Do You Still Believe Only The Rich Benefitted From The Bush Tax-cuts??

[mudwhistle]

Mr whistle is a landlord. His tenants use Sec 8 housing vouchers to pay their rent.

Of course Muddy is doing ok. All those tenants with guaranteed rent money. What a moocher Muccy is. Living off the guvment teat.

Just doing whatever I can to get by biatch.

So STFU.

Holy fucking hypocrite.

It's ok though, most of the other "conservatives" on this site yelling for smaller government are hypocrites too. You're just another one of the sheep.

I don't speak for the cons here. If they choose to agree with me that's their choice. I don't waste my time talking about moochers all day long. Whenever government is involved in handing out gravy there's always gonna be somebody that gets over. However I have serious issues with policies that intentionally encourages it. And the very fact that I notice it means I'm not one of the sheep like you.

 

[G.T.]

The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank whose mandate is to produce position papers to promote conservative values. Hardly an unbiased source.

Even the CBPP had to admit that the poor received benefits from the tax-cut. Many of the lower income folks completely stopped having to pay income-taxes. That's 100% for those who can't figure that out on their own. So I don't care what charts you come up with.


I see everyone dancing around the issue but not answering the question.

Were the Bush Tax-cuts only beneficial to the rich?

Yes or no?

Not only did the lower income folks quit paying income taxes, they received returns. Free money for nothing other than beeing poor. Mostly funded by the 1%.

you realize returns are still money that you put in, right? Its taxes you paid throughout the year that are refunded to meet your effective rate. If you get a refund, it means you paid too much throughout the year.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yea, a guy who cries daily about moochers fully exascerbates their existence in his real life, and thinks he has a soap-box?

funny.

discarded to the irrelevant posters box. Walk the walk.

Sweeping generalizations does nothing to win your case for you.

Point out to me these discussions about moochers or STFU asshat.

 

[kwc57]

It's been more than 10 years since President Bush signed his first round of tax cuts into law. And in the years since, those cuts have been the source of constant attacks. Critics charge they gave away too much to the rich, exploded the deficit, contributed to income inequality, did little to spur economic growth, and so on.

President Obama has for years attacked the Bush cuts, and demanded that the top two income tax brackets return to Clinton-era levels.

But a decade of debate and discussion has managed to shed little light on what the Bush tax cuts actually did.

So as the debate heats up once again as part of the "fiscal cliff" negotiations, it's worth taking the time to highlight some of the things most people never knew about the Bush-era tax cuts.

The rich paid more. Despite endless claims by critics that Bush's tax cuts favored the rich, the fact is the rich ended up paying more in taxes after they went into effect.

In fact, IRS data show that the richest 1% paid $84 billion more in taxes in 2007 than they had in 2000 — that's a 23% increase — even though their average tax rate went down.

What's more, their share of the overall income tax burden grew, climbing from 37% in 2000 to 40% in 2007.

At the other end of the spectrum, the bottom half of taxpayers paid $6 billion less in income taxes in 2007 than they had seven years earlier — a 16% drop — and their share of the total income tax burden dropped from 3.9% to 2.9%.

Millions dropped from the tax rolls entirely. Another unheralded feature of the Bush tax cuts is that they pushed nearly 8 million people off the tax rolls entirely because, among other things, Bush doubled the per-child tax credit to $1,000 and lowered the bottom rate to 10%.

The Tax Foundation estimated that these changes benefited modest-income married couples with children, who were the ones most likely to fall from the tax rolls.

The tax cuts didn't cause the massive deficits. Critics routinely blame the Bush tax cuts for turning surpluses late in the Clinton administration to huge deficits under Bush. Not true.

In August 2001, after the first round of the Bush tax cuts were in place, the CBO projected a surplus of $176 billion in fiscal year 2002, with surpluses continuing to grow in the following years.



Read More At IBD: Bush Tax Cut Secret: Rich Paid Even More - Investors.com

 

[mudwhistle]

Even the CBPP had to admit that the poor received benefits from the tax-cut. Many of the lower income folks completely stopped having to pay income-taxes. That's 100% for those who can't figure that out on their own. So I don't care what charts you come up with.


I see everyone dancing around the issue but not answering the question.

Were the Bush Tax-cuts only beneficial to the rich?

Yes or no?

Not only did the lower income folks quit paying income taxes, they received returns. Free money for nothing other than beeing poor. Mostly funded by the 1%.

you realize returns are still money that you put in, right? Its taxes you paid throughout the year that are refunded to meet your effective rate. If you get a refund, it means you paid too much throughout the year.

Wow, look at the Einstein. You have an uncanny ability to see the obvious. Congrats.

