Allow Bush Tax-Cuts, For EVERYONE....

[NYcarbineer]

the people who pay in to social security should KEEP THEIR surplus taxes paid, and not give their surplus taxes to those who don't pay any for the most part of their earnings.

This is what I see as fair....just.

I don't know what this is about.... Can you explain some more. I am confunded

When the Bush Tax cuts were introduced in 2001, they estimated that we were going to have a $ 3-5 trillion dollar budget surplus over the next 10 years or something of the sort.....

and they came to the Public, and told us that they did not believe the federal gvt should hold on to this money, but should give it BACK TO THE TAX payers, because it was THEIRS.

This is HOW the Bush tax cut proposals were promoted.

And those at the very top, got the MOST of these tax cuts, supposedly because they paid the most.

The problem with this, is that the estimated surplus in taxes that they were proposing to give back to us, was surplus money FROM SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES collected....NOT from projected income taxes.

Yet, the tax cuts FROM OUR SS surplus funds was given to those at the very top in overall dollars, and those at the top for the most part DO NOT PAY SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES on the most of their earnings.

This in essense was TAKING from the working class's taxes and giving them to the wealthiest, such as Gates and Heinz, and Hilton and Buffet, WHO NEVER PAYED A DIME in social security taxes, where the very surplus in taxes came from.

This was a SLIGHT OF HAND, in my humble opinion....a reverse Robinhood, and injustice.

It's true. The Bush plan was explicitly designed to eliminate the surplus, in other words, to eliminate any chance of paying down any of the debt already accumulated.

 

[uscitizen]

the people who pay in to social security should KEEP THEIR surplus taxes paid, and not give their surplus taxes to those who don't pay any for the most part of their earnings.

This is what I see as fair....just.

I don't know what this is about.... Can you explain some more. I am confunded

When the Bush Tax cuts were introduced in 2001, they estimated that we were going to have a $ 3-5 trillion dollar budget surplus over the next 10 years or something of the sort.....

and they came to the Public, and told us that they did not believe the federal gvt should hold on to this money, but should give it BACK TO THE TAX payers, because it was THEIRS.

This is HOW the Bush tax cut proposals were promoted.

And those at the very top, got the MOST of these tax cuts, supposedly because they paid the most.

The problem with this, is that the estimated surplus in taxes that they were proposing to give back to us, was surplus money FROM SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES collected....NOT from projected income tax surplus.

Yet, the tax cuts FROM OUR SS surplus funds was given to those at the very top in overall dollars, and those at the top for the most part DO NOT PAY SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES on the most of their earnings.

This in essense was TAKING from the working class's taxes and giving them to the wealthiest, such as Gates and Heinz, and Hilton and Buffet, WHO NEVER PAYED A DIME in social security taxes, where the very surplus in taxes came from.

This was a SLIGHT OF HAND, in my humble opinion....a reverse Robinhood, and injustice.

And the right's respone.
911 changed all of that.
But they claim that the war only cost about 750 billion. Hmm what happened to the rest of that 3 trillion?
?

 

[Oddball]

the people who pay in to social security should KEEP THEIR surplus taxes paid, and not give their surplus taxes to those who don't pay any for the most part of their earnings.

This is what I see as fair....just.

I don't know what this is about.... Can you explain some more. I am confunded

When the Bush Tax cuts were introduced in 2001, they estimated that we were going to have a $ 3-5 trillion dollar budget surplus over the next 10 years or something of the sort.....

By whose numbers?

Ross Perot pointed out numerous times --using CBO numbers-- back in 1992 that, presuming a mere 3% growth rate and no changes to federal tax structures, the budget would balance all by itself and briefly go into "surplus", only to have the deficits return around 2002, as baby boomers started drawing on federal entitlements.

Shrubbie's timid little sop tax cuts had next to nothign to do with this.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

August 5, 1996​

"The vast majority of taxpayers saw no change in their income taxes....as a result of the 1993 law. CBO estimates that most households paid only $38 more per year, as a result of the 4.3 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax."

It's TIME to RE-live THE GOOD OL' DAYS!!!!!!​

When you have to cite a 1993 law that isn't relevant anymore, when attacking a 2003 law, don't you see the inherent dishonesty there?

The fact is, the deficit was going DOWN until the "big crash" and the problem now isn't the tax rates, it's 20 MILLION FEWER TAX PAYERS you mindless dolt. Tax isn't about punishing success or redistributing wealth, it's about RAISING REVENUE. Before the "big crash" we had RECORD REVENUE both as total amount collected and expressed as percentage of GDP.

Wait: We cut taxes but revenue INCREASED? Imagine that! Works each and every time it's tried.

 

[uscitizen]

Ross was president? Or in any political office?

btw I voted for him he was correct on NAFTA.

