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.
Democrats, party of no, Democrats, party of taxing, Democrats, party of Fascism, Democrats, party of Communism, Democrats, party of theft, Democrats, party of reducing the middle class to expand poverty.
I sure as hek agree with you, right on pghquest; SOME do not understand the concept of undermining and using the middle class, and you know what some are ignorant, and never will.
The rich got the smaller middle class tax cut but they did so at the expense of the higher income tax cut bracket. The tax cuts were regressive, the higher your income, the lower your percentage. Its not like you get a tax cut on your lower income the same if you are in the higher income brackets, thats not true.
They got BY far the largest $$$ amount of the tax cut. 60% to the top 1%, 90% to the top 10%. They would have still received a cut even if the top brackets remained the same, and the $$$ amount would have been the same or even larger than the amount those below them did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Wrong.. 10,200,000 jobs were added from 2003-2007. The fact that they ended up with only 1,080,000 jobs at the end was due to such poor management by Democrats in Congress who allowed the economy to collapse right under their noses..
Different BLS charts show around 7 million during that time period, but no matter what figure you go with its still lower than the numbers of jobs created under Clinton. You also can't pick and choose what time periods you count. Fact of the matter is the international collapse combined with lack of regulation, immense leveraging of the debt, credit default swaps, and all of the unregulated exotic trading slammed the economy. When the Dems took over Congress the stage was already more than set for collapse, not to mention veto-power and record filibusters its not like they had any real power. Still is the worst job record since the stats were kept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
You sound like the other poster here quoting federal tax revenues, and pretending tax revenues = a good economy. I'll tell you the same thing I told him, why dont you call for a 100% tax rate which obviously would boom federal revenue. You might not have money to eat with when your done, but hey, the economy will be fabulous right, federal revenues will be up ..
When you wind up with the lowest increase in decades its a problem....
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
I dont care that he threatened a filibuster.. Good, thats why we elected them, to stop destroying the nation...
We will see what happens in the Senate. We just had a vote on extending the tax cuts to the bottom 98% of the country, and only 3 Republicans in the House were in favor of extending the cuts to the bottom 98%.
Even among this prosperous group, the highest earners paid the lion's share. The top one percent of earners in the country are paying close to a third of all the taxes collected. That's approximately 1.2 million earners who paid 32.3 percent of 1996's federal individual income taxes.
n enormous percentage of taxes are payed by a minority of Americans:
The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.
The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.
This means that under Clinton, the richest 1% had their tax liabilities DROP from 32.3% of the tax bill to 29% of the tax bill.
According to the IRS, this group of taxpayers (1,399,606 total) paid 38.02% of all federal individual income tax collected in 2008.
Which means that under Bush, the top 1% had their tax liabilities increase from 29% to 38.2% of the tax liability..
And you guys want to return back to the Clinton years, where they rich pay less?
Here goes a chart
Why on gods earth would you want to reverse the tax cuts and make the rich pay less I'll never know...
I know because you dont undestand WHY they are paying more now. You think its all about the marginal tax rate and have no understanding at all that its about the effective tax rate. FACT, the effective tax rate on the rich goes UP, when the marginal tax rates go down..
The reason that occurred is because the incomes of the top 1% EXPLODED under Bush, while the incomes for the bottom 95% went from solid increases under Clinton to stagnant under Bush.
Most liberals here do not understand if this happens it will effect everyone, not just the FAKE rich they all have been scammed into thinking.
Even a family earning 80k per year will lost 421.00 per month if this tax breaks expires.
Lesson to liberals, this tax cut is NOT just for rich people. You have been scammed once again.
And if the extension of the tax cuts that was just passed by the Democrats in the House becomes law that family earning $80,000 will keep that $421 a month.
Seems like an easy solution. Take one for the team and ****. What do the Democrats have to gain by stalling? Make the tax cuts permanent and they could move on to their favorite issues like gays in the military and the dream act.
