President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
July 31, 2012 12:43 AM UTC
24 Comments
The Bush tax cuts for his 1%er’s was supposed to do a bangup job for improving the economy. And, we can view those results even today. What would be different from all the jobs the 1%er’s are creating today and after they have to pay their accountants more to avoid more taxes when the Bush the VI tax cuts for the uber rich expire?
So, conversely Pam, increasing the 1% ers is going to help the economy? No, I think the reason Barack Hussein Obama supported extending the Bush Tax Cuts is precisely how much damage it would do to the economy if he allowed them to expire.
He knew that if the economy were any worse off, right before his re-election bid, then he could kiss a second term goodbye. This is why he was FOR extending the Bush tax cuts but now he is against them.
http://www.shopzilla.com/mkt.x…
DIY here http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
Pray tell, how much damage (you make the claim) letting the Bush tax cuts expire would do? Since we had the worst economic collapse in 80 years AFTER his tax cuts went into place.
It would be a wonderful exercise for you to do a little research and empirically show us readers the tax levels in the United States since the Great Depression, and correlate them to GDP or economic health in the alternative.
Otherwise? You’re just blowing smoke.
Tax cuts didn’t cause the recessions.
Or else we’d have seen the boomingest recovery EVER after the enormous tax cuts that made up about one third of the stimulus.
Funny how those who claim the stimulus failed are only pinning the blame on the spending and not on the tax breaks. If tax cuts failed to stimulate the economy then, by your logic, shouldn’t we finally admit that they’re a failed economic policy?
since I highly suspect you’re a Latin scholar.
The tax cuts occurred DURING the Bush administration, as did the catostrophic depression/recession. They are linked, as Bush is to the depression, and as are Republican economics. Own it.
Which is the point I take from our knight’s comment. That you ignore. Alas!
But nice touch! With the latin and all!
Overall, decent effort. Solid ‘C’ student material there, and a definite improvement.
Here’s a few for tonight’s assignment.
Petitio principii
Ignoratio elenchi
Alas, fools will always fail recognizing their own their foibles. They are, after all, fools.
That’s my alliteration for the day.
Excuse me while I look up my homework assignment:-)
but its always good to brush up.
“certo scio, occisam saepe sapere plus multo suem.”
Good One, Duke:-)
take credit for it, Robin, but I found it in a book. It is quoted from a piece called, “Plautus”. Spoken by Miles Gloriosus when referring to a Roman circus clown named Arapahoium GOPhus Doofus, who, incidentally was single handedly responsible for the downfall of a Roman Senator who wanted to be Emperor…his name?…Willardium Mittus Romnae.
What a coincidence, huh?
Please explain your rationale. We normally don’t call people by their entire names including middle names.
Junk town is a troll following AP around. Many refer to GJ as Grand Junktown or Grand Junkyard, for the way they used to treat their riverbanks. Didn’t show up until AP did, IIRC.
Whenever “we” increased taxes on the very wealthy, there were more jobs and better living.
A strong middle class comes with a good education, opportunity, governments that protect the lesser abled. All that takes money.
Speaking broadly, the New Deal was paid for by the highly progressive taxes put in place by FDR and the Congress.
How did that Clinton tax increase hinder the economy, again?
All this talk about rising tax rates on the rich hurting the economy is bunk, which fact is borne out by statistical analysis.
But more directly, it is difficult for any tax rate hike to hurt a business, as taxes are only calculated on PROFITS. You know – money that you still have in your pocket after all the business expenses are paid…
Every year in December we have our CEO telling us to buy pretty much anything we can use to reduce the profit that is then taxed.
Love the business acumen!
Mostly it’s upgrade computers and get people additional monitors.
Gotta lay this semantic blunder at the feet of the Obama camp.
It should be, “$250,000 of taxable income. Folks, that means you might make $350,000 or $500,000 before you hit the additional tax. It all depends on your deductions.”
And it’s the high rollers that have lots of deductions, lots of accountants (even if they don’t get the correct state of residence, snark.)
taxable income over 250K.
Everything up to that is taxed at the appropriate lower marginal rate.
Make $251K and only $1,000 is taxed at 37% (or whatever)
Thanks for pointing out that the tax increase is only on taxable income which is calculated after lots of deductions (e.g., pension contributions, mortgage interest, charitable contributions, state income and property taxes, personal exemptions, etc.).
You are correct that it would take at least $350,000 of gross income before a couple would have to pay any additional tax.