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.
The CBO does NOT say that. The chart was NOT comparing full extension for everyone to full extension for those under $250,000. It simply does NOT state that.
You've read so much Huffington POS that when someone posts stuff that disagrees with your preconceived notion, you dont even bother to read what was posted and start going off on "it cant be true" replies..
The CBO CLEARLY say they are comparing the full extension to the partial extension..
Hell, they even titled the bars "Full" and "Partial". This very chart is in the SAME report you linked to, and it clearly is titlted FULL EXTENSION vs PARTIAL extension.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
NO ITS NOT. That chart is the extension plan compared to the CBO's baseline projections. It is NOT a chart comparing full extension to extension for those who make under $250,000. It does not state that anywhere in that chart. Nor does that chart appear ANYWHERE in the actual CBO report, it comes from the right wing group the Heritage Foundation.
The graph above CLEARLY says "full" and Partial".. What part of this is difficult for you to understand..
YOUR breakdown/split is nowhere in the report. Just a made-up data point from you.
Pgh has thoroughly addressed the issue, quite brilliantly I might add.
WRONG. Pgh took a report from the HERITAGE Foundation and what they said about the CBO report but mislabeled even what they said about the report. That chart had no mention of the extension for those who make under $250,000 is in that chart, no comparison between full extension and extension for those making $250,000. That is simply no where in that chart.
Meanwhile in the ACTUAL CBO report which I linked to it states the change in unemployment rate and the change in employment numbers between full extension and no extension, on also does the same thing for extension for those under $250,000 and no extension. It specifically states that in 2001 between 400,000 and 1,000,000 jobs would be created compared to if no extension happened and unemployment would be 0.2 to 0.5 lower. The report also states that if the extension was made permanent for those under $250,000, 300,000-800,000 jobs would be added compared to if no extension was made for 2011 and unemployment would be 0.2-0.4% lower. That comes DIRECTLY from the report, not from what another group said the report, and unlike the chart provided by pgh.
What??? A stimulus? Yeah, a stimulus for Raytheon, Haliburton, GE, Iraq & the military industrial complex. What a farce!! STIMULUS my as$. It's the biggest looting of taxpayers in history, far surpassing any bailout conducted in teh US. Moreover, look at the explosion of heroin usage & supply throughout the entire world since the Taliban lost power (which many claim the CIA is actually aiding & abetting distribution allover the globe, especially the US).
WRONG. Pgh took a report from the HERITAGE Foundation and what they said about the CBO report but mislabeled even what they said about the report. That chart had no mention of the extension for those who make under $250,000 is in that chart, no comparison between full extension and extension for those making $250,000. That is simply no where in that chart.
The blue chart above is indeed listed in the report you linked to.. Did you even bother to read the same report before linking to it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
Meanwhile in the ACTUAL CBO report which I linked to it states the change in unemployment rate and the change in employment numbers between full extension and no extension,
It does not.. For gods sake you linked to the report and in that report the very same graph I posted above is present, and that graph CEARLY says "Full" and "Partial" it does not at all say "NONE"..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
It specifically states that in 2001 between 400,000 and 1,000,000 jobs would be created compared to if no extension happened and unemployment would be 0.2 to 0.5 lower.
Considering the report is a discussion about 2011, and the tax cuts to stimulate job growth didnt pass until 2003, I now must come to the conclusion that you dont have a clue what you are talking about. No where in the report is the numbers you are quoting present.. But even if they were, you are now conceeding that tax cuts create economic growth and employment? Then read YOUR OWN CHART POSTED, where it says "FULL" and "Partial" it does not at all say NO extension what so ever..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
The report also states that if the extension was made permanent for those under $250,000, 300,000-800,000 jobs would be added compared to if no extension was made for 2011 and unemployment would be 0.2-0.4% lower. That comes DIRECTLY from the report, not from what another group said the report, and unlike the chart provided by pgh.
What page of the report because I looked through it and did a search.. Not even my computer found those figures when doing a search.. And that chart provided by me, IS IN THE REPORT.. ITS THE EXACT REPORT. I dont think I've met anyone sit here telling me that my charts are wrong, and other charts posted are correct, and then they link to the very same charts
Seriously, did you even look at what you linked to?
Bush didnt create the programs, in fact Bush tried to stop such programs encouraged by Fannie/Freddie but the Democrats said there was no problem, over, and over, roadblocking any attempt to stop the loans you mentioned which caused the collapse
The he in my post was not identified unless you read the post I quoted. "He" in my post was Clinton and he admitted he caused the problem. It was Clinton and that idiot from Mass. that caused most of the problem. Anyone that does research on the situation will discover that. I did not vote for Bush but I am so tired of people making him a scapegoat. I am glad he was our president though. I did not vote for him because I had a son in the Navy and I did not want him to go to war and I felt that Bush was wanting to go to war. I think the Bush family knew a lot of things that were happening that the rest of us were not allowed to know.
