Cable News Ratings for Friday, November 9, 2012

Categories: '

(263) Comments - Add Yours!

1. Keynes

   Posted November 12, 2012 at 4:00 PM

   @TCZA Why are you only doing a synopsis of increasing taxes of the top 1%. That is not the Democratic proposal. It is to increase taxes on earners who make more than $250,000.00 per year. Way to knock down a straw man though – that was ferocious!

2. Mark2

   Posted November 12, 2012 at 4:01 PM

   @TZCA “0.3 * $1 trillion = $300 million”

   Are you sure you know how to do Math? You must be Republican.

3. TZCA

   Posted November 12, 2012 at 4:02 PM

   @Mark2

   I based my very loose analysis on an average of spending over the last 6 quarters.

   A better question is what is your Federal Budget Plan? I don’t think one has passed Congress and seen the President’s desk in 3-1/2 years (two years of that being a democratic super-congress, 1-1/2 years being a republican house who submitted four plans to the Senate, and rejected by a democratic senate).

4. Keynes

   Posted November 12, 2012 at 4:03 PM

   @Mark2

   “@TZCA “0.3 * $1 trillion = $300 million”

   Are you sure you know how to do Math? You must be Republican.”

   *************************************
   ROFL

5. TZCA

   Posted November 12, 2012 at 4:04 PM

   Mark2
   Posted November 12, 2012 at 4:01 PM
   @TZCA “0.3 * $1 trillion = $300 million”
   ******

   Don’t be a fool, that was a typo.

6. TZCA

   Posted November 12, 2012 at 4:04 PM

   change an ‘m’ to a ‘b’ and the context of my post doesn’t change.

7. Mark2

   Posted November 12, 2012 at 4:08 PM

   @TZCA

   You Republicans always seem to have typos–just ask Rove and Morris, lol.

8. TZCA

   Posted November 12, 2012 at 4:11 PM

   @Keynes

   You mean those ‘millionaires and billionaires’ who earn $250K/yr?

   The analysis doesn’t improve much even including those other redefined ‘millionaires and billionaires.’

   Interesting how everything that doesn’t fit into your liberal paradigm is off-handedly waved off as a staw man or red herring.

9. Mark2

   Posted November 12, 2012 at 4:13 PM

   @TZCA

   Again, what’s YOUR Federal Budget Plan?

10. TZCA

    Posted November 12, 2012 at 4:13 PM

    @Mark2

    I’d rather admit to a typo than to be in a state of disillusionment as you seem to be.

11. TZCA

    Posted November 12, 2012 at 4:13 PM

    @Mark

    Again, what’s yours?

12. Michael

    Posted November 12, 2012 at 4:15 PM

    @Ratboy
    LOL I am on the left coast, so I don’t equate the times, and numbers. If I did it would be called The Two. Here is an idea bring colmes back….

13. Keynes

    Posted November 12, 2012 at 4:15 PM

    @TZCA I do not know where you are getting millionares and billionares from (that conservative media again?). The Democratic plan has ALWAYS been to tax people who earn over $250,000.00 a year at a higher rate. Go back and look at Obama’s speeches. So if by “liberal paradigm” you mean reality based facts, then ok.

14. Mark2

    Posted November 12, 2012 at 4:18 PM

    @SP

    U.S. to become biggest oil producer by 2017.

    LONDON, Nov 12 (Reuters) – The United States will overtake Saudi Arabia and Russia as the world’s top oil producer by 2017, the West’s energy agency said on Monday, predicting Washington will come very close to achieving a previously unthinkable energy self-sufficiency.

    Ouch!!! That’s gotta Hurt! I guess President Obama was right and the Republicans were wrong!!!

15. Faith3

    Posted November 12, 2012 at 4:23 PM

    TZCA,

    Please, the term neoliberalism is not being used as an insult like specific political terms are so often used here. It is specific to real life policies being used internationally. The term is hardly something unknown and can be easily access through academic journals. That is where I suggest you do your reading.

    Yes, you beat the welfare drum but never did answer me about those conservative ideas of a flat tax with a NIT. The cash is freely given with next to nothing in oversight. Just curious because your position almost sounded more pro big governmentish;)

16. TZCA

    Posted November 12, 2012 at 4:24 PM

    @Keynes
    There is no need for me to go back to Obama’s speeches. It is in his own speeches, he energizes the audience with a statement about millionaires and billionaires paying their fair share then progressing shortly thereafter into mentioning the $250K/yer class of income earners.

    So yes, you are correct, he does specifically mention that class of income earners but conveniently groups them into the category of ‘millionaires and billionaires’ because to most people (me included) $250K/yr may as well be a million dollars/yr.

    Not quite sure how your paradigm is equal to ‘reality based facts’, but it’s moot since your guy is in office and his party controls the senate, so for the sake of this country, I hope (pray) your are right.

17. Mark2

    Posted November 12, 2012 at 4:26 PM

    @TZCA

    Cut Defense by 30%
    Cut Welfare by 30%
    Cut all others by 10%
    Cut 50% of Tax Loopholes
    Get rid of Corporate Welfare
    Return to the Clinton Tax rates

    Now what is yours?

18. Mark2

    Posted November 12, 2012 at 4:33 PM

    BBL, I can hardly wait to hear your plan TZCA

19. TZCA

    Posted November 12, 2012 at 4:36 PM

    @Mark2

    I like your plan.

    I’d tweak the Defense to a 20% cut (since I see Defense as the primary purpose of a federal government) and Welfare to 35% with some tweaks in the ‘others’ category.

    There should be no benefits/write-offs to Corporations.

    I’d also like to see more than 50% cut in deductions and exemptions, and have the entire tax code simplified.

    I don’t want a flat tax, but a progressive tax rate such that everyone has skin in the game, everyone receiving a recorded income pays a percentage from 1% minimum to 25% maximum. Any additional revenue measures are done temporarily in withholdings not the per annum tax code.

    I want certainty in the business climate, not a sense of perpetual change which creates anxiety and stifles the ambition for growth.

20. TZCA

    Posted November 12, 2012 at 4:53 PM

    @Faith3

    I said this in a response to Mark2,

    I don’t want a flat tax, but a progressive tax rate such that everyone has skin in the game, everyone receiving a recorded income pays a percentage from 1% minimum to 25% maximum. Any additional revenue measures are done temporarily in withholdings not the per annum tax code.

    I don’t agree with the Negative Income Tax argument, as this would create as much uncertainty in the business climate as already exists. Just simplify the dang tax code.