Some people choose to overpay because it helps when you have more of a tax burden than anticipated and also because it keeps your wife from spending it as soon as you earn it. Financially it's not sound but if you're talking under $5000 there isn't much you can invest it in that'll earn you a great return. CDs are for shit because of the interest rate, buying gold isn't an option, and unless you have over $100 or $200k in an account you don't have all that much flexibility.

 

[G.T.]

Not only did the lower income folks quit paying income taxes, they received returns. Free money for nothing other than beeing poor. Mostly funded by the 1%.

you realize returns are still money that you put in, right? Its taxes you paid throughout the year that are refunded to meet your effective rate. If you get a refund, it means you paid too much throughout the year.

Wow, look at the Einstein.

Some people choose to overpay because it helps when you have more of a tax burden than anticipated and also because it keeps your wife from spending it as soon as you earn it. Financially it's not sound but if you're talking under $5000 there isn't much you can invest it in that'll earn you a great return. CDs are for shit because of the interest rate, buying gold isn't an option, and unless you have over $100 or $200k in an account you don't have all that much flexibility.

Overpaying = letting someone else earn interest on your own money. You're right, "financially, it's not sound."

 

[Wiseacre]

One thing that I believe gets overlooked in this argument is that a lower tax, better business environment is more conducive for creating more wealthy people. You want upward mobility, you want as many people as possible to get richer than they are now. You want more competition, more chances to succeed. IMHO, Obama has not done that, in fact he's done the opposite. Higher taxes, bigger gov't, and more regulations do not foster the above scenario.

 

[mudwhistle]

you realize returns are still money that you put in, right? Its taxes you paid throughout the year that are refunded to meet your effective rate. If you get a refund, it means you paid too much throughout the year.

Wow, look at the Einstein.

Some people choose to overpay because it helps when you have more of a tax burden than anticipated and also because it keeps your wife from spending it as soon as you earn it. Financially it's not sound but if you're talking under $5000 there isn't much you can invest it in that'll earn you a great return. CDs are for shit because of the interest rate, buying gold isn't an option, and unless you have over $100 or $200k in an account you don't have all that much flexibility.

Overpaying = letting someone else earn interest on your own money. You're right, "financially, it's not sound."

Interest is taxed under Capital Gains which is going up under Obamacare and is going up to over 40% come the first of the year.

Nice try though.

 

[mudwhistle]

Oh, and say goodbye to your deferred tax status on 401ks dipshit.

Yup. Let the good times roll.

 

[BlindBoo]

No. 100% of tax paying Americans will benefit from the Presidents' proposed tax cut extension.

 

[AquaAthena]

I wonder what is taking the Republican House so long to pass an extension for the Bush tax cuts for the middle class.

I guess their printer must be broken.


.

I think they're looking for a compromise...

And that compromise is a joke. Boehner makes me want to leave the GOP and let o have his "Obama's America" then maybe in `16 the starving voters will awaken...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRbqMGtvQD0]2016: Obama's America - Trailer 1 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G1OT5gzb48]2016 Obama's America Trailer 2 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[G.T.]

Wow, look at the Einstein.

Some people choose to overpay because it helps when you have more of a tax burden than anticipated and also because it keeps your wife from spending it as soon as you earn it. Financially it's not sound but if you're talking under $5000 there isn't much you can invest it in that'll earn you a great return. CDs are for shit because of the interest rate, buying gold isn't an option, and unless you have over $100 or $200k in an account you don't have all that much flexibility.

Overpaying = letting someone else earn interest on your own money. You're right, "financially, it's not sound."

Interest is taxed under Capital Gains which is going up under Obamacare and is going up to over 40% come the first of the year.

Nice try though.

and interest that you're letting someone else collect instead of you, = $0.00 gain.

 

[Dragonlady]

IMHO, Obama has not done that, in fact he's done the opposite. Higher taxes, bigger gov't, and more regulations do not foster the above scenario.

I agree with everything you said 100%, right up to the part I quoted.

Government has not expanded under Obama, it's shrunk. While the private sector has been producing jobs, the public sector has been shrinking which is why the employment rate hasn't gone down much. He hasn't raised taxes yet either.

Republicans may talk the talk, but the government expanded under Reagan and both of the Bush's and shrank under Clinton and Obama. The Democrats have also shown more fiscal responsibility. Obama was able to slow the growth of the deficit, but the economic situation required stimulous spending in addition to honouring the Bush bailout contracts.