 

[Rozman]

Let's just keep heaping tax increases on the ones in this country who produce....How dare they want to keep as much of what they earned as possible.Lets keep dumping on those who work extra hrs or maybe go to school at night to get a degree because they want to learn how to start a business of their own.Who do we reward? those 99 ers who don't want to take a job right now because they make more staying home and collecting.How bout you take that job because you now have a foot in the door so when that company turns things around you are right there positioned to move up in the company.Well I guess that would take sacrifice and hard work and dedication....

Why should anyone want to do that when we have the Dems to fight for them and take the money out of rich peoples pockets to take care of the ones who would rather stay home and collect those checks and bitch about the rich people.

 

[Oddball]

Ross was president? Or in any political office?

btw I voted for him he was correct on NAFTA.

How does that change the veracity of the numbers he was using?

 

[uscitizen]

Let's just keep heaping tax increases on the ones in this country who produce....How dare they want to keep as much of what they earned as possible.Lets keep dumping on those who work extra hrs or maybe go to school at night to get a degree because they want to learn how to start a business of their own.Who do we reward? those 99 ers who don't want to take a job right now because they make more staying home and collecting.How bout you take that job because you now have a foot in the door so when that company turns things around you are right there positioned to move up in the company.Well I guess that would take sacrifice and hard work and dedication....

Why should anyone want to do that when we have the Dems to fight for them and take the money out of rich peoples pockets to take care of the ones who would rather stay home and collect those checks and bitch about the rich people.

the ones who actually produce any products are the ones who work the most and are paid the least. It is the american way. Damn management heavy companies.

 

[The T]

Let's just keep heaping tax increases on the ones in this country who produce....How dare they want to keep as much of what they earned as possible.Lets keep dumping on those who work extra hrs or maybe go to school at night to get a degree because they want to learn how to start a business of their own.Who do we reward? those 99 ers who don't want to take a job right now because they make more staying home and collecting.How bout you take that job because you now have a foot in the door so when that company turns things around you are right there positioned to move up in the company.Well I guess that would take sacrifice and hard work and dedication....

Why should anyone want to do that when we have the Dems to fight for them and take the money out of rich peoples pockets to take care of the ones who would rather stay home and collect those checks and bitch about the rich people.

Yep. Repeal the 16th. Replace with FAIR or FLAT Tax. It's time that the government cease using the Tax Code to manipulate beahviour, and being used to reward lazy capable asswipes that refuse to work or improve their lot in life and make better life choices.

Class Warfare has to cease.

 

[Truthmatters]

Uh-huh....Keeping what is yours in now defined as "greed".

Looks to me like the real avarice is coming from the moocher class.

Then how do we pay for what is OURS

 

[The T]

Let's just keep heaping tax increases on the ones in this country who produce....How dare they want to keep as much of what they earned as possible.Lets keep dumping on those who work extra hrs or maybe go to school at night to get a degree because they want to learn how to start a business of their own.Who do we reward? those 99 ers who don't want to take a job right now because they make more staying home and collecting.How bout you take that job because you now have a foot in the door so when that company turns things around you are right there positioned to move up in the company.Well I guess that would take sacrifice and hard work and dedication....

Why should anyone want to do that when we have the Dems to fight for them and take the money out of rich peoples pockets to take care of the ones who would rather stay home and collect those checks and bitch about the rich people.

the ones who actually produce any products are the ones who work the most and are paid the least. It is the american way. Damn management heavy companies.

Damned Union-Heavy Government Bureaucrats.

 

[Care4all]

August 5, 1996​

"The vast majority of taxpayers saw no change in their income taxes....as a result of the 1993 law. CBO estimates that most households paid only $38 more per year, as a result of the 4.3 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax."

It's TIME to RE-live THE GOOD OL' DAYS!!!!!!​

When you have to cite a 1993 law that isn't relevant anymore, when attacking a 2003 law, don't you see the inherent dishonesty there?

The fact is, the deficit was going DOWN until the "big crash" and the problem now isn't the tax rates, it's 20 MILLION FEWER TAX PAYERS you mindless dolt. Tax isn't about punishing success or redistributing wealth, it's about RAISING REVENUE. Before the "big crash" we had RECORD REVENUE both as total amount collected and expressed as percentage of GDP.

Wait: We cut taxes but revenue INCREASED? Imagine that! Works each and every time it's tried.

I disagree with ya on that MM.

Revenues increase every year, whether tax cuts are given or tax cuts are not given, if the economy grows our tax revenues grow.

The Bush tax cuts did NOT make our revenues grow....PERIOD.

Our revenues did not even increase equal to the levels we were collecting in 2000, until the year 2005.

and then the increased revenues CAME FROM THE HOUSING BUBBLE...came from all the activities and businesses involved in the FAKE housing boom....and from increased tax revenues from the oil/gas industry's record profits....but the housing boom for the most part. This was a manufactured BUBBLE.....when it BURST, we lost our tax revenue base...imho.

