Here we go again.
This time Claire McCaskill(D-MO) makes misrepresented statements... To maybe get the liberals to uprise?
"How can Americans take Republicans seriously about deficit reduction... when they insist on permeant tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans"
Once again, permeant tax cuts for ALL AMERICANS.
"Completely unpaid for"
Thats what federal spending cuts are for.
Now McCaskill ADMITS it's class warfare.. but we knew that.
"They want to call this class warfare, well... you know... in a way it is."
BINGO= Socialist, people.
"Because we are fighting for the middle class"
The middle class want jobs, Claire.
"70% of Americans don't itemize deductions"
Thats because they don't have itemize deduction to claim (this is to easy)
"That big old tax code, it's been written for wealthy Americans"
OBG (again) I'm RICH. Let me check my bank accounts.... Nope not wealthy but I still take those big old tax codes deductions.... So thats another LIE!
"This is all about leveling the playing field"
AKA Wealth distribution= Socialism.... but we knew that....
"If they think it's OK to raise taxes on the embattled middle class..."
Again... Keep Tax cuts for ALL AMERICANS. Are you LISTENING?
"They are going to pout if we don't give more money to millionaires...."
Your not giving more money, YOU'RE TAKING IT AWAY.
AND the kicker:
"It really is time for people in America to take up pitchforks."
"The only pitchforks will be an uprising by Americans of your Socialization of America."
BRING IT ON CLAIR!
What a complete, utter, misunderstanding of the Tea Party.
My message to Claire McCaskill is this.
YOU HAVE NOT BEEN PAYING MUCH ATTENTION TO THIS MOVEMENT NOR IT'S MESSAGE!
SO DON'T TALK DOWN YOUR LIBERAL ELITE NOSE AT AMERICANS, FOOL!
It is amazing how much left wing violence ridden retoric the left are pushing right now. It seems as though every left wing media is calling for this. It's funny how they all speak with one voice. The voice of George Soros. And the mindless zombies do Soros' bidding without question.
since your criticizing Claire can i stand in for her and rebutt?
#1. the Democrats have two bills one that would leave the tax cuts for those under 250,000 and one for those under 1 million. Neither will get enough votes to pass. So in truth the right is voting against tax cuts for the middle class in order to protect the richest Americans. She's being on honest and truthful.
#2. There were no cuts and would be no cuts. The reality of the past republican congress wasn't of spending cuts and the deadlocked congress upcoming would feature no cuts. In fact the Senate defeated a earmark ban with 6 republicans voting against it.
3. About jobs, the expiring tax cuts haven't succeeded in creating jobs and that fact isn't lost on most Americans. While we can agree that certain tax cuts do stimulate job growth, the Bush era cuts did not and will continue that course. So the cuts becoming permanent would not change anything.
4. The right will let taxes rise on the middle class in order to attempt to force the dems into keeping all the cuts. So they will increase taxes on the middle class.
5. the tax code is completely written for the wealthy and contains so many exemptions and loopholes its crazy. It needs to be cut down to perhaps ten deductions max, or i would prefer only children, and a a couple small progressive rates. 5,10,15 and only your children is exemption.
But thats just how i see it.
Chris, you weren't condemning it when the right was doing it. More intellectual dishonesty from ya.
She shouldn't be using that langauge. Its wrong to suggest that people should storm Castle Frankenstein just because Count Rove and Boehnerstein live there.
Chris, I am sure George Soros's busy little associates are feverishly transposing Soros diction in to word for word talking points.
I'd be willing to bet Soros is calling for such an event(s) to take place.
McCaskill surely didn't like the Tea Party showing up on the Hills last March to yell down Pelosi and the Dems as the marched in to the House to take a vote on the HC Bill.
But is calling for 'Pitchfolks' on a bill to let us keep our own money.
Joe, in answer to:
#1 It's a political tactic by the Dems to make it appear the right is voting down to stop a tax increase on the middle class. But Americans are not buy it.
#2 I never claimed it would cut taxes, I said "Keep Tax cuts for ALL AMERICANS" Keyword there is KEEP. And I posted those RINO's in a previous post with regards to the earmarks. But I see you replied nothing on that thread....
#3 You just commented on one of my post that, through using facts and figures, tax cuts do stimulate job growth. Here I'll comment on it again.
2001-4.7 1st Bush Tax Cut + 9/11
2003-6.0 2nd Bush Tax Cuts
2007- 4.6 Congress taken over by Dems
Now you see once the Dems take control of the purse strings and pass entitlement programs unemployment rises dramatically.
#4 Thats your theory, however, publicly stated, the right wants ALL tax cuts extended, but you lefties try to spin this in to some other realm. AKA class warfare, which McCaskill has admitted to. Americans a fed up with it.
#5 Joe I take every deduction I can. I am not rich. However if certain codes are written that apply to upper income, it's because they have invested their money in to the American economy, more then most, to keep it vibrant. It's an reward for the sacrifices they make with their money. Like employing 'We the people'.