Our son was top secret so he could not tell us things, but I knew my son. He did his time in the Navy and left to go to college. He went into the Navy on the scholarship program. When he first got out, it was a couple of months before he had to go off to college. He had worked in the D. C. area. Sometimes he would watch the news and get up and walk all over the house in an a restless manner. I knew something on the news had upset him, but was never sure what. I think he knew more than the rest of us too.
My son was not a person that communicated a lot to me but once in one week only, there were several different types of communication. The first was a letter telling me that all was well with his soul in case something happened to him. Then I got two calls where he just seemed to want to talk to me. Later when George Bush, Jr. started the war, I came to the conclusion that our capital had been threatened. I can never know this for sure because my sons manner was my only clue. I think George Bush has done more for this country than anyone will ever know. I don't see him as an idiot, I see him as a hero that may have saved our country. Unfortunately paying for this war may have destroyed it anyway. We all need to pull together and stop blaming and stop trying to live off the government and at least save some of us.
What does our country owe us except to keep us safe so we can so for ourselves? Nothing! And that is the only thing that I see the constitution has a right to levy taxes for---to pay the salaries of government officials and pay to keep us safe. We as citizens are footing the bill for a lot of things we should not be responsible for paying. It needs to stop.
yes, here you are correct, but they were followed up by $650B in NEW taxes being passed, meaning all they did was MOVE how the money was collected and didnt provide any real cuts at all.
So on the one hand, I have my Ivy League graduate accountant with 20 years experience telling me that my taxes will go up a not insignificant dollar amount if the tax cuts expire.
On the other hand, I have some guy on the internet telling me they won't go up a nickel.
Hmmm, who to trust, who to trust?
First off my figures come DIRECTLY from the Tax Foundation.
Secondly, if all the tax cuts expire your taxes will go up quite a bit. However if the tax cuts are extended for those under $250,000, and expire for those who make over $250,00, you will pay the lower tax rate on the first $250,000 of your income.
Using the example of that family of four making $300,000 taking the standard deduction I used earlier. If everything expires they will wind up paying $8,779 more in taxes. However, if the extension is put in place for the incomes under $250,000, they will get more than 91% of the previous cut and pay $767 more. The reason being is they will still pay the lower rates on the portion of income under $250,000. It will only be the portions of the income above $250,000 that the higher rates will be paid on.
First off my figures come DIRECTLY from the Tax Foundation.
Secondly, if all the tax cuts expire your taxes will go up quite a bit. However if the tax cuts are extended for those under $250,000, and expire for those who make over $250,00, you will pay the lower tax rate on the first $250,000 of your income.
Using the example of that family of four making $300,000 taking the standard deduction I used earlier. If everything expires they will wind up paying $8,779 more in taxes. However, if the extension is put in place for the incomes under $250,000, they will get more than 91% of the previous cut and pay $767 more. The reason being is they will still pay the lower rates on the portion of income under $250,000. It will only be the portions of the income above $250,000 that the higher rates will be paid on.
Sorry but your math is wrong.. (as usual)
The tax rate for those in the top bracket was cut from 39.6% to 35% so if someone earns $300K a year, and the changes only affect the amount over $250K then its 4.6% of $50,000 or which equals a $2300 increase, not $767 you keep quoting. And this gets even worse if we are discussing capital gains tax revenue because it is a 5% increase of $2,500 for every $50,000 earned. Thats the INCREASE, not the liability.
This is in addition to the other various tax increases which were passed by this administration such as a 3.8% medicare tax, making the total tax increase over $4,200 per $50K earned. Again, thats the increase, not the total amount owed.
You've read so much Huffington POS that when someone posts stuff that disagrees with your preconceived notion, you dont even bother to read what was posted and start going off on "it cant be true" replies..
The CBO CLEARLY say they are comparing the full extension to the partial extension..
Hell, they even titled the bars "Full" and "Partial". This very chart is in the SAME report you linked to, and it clearly is titlted FULL EXTENSION vs PARTIAL extension.
The graph above CLEARLY says "full" and Partial".. What part of this is difficult for you to understand..
Those bars are considering the difference between a full extension and nothing and then a partial extension than nothing. Also those charts also considering things such as FUTURE tax increases. You have the gap because a future tax increase would have more of an impact on the middle class than the rich.
The tax breaks were never meant to be permanent, only a fool would believe they won't break the economy. Let them expire
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.
