Obama: Not Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts Could Hurt Growth

[mdn2000]

Pure Marxism, Obama will go down in history as a failure.

Yes hate the rich, fill your hearts with hate, Liberals love to fuel the fire with hate, too bad every example in history of Liberals at work ends with suffering for the poor.

It is the Liberals who hate the poor, its the Liberals who keep the poor, poor. Liberal/Marxist accuse Conservatives of the evil/hate that fill the Liberal's heart.

The greatest Liberal organization in the USA was the KKK, look what the Liberal organization the KKK did, they hung the poor because they were a different color.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Pure Marxism, Obama will go down in history as...

Dear people who enter USMB without a hazmat suit on, mdn is a house troll who is still fighting the cold war and who rants and raves about Alinsky and Chomsky and other has beens who had little influence except to drive wingnuts over the bridge into full insanity.

Marxism Alert!!! OMFG!!! The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!

 

[hboats]

......mdn is a house troll......

Pot, meet kettle.

Rick

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

......mdn is a house troll......

Pot, meet kettle.

Rick

hboats hboats is online now
Registered User
Member #22523

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 907
Thanks: 132
Thanked 195 Times in 134 Posts

 

[hboats]

......mdn is a house troll......

Pot, meet kettle.

Rick

hboats hboats is online now
Registered User
Member #22523

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 907
Thanks: 132
Thanked 195 Times in 134 Posts

Stalker much?

Rick

 

[DaGoose]

I thought the Bush tax cuts were only for the rich?

Now all you liberals want us to believe that Bush actually gave the middle class a tax cut?

I think it's time for some of you to get your stories straight.

Rick

Already covered. We're still waiting for proof that anybody said "only the rich got tax cuts".

Put up or shut up Rick.

Well then if you admit the middle class got the lion's share of the tax cuts, maybe you'll exhibit the same vigor jumping on those who keep whining that the Bush tax policy was tax cuts for the rich?

But again what we are talking about now is not cutting taxes but rather not raising them. Not extending the Bush tax policy will be a tax increase that cannot help but be severely detrimental to any economic recovery.

And however much some despise the rich and want them to pay down the debt, it ain't gonna happen. What WILL start paying down the debt, however, is Congressional restraint that we haven't seen for a very long time now coupled with incentive and good prospects for profits for those 'evil rich' to let go of the capital they are currently hoarding so that they will start making things, providing services, and hiring people again.

You make the rich happy and those of us among the unrich will be a whole lot happier with jobs they'll create than we are without them.

Well then if you admit the middle class got the lion's share of the tax cuts, maybe you'll exhibit the same vigor jumping on those who keep whining that the Bush tax policy was tax cuts for the rich?

If you're referring to someone saying only the rich got tax cuts I don't know anyone who said that. If you do maybe you can show me?

But again what we are talking about now is not cutting taxes but rather not raising them. Not extending the Bush tax policy will be a tax increase that cannot help but be severely detrimental to any economic recovery.

No. What we are talking about is allowing a "temporary" tax cut to expire. I feel that no matter what the condition of the economy you would oppose allowing them to expire.

And however much some despise the rich and want them to pay down the debt, it ain't gonna happen. What WILL start paying down the debt, however, is Congressional restraint that we haven't seen for a very long time now coupled with incentive and good prospects for profits for those 'evil rich' to let go of the capital they are currently hoarding so that they will start making things, providing services, and hiring people again.

Ahhhh....the old phony "Trickles Down Economics" policy. Did you know that Reagan's own economic policy director called it a "Trojan Horse"?

You make the rich happy and those of us among the unrich will be a whole lot happier with jobs they'll create than we are without them.

Instead of crying about allowing these temporary tax cuts expire you should be pissed off at the GOP who controlled all three branches of government and put the "Sunset Provision" in it.

Again....If the GOP, who controlled all three branches of government, would have made the tax cuts permanent in the first place we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[hboats]

Already covered. We're still waiting for proof that anybody said "only the rich got tax cuts".

Put up or shut up Rick.

Well then if you admit the middle class got the lion's share of the tax cuts, maybe you'll exhibit the same vigor jumping on those who keep whining that the Bush tax policy was tax cuts for the rich?

But again what we are talking about now is not cutting taxes but rather not raising them. Not extending the Bush tax policy will be a tax increase that cannot help but be severely detrimental to any economic recovery.

