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.
Deflection. My post was addressing this post of yours. Would you mind explaining THAT post of yours?
PS. There is a definition of a recession, and by that definition, we have not been in a recession since June 2009. Now, if you were making an argument about slow recovery, you'd actually have a point. But then, we could always debate why the slower recovery, and is it really slow considering things were worse for much longer to recover from 2001 recession?
So you are going to go on page after page, floating your straw dog that republicans think "the economy was better in 2008 and 2009"?
Whatever the economy was four years ago is irrelevant to what we have today, you cannot compare the two, because we have had four years of lost jobs, record long months of over 8% unemployment, record high debt, record high food stamp recipients, a US work force that mirrors 1979, people living in poverty is at a 52 year high. The point is, our nation has been sick for four years and it is slowly eroding away at all of us.
Think of it this way, if the bread winner of a family of four was laid off in 2008, it was bad, but he had hope, he had assets available to him, money in the bank, and friends and family who would lend a hand to help him out. Even if he found a few odd part-time jobs, after four years he has exhausted his savings, and exhausted the good will of his friends and family. He has been forced to go on food stamps and is looking at welfare as another available option, he is worse off.
why all the hype about being responsible for having health insurance? we have to have auto insurance, home insurance, so why would healthcare be any different? the tax cuts for the rich are typical republican cop outs! remember the Reagan "Trickle Down" theory that we give all the money to the richest people, and let it trickle down to the poorest...it stopped at the richest, and i am still waiting on it to trickle down to me! the rich do not need tax cuts, its the 50% of the middle class that support the country that need them! lets just all pay 10% yearly, and the government would have more money than it would know what to do with...even BUsh couldn't have spent it all!
In fact, continued tax cuts to lesser income groups isn't a luxury to a select group.
Yes, they are. The lesser income groups are raking in government cash hand over fist. That cash comes from those who actually do pay federal income tax (only 49%).
The Chairman of the Economics Department at Harvard University analyzes the outcome of those continued tax cuts to lesser income groups...
Quote:
Because transfer payments are, in effect, the opposite of taxes, it makes sense to look not just at taxes paid, but at taxes paid minus transfers received. For 2009, the most recent year available, here are taxes less transfers as a percentage of market income (income that households earned from their work and savings):
Bottom quintile: -301 percent
Second quintile: -42 percent
Middle quintile: -5 percent
Fourth quintile: 10 percent
Highest quintile: 22 percent
Top one percent: 28 percent
The negative 301 percent means that a typical family in the bottom quintile receives about $3 in transfer payments for every dollar earned.
The most surprising fact to me was that the effective tax rate is negative for the middle quintile. According to the CBO data, this number was +14 percent in 1979 (when the data begin) and remained positive through 2007. It was negative 0.5 percent in 2008, and negative 5 percent in 2009. That is, the middle class, having long been a net contributor to the funding of government, is now a net recipient of government largess.
It's clear to see who has benefitted the most from the tax cuts. It's those who actually get more money, etc., FROM the federal government than they pay TO the government: The bottom 60%.
Yes it benefits just about everyone, but greatly benefits a select few at the top, those lving on the lower end with less excess income not so much.
Consider how many houses and businesses are sold each year. The bulk of the advantage of a low capital gains tax rate does NOT go to only a select few.
So you are going to go on page after page, floating your straw dog that republicans think "the economy was better in 2008 and 2009"?
Page after page... only because y'all, the "republicans", only want to say that we're worse off today but scream in pain when asked to compare where we were in 2008-2009 to today. Thank you for serving as a reminder why I would rather jump off a cliff than join your band wagon.
The Bush tax cuts were never intended to be permanent, and have done nothing to prevent the economic mess we are currently in. In fact, if anything, it made it worse. In contrast, the Clinton's taxes gave us the most prosperous economy in living memory. It's a no brainer. Trickle down has been a disaster for everyone but the rich.
Explain to me how taking more money out of my paycheck, by raising my taxes, will make me wealthier?
That aside, isn't it possible that our economy can be in a growth cycle, in spite of whatever our federal tax policy is?
BTW, people are fleeing high tax states, like Maryland, New york, Illinois, California. Keep in mind, even Bill Clinton admitted to his campaign donors that he raised their taxes too high.
Page after page... only because y'all, the "republicans", only want to say that we're worse off today but scream in pain when asked to compare where we were in 2008-2009 to today.
You're chasing your tail in circles because you're having a tangential discussion all by yourself that is off point. The point was that Clinton and Obama both very clearly stated that you do not raise taxes in a recession.
Yes, they are. The lesser income groups are raking in government cash hand over fist. That cash comes from those who actually do pay federal income tax (only 49%).
May be you should strive to be one who is living such luxuries than whine about it. You've earned it.
Quote:
It's clear to see who has benefitted the most from the tax cuts. It's those who actually get more money, etc., FROM the federal government than they pay TO the government: The bottom 60%.
The only thing that is clear is ridiculous nature of your mentality, comprehension of the situation, implications and simply being in touch with the realities. Bottom 60% are loving it... my foot. Only an idiot would take that argument seriously.
The point I made didn't get thru to you either. Tax cuts under $250K isn't a luxury. EVERYBODY gets it. Throwing money at Wall Street, short term or not, IS a luxury to most Americans. Still not getting it?
May be you should strive to be one who is living such luxuries than whine about it.
I'm not whining about it. You liberals are. You simply do not want everyone to pay their fair share.
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.
