minny…

fotkividiki…

“And if you’re on wordpress.com and can’t install stuff, go to Dashboard/My Blogs and tick Twitter in the Publicize column.”…

“When editing a post or a page in WordPress, you should see a box where the text goes. At the top right should be two tabs–one says "Visual" and one says "HTML". If you click the Visual tab, you will have the regular editing page….

“Persianblog is better then WordPress dear or use http://howtozed.blogspot.com“…

demontaj…

[...]here are some other links to sites that I link to because I think they are really worth visiting[...]…

The Republican ideology has always been tax cuts=prosperity, job growth

However, in a Business Journal article distributed to journals all over the country on 1/20/09

President George W. Bush will leave office Tuesday with the worst employment-growth record of any president since World War II, according to a new analysis by Bizjournals.

The nation’s job base grew at an annual rate of 0.28 percent during Bush’s eight years as president – by far the slowest pace for any of the 11 presidents in the postwar era, according to Bizjournals. Bizjournals is the online media arm of American City Business Journals, The Business Review's parent company.

The previous low had been set by Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush, with an annual job-growth rate of 0.59 percent. The elder Bush served between 1989 and 1993.

http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories…

And please pay close attention to the chart at the comaparison of the growth under the Presidents at the bottom of the article……are you seeing the pattern that I see?

Also by virtue of Republican argument, where is the enormous job growth that should have been initiated by the trillion dollars in tax cuts to businesses and the richest corporations.

Let's be clear, Bush has spent and spent, borrowing money and China and other foreign governments……..but he has also let the richest citizens benefit from tax cuts in an effort to stimulate job growth……and I still want to know WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

ANd as far as this entitlement crap you are pushing…it is debt, so no one has paid for it…so I am trying to understand your point of including that in a discussion about the effectiveness of sweeping tax cuts.

Also, I wanted to bring to your attention a study executed asn published by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center :Urban Institute Brookings Institution from September 27, 2004

I. Introduction

This article evaluates the distributional effects of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and is the second article in a series that summarizes and evaluates tax policy in the Bush administration.1 A central issue in any tax change is who wins and who loses. Both the optimal degree of redistribution and the best way to measure that redistribution are controversial. We obtain several key results:

The tax cuts enacted to date increase the disparity in after-tax income; most households would receive a direct tax cut, but after-tax income would rise by a larger percentage for high-income households than for low-income households.
Once the eventual financing of the tax cuts is taken into account, the distributional effects will likely be even more regressive. For example, if the eventual financing is proportional to income, about 80 percent of households, including a large majority of households in every income quintile, will end up worse off after the tax cuts plus financing than before.
Likewise, although advocates routinely describe the tax cuts as pro-family and pro-small-business, we show that most families (that is, with children) and most taxpayers with small-business income will be worse off once the financing is included.
Even if the tax cuts raise economic growth by a significant amount (relative to existing estimates of the growth effects), most households will end up worse off after the tax cuts, the growth effect, and the financing are considered than they would have been if the tax cuts had not taken place.
Incorporating the eventual financing of the tax cut into the distributional analysis is a key innovation in the analysis. It is consistent with the fact that the tax cuts must be paid for eventually with either spending cuts or other tax increases. It is consistent with the differential (revenue-neutral) incidence analysis that is the standard in academic treatments of tax incidence. And it makes moot the distracting and misleading debates about which of a variety of distributional measures are most appropriate: In analyses that ignore financing, the alternative measures give different results, but when plausible methods of financing are included, all of the measures yield the same qualitative results.

http://taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm…

Do you mind if I “school you” a bit?

1) The so called “Tax Cut on the Rich” which were really “Tax Cuts for those who PAY THE MOST TAXES” was a 10 year – $1.8 trillion tax cut.
Thus since they were passed and put into effect in 2001 the theoretical “revenue loss” has not taken full effect. It is rather interesting that you believe that the tax rate “Pre Bush” was the right level of taxation but the tax cut where people get to keep their own money is a bad thing. (7 years x $180 billion in lost revenues = $1.26 trillion)

2) Add the Iraq/Afghan war spending of about $850 billion and we get approximately $2 trillion in debt spending.

BUT WAIT – the US Deficit grew by $5 trillion under EVIL BUSH. Monie – where did the rest of the money go?

You see – if Bush was spending like a “Drunken Sailor” – and thus running up a tab that our CHILDREN will have to pay……let's see if this will be your talking point going forward.

I will tell you where the REST OF THE MONEY WENT TO – Entitlement Spending. According the the Concorde Coalition the current $1 trillion per year in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid spending per year will grow to $2 trillion in 10 years.