YOU benefit by this because you have a job (I am assuming, if not hope you'll get one soon) and income to support your family.
I don't see ANY appreciation from union folks towards the upper income folks who provide you with a job to feed your family.
Joe, you the most dishonest person here calling me "dishonist". We have yet to be "dangerous" or "violent" like you on the left tried to pin on us. The left have been very buisy though being violent,rioting and calling for more violence. It was you Joe that said the right was calling for violence with our revolution II flags. Why Joe have you changed your dishonest tune? Joe why do you project everything you are on me? Is that really a solid rebuttal? Thanks for the laugh little buddy. hahahahahaha
1. The two bills are not gimmicks, they are the platform. Keeping tax cuts for the middle class and letting them expire for the rich. The right can sign on or protect the rich, but when it comes down to it, the right will lose. Middle class Independents won't care about the rights philosophical beliefs, just that their tax cuts didn't get renewed.
2. Never said anything about Tax cuts. You said federal spending cuts. I rebutted saying there will be no cuts and provided my reasoning. Now you want it to be about something else? okay i guess
3. in general tax cuts CAN stimulate growth, but these cuts did not. Your using anecdotal evidence that doesn't hold up to the empirical. Nice try, but to simplistic. Read these. if you need help with the big words let me know.
4. So you say. But play the game and find out. Its better to lose at chicken than to lose with the American people. just wait and see.
5. Mark, my appreciation is shown by using the products and services of those companies that help keep me employed. I don't see alot of appreciation from rightwingers here for unions and their members even though we help drive the economy through consumption. I assume you work and Chris too and that either directly or indirectly i return the money given to me through wages by my consumption. (if not i hope you find a job quickly too.)
Take Sterling Heights. They gave my plant a tax break, so i make sure i do spend my money to a certain degree within the city to keep other business's afloat and help with the cities tax base. I shop locally for what i can because they help with keeping me employed.
You'll find that alot of union members are conscious to that which keep us working. Its no different than a small businessman who buys a Ford because his Coney is filled with Ford workers. We then reciprocate in turn even more.
McCaskill's message in this video is a farce.
I am a middle class business owner here in Missouri, the state McCaskill is suppose to represent. She has never represented my interests nor the interests of Middle Class Missourians.
It was the middle class (not Millionaires) that went to many town hall meetings and told McCaskill NOT to vote for certain bills, like the Obama Care bill. People were very passionate in their desire for her to NOT support these bills.
McCaskill ignored her constituents and voted how her master Obama wanted her to vote. Missouri had to take this issue on themselves and 70% voted against the HC law in our last State Primary election.
Time after time, McCaskill has proven that she is a rubber stamp for Obama, voting for all his and Pelosi's bills.
With this past election in November, McCaskill has seen how vulnerable her political future is, so now she out stumping for her political life saying how she is for the middle class....her word are strictly a pile of bullshit!
BTW, in this video, did you notice the Chuck Schumer bobble head doll in the background?
1. Who sets the platform, those who control the house.
Reid in the Senate quickly brought only the House bill, which extends only the middle-class tax cuts to the Senate floor.
The Independence know if you allow taxes to go up on the job creators, high unemployment will remain. Hell Joe, even 20 Dems know this in the House and voted with the Republicans on this.
#2 Sorry mis-read your comment. And yes there will be cuts, even the Presidents spending cuts council has recommend numerous cuts to spending. One reason for the results of Nov 2 was the out of control spending by the Dems. Now the Chamber that holds the purse strings of our government spending is in the hand of the moderate to conservative Rep. Not the old liberals ones. Both parties know we have to cut spending and in bad economic times raising tax is not good for recovery. It will happen.
#3 Joe those links do not address how the tax cuts of 2003 (tax cuts for the upper income and job creators) and how they effected unemployment. My unemployment figures shows the pattern of when you keep taxation low for job creators it brings down the unemployment rate (crates jobs). I will stand on my data as it shows the pattern.
#4 So I say??? So do the Republicans. They are on public record clearly stating they want ALL tax cuts to remain in place, not for just a certain class of people.
#5 OK thats a good thing. However when have you've seen the unions membership thank the company for working out a contract with their unions leadership for the deal they got. They don't. They thank their union leadership.
When your contract expires, what do you do? You walk off the job. They show no thankfulness for having the job and the pay that goes along with.
Stay on the job and work until both sides come to an agreement. But no, what do you do? Force the company in to your demands.
All the while Americans would kill (figuratively speaking) to have the job.
JHC show some appreciation that a company provides this opportunity for its workforce.
At one point unions did a good thing. but they got greedy and Americans don't see them in a positive light anymore because of it.
All good points here AP. Nice!
Straight from a business owner constituent with in McCaskills home state.
