[no gnu taxes]

http://www.newsmax.com/US/DSouza-mat...8/24/id/449727

The anti-Obama documentary based on Dinesh D’Souza’s book “The Roots of Obama’s Rage” expanded nationwide on Friday — with early first-place showings in the domestic box office rankings, Deadline Hollywood reports.

As of late Friday afternoon, “2016: Obama's America” had grossed $700,000 from 1,090 theaters. That compared with $300,000 for the new big-budget, Sylvester Stallone action flick “The Expendables 2,” which is playing in 3,355 theaters, Deadline Hollywood reports.

The early showing puts Obama’s America on track to gross $1.2 million to $1.7 million on Friday alone, with as much as $3.7 million to $5 this weekend, according to Deadline Hollywood. Its afternoon ranking will likely be eclipsed by “Expendables” and several new releases, including “Ride Like Hell,” starring Michael Shannon.

Exhibitors reported that busloads of filmgoers arriving at theaters to see Obama’s America in pre-organized trips, Deadline Hollywood reports.

The film’s producer, Rocky Mountain Pictures, used the same marketing approach to build audiences for many of its faith-based films. Its efforts included advertising nationally over the past two weeks on talk radio and cable news channels.

Last weekend, Obama’s America grossed $1.2 million in select markets, including New York City, and had a total gross of $2.1 million from a total of 169 theaters.

The low-budget film features author D’Souza outlining facts to assist viewers in gaining an understanding of the apparent motivations behind a number of President Barack Obama’s policies.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax last week, D’Souza said that Obama’s policies are unmaking the American Dream.

“Between 2007 and the present, Americans have lost about 40 percent of our wealth. Forty percent. If that happens again, if we lose another 40 percent in the second Obama term, if there is a second Obama term, Americans will be two thirds poorer than they were when Obama came to office,” he told Newsmax. “In a way, America will stop being a first-world country.”

So far, “2016” is the second-best gross of the year for a documentary after “Bully” ($3.2 million), but that list excludes the nature documentaries “Chimpanzee” ($29 million) and “To the Arctic” ($7.6 million), according to the Hollywood Reporter.

The documentary opened last month and is already the 12th-highest-grossing political documentary of all time. It also is the No. 2 conservative documentary after “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” ($7.7 million), according to the Reporter.

The aggressive expansion of Obama's America, co-directed by D'Souza and John Sullivan, was set to coincide with next week's Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla.

[Shaudius]

“Between 2007 and the present, Americans have lost about 40 percent of our wealth. Forty percent. If that happens again, if we lose another 40 percent in the second Obama term, if there is a second Obama term, Americans will be two thirds poorer than they were when Obama came to office,” he told Newsmax. “In a way, America will stop being a first-world country.”

Say what? Obama was President in 2007? Why would they pick 2007 as the jumping off point for where Americans have lost their wealth in a critique of Obama. I guess Obama's first term went from 2007-2012.

Nevermind the fact that most wealth lost was due to the housing bubble's collapse which any economist on either side of the aisle will tell you, and to extrapolate that collapse to make it seem like it could occur with a high likelihood in Obama's second term is ridiculous.

But it makes perfect sense to them because they're just partisan political hacks who are using scare tactics in order to sell movie tickets and defeat Obama in <3 months.

[no gnu taxes]

Say what? Obama was President in 2007? Why would they pick 2007 as the jumping off point for where Americans have lost their wealth in a critique of Obama. Oh that's right they're just partisan political hacks who are using scare tactics in order to sell movie tickets and defeat Obama in <3 months.

And I suppose you think that Fahrenheit 911 was speaking truth to power? The fact is that from the time the final Bush tax cuts were enacted in 2003 until 2008, the economy prospered and federal revenues increased. The back breaker was the 2008 financial sector crisis at the end of the bush Presidency, but I'll give you time to go look up the talking points to show why that was the fault of Bush/Republicans.

[King Mayan]

Not surprised..

Right wing propaganda sells...

Sheep eat it up... Keep wasting your money on shit you wanna hear.

[DrStale]

Races to number 1....out of what, 2 movies? Congrats.

Right up there with Jersey Shore and 2 and a Half Men in things Americans watch. That's some awesome company to be in.

[Let's Go Rangers]

Say what? Obama was President in 2007? Why would they pick 2007 as the jumping off point for where Americans have lost their wealth in a critique of Obama. I guess Obama's first term went from 2007-2012.

Im guessing they chose that period because thats when the libs ( Nancy and Harry ) took over Congress and torpedoed the economy

We had 52 straight months of economic growth until the Democrats took over congress

[Shaudius]

Im guessing they chose that period because thats when the libs ( Nancy and Harry ) took over Congress and torpedoed the economy

We had 52 straight months of economic growth until the Democrats took over congress

Is your argument seriously that the Democrats in Congress who took power in 2006 caused the housing market to collapse?