And however much some despise the rich and want them to pay down the debt, it ain't gonna happen. What WILL start paying down the debt, however, is Congressional restraint that we haven't seen for a very long time now coupled with incentive and good prospects for profits for those 'evil rich' to let go of the capital they are currently hoarding so that they will start making things, providing services, and hiring people again.

You make the rich happy and those of us among the unrich will be a whole lot happier with jobs they'll create than we are without them.

If you're referring to someone saying only the rich got tax cuts I don't know anyone who said that. If you do maybe you can show me?



No. What we are talking about is allowing a "temporary" tax cut to expire. I feel that no matter what the condition of the economy you would oppose allowing them to expire.

And however much some despise the rich and want them to pay down the debt, it ain't gonna happen. What WILL start paying down the debt, however, is Congressional restraint that we haven't seen for a very long time now coupled with incentive and good prospects for profits for those 'evil rich' to let go of the capital they are currently hoarding so that they will start making things, providing services, and hiring people again.

Ahhhh....the old phony "Trickles Down Economics" policy. Did you know that Reagan's own economic policy director called it a "Trojan Horse"?

You make the rich happy and those of us among the unrich will be a whole lot happier with jobs they'll create than we are without them.

Instead of crying about allowing these temporary tax cuts expire you should be pissed off at the GOP who controlled all three branches of government and put the "Sunset Provision" in it.

Again....If the GOP, who controlled all three branches of government, would have made the tax cuts permanent in the first place we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Reporters Push Spin of Anti-Tax Cut Liberals

As they set the table for President Bush’s State of the Union speech, network reporters have been busy as bees asserting that three liberal Democratic arguments against Bush’s tax cut plan aren’t just spin — they’re facts. A Media Research Center study of all 28 tax cut stories on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from January 2 (when coverage of Bush’s imminent plan began) through January 15 (after coverage had abated) determined that those liberal points received much more time than conservative counter-arguments — and that journalists themselves often echoed the anti-tax cut talking points:

• Liberals argued Bush’s plan only comforts the rich. Viewers heard this point made by news sources 27 times and from reporters themselves another ten times. “The bigger your wallet, the bigger the benefit,” CBS reporter Byron Pitts insisted on January 6 as he presented the tax cut as liberals wished, in terms of dollars saved, not the percentage tax reduction each family would receive. Emphasizing percentages shows the benefits would be larger for lower income families, but viewers heard just seven sources (all Republicans) challenge the liberal presentation, and no reporter ever did. That computes to a six-to-one liberal skew on this issue, hardly balance.

It’s not as if every expert agreed with Tom Daschle. The Tax Foundation used IRS figures to show how the current tax code punishes the rich — the top 10 percent of Americans (those earning over $92,114) account for 46 percent of all income earned in the U.S., but pay 67.3 percent of income taxes. As Washington Post reporters Dana Milbank and Chris Jenkins noted January 10, “Treasury figures show the share of the tax burden borne by those earning more than $100,000 would rise from 72.4 percent to 73.3 percent” if Bush’s plan was enacted. That’s helping the rich?

Two NBC reporters — Campbell Brown and Lisa Myers — did tell viewers (in general terms) that the rich pay a far higher share of current taxes, but ABC and CBS completely omitted even this basic fact. And no network reporter even hinted that the tax burden would fall even more heavily on the wealthy if Bush’s plan became law.

Reporters Push Spin of Anti-Tax Cut Liberals -- 01/27/2003 - Media Research Center - Media Reality Check

But on Thursday night, Tom Brokaw highlighted Bill Clinton's attack from the left on Bush's plan as “a giveaway to the rich.”

Brokaw announced on the January 23 NBC Nightly News: “Former President Bill Clinton today was the most critical he's been yet of the Bush administration, charging the administration's tax plan is what he called 'a giveaway to the rich' when too many low and middle income Americans are struggling to pay for health care and states are forced to cut back on basic services.”

NBC Insists Frigid Temps Don't Undermine Global Warming -- 01/24/2003 -- Media Research Center CyberAlert (2nd story)

There's lots more at the links. Bush's tax cuts were spun as 'mainly for the rich'.

Interesting how you just overlooked the links that were posted.

Rick

 

[LordBrownTrout]

It's not the government's money in the first place. It's ours. We earned it, government did nothing for it.

 

[Revere]

Democrats don't have the balls to bring it to a vote because they don't have the votes.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Democrats don't have the balls to bring it to a vote because they don't have the votes.

True. It's sunk in the senate.