Take a look at what the $2.5 trillion debt recalculation last year entailed:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-05…

Please READ THE ABOVE ARTICLE.
You will see where the root of our financial crisis resides.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hugs And Kisses – you tickle me so.

My how you have been smitten with CHANGE.

You act as if it is your American duty to SUPPORT YOUR PRESIDENT……….now.

It comes as no surprise that just 3 weeks ago your disposition was: “We can hold any politician that SUPPORTS BUSH'S PLANS and why”.

Can we just be honest with each other, please, and note that your NEW disposition is ONLY because YOU have a more favorable president in office?

Still, Hugs and Kisses – you will not be able to top what I see in Young Jeezy.
A month ago he was saying “F The police”. Today he is agreeing that he should pay more than 50% of his income in taxes in order to support Obama.

To be honest with you – if he is willing to fund the police that he (and Lil Wayne) say is harassing them then this indeed is CHANGE that I can believe in

I'll just keep noting the irony of it all.

I have no problem blaming Bush and the Republicans for THEIR PORTION of the fault of our present circumstances.

I refuse to engage in a fraudulent set up.

Here is the deal Sepia -

Let's define some rules for your consideration

EITHER

1) The Party of the President that is in power gets all of the BLAME – and thus we both agree to scrutinize Barack Obama in 4 years

OR

2a) We factor in the state of CONGRESS during the last 2 years of the Presidency

2b) We ALSO look at the LOCAL and STATE political influences that bear upon the Black and Working class community and factor them in proportionally.

You know as well as I do that if the Congress was Republican for the past two years you would now be saying that the REPUBLICANS CONTROLLED THE GOVERNMENT. As much as you and the other propagandists on this blog seek to control the narrative – we are not going to hear the last 2 years mentioned.

But again to be clear – ATTACK GEORGE BUSH. This is not my problem with you. My problem is the FRAUDULENT avoidance of telling the entire story.

In the Black community – where there is an entire slate of Democratic politicians and we enumerate the key challenges within:

* Educational Quality
* Public Safety
* Economic Development
* Healthy Lifestyles

it serves your agenda to focus on NATIONAL REPUBLICANS while saying little about the LOCAL DEMOCRATS that are failing you.

My problem is not in your ability to ATTACK AND CRITICIZE. Criticism is healthy. My problem with the Black Quasi-Socialist Progressive-Fundamentalist Racism Chaser is that you function as AGENTS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY and thus:

WHEN YOUR PARTY FAILS – it is evidence that you need MORE POWER NATIONALLY. Instead you need to focus upon the flawed policies that you have.

if the nation is WEAKER AFTER 8 YEARS OF BUSH………
Is the Rust Belt of America STRONGER after 30 years of Progressive Politics?

I think not.

The Republican ideology has always been tax cuts=prosperity, job growth

However, in a Business Journal article distributed to journals all over the country on 1/20/09

President George W. Bush will leave office Tuesday with the worst employment-growth record of any president since World War II, according to a new analysis by Bizjournals.

The nation’s job base grew at an annual rate of 0.28 percent during Bush’s eight years as president – by far the slowest pace for any of the 11 presidents in the postwar era, according to Bizjournals. Bizjournals is the online media arm of American City Business Journals, The Business Review's parent company.

The previous low had been set by Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush, with an annual job-growth rate of 0.59 percent. The elder Bush served between 1989 and 1993.

http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories…

And please pay close attention to the chart at the comaparison of the growth under the Presidents at the bottom of the article……are you seeing the pattern that I see?

Also by virtue of Republican argument, where is the enormous job growth that should have been initiated by the trillion dollars in tax cuts to businesses and the richest corporations.

Let's be clear, Bush has spent and spent, borrowing money and China and other foreign governments……..but he has also let the richest citizens benefit from tax cuts in an effort to stimulate job growth……and I still want to know WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

ANd as far as this entitlement crap you are pushing…it is debt, so no one has paid for it…so I am trying to understand your point of including that in a discussion about the effectiveness of sweeping tax cuts.