As for regulations, when the banking regulations were eased, Canadian banks went to Canada's Finance Minister, Paul Martin, and asked that Canadian banking regulations be eased as well in order to allow our banks to compete in the global market place. Martin spent some weeks considering the request and then politely declined. The bankers publically complained that Martin had hamstrung them. When the subprime mortgage crisis hit, Canadian banks who had invested in US banks suffered some losses but required no bailouts or other government assistance, there was no real estate bubble to burst, and our situation was so stable that other countries were asking how we did it. Other countries are now emulating the Canadian banking industry regulations in the hopes of avoiding another worldwide economic crisis.

Rules and regulations are not necessarily a bad thing. Over-regulation is a bad thing. Finding the right balance, while difficult, is achieveable. Something I read during the election campaign gave me hope. President Obama said that US companies are over-regulated and his staff were going through all of the current red tape requirements with a view to eliminating as much of it as possible.

I always laugh when I see Obama referred to as a "communist" or a "socialist". Those of you who call him that have no idea what a communist or a socialist really is. I wouldn't vote for him if he were running in Canada because he's much further to the right than our current government which is the Conservative Party of Canada. Mind you Harper would be banning abortion, scrapping the Canada Health Care Act, and ending gay marriage if he thought he could get away with it, which he can't and he knows it. It's a wise man who knows his limitations.

 

[mudwhistle]

IMHO, Obama has not done that, in fact he's done the opposite. Higher taxes, bigger gov't, and more regulations do not foster the above scenario.

I agree with everything you said 100%, right up to the part I quoted.

Government has not expanded under Obama, it's shrunk. While the private sector has been producing jobs, the public sector has been shrinking which is why the employment rate hasn't gone down much. He hasn't raised taxes yet either.

Republicans may talk the talk, but the government expanded under Reagan and both of the Bush's and shrank under Clinton and Obama. The Democrats have also shown more fiscal responsibility. Obama was able to slow the growth of the deficit, but the economic situation required stimulous spending in addition to honouring the Bush bailout contracts.

As for regulations, when the banking regulations were eased, Canadian banks went to Canada's Finance Minister, Paul Martin, and asked that Canadian banking regulations be eased as well in order to allow our banks to compete in the global market place. Martin spent some weeks considering the request and then politely declined. The bankers publically complained that Martin had hamstrung them. When the subprime mortgage crisis hit, Canadian banks who had invested in US banks suffered some losses but required no bailouts or other government assistance, there was no real estate bubble to burst, and our situation was so stable that other countries were asking how we did it. Other countries are now emulating the Canadian banking industry regulations in the hopes of avoiding another worldwide economic crisis.

Rules and regulations are not necessarily a bad thing. Over-regulation is a bad thing. Finding the right balance, while difficult, is achieveable. Something I read during the election campaign gave me hope. President Obama said that US companies are over-regulated and his staff were going through all of the current red tape requirements with a view to eliminating as much of it as possible.

I always laugh when I see Obama referred to as a "communist" or a "socialist". Those of you who call him that have no idea what a communist or a socialist really is. I wouldn't vote for him if he were running in Canada because he's much further to the right than our current government which is the Conservative Party of Canada. Mind you Harper would be banning abortion, scrapping the Canada Health Care Act, and ending gay marriage if he thought he could get away with it, which he can't and he knows it. It's a wise man who knows his limitations.

You lost me after you said government is shrinking under Obama. Your credibility is shot after that stupidity.

The rest of your post must have been great though.

 

[mudwhistle]

Overpaying = letting someone else earn interest on your own money. You're right, "financially, it's not sound."

Interest is taxed under Capital Gains which is going up under Obamacare and is going up to over 40% come the first of the year.

Nice try though.

and interest that you're letting someone else collect instead of you, = $0.00 gain.

Putting it in a bank does the same thing.

A mattress, no.

 

[mudwhistle]

I wonder what is taking the Republican House so long to pass an extension for the Bush tax cuts for the middle class.

I guess their printer must be broken.


.

I think they're looking for a compromise...

And that compromise is a joke. Boehner makes me want to leave the GOP and let o have his "Obama's America" then maybe in `16 the starving voters will awaken...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRbqMGtvQD0]2016: Obama's America - Trailer 1 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G1OT5gzb48]2016 Obama's America Trailer 2 - YouTube[/ame]

Leaving the GOP would teach Obama a lesson, huh.

Serves him right.

 

[G.T.]

Interest is taxed under Capital Gains which is going up under Obamacare and is going up to over 40% come the first of the year.

Nice try though.

and interest that you're letting someone else collect instead of you, = $0.00 gain.

Putting it in a bank does the same thing.

A mattress, no.

I dont even know the point you're trying to make, except that it's wise to let the Govt profit off of your own dollars by overpaying in taxes throughout the year simply because the bank has poor interest rates.

 

[Wiseacre]

IMHO, Obama has not done that, in fact he's done the opposite. Higher taxes, bigger gov't, and more regulations do not foster the above scenario.