And, I saw Up-Chuck Schumer. He didn't even flinch at McCaskill's 'Pitchfork' comment
Mark, we haven't walked off the line in 34 years. In fact we have worked through every single negotiation without a strike the entire time i have been at Ford Motor. Some have taken months.
If you must know we haven't had a local contract for a couple years now and we are operating on the old one without a strike or mention of a strike. While we have had a National contract the local contract is an old one.
Now you may have seen GM or Chryseler go out locally over the years, but not Ford. And the reasons for alot of the GM strikes had to do with some serious workplace issues, not wages and benefits. I don't know that the UAW has hit the big three with a major wage and benefit strike in alot of years. Not in the 14 years i've been here.
But tell me ohhhh seer of the automakers what happened after our last concession vote? Not two months after asking us for more monetary concessions they gave monetary bonus's to salary. Should i be supportive of that? Should i be thankful?
It sounds like wealth re-distribution to me. Only taking from upper middle class to give to the top ten percent.
Those links are written by people alot smarter in the field of economic than you or I, yet you will stick to your little anecdotal chart. LMMFAO.
Your basically an idiot. I hate to use that language but you point to 1.4 percent off the unemployment rate as working. nevermind that economic growth was the lowest in years, or that the average person made less by the time Bush was out of office.
But now i am going to follow your little anecdotal theme to show something you won't like.
wow he was an awesome president. The anecdotal evidence supports it.
See how that works....
BTW, when Missourians took up everything just short of 'PITCHFORKS' during the town hall meetings that McCaskill presided over...she was appauld that the little people (middle class) would be upset over what McCaskill was cramming down their throats!
I guess we need to take her advice during the next town hall meeting that she is at...and bring our pitchforks!
I'm making a prediction here...She will not be re-elected!
Joe these contracts will be a little different for Ford vs. the other two. For one if Ford makes money after they pay off their taxes the UAW memebers may have some leverage. But if the other two aren't making money it might be a different story. Now that GM has stock holders again it might be hard to give into the UAW as easily. We'll see what happens. But if I was you I'd thank God that Ford didn't take a penny of our money and screwed the stock holders. Ford is on track to make some big money over the next few years if the Democrats don't take it from them first. I wonder if the UAW Solidarity Magazine will cover the fact that the Democrats tax hike took money ouof it's members pockets? We both know that wont happen.
"Not two months after asking us for more monetary concessions they gave monetary bonus's to salary. Should i be supportive of that? Should i be thankful?"
Do you still have a job???
Yes... Be thankful.
I don't get bonuses, but some hire ups do. And I don't care, because I work my ass off and don't complain about what others get. I do my job as expected and I am rewarded with salary increases or promotions. But most of all I am rewarded for still having my job, and I am grateful to have it.
As for your other post, and as I did on Chris blog, I showed Bruce that when Republicans hold congress, as with the Clinton years, unemployment drops. It's not the President but congress that makes the difference as I showed here.
See how that works?
Mark lets be honest and use the entire spectrum of the Clinton years.
1-93 Clinton and Democrat congress elected 7.3%
1-95 Republican congress elected 5.60%
1.8 % drop under all dems
1-97 still republican 5.3
.3% drop under republican congress
1-99 still republican 4.3
1 % drop
.1 percent drop
So unemployment dropped 1.8 percent in the 2 years the Dems controlled everything under Clinton and 1.4 the next 6 years. thats .266 % a year under the Repubs and .9 % a year under the dems.
So how do you like them apples.????
You need to count your apples again, son.
1992 7.5 Dems Control(starting point)
1993 6.9 Dems Control –0.6
1994 6.1 Dems Control -0.8
+1.4% net gain
1995 5.6 Rep Control +0.5
1996 5.4 Rep Control +0.2
1997 4.9 Rep Control +0.5
1998 4.5 Rep Control +0.4
1999 4.2 Rep Control +0.3
2000 4.0 Rep Control +0.2
+2.1% net gain
Mark are you f-ingjoking?
Yearly averages. No one outside of middle school uses yearly averages in determining this stuff.
Get real. Use real stats, not bullshit averages.
AND HERE'S THE BEST PART OF YOUR STATS...THE REPUBLICANS AVERAGED .35 % OVER 6 YEARS....lmao
THE DEMOCRATS AVERAGED (YOU'LL LOVE THIS).4666 A HIGHER AVERAGE PER YEAR.
DEMS WIN AGAIN...LOL
"No one outside of middle school uses yearly averages in determining this stuff."
So why then did you use yearly averages in your post about the Clinton years that is above AP's post?
Why does the BLS utilize yearly averages?
"THE REPUBLICANS AVERAGED .35 % OVER 6 YEARS"
No, they average 4.7% unemployment rate over 6 years. That’s is below the acceptable average of 5%
The Dems, under the Clinton years average 6.7% well above the acceptable average of 5%
Under the Clintons first two years, that I have posted, those ARE yearly averages, you know.
Quit while you're behind.
Post a Comment