or if a third party tea bagger type splits off some votes President Obama wins. If two or more of those things happen he wins in a landslide.

Also, I was serious about that traditional values thing. No one has yet to define those to me. I have a suspicion it is just a focus group tested, bullshit, politician's phrase designed to "get next" to middle class moderate white people. I think it's the same thing as that "War On Christmas" horseshit.

Being a middle class moderate white people, I also get disturbed by the doings of the fringe left and the seeming degradation of our culture and country. However, I recognize the fringe left have no ability to do, well, anything, and know the truth is the country and culture are changing in many ways but, they are not being degraded. So, bullshit like "Traditional Values" and "War on Christmas" doesn't work with me.

I could be wrong about this. If someone can define traditional values without it being an extended version of the same bullshit I will know.

With Emperor Zero confiscating industries and shaking down companies for 20 billion dollar slush funds, along with the uncertainty he keeps generating with the inevitable tax hikes of 2011 and increased regulation, the economy has less chance of improving before the 2012 election to any significant degree (which would mean getting back to 2006-7's level of prosperity) than I have of Jessica Alba and Megan Fox showing up on my front doorstep asking me to father their kids.

Economic prosperity only happens where government is predictable because there is a rule of law. Well, Obamagovernment is predictable as well. It's a system of crony capitalism, a hallmark of National Socialist theroy, but in such a way as to dissuade captital investment.

Want to make money? Short sell the Euro today, short sell the Dollar 6 months from now.

Cute. Your economics expertise was earned where?

Rightwing spin machine U..lol

[Jay Nunley]

Jessica Alba and Megan Fox showing up on my front doorstep asking me to father their kids.

That happened to me last Wednesday. I told them both no. It's not time for me to be a father and Ralston wouldn't put up with it anyway.

[Lester]

Don't confuse the fellas that want to maintain the so called "Conservative" Party line with the facts Bob...

My refund went up substantially. You don't get details of that level, but let's say it used to be 3 digits and it went to 4... well into 4.

Those are facts.

And while we're on the subject, which account do you plan on using? One of them is going away.

[NOMAD]

..

[NOMAD]

NOMAD wrote:
Don't confuse the fellas that want to maintain the so called "Conservative" Party line with the facts Bob...

Lester wrote:
My refund went up substantially. You don't get details of that level, but let's say it used to be 3 digits and it went to 4... well into 4.

Those are facts.


Umm.. Depends on who ya ask Les...

http://www.centeronbudget.org/cms/index ... iew&id=100

Tax Foundation Estimates of State and Local Tax Burdens Are Not Reliable
PDF of this report (13pp.)
By Nicholas Johnson, Iris J. Lav and Joseph Llobrera

"Tax Foundation Figures Do Not Represent Typical Households’ Tax Burdens"
March 31, 2009 Related Areas of Research
State Budget and Tax
Taxes
Summary
In March 2007, the Tax Foundation is expected to release its annual report on “Tax Freedom Day,” which it describes as the day when “Americans will finally have earned enough money to pay off their total tax bill for the [current] year.” For each state, the report will show the Tax Foundation’s estimate of state and local taxes paid by residents of that state as a share of residents’ total incomes and each state’s ranking by that measure. The estimates are shown calculated to one-tenth of one percentage point.

The apparent timeliness and precision of the Tax Foundation’s estimates are likely to attract the attention of policymakers and the media, who may use the rankings to make claims about a given state’s “tax burden” relative to those in other states. But what the Tax Foundation is unlikely to acknowledge – save in the methodology section at the end of its report, and even there only indirectly – is that its state and local findings do not reflect actual total tax collections for that year or for the previous year. Rather, the findings are estimates and projections, largely derived from years-old data and from national samples that were never intended to be used for state-by-state estimates, and calculated using a methodology that never has been formally published or subject to outside review.

This report shows the degree to which their initial projections have been erroneous, and thus potentially misleading to policymakers.

■For example, in their 2002 report the Tax Foundation claimed that tax burdens had risen since 2000 in 38 states. But three years later, it issued a revision that showed only eight states had higher tax burdens in 2002 than in 2000 — not the 38 states it had initially claimed. (Data from the Census Bureau shows that the tax burden had risen between 2000 and 2002 in only four states.)

■When the Tax Foundation’s initial report was released in April 2002, a number of states were debating whether to address their budget shortfalls with additional tax revenue or through budget cuts. Tax Foundation “information” that tax burdens already had been rising in a state over the past two years could have influenced the debate. But, as the Tax Foundation’s own revision showed, the initial “information” wasn’t true. So any policy implications that were drawn from the Tax Foundation’s report were unfounded.

The Tax Foundation’s Defense of Its Inaccurate State and Local Tax Estimates
In a response to these criticisms posted to the Tax Foundation web site March 20, 2006, the Tax Foundation does not deny the substantive finding that actual state and local tax levels and rankings frequently turn out to be very different than the Tax Foundation’s initial predictions. Rather, the Tax Foundation asserts that its report gives the news media, policymakers, and general readers ample information to make an informed decision on whether to take the results seriously or not.

But there is reason to believe that the Tax Foundation report does not adequately forewarn the reader of the uncertainty of its estimates. For example, the words “forecast” and “estimate” do not appear in the 2006 report until the “methodology” section of the report, which begins on page 14 of the 16-page report. More significantly, the Tax Foundation has not published a formal analysis of whether its model provides accurate forecasts. Nor does the Tax Foundation provide in any reasonably accessible form a way for readers themselves to compare forecasts with actual results.

This approach stands in sharp contrast to the approach used by other researchers who publish estimates. For example, the Tax Foundation compares its report to the data published by the highly regarded U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis as examples of estimates that are regularly revised. But BEA’s approach is distinctly different from the Tax Foundation’s. BEA makes clear throughout its press materials and reports that its figures are estimates. It publishes extensive, detailed explanations of how and why their estimates are revised. (Some BEA revisions reflect improved data, but others reflect definitional changes.) The Tax Foundation does neither of those things.
The Tax Foundation’s rankings of state tax burdens also tend to be flawed.

And while we're on the subject, which account do you plan on using? One of them is going away.


Well, we actually weren't on the subject, but I figured that since my other ID was automatically deactivated when I had to dump an old e-mail address, that this old one would be the one that I would have to use...

[Lester]

Umm.. Depends on who ya ask Les...

I don't need to ask anyone. I have the tax returns to prove it. Do you ever think for yourself?

Or should I ask, have you ever paid taxes?

[Lester]

It's still in there... just deactivated until the new email is validated. Which one do you want?

[AmpedNow]

And yet, despite all those fabulous alleged tax cuts, the economy went in the dumper ( with a net job loss of 3 million 2001-2008), while, with those incredibly high rates under Clinton, we had the most robust economy in the nation's history. Funny huh?

I remember the national unemployment rate for most of those years being between 5-6%. Even WV had 5.3% unemployment during one of those years.

Many economists agree that 5% is considered full employment. When it goes lower than 5%, there are actually more jobs available than there are people to fill them.

So, where are we now?

I don't blame Obama for the Great Meltdown of '08, but 18 months is long enough to make policy and see its effects on the economy. By any objective measure, the February '09 stimulus money only served to stimulate government jobs, while the private sector has remained flat.

If anything, it looks like we're teetering on another downturn. This whole Keynesian economic theory thing is making me a little bit nervous... Too much unpredictability. It also puts the government in a more powerful position to directly control economic activity, which we don't always need.

10% unemployment being "the new norm" is unacceptable. Period.