Barack Obama, one-percenter

[NHSparky]

What?  Lowering taxes take money DIRECTLY out of the general fund CREATING more debt.

Laffer Curve.  Your Google-Fu is weak, young padawan.

[NHSparky]

Actually, the pork barreling runs on the House and the new tea party members.  And the Defense Budget Obama presented was raised billions by Ryan.

The republicans spend like there's no tomorrow on the rich, including their tax cuts for the rich.

I'm sorry, who was running Congress when the last budget was passed?  Better yet, can you tell me WHEN the last budget was passed?

[Sam Dodd]

My bad I wasn't aware the IRS was a right wing pundit.

The Tax Policy Center (TPC) is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.

The Urban Institute is a Washington DC-based liberal think tank The Institute was established in 1968 by the Lyndon B. Johnson administration .

The Brookings Institution is a self-described independent American think tank based in Washington, D.C., in the United States. Its liberal reputation derived from "being closely identified with the technocratic liberal style of the 1960s".

Your opinion piece is still an opinion piece...

[Sam Dodd]

My bad I wasn't aware the IRS was a right wing pundit.

The Tax Policy Center (TPC) is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.

The Urban Institute is a Washington DC-based liberal think tank The Institute was established in 1968 by the Lyndon B. Johnson administration .

The Brookings Institution is a self-described independent American think tank based in Washington, D.C., in the United States. Its liberal reputation derived from "being closely identified with the technocratic liberal style of the 1960s".

DESPITE all the information contained in the piece, the slant is STILL to perpetuate the tax cuts for the rich.

[Boudicca]

All I know is this, my husband makes enough money that we pay alot of taxes and if the tax cuts expire, our spending will go DOWN.  My husband last year deliberately quit one higher paying job for a less stressful, somewhat lower paying one.  Why?  The increased taxes made it unpalatable, not to mention the added stress.
When people get to keep less of what they earn, they tend to care less about earning more.  Consumer spending has driven our economic engine for a long time, but it's spluttering now and next year will only get worse.  Nevertheless, I do hope the House Republicans will hold firm against more taxes and the same, or more, spending.

I want my America back, the one where people actually could take pride in their work and keep most of the fruits of their labor instead of the Federal government FORCING them to support a bunch of deadbeats, including many of the members of said government.

[NHSparky]

Your opinion piece is still an opinion piece...

I'll take an "opinion" based on facts and logic over one based on wishful thinking and Skittle-shitting ponies every day.

You do realize that even if you taxed the "rich" at over 100 percent of their income, you won't even begin to make a dent in the deficit, let alone reduce the national debt?

What will you do then?  I'll tell you what's going to happen--the same thing that's happened every time this class warfare bullshit has been tried on the "rich" and not produced the expected results--YOU'RE going to pay, and dearly at that.

[Zeus]

DESPITE all the information contained in the piece, the slant is STILL to perpetuate the tax cuts for the rich.

Can raw numbers be slanted in anyway but truth. Everyone was rich ?

[Sam Dodd]

I'll take an "opinion" based on facts and logic over one based on wishful thinking and Skittle-shitting ponies every day.

You do realize that even if you taxed the "rich" at over 100 percent of their income, you won't even begin to make a dent in the deficit, let alone reduce the national debt?

What will you do then?  I'll tell you what's going to happen--the same thing that's happened every time this class warfare bullshit has been tried on the "rich" and not produced the expected results--YOU'RE going to pay, and dearly at that.

Yeah, I realize that old argument that it won't make a dent.  I'd suggest we stop pork barreling from Congressional republicans and that will SURELY help.

Just because the right isn't interested in getting the economy from the collapse they caused in 2006 doesn't mean the rest of us arent. And there are more millionaires willing to be taxed than are not.

[NHSparky]

Yeah, I realize that old argument that it won't make a dent.  I'd suggest we stop pork barreling from Congressional republicans and that will SURELY help.

Just because the right isn't interested in getting the economy from the collapse they caused in 2006 doesn't mean the rest of us arent. And there are more millionaires willing to be taxed than are not.