I agree with everything you said 100%, right up to the part I quoted.

Government has not expanded under Obama, it's shrunk. While the private sector has been producing jobs, the public sector has been shrinking which is why the employment rate hasn't gone down much. He hasn't raised taxes yet either.

Really? Have you checked out the ACA? There's a buncha tax increases in there, 18 of 'em I think.

Republicans may talk the talk, but the government expanded under Reagan and both of the Bush's and shrank under Clinton and Obama. The Democrats have also shown more fiscal responsibility. Obama was able to slow the growth of the deficit, but the economic situation required stimulous spending in addition to honouring the Bush bailout contracts.

Reagan had to deal with a democrat House that promised to cut spending but lied and didn't do it. Clinton actually cut the growth of gov't, thanks in no small part to the Gingrich led repub Congress. I ain't going to defend either Bush, but they are not in Obvama's league when in comes to gov't spending and growth. Your statement about Obama cutting the growth of the deficit is absurd, the man has run a trillion dollar deficit 4 years in a row.

As for regulations, when the banking regulations were eased, Canadian banks went to Canada's Finance Minister, Paul Martin, and asked that Canadian banking regulations be eased as well in order to allow our banks to compete in the global market place. Martin spent some weeks considering the request and then politely declined. The bankers publically complained that Martin had hamstrung them. When the subprime mortgage crisis hit, Canadian banks who had invested in US banks suffered some losses but required no bailouts or other government assistance, there was no real estate bubble to burst, and our situation was so stable that other countries were asking how we did it. Other countries are now emulating the Canadian banking industry regulations in the hopes of avoiding another worldwide economic crisis.

Rules and regulations are not necessarily a bad thing. Over-regulation is a bad thing. Finding the right balance, while difficult, is achieveable. Something I read during the election campaign gave me hope. President Obama said that US companies are over-regulated and his staff were going through all of the current red tape requirements with a view to eliminating as much of it as possible.

I'll believe that when I see it. Heard it before from him, didn't happen. There are many who say that he cut back on the implementation of major new regs until after the election. We're talking about a regulatory cliff that could rival the fiscal cliff in imperiling the economic recovery.

I always laugh when I see Obama referred to as a "communist" or a "socialist". Those of you who call him that have no idea what a communist or a socialist really is. I wouldn't vote for him if he were running in Canada because he's much further to the right than our current government which is the Conservative Party of Canada. Mind you Harper would be banning abortion, scrapping the Canada Health Care Act, and ending gay marriage if he thought he could get away with it, which he can't and he knows it. It's a wise man who knows his limitations.

I've never been much into namecalling Obama; his policies are socialist in nature though. As were some of his actions during his first term. I think he would've gone a lot further to the left if he could've. If he's to the right of your gov't, then you guys are screwed.

 

[Dragonlady]

You lost me after you said government is shrinking under Obama. Your credibility is shot after that stupidity.

The rest of your post must have been great though.

Mud, you gotta stop getting political information from Faux News. They lie ALL OF THE TIME. If the facts don't fit their narrative, they lie.

Remember how they told you the polls were all wrong because they were interviewing more Democrats than Repulicans to make it look like Obama was winning, and that their "unskewed polls" were correct and Romney was going to win, by a landslide? They were lying then too.

OK here's some REAL honest-to-goodness non-partisan shit that's not lying:

FactCheck.org : Campaign Funny Business

This was blocked by the Republicans, I can only assume to help keep Obama a one-term president:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11318sp.pdf

or this:

In the ad, the president says “over 5 million new jobs” while the figure “5.2 million” appears on screen. But that’s a doubly misleading figure.

■Viewers would need to pay close attention to the on-screen graphic to know that the ad refers only to employment gains starting in March 2010, omitting the 4.3 million jobs that were lost in the first year of Obama’s term.

■And there’s no way a viewer would know that the total counts only private-sector jobs, omitting continuing losses in government employment.

The emphasis is mine. That's from this piece. I snipped the relevent bit:

FactCheck.org : Obama’s Inflated Jobs Claim

Unlike Faux News, I'm not lying to you mud.

 

[RDD_1210]

Just doing whatever I can to get by biatch.

So STFU.

Holy fucking hypocrite.

It's ok though, most of the other "conservatives" on this site yelling for smaller government are hypocrites too. You're just another one of the sheep.

I don't speak for the cons here. If they choose to agree with me that's their choice. I don't waste my time talking about moochers all day long. Whenever government is involved in handing out gravy there's always gonna be somebody that gets over. However I have serious issues with policies that intentionally encourages it. And the very fact that I notice it means I'm not one of the sheep like you.

Do you think the government should subsidize the cost of housing for people who can't afford it?