Yes, democrats should compromise and the republicans should take, take, and take. The "fair and balanced" political arrangement.
Yes, democrats should compromise and the republicans should take, take, and take. The "fair and balanced" political arrangement.
Take, take, take??? Tax cuts for all, what are you talking about. That is fair and balanced. I just dont understand liberals, probably because they dont make sence. I hope ALL the tax cuts expire, that will produce much more money for the FED to spend. We will see how much good it does.
The reason that occurred is because the incomes of the top 1% EXPLODED under Bush, while the incomes for the bottom 95% went from solid increases under Clinton to stagnant under Bush.
Between 2001 and 2004 (the most recent year for which data are available), incomes of the poorest 20 percent of families increased while incomes of the richest 20 percent fell. Basically, the poorest families' share of total incomes grew, and the richest families' share shrank. Incomes became just a little less unequal.
A new study by the Congressional Budget Office says the poor have been getting less poor. On average, CBO found that low-wage households with children had incomes after inflation that were more than one-third higher in 2005 than in 1991.
Facts they have a way of stopping a good liberal rant. Please become educated or return to reality, proving you wrong is getting very very tiresom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
They got BY far the largest $$$ amount of the tax cut. 60% to the top 1%, 90% to the top 10%. They would have still received a cut even if the top brackets remained the same, and the $$$ amount would have been the same or even larger than the amount those below them did.
Not only do you not know the above, but now you are proving you failed math class.
if the whole tax cut is $3T (and by some accounts $5T) and the top 2% is $700B (being discussed by Congress now), then you dont get 60% to the top 1%.. Please ask a child to do the math for you..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
Different BLS charts show around 7 million during that time period,
Find one.. or are you just making this up also?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
but no matter what figure you go with its still lower than the numbers of jobs created under Clinton.
Didnt you just just talk about people changing the subject from the GOP debt to the Democratic debt, and now you are changing the subject from Bush, to Clinton No one said times werent good during Clinton.. so why dont you stay focused..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
You also can't pick and choose what time periods you count.
Actually I can since we are discussing the tax cuts, then indeed the time frame would be.. the tax cut periods
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
Fact of the matter is the international collapse combined with lack of regulation, immense leveraging of the debt, credit default swaps, and all of the unregulated exotic trading slammed the economy. When the Dems took over Congress the stage was already more than set for collapse, not to mention veto-power and record filibusters its not like they had any real power. Still is the worst job record since the stats were kept.
Like I asked another poster, list me some bills put into place by Democrats that were veto'd by Bush? The fact remains that CONGRESS writes bills. You can pretend its the president but that would indicate a lack of education on the process which takes place to get bills passed in Washington.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
When you wind up with the lowest increase in decades its a problem....
No its not.. Again, if you tax the public at 100% and this increases to record levels, are you going to sit here and pretend that the economy will be fabulous even though no one has money to eat or pay their mortgages?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
We will see what happens in the Senate. We just had a vote on extending the tax cuts to the bottom 98% of the country, and only 3 Republicans in the House were in favor of extending the cuts to the bottom 98%.
LIE.. Only 3 Republicans were in favor of ONLY extending the tax cuts to the bottom 98%.. Why is it so difficult for some of you guys to discuss these things like an adult. Do you always believe the bs you are told?
Yes, democrats should compromise and the republicans should take, take, and take. The "fair and balanced" political arrangement.
If Democrats wanted this bill to pass, they would have passed in when they had 100% control. Fact is they dont want it to pass, if they did they wouldnt have waited until after the election.
Fact is they either are using this to play politics, or they are the most incompetent group of politicians known to man kind to wait until now to try to pass the bill.. Take your pick, whatever the choice its not good for the Democrats..
Between 2001 and 2004 (the most recent year for which data are available), incomes of the poorest 20 percent of families increased while incomes of the richest 20 percent fell. Basically, the poorest families' share of total incomes grew, and the richest families' share shrank. Incomes became just a little less unequal.
