Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
well dah.. did you expect those at the bottom to grow $5M and those at the top to grow by $5.00?
Not just the $$ amount, but % amount as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
The trend by your own link says this began in 1993.. Remind me again who was president in 1993?
Yes and in points out how the incomes for those in the bottom 99% improved decently until 2000 and then it didn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
BINGO.. The original cuts were $1.3T, and NOW they have grown to $3-$5T by some accounts, and still the cuts for the "rich" remain at $700B, meaning the poor was able to increase their share of the cuts while the rich's "share" did not. This couldnt have happened without the lower and middle income bracket growing. And since we arent discussing retroactively going back 10 years to take this wealth from individuals, current calculations are what is being discussed.. Do the math, your figures are wrong..
Those in the top 2% are still getting part of the cut. The extra $700 billion was exclusively for the top 2%, but they still get a cut with the rest. For example as I mentioned earlier a family of four making $300,000 taking the standard deduction will keep 92% of the tax cut. The same family of four with the same income itemizing $15,000 for mortgage interest and property taxes, keeps the exact same cut. The overall tax cut to the rich was larger than $700 billion. To extend the portions of the cut above the $250,000 threshold is $700 billion, but they also cuts on other portions of their income including the estate tax.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
INCLUDING REPEAL OF THE ESTATE TAX, which is not part of the current bill.. You cant include items not in the bill and then pretend it holds relevant discussion..
Its not part of this discussion, but it was still part of Bush's overall cuts that helped the wealthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Bush had TWO tax cuts passed, one in 2001, and another one in 2003, the ones in 2001 were not designed to affect employment, they were designed to stimulate the economy. The 2003 ones were designed to affect employment so going back to 2001 is meaningless and ridiculous. ooh I know.. you forgot about those in 2003..
The 03 cuts were actually very similar to the 01 cuts and built off the 01 cuts. Just phased the cuts that started in 01 sooner. Even also counting after the 03 cuts started the overall job growth was quite weak for what was suppose to be a time of recovery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Actually you do.. Unless you are now willing to say that the current unemployment rate is due to Obama? You indeed get to pick and choose when it ends, which is when policies changed and the legislative branch chantges. You cant blame the GOP for things if the GOP wasnt in control.. I know thats difficult for you to understand since you listen to news media daily which blames the GOP for your lifes problems but its a lie.. get over it, and start thinking for yourself
None of the policies changed. Bush continued to get everything he wanted, as did the GOP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
The GOP didnt hold control. By your own admission you dont get to pick and choose, so why are you now tryign to pick and choose? The economy was so good into the Democratic years that the Democrats were saying that the economy could support an increase in the minimum wage, now all of a sudden the Democrats are immune to any blame.. Please.. give the bs a rest..
The problems that caused the downturn did't happen overnight, after all no real policy changes were made. Minimum wage increase is not what resulted in the downturn. The Dems didn't argue that minimum wage should increase because of the shape of the economy, they argued it should increase because it was long over do, which it was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Clearly if you think that revenue to the federal government is an indication of an economic condition then you obviously would suggest a tax rate of 100% right? This would result in revenues skyrocketing to the federal government. Who cares if you cant eat, cant pay your mortgage, according to you liberals, federal revenues increased so obviously the economy is fantastic.. Are you starting to see the flaw in this ridiculousness you are pushing or do I have to keep laughing at you?
No because a rate at 100% would obviously cause many other problems. An increase in revenue is not the end all be all. But when you are at record lows in revenue increases, that is a problem..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Your right, Democrats not only had a chance to vote on extending the tax cuts for the bottom 98%, but they also could have passed it and there wouldnt have been a dam thing Republicans could have done to stop it. Hell, had they done so before the election, they might have gotten some votes out of it and not taken such a bath. But rather than pass the bill, they chose to wait so they can play partisan politics. Its that or they were the most incompetent legislative branches ever to exist in america for not passing it when they could have gotten it passed slam dunk. Which is it?
They never really had that opportunity due to the filibuster. The same thing is likely to happen now as would have happened several months ago if they voted on it. Passed the House, blocked in the senate through filibuster. The same thing would have happened if they voted on it in August or sometime earlier in the year.
Quote:
You see I think there is a 3rd option. I think they want it to pass for NO ONE.. they just want someone to blame, which would explain all of the partisan bs coming from Democrats. The only thing sadder than the fact Democrats would make this such a partisan issue and whine over a small portion of the tax cuts staying in place, is the number of Democrats who just listen to this crap and believe it hook line and sinker.. its like you guys are unable to think for yourself...