 

[Truthmatters]

They will never give up that lie

 

[The T]

August 5, 1996​

"The vast majority of taxpayers saw no change in their income taxes....as a result of the 1993 law. CBO estimates that most households paid only $38 more per year, as a result of the 4.3 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax."

It's TIME to RE-live THE GOOD OL' DAYS!!!!!!​

When you have to cite a 1993 law that isn't relevant anymore, when attacking a 2003 law, don't you see the inherent dishonesty there?

The fact is, the deficit was going DOWN until the "big crash" and the problem now isn't the tax rates, it's 20 MILLION FEWER TAX PAYERS you mindless dolt. Tax isn't about punishing success or redistributing wealth, it's about RAISING REVENUE. Before the "big crash" we had RECORD REVENUE both as total amount collected and expressed as percentage of GDP.

Wait: We cut taxes but revenue INCREASED? Imagine that! Works each and every time it's tried.

Spending...Spending...Spending is why it fails. Government out of control with our finances. If we spent in our households as Congress spends?

 

[The T]

Uh-huh....Keeping what is yours in now defined as "greed".

Looks to me like the real avarice is coming from the moocher class.

Then how do we pay for what is OURS

Get a job? A better education that will allow for more pay for starters...

Hard work perhaps? Not falling for the Class Warfare bullsqueeze?

 

[Truthmatters]

Cut taxes because you have a deficit that is supposed to be your main concern.

This is the fantasy world the right lives in perpetually.


This is why every time they have full control we have an economic disaster

 

[The T]

Cut taxes because you have a deficit that is supposed to be your main concern.

This is the fantasy world the right lives in perpetually.


This is why every time they have full control we have an economic disaster

And how did we arrive at the Deficit? Think for once TM.

 

[edthecynic]

Everybody in America should be taxed at the same level no matter who you are - rich or poor. It should cost everybody the very same thing to be an American. No more. No less.

SOCIALIST!!!!

There you have it, CON$ are Socialists! They believe in the worst kind of socialism, SOCIALIZED TAXES and privatized profits.

 

[edthecynic]

the people who pay in to social security should KEEP THEIR surplus taxes paid, and not give their surplus taxes to those who don't pay any for the most part of their earnings.

This is what I see as fair....just.

I don't know what this is about.... Can you explain some more. I am confunded

When the Bush Tax cuts were introduced in 2001, they estimated that we were going to have a $ 3-5 trillion dollar budget surplus over the next 10 years or something of the sort.....

and they came to the Public, and told us that they did not believe the federal gvt should hold on to this money, but should give it BACK TO THE TAX payers, because it was THEIRS.

This is HOW the Bush tax cut proposals were promoted.

And those at the very top, got the MOST of these tax cuts, supposedly because they paid the most.

The problem with this, is that the estimated surplus in taxes that they were proposing to give back to us, was surplus money FROM SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES collected....NOT from projected income tax surplus.

Yet, the tax cuts FROM OUR SS surplus funds was given to those at the very top in overall dollars, and those at the top for the most part DO NOT PAY SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES on the most of their earnings.

This in essense was TAKING from the working class's taxes and giving them to the wealthiest, such as Gates and Heinz, and Hilton and Buffet, WHO NEVER PAYED A DIME in social security taxes, where the very surplus in taxes came from.

This was a SLIGHT OF HAND, in my humble opinion....a reverse Robinhood, an injustice.

That is true, but you should have put it in terms even CON$ can understand, it is REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH GOP style.

Bush's redistribution of wealth tax cuts took the Social Security Tax SURPLUS he inherited, collected at SS Payroll Tax Rates, 100% from wage earners making less than $100,000 and businesses that employ Americans, and redistributed the majority of the SS surplus to incomes over $100,000 and Capital Gains Tycoons who are exempt from SS Payroll Taxes by using Income Tax Rates for the redistribution of the payroll tax surplus.

By simply saying his tax cuts were "across the board" Bush was able to deceive the gullible into believing it was fair to use the Income Tax rates to redistribute money collected at Payroll Tax rates.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

the people who pay in to social security should KEEP THEIR surplus taxes paid, and not give their surplus taxes to those who don't pay any for the most part of their earnings.

This is what I see as fair....just.

I don't know what this is about.... Can you explain some more. I am confunded

When the Bush Tax cuts were introduced in 2001, they estimated that we were going to have a $ 3-5 trillion dollar budget surplus over the next 10 years or something of the sort.....

.....Especially when "...something of the sort..." is BULLSHIT!!! ​

December 6, 2007​

"If there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that slashing taxes brings the government more money. "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase," President Bush said in a speech last year. Keeping taxes low, Vice President Dick Cheney explained in a recent interview, "does produce more revenue for the Federal Government." Presidential candidate John McCain declared in March that "tax cuts ... as we all know, increase revenues." His rival Rudy Giuliani couldn't agree more. "I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues," he intones in a new TV ad.

If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues."

Wanna try....AGAIN....Bubblehead????