 

[Foxfyre]

Already covered. We're still waiting for proof that anybody said "only the rich got tax cuts".

Put up or shut up Rick.

Well then if you admit the middle class got the lion's share of the tax cuts, maybe you'll exhibit the same vigor jumping on those who keep whining that the Bush tax policy was tax cuts for the rich?

But again what we are talking about now is not cutting taxes but rather not raising them. Not extending the Bush tax policy will be a tax increase that cannot help but be severely detrimental to any economic recovery.

And however much some despise the rich and want them to pay down the debt, it ain't gonna happen. What WILL start paying down the debt, however, is Congressional restraint that we haven't seen for a very long time now coupled with incentive and good prospects for profits for those 'evil rich' to let go of the capital they are currently hoarding so that they will start making things, providing services, and hiring people again.

You make the rich happy and those of us among the unrich will be a whole lot happier with jobs they'll create than we are without them.

If you're referring to someone saying only the rich got tax cuts I don't know anyone who said that. If you do maybe you can show me?



No. What we are talking about is allowing a "temporary" tax cut to expire. I feel that no matter what the condition of the economy you would oppose allowing them to expire.

And however much some despise the rich and want them to pay down the debt, it ain't gonna happen. What WILL start paying down the debt, however, is Congressional restraint that we haven't seen for a very long time now coupled with incentive and good prospects for profits for those 'evil rich' to let go of the capital they are currently hoarding so that they will start making things, providing services, and hiring people again.

Ahhhh....the old phony "Trickles Down Economics" policy. Did you know that Reagan's own economic policy director called it a "Trojan Horse"?

You make the rich happy and those of us among the unrich will be a whole lot happier with jobs they'll create than we are without them.

Instead of crying about allowing these temporary tax cuts expire you should be pissed off at the GOP who controlled all three branches of government and put the "Sunset Provision" in it.

Again....If the GOP, who controlled all three branches of government, would have made the tax cuts permanent in the first place we wouldn't be having this discussion.

If I was referring to anything other than the statement I quoted to respond to, I would have said so.' If you would make an effort to read what I actually said you might not jump to so many wrong conclusions and wouldn't read into things what isn't there.

And my statement had absolutely nothing to do with the mythical 'trickle down' economics that the Left has been distorting almost since day one. "Bubble up" would be a better metaphor but even that falls short as an accurate description.

The fact is that there are basically five ways to legally acquire wealth in a free society.

1. Find it/win it
2. Inherit it
3. Earn it by being self employed
4. Earn it by working for wages for somebody else
5. Earn it by investing in other people (which would also include the stock market or interest bearing savings.)

Numbers 1 through 4 are pretty much out of luck if there is no Number 5. So how does anybody figure out a way to tax the No. 5 people in a way that does not leave less for the Nos. 1 through 4? It's a no brainer. They can't.

The initial Bush tax policy was put in place as a 10-year 'trial' that would expire if not renewed by January 2011. It did all it was supposed to do. And yes the GOP controlled Congress should have made the policy 'permanent' and probably would have but they lost power. And the Democratically controlled Congress refused to do so in 2007 and 2008.

It is now time to do that. And I hope there are enough with sufficient patiriotism, public service spirit, and intelligence that they will choose to do so.

 

[Common Sense]

heres an issue that no one talks about. since the republican party campaigned on cutting spending and cutting the deficit. here are the fact about what extending the bush tax cuts for everyone will do.

CBO: Extending Tax Cuts Could Have Huge Debt Impact - TheFiscalTimes.com

"Extending all the Bush cuts through 2020 would add another $2.7 trillion to the debt."

that sentence pretty much sums it up. so where is the compromise. do we cut the deficit by not extending the tax cuts, but adding $2.7 trillion to the debt or do we let them expire and have everyone taxes increase back to 2000 levels?

 

[Stephanie]

well hell, if the tax cuts are going to add to the dept, then I think a good solution would be to start eliminating Congeresscritter jobs to pay for the "tax cuts"

starting with the Democrats, of course.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

well hell, if the tax cuts are going to add to the dept, then I think a good solution would be to start eliminating Congeresscritter jobs to pay for the "tax cuts"

starting with the Democrats, of course.

the clueless strike again!!!

 

[Zoom-boing]

Well then if you admit the middle class got the lion's share of the tax cuts, maybe you'll exhibit the same vigor jumping on those who keep whining that the Bush tax policy was tax cuts for the