[DrStale]

Im guessing they chose that period because thats when the libs ( Nancy and Harry ) took over Congress and torpedoed the economy

We had 52 straight months of economic growth until the Democrats took over congress

Haha. I didn't know we were allowed to just make shit up now.

Well Obama saved us from being taken over by shooting an alien spaceship down with a laser.

There I can play too.

[High3rEl3m3nt]

Do they really interview Obama's half brother, who still lives in a hut? Seems like Obama would spread some of his wealth to his family.

[Shaudius]

And I suppose you think that Fahrenheit 911 was speaking truth to power? The fact is that from the time the final Bush tax cuts were enacted in 2003 until 2008, the economy prospered and federal revenues increased. The back breaker was the 2008 financial sector crisis at the end of the bush Presidency, but I'll give you time to go look up the talking points to show why that was the fault of Bush/Republicans.

I think Michael Moore is just as much of a political hack as the producers of this movie.

Beyond that, the fact of the matter is its quite the stretch to directly attribute the rise in tax revenue from 2003 to 2008 to the Bush era tax cuts, especially since the non-partisan CBO reports that the Bush era tax cuts actually led to a decrease in tax revenue compared to the baseline because they didn't spur enough growth to offset their costs.

Finally, the first Bush era tax cut in 2001 did not see any immediate or even short term increase in federal government revenue so its not wonder that you pick the last Bush era tax cut as your starting off point, federal tax revenue was down in 2002 and 2003 despite the 2001 tax cuts and didn't recover to its 2001 level until 2005.

[Resler]

Im guessing they chose that period because thats when the libs ( Nancy and Harry ) took over Congress and torpedoed the economy

We had 52 straight months of economic growth until the Democrats took over congress

The economy was propped up like a house of cards just waiting for the collapse. Similar to how Enron appeared very profitable and a good company until the cards collapsed. I am not a conservative or lib, but those numbers are pure propaganda. Bush did a bad job and Obama is also doing a bad job.

[killawookie]

Rank*	Title	Friday 8/24 (Estimates)	Saturday 8/25	Sunday 8/26	Monday 8/27
1	THE EXPENDABLES 2 Lionsgate 3,355	$3,850,000 +89.1% / $1,148 $42,664,000 / 8	N/A	N/A	N/A
2	THE BOURNE LEGACY Universal 3,654	$2,700,000 +91.8% / $739 $78,886,000 / 15	N/A	N/A	N/A
3	PARANORMAN Focus Features 3,455	$2,300,000 +102.7% / $666 $21,922,000 / 8	N/A	N/A	N/A
4	2016 OBAMA'S AMERICA Rocky Mountain Pictures 1,091	$2,255,000 +899.8% / $2,067 $5,093,000 / 43	N/A	N/A	N/A

Where are you getting it's #1?

[Tully Mars 63]

Only a site like NewsMax would call the number 13 movie in the US the number 1 movie. It's made roughly 2 million the number 1 movie, the Expendables II is grossing just over 28 million. The number 12 movie on the list, Ted made 213 million.

What a joke.

http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

[str]

It's all bullshi* and it's bad for ya.

[no gnu taxes]

non-partisan CBO reports that the Bush era tax cuts actually led to a decrease in tax revenue

Understand how the CBO works. They just simply vomit back up the figures they are given and start from there, mostly by the party in power. They are non-partisan (supposedly) but are not some kind kind of oracle., and I don't know from what vantage point you are reciting.

Go to the actual US income revenue totals, and you will see for the years Iquoted, that indeed, tax revenues increased.

[DwightShrute]

worst and more corrupt administration ever.

[dante1]

worst and more corrupt administration ever.

This is one reason I call you an idiot, first you without the aid of google are incapable of even naming 50% of American Presidents. How can you judge them if you can't even name them? Second, read the sentence and tell me wtf it means.

Moron!

[crustyme]

another retarded copy/paste crap from the resident retard.

anyone who believes nancy pelosi and the dems caused the housing collapse is a complete dope.

#1 trillion dollar industries such as real estate doesnt collapse overnight like these neo-nitwits are suggesting

#2 economy does not care which party is in control... they react to laws and regulations they pass. name 1 law the dems passed after 2006 elections that supposedly led to the collapse less than a year later. they cant.

#3 the collapse began with banking deregulations in the late 90s spearheaded by republicans especially phil gramm. bush then passed the "american dream downpayment act of 2003" which gave away homes to the poor. in 2004 bush forced the sec to deregulate the "net capital rule" which allowed top 5 us investment banks to take on trillions in bad subprime debt which ultimately bankrupted them.

bush and the neo-cons cost americans $17 trillion in lost personal wealth.