A new study by the Congressional Budget Office says the poor have been getting less poor. On average, CBO found that low-wage households with children had incomes after inflation that were more than one-third higher in 2005 than in 1991.
Facts they have a way of stopping a good liberal rant. Please become educated or return to reality, proving you wrong is getting very very tiresom.
Grew at the top much more than at the bottom.
Quote:
while the bottom 99 percent of incomes grew at a solid pace of 2.7 percent per year from 1993-2000, these incomes grew only 1.3 percent per year from 2002-2007. As a result, in the economic expansion of 2002-2007, the top 1 percent captured two thirds of income growth."
Not only do you not know the above, but now you are proving you failed math class.
if the whole tax cut is $3T (and by some accounts $5T) and the top 2% is $700B (being discussed by Congress now), then you dont get 60% to the top 1%.. Please ask a child to do the math for you..
The original Bush cut was $1.3 trillion,
Quote:
In the fierce debate over tax cuts between Gore and Bush, one fact has gone unnoticed: Both men would allocate roughly the same amount of money-$500 billion over nine years-to people making less than $100,000 a year. The other $800 billion of Bush’s tax cut, including repeal of the estate tax, would mostly go to people in the wealthiest tax brackets
Bush's tax cuts actually went into effect early in June of 2001. 132,047,000 was the job total when his cuts started, the high point was 137,951,000 in Dec 07. So from the time the cuts started to the high point of the job creation 5.9 million jobs were added over a 6.5 year period (which is quite poor). Looking at his entire Presidency from the time the cuts started to the time he left office, about 1.3 million jobs were added.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Didnt you just just talk about people changing the subject from the GOP debt to the Democratic debt, and now you are changing the subject from Bush, to Clinton No one said times werent good during Clinton.. so why dont you stay focused..
Actually I can since we are discussing the tax cuts, then indeed the time frame would be.. the tax cut periods
From the time period it started, which was in 2001, and you don't pick and choose when it ends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Like I asked another poster, list me some bills put into place by Democrats that were veto'd by Bush? The fact remains that CONGRESS writes bills. You can pretend its the president but that would indicate a lack of education on the process which takes place to get bills passed in Washington.
They didn't even get to that point because they knew it was going nowhere. the GOP and Bush wasn't exactly offering anything either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
No its not.. Again, if you tax the public at 100% and this increases to record levels, are you going to sit here and pretend that the economy will be fabulous even though no one has money to eat or pay their mortgages?
No one ever suggested to tax at 100%. A happy medium exists somewhere, but it sure as hell doesn't exist at the lowest level of revenue increase in decades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
LIE.. Only 3 Republicans were in favor of ONLY extending the tax cuts to the bottom 98%.. Why is it so difficult for some of you guys to discuss these things like an adult. Do you always believe the bs you are told?
They had a chance on voting for continuing the cuts for the bottom 98% of the country, they voted against it. Plain and simple.
[/quote]
The trend by your own link says this began in 1993.. Remind me again who was president in 1993?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
The original Bush cut was $1.3 trillion,
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..
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..
Bush's tax cuts actually went into effect early in June of 2001. 132,047,000 was the job total when his cuts started, the high point was 137,951,000 in Dec 07. So from the time the cuts started to the high point of the job creation 5.9 million jobs were added over a 6.5 year period (which is quite poor). Looking at his entire Presidency from the time the cuts started to the time he left office, about 1.3 million jobs were added.
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..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
From the time period it started, which was in 2001, and you don't pick and choose when it ends.
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
They didn't even get to that point because they knew it was going nowhere. the GOP and Bush wasn't exactly offering anything either.
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..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
No one ever suggested to tax at 100%. A happy medium exists somewhere, but it sure as hell doesn't exist at the lowest level of revenue increase in decades.
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
They had a chance on voting for continuing the cuts for the bottom 98% of the country, they voted against it. Plain and simple.
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?
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...
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.