That is exactly what the GOP is doing. They are the ones who are turning this into a partisan issue by blocking an extension of the cuts to the bottom 98%.
Democrats not only had a chance to vote on extending the tax cuts for the bottom 98%, but they also could have passed it and there wouldnt have been a dam thing Republicans could have done to stop it. Hell, had they done so before the election, they might have gotten some votes out of it and not taken such a bath. But rather than pass the bill, they chose to wait so they can play partisan politics. Its that or they were the most incompetent legislative branches ever to exist in america for not passing it when they could have gotten it passed slam dunk. Which is it?
You see I think there is a 3rd option. I think they want it to pass for NO ONE.. they just want someone to blame, which would explain all of the partisan bs coming from Democrats. The only thing sadder than the fact Democrats would make this such a partisan issue and whine over a small portion of the tax cuts staying in place, is the number of Democrats who just listen to this crap and believe it hook line and sinker.. its like you guys are unable to think for yourself...
Forget the Bush years, forget the Clinton years, forget the Reagan years.........my vote goes for returning to the tax rates and tax laws of 1954, on both corporations and individuals. If it was good enough for the countries growth then, it should be good enough now.
innovation by government creates no wealth, we are not a communist country. If government innovates it does so at the expense of the private sector.
You are such an idealogue by your statement above. You didn't even read the sentence right. Where do you get me saying more"tax breaks for R&D" = communism????????
Plus, even though I wasn't referencing it, many of the most important technologies used today were developed under military R&D, then commercialized later. Oh no...COMMUNISM!!!!
Give me a break. I really think there are some people out here who want our country to fail either for personal gain or masochistic desire.
I'm not going to even address the rest of your response since it is either unfactual or you didn't understand what I was conveying. I was basically showing the illogic of using that specific graph to say cutting taxes boosts revenue, but there may be other more advanced methods to confirm your thesis. But I see there is no point in using rationaility here.
Not that I believe Hollywood has any pertinence in anything more that entertainment, a perfect storm has been brewing for some time now and Samuel L. Jackson said it best when he said, "hold onto your butts."
{snip} Still is the worst job record since the stats were kept.
When you wind up with the lowest increase in decades its a problem....
Stats can show you whatever you want them to show you. If job creation under Bush was that historically bad, why did unemployment numbers remain so low?
Do those stats take into account that during each year of the Bush administration, the illegal alien population increased? So each year illegal aliens were taking even more jobs, and they were no longer just taking unskilled labor jobs, they were taking over vocational jobs. We had plenty of news reports about illegal aliens taking over jobs in the construction field, plumbing, carpentry, auto and truck mechanics welding, etc... But still, even with that, our unemployment numbers remained very low, under Bush.
Those in the top 2% are still getting part of the cut. The extra $700 billion was exclusively for the top 2%, but they still get a cut with the rest. For example as I mentioned earlier a family of four making $300,000 taking the standard deduction will keep 92% of the tax cut. The same family of four with the same income itemizing $15,000 for mortgage interest and property taxes, keeps the exact same cut. The overall tax cut to the rich was larger than $700 billion. To extend the portions of the cut above the $250,000 threshold is $700 billion, but they also cuts on other portions of their income including the estate tax.
I know they still get the tax cut for their share of the income under $250K, so what? I dont support the class envy, attack the rich, greedy mentality of the left. Either tax cuts are good, or they are bad. You dont get to pretend they are a stimulus and helpful to the economy for person A and then all of a sudden harmful for person B.. thats just silly left wing partisan bs that only a fool could fall for..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
Its not part of this discussion, but it was still part of Bush's overall cuts that helped the wealthy.
The wealthy doesnt need help, they clearly know what they are doing better than most of americans. Allowing them to keep their own money again, is class envy and you should stop falling for the liberal bs that somehow has convinced you that taking from these individuals somehow improves whatever, because it doesnt..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
The 03 cuts were actually very similar to the 01 cuts and built off the 01 cuts. Just phased the cuts that started in 01 sooner. Even also counting after the 03 cuts started the overall job growth was quite weak for what was suppose to be a time of recovery.
They not only added 10,200,000 new jobs for the period of time, but the CBO estimates it will be responsible for an average of 709,000 more jobs PER YEAR over the next 5 years. Why are you so anxious to put these 700,000+ individuals out of work to push forward your class envy bs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
None of the policies changed. Bush continued to get everything he wanted, as did the GOP.