[DwightShrute]

This is one reason I call you an idiot, first you without the aid of google are incapable of even naming 50% of American Presidents. How can you judge them if you can't even name them? Second, read the sentence and tell me wtf it means.

Moron!

super post buddy. I see you have added your ugly kid to your avatar. Poor kid having you as family. He doesn't stand a chance in life.

[ttwarrior1]

helps when there are no new movies out worth a crap

[Shaudius]

Understand how the CBO works. They just simply vomit back up the figures they are given and start from there, mostly by the party in power.

It is clear from this statement you don't understand how the CBO actually works. The CBO takes information from numerous sources for its estimates, from a wide variety of sources:

http://www.cbo.gov/about/our-processes

They are non-partisan (supposedly) but are not some kind kind of oracle., and I don't know from what vantage point you are reciting.

No they are not oracles, but they are required to state their methodology. You can see one particular report here: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/21670. There are several more like it, regardless of who is in power. http://www.cbo.gov/publication/41463.

Go to the actual US income revenue totals, and you will see for the years Iquoted, that indeed, tax revenues increased.

I don't care who you are, tax cuts at their inception decrease revenue from the baseline(simple rate cuts, I'm not gonna get into tax cuts that are associated with disallowing more deductions because that's not what the Bush era tax cuts were). That is axiomatic. It is only through their increased growth that they offset this inherent loss of revenue. The argument is that the growth that you see in receipts of tax revenue would have happened regardless of the tax cuts to a large degree, and that the amount of increase of growth from the tax cuts did not offset the amount of decreased revenue from the rate cuts.

If taxes rates were the same as 2001 from the period 2004 to 2012, tax revenue would have been 5.5% higher on a year over year basis(this assumes the same level of growth). Put another way, in order to be deficit neutral the Bush era tax cuts would have had to spur 5.5% yearly growth, any year where they didn't spur 5.5% economic growth we would be in a recession(on average, three consecutive quarters of negative growth) if you believe that the tax cuts increased revenue over their cost. Real GDP growth over the period 2004 to 2012 never peaked higher than 3.48%, so in order for the Bush tax cuts to be revenue neutral you would have to be believe we would have been in a recession for the entire second half of the 2000s, do you believe that to be the case? If you don't believe that we would have been in a recession for that period of time, then there is no way that you can also hold the position that the Bush era tax cuts did not contribute on some level to the deficit.

[Inkwell77]

Dinesh D'sousa is a joker who gets paid to write shitty things about liberals.

I respect him about as much as I respect tmz, Ed Schultz, or any Rush Limbagh. Dudes sold their soul a long time ago.

It's hard to respect a person who's job is to write negativity about groups of people at the same time never talking about the counter argument. The fact that these people make any money is kind of fukked

Vote with your wallet

[Cougar Bait]

Luckily the new generation we're breeding will save us

[muldoon]

Pimped through talk radio & they still needed to bus in crowds to prop up numbers for one day.

Can`t bulk buy the books like they normally do, so the next best thing is to bus in people. LOL.

[High3rEl3m3nt]

Luckily the new generation we're breeding will save us

unreal. if these were my two sons, I would make both cut down trees as punishment for being pu$$ies. However, the dad and mom seem entertained by the sobbing symphony and so, I bet the father reads chick novels and the mother watches soaps.

[no gnu taxes]

CBO Numbers 'Thoroughly Gamed' and Useless

http://www.newser.com/story/83664/cb...d-useless.html

[no gnu taxes]

If taxes rates were the same as 2001 from the period 2004 to 2012, tax revenue would have been 5.5% higher on a year over year basis

Among other things, this is the liberal argument that decresed tax rates have no positive effect on economic health or tax revenue, which is just not true.

In fact the main force behind tax revenue is the health of the economy, and economic growth. It's hard to argue that increased taxation leads to growth.

[Shaudius]

CBO Numbers 'Thoroughly Gamed' and Useless

http://www.newser.com/story/83664/cb...d-useless.html

There is a stark difference between a party asking the CBO to score a bill and gaming the stuff in the bill, which is a common tactic of both sides of the aisle, and an analysis of the budget.

But regardless, please respond to my last paragraph, which is objective fact. This is how much revenue we would get at the baseline, this is how much we would get at the lower rates, there is a 5.5% gap.

[Shaudius]

Among other things, this is the liberal argument that decresed tax rates have no positive effect on economic health or tax revenue, which is just not true.

No its not. It is me saying, suppose I have $100, you take 10% of it, you got $10, then suppose tomorrow you say, I'm only gonna take 5% of it, you now only have $5. You are in an objectively worse state financially. You then argue that that's okay because you'll make up the difference because now I'll be able to grow my money more so you'll make up the $5 shortfall through getting more money from my new higher level of income. Now, in order for you to make up the difference I would need to make $200. If I only make $180 after you cut the rate of my money you're taking then you have lost revenue. My argument is, again, not that the Bush tax cuts didn't spur growth, my argument is instead that they only got us to some number like $180 and not to some number over $200 hence increasing the deficit.