Also, I wanted to bring to your attention a study executed asn published by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center :Urban Institute Brookings Institution from September 27, 2004

I. Introduction

This article evaluates the distributional effects of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and is the second article in a series that summarizes and evaluates tax policy in the Bush administration.1 A central issue in any tax change is who wins and who loses. Both the optimal degree of redistribution and the best way to measure that redistribution are controversial. We obtain several key results:

The tax cuts enacted to date increase the disparity in after-tax income; most households would receive a direct tax cut, but after-tax income would rise by a larger percentage for high-income households than for low-income households.
Once the eventual financing of the tax cuts is taken into account, the distributional effects will likely be even more regressive. For example, if the eventual financing is proportional to income, about 80 percent of households, including a large majority of households in every income quintile, will end up worse off after the tax cuts plus financing than before.
Likewise, although advocates routinely describe the tax cuts as pro-family and pro-small-business, we show that most families (that is, with children) and most taxpayers with small-business income will be worse off once the financing is included.
Even if the tax cuts raise economic growth by a significant amount (relative to existing estimates of the growth effects), most households will end up worse off after the tax cuts, the growth effect, and the financing are considered than they would have been if the tax cuts had not taken place.
Incorporating the eventual financing of the tax cut into the distributional analysis is a key innovation in the analysis. It is consistent with the fact that the tax cuts must be paid for eventually with either spending cuts or other tax increases. It is consistent with the differential (revenue-neutral) incidence analysis that is the standard in academic treatments of tax incidence. And it makes moot the distracting and misleading debates about which of a variety of distributional measures are most appropriate: In analyses that ignore financing, the alternative measures give different results, but when plausible methods of financing are included, all of the measures yield the same qualitative results.

http://taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm…

Do you mind if I “school you” a bit?

1) The so called “Tax Cut on the Rich” which were really “Tax Cuts for those who PAY THE MOST TAXES” was a 10 year – $1.8 trillion tax cut.
Thus since they were passed and put into effect in 2001 the theoretical “revenue loss” has not taken full effect. It is rather interesting that you believe that the tax rate “Pre Bush” was the right level of taxation but the tax cut where people get to keep their own money is a bad thing. (7 years x $180 billion in lost revenues = $1.26 trillion)

2) Add the Iraq/Afghan war spending of about $850 billion and we get approximately $2 trillion in debt spending.

BUT WAIT – the US Deficit grew by $5 trillion under EVIL BUSH. Monie – where did the rest of the money go?

You see – if Bush was spending like a “Drunken Sailor” – and thus running up a tab that our CHILDREN will have to pay……let's see if this will be your talking point going forward.

I will tell you where the REST OF THE MONEY WENT TO – Entitlement Spending. According the the Concorde Coalition the current $1 trillion per year in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid spending per year will grow to $2 trillion in 10 years.

Take a look at what the $2.5 trillion debt recalculation last year entailed:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-05…

Please READ THE ABOVE ARTICLE.
You will see where the root of our financial crisis resides.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hugs And Kisses – you tickle me so.

My how you have been smitten with CHANGE.

You act as if it is your American duty to SUPPORT YOUR PRESIDENT……….now.

It comes as no surprise that just 3 weeks ago your disposition was: “We can hold any politician that SUPPORTS BUSH'S PLANS and why”.

Can we just be honest with each other, please, and note that your NEW disposition is ONLY because YOU have a more favorable president in office?

Still, Hugs and Kisses – you will not be able to top what I see in Young Jeezy.
A month ago he was saying “F The police”. Today he is agreeing that he should pay more than 50% of his income in taxes in order to support Obama.

To be honest with you – if he is willing to fund the police that he (and Lil Wayne) say is harassing them then this indeed is CHANGE that I can believe in

I'll just keep noting the irony of it all.

I have no problem blaming Bush and the Republicans for THEIR PORTION of the fault of our present circumstances.

I refuse to engage in a fraudulent set up.

Here is the deal Sepia -

Let's define some rules for your consideration

EITHER

1) The Party of the President that is in power gets all of the BLAME – and thus we both agree to scrutinize Barack Obama in 4 years

OR

2a) We factor in the state of CONGRESS during the last 2 years of the Presidency

2b) We ALSO look at the LOCAL and STATE political influences that bear upon the Black and Working class community and factor them in proportionally.

You know as well as I do that if the Congress was Republican for the past two years you would now be saying that the REPUBLICANS CONTROLLED THE GOVERNMENT. As much as you and the other propagandists on this blog seek to control the narrative – we are not going to hear the last 2 years mentioned.

But again to be clear – ATTACK GEORGE BUSH. This is not my problem with you. My problem is the FRAUDULENT avoidance of telling the entire story.

In the Black community – where there is an entire slate of Democratic politicians and we enumerate the key challenges within:

* Educational Quality
* Public Safety
* Economic Development
* Healthy Lifestyles

it serves your agenda to focus on NATIONAL REPUBLICANS while saying little about the LOCAL DEMOCRATS that are failing you.