So you are claiming Democrats were little pawns and had nothing to do with substantially increasing the federal spending and deficits which coincidently took place at the very moment Democrats took over Congress? Thats hell of a coincidence wouldnt you agree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
The problems that caused the downturn did't happen overnight, after all no real policy changes were made.
On the contrary, the problem took place within a 24 hour period. Dont you recall the mad rush to get back to Washington to pass a bill NOW before the economy crashed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
Minimum wage increase is not what resulted in the downturn. The Dems didn't argue that minimum wage should increase because of the shape of the economy, they argued it should increase because it was long over do, which it was.
Ooh please. Democrats were falling all over themself discussing how strong the economy was.. Articles about Minimum Wage - New York Times With the economy strong and the unemployment rate at its lowest in more than 25 years, Democrats in Congress are right to push for an increase in the minimum wage
Seriously, where were you during this whole debate? You liberals are somehow pretend the Clinton years were fabulous and the Bush years were worse than Clinton when reality is, the unemployment rate under Bush was lower than Clintons.. Did you sleep through these years?
Increasing the minimum wage did not cause the downturn, but it sure in hell increased unemployment. I have one company that I had to decrease the number of employees by 1 to support the increase, and while 1 isnt great in the scheme of things, thats 1 + 1 by how many other businesses? They add up..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
No because a rate at 100% would obviously cause many other problems. An increase in revenue is not the end all be all. But when you are at record lows in revenue increases, that is a problem..
So if you admit a 100% tax rate would cause problems, then stop repeating the same old liberal bs that more money in federal revenues = a strong economy because its bs. The federal government grows at the expense of the public sector. Maybe you should start thinking for yourself instead of listing to the liberal news medias trying to equate more federal money = fabulous because clearly here you admit this to be false..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
They never really had that opportunity due to the filibuster. The same thing is likely to happen now as would have happened several months ago if they voted on it. Passed the House, blocked in the senate through filibuster. The same thing would have happened if they voted on it in August or sometime earlier in the year.
I asked you to list examples, not tell me what happens. I know the process very well, but if you are going to claim it took place, then you need to list me examples of bills it took place on..
The fact remains Democrats have been getting every bill they wanted since 2007 passed. Since 2007, the economy tanked, and you cant list one darn bill the GOP has stopped which would have had any effect.. Why is that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
That is exactly what the GOP is doing. They are the ones who are turning this into a partisan issue by blocking an extension of the cuts to the bottom 98%.
Wrong, the GOP understands that if you increase the tax rates on the top 2% while not increasing them on the bottom 98%, tax revenues will DROP and more people become unemployed.. Again The 2001 and 2003 Bush Tax Cuts: Economic Effects of Permanent Extension | The Heritage Foundation With no change in current law, EGTRRA's lower marginal rates on ordinary income and JGTRRA's preferential rates on individual net capital gains realizations and dividend income will expire at the end of 2010. Extending these provisions would boost U.S. GDP, employment,incomes, and federal tax collections over the 10-year budget period. However, the President's fiscal year 2008 budget includes only a one-year extension of AMT relief for individuals. The AMT's expanding reach partially offsets simulated economic gains from the extension plan.
Its not the poor taking advantage of capital gains rates, dividend income..
You'd be the first one to support extension of the unemployment bill, but here you have a bill which increases employment by over 700,000 individuals and you want to end it. Why are you in such a hurry to put more people out of work and reduce the income of the poor just to support your left wing failed ideology?
You are such an idealogue by your statement above. You didn't even read the sentence right. Where do you get me saying more"tax breaks for R&D" = communism????????
Plus, even though I wasn't referencing it, many of the most important technologies used today were developed under military R&D, then commercialized later. Oh no...COMMUNISM!!!!
Give me a break. I really think there are some people out here who want our country to fail either for personal gain or masochistic desire.
I'm not going to even address the rest of your response since it is either unfactual or you didn't understand what I was conveying. I was basically showing the illogic of using that specific graph to say cutting taxes boosts revenue, but there may be other more advanced methods to confirm your thesis. But I see there is no point in using rationaility here.
By definition, innovation by communism is taking innovation from the private sector. Sounds like you need to learn the definitions of certain words before you begin to criticize what others are saying..
I often hear the Dem talking point that "tax cuts for the rich" means that Reps are not serious about deficit reduction. Well there are other ways to reduce the deficit other than tax, namely deep spending cuts on entitlements.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