In fact the main force behind tax revenue is the health of the economy, and economic growth. It's hard to argue that increased taxation leads to growth.

Where did I make that argument, my argument is that decreased taxes lead to decreased revenue which are only offset by additional growth from the tax cuts. The argument isn't that tax cuts don't spur growth the argument is that the Bush era tax cuts didn't spur enough growth to offset their cost hence adding to the deficit.

The premise is the Bush tax cuts cost 5.5% tax revenue(which can be easily measured by comparing what people pay in aggregate at their current income tax rate and what people pay in aggregate at their new income tax rate) and spurred some level of growth under 5.5%(which can also be measured through growth in taxable income), which is objectively what happened unless you believe that the Bush era tax cuts kept us out of recession for multiple years since growth of taxable income < the loss of revenue from the lower rates.

You are free to make the argument that growth > increased deficit, but you can't have it both ways in the case of the Bush era tax cuts, if you're going to cut taxes to increase growth you're going to have to deal with the deficit that is created if and when the growth doesn't offset the cost, well I guess you don't but then you're just increasing the deficit which is exactly what happened.

[Justin7]

Among other things, this is the liberal argument that decresed tax rates have no positive effect on economic health or tax revenue, which is just not true.

In fact the main force behind tax revenue is the health of the economy, and economic growth. It's hard to argue that increased taxation leads to growth.

Taxes decrease growth if the taxes decrease spending. This happens with the lower and middle class, but no really to the upper class. Government spending increases growth (as long as the taxes to support that spending are not crippling). With the big tax cuts on the rich (and the restructuring of capital gains taxes), the government cannot continue spending at the rate it is.

Wait, didn't GOP-controlled house oppose tax cuts for those earning under 250k? Yes.

With the tax code as is, the upper class pay less in total taxes as a percentage of their income than the middle class. Don't just consider income tax... SSI, medicare, and all those other taxes are capped. This means they whack the middle and lower class much more (percentage wise) than the upper class.

The tax system is broken. Romney will make it worse.

[Inkwell77]

[MUHerd37]

Taxes decrease growth if the taxes decrease spending. This happens with the lower and middle class, but no really to the upper class. Government spending increases growth (as long as the taxes to support that spending are not crippling). With the big tax cuts on the rich (and the restructuring of capital gains taxes), the government cannot continue spending at the rate it is.

Wait, didn't GOP-controlled house oppose tax cuts for those earning under 250k? Yes.

With the tax code as is, the upper class pay less in total taxes as a percentage of their income than the middle class. Don't just consider income tax... SSI, medicare, and all those other taxes are capped. This means they whack the middle and lower class much more (percentage wise) than the upper class.

The tax system is broken. Romney will make it worse.

That's not true. Romney paid about 14% in his tax returns. Middle class ends up paying between 8-10 I believe. Romney paid 14% on $28 million which was just under $4 million in taxes. 50% of the country pays $0. Keep telling us how he didn't pay his fair share.

[no gnu taxes]

My argument is, again, not that the Bush tax cuts didn't spur growth, my argument is instead that they only got us to some number like $180 and not to some number over $200 hence increasing the deficit.

It is impossible to know EXACTLY what rates will spur growth to a point as to offsetthe decreases in rate . It is quite obvious that a 100% taxation rate would result in zero revenue after a very short time, as would a zero taxation rate. The question is what is the best approach when handed a receding economy as Bush was. In fact by March 2001, less than 2 months after Bush took Office, the economy was in full recession, and 911 worsened matters. These were acroos the board cuts; the poor and middle class had better savings than the rich. It's hard to argue they didn't help the economy. In fact, a fully Democratic Congress and Obama continued the Bush cuts and bragged about the jobs created under them.

[19th Hole]

worst and more corrupt administration ever.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not remotely close....You obviously have no knowledge of U.S. presidential history.
Do they gloss that over in canada?

[DwightShrute]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not remotely close....You obviously have no knowledge of U.S. presidential history.
Do they gloss that over in canada?

Good one but I stick behind my comment. Wake up you guys that love the direction King Obama is taking you guys. Wake up before its too late. $ more years and it might be.

Much of the corruption and stories will come out later. You will see.

Worst? Ya many can easily make that argument. I mean basically changing the fundamental idea of what America is and stands for and changing it into a into an entitlement society is as much of a change as when the USSR ended communism. But the other way. Ya some people to this day in the Soviet Union long for the good ole days. It looks like many in the US want to go there also. Geez.