They caused?  Come again?

"Fannie and Freddie are basically sound."  Who uttered that statement again?

Who was telling the American public the housing bubble was unsustainable and that it would lead to a disastrous financial crisis?

And again, who was in charge of Congress when the last budget was passed, and what happens in subsequent years/periods when no budget is passed?  C'mon, rack your little brain real hard.  I know you can do it.

[Sam Dodd]

Can raw numbers be slanted in anyway but truth. Everyone was rich ?

The data has been slanted.  The statement and outcome presented BY the facts is bassackwards to the data.  That's why it's an opinion piece, to slant it, and not a news story.

[NHSparky]

The data has been slanted.  The statement and outcome presented BY the facts is bassackwards to the data.  That's why it's an opinion piece, to slant it, and not a news story.

Okay, so how does taking data directly from the IRS website and putting it in an article somehow make it slanted?

Oh, wait--because it doesn't fit YOUR agenda.  Got it.

[YupItsMe]

Jeebus, I explained this to my kids when they were about 9, 11 & 13 and they understood.  Let me see if I can Dummie it down enough for a liberal to understand.  These numbers represent how tax cuts generate more revenue and are not exact, but just a concept.  Are you ready Sammy?  Get your calculator out.  What is the higher (bigger) number 40% of 1 million dollars or 35% of a million and a half.   What's really neat is that everybody gets more money.  However Congress dipshits on both sides of the aisle just spend it even faster.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

The data has been slanted.  The statement and outcome presented BY the facts is bassackwards to the data...

Support your assertion.

[Duke Nukum]

DESPITE all the information contained in the piece, the slant is STILL to perpetuate the tax cuts for the rich.

I thought you had the makings of a good troll but you are simply boring.

You have no intellectual integrity and simply repeat the same boring lines over and over again.

All of us conservatives could disappear over night and you would have to have delusions of us existing and gleefully, evilly passing out tax cuts to the rich to explain why nothing you believe in works. Because nothing you believe in works. And you have no contact with reality.

[docstew]

Support your assertion.

It'll never happen, because he can't.

Here's a clue, noob. Denying an argument's validity out of hand does nothing to support your own argument. Seriously, it's as if we are saying the earth is round, and showing you pictures taken from space, and you're saying that there's only one side showing, so it's obviously slanted.

[txradioguy]

Yeah, I realize that old argument that it won't make a dent.  I'd suggest we stop pork barreling from Congressional republicans and that will SURELY help.

Interesting in all of this that you ONLY find Republicans culpable for any problems in America.

[Zeus]

The "backfire effect" is a term coined by Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler to describe how some individuals when confronted with evidence that conflicts with their beliefs come to hold their original position even more strongly:

Some think the backfire effect is due to a cognitive deficit: people view unfavorable information as being in agreement with their beliefs (Lebo and Cassino 2007). Nyhan and Reifler, however, interpret backfire effects "as a possible result of the process by which people counterargue preference-incongruent information and bolster their preexisting views." That seems like a roundabout way of saying that people dig in when confronted with evidence contrary to their beliefs, but it doesn't seem to explain why they do so. Another explanation involves communal reinforcement and the assumption that there is more information you don't have that supports your belief.  If one knows that there is a community of believers who share your beliefs and one believes that there is probably information you don't have but which would outweigh the contrary information provided, rationalization becomes easier. It is possible that the rationalization process leads one to give more weight to reinforcement by the community of believers. How much play one's belief gets in the media, versus the play of contrary information may also contribute to the backfire effect. If messages supporting your belief are presented far more frequently in the media than messages contrary to your belief, or presented repeatedly by people you admire, the tendency might be to give those supportive messages even more weight than before.

Whatever the cause, the backfire effect is very curious. The more ideological  and the more emotion-based a belief is, the more likely it is that contrary evidence will be ineffective. There is some evidence that lack of self-confidence and insecurity correlate with the backfire effect.