My problem is not in your ability to ATTACK AND CRITICIZE. Criticism is healthy. My problem with the Black Quasi-Socialist Progressive-Fundamentalist Racism Chaser is that you function as AGENTS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY and thus:

WHEN YOUR PARTY FAILS – it is evidence that you need MORE POWER NATIONALLY. Instead you need to focus upon the flawed policies that you have.

if the nation is WEAKER AFTER 8 YEARS OF BUSH………
Is the Rust Belt of America STRONGER after 30 years of Progressive Politics?

I think not.

The Republican ideology has always been tax cuts=prosperity, job growth

However, in a Business Journal article distributed to journals all over the country on 1/20/09

President George W. Bush will leave office Tuesday with the worst employment-growth record of any president since World War II, according to a new analysis by Bizjournals.

The nation’s job base grew at an annual rate of 0.28 percent during Bush’s eight years as president – by far the slowest pace for any of the 11 presidents in the postwar era, according to Bizjournals. Bizjournals is the online media arm of American City Business Journals, The Business Review's parent company.

The previous low had been set by Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush, with an annual job-growth rate of 0.59 percent. The elder Bush served between 1989 and 1993.

http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories…

And please pay close attention to the chart at the comaparison of the growth under the Presidents at the bottom of the article……are you seeing the pattern that I see?

Also by virtue of Republican argument, where is the enormous job growth that should have been initiated by the trillion dollars in tax cuts to businesses and the richest corporations.

Let's be clear, Bush has spent and spent, borrowing money and China and other foreign governments……..but he has also let the richest citizens benefit from tax cuts in an effort to stimulate job growth……and I still want to know WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

ANd as far as this entitlement crap you are pushing…it is debt, so no one has paid for it…so I am trying to understand your point of including that in a discussion about the effectiveness of sweeping tax cuts.

Also, I wanted to bring to your attention a study executed asn published by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center :Urban Institute Brookings Institution from September 27, 2004

I. Introduction

This article evaluates the distributional effects of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and is the second article in a series that summarizes and evaluates tax policy in the Bush administration.1 A central issue in any tax change is who wins and who loses. Both the optimal degree of redistribution and the best way to measure that redistribution are controversial. We obtain several key results:

The tax cuts enacted to date increase the disparity in after-tax income; most households would receive a direct tax cut, but after-tax income would rise by a larger percentage for high-income households than for low-income households.
Once the eventual financing of the tax cuts is taken into account, the distributional effects will likely be even more regressive. For example, if the eventual financing is proportional to income, about 80 percent of households, including a large majority of households in every income quintile, will end up worse off after the tax cuts plus financing than before.
Likewise, although advocates routinely describe the tax cuts as pro-family and pro-small-business, we show that most families (that is, with children) and most taxpayers with small-business income will be worse off once the financing is included.
Even if the tax cuts raise economic growth by a significant amount (relative to existing estimates of the growth effects), most households will end up worse off after the tax cuts, the growth effect, and the financing are considered than they would have been if the tax cuts had not taken place.
Incorporating the eventual financing of the tax cut into the distributional analysis is a key innovation in the analysis. It is consistent with the fact that the tax cuts must be paid for eventually with either spending cuts or other tax increases. It is consistent with the differential (revenue-neutral) incidence analysis that is the standard in academic treatments of tax incidence. And it makes moot the distracting and misleading debates about which of a variety of distributional measures are most appropriate: In analyses that ignore financing, the alternative measures give different results, but when plausible methods of financing are included, all of the measures yield the same qualitative results.

http://taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm…

Do you mind if I “school you” a bit?

1) The so called “Tax Cut on the Rich” which were really “Tax Cuts for those who PAY THE MOST TAXES” was a 10 year – $1.8 trillion tax cut.
Thus since they were passed and put into effect in 2001 the theoretical “revenue loss” has not taken full effect. It is rather interesting that you believe that the tax rate “Pre Bush” was the right level of taxation but the tax cut where people get to keep their own money is a bad thing. (7 years x $180 billion in lost revenues = $1.26 trillion)

2) Add the Iraq/Afghan war spending of about $850 billion and we get approximately $2 trillion in debt spending.

BUT WAIT – the US Deficit grew by $5 trillion under EVIL BUSH. Monie – where did the rest of the money go?

You see – if Bush was spending like a “Drunken Sailor” – and thus running up a tab that our CHILDREN will have to pay……let's see if this will be your talking point going forward.

I will tell you where the REST OF THE MONEY WENT TO – Entitlement Spending. According the the Concorde Coalition the current $1 trillion per year in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid spending per year will grow to $2 trillion in 10 years.

Take a look at what the $2.5 trillion debt recalculation last year entailed:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-05…

Please READ THE ABOVE ARTICLE.
You will see where the root of our financial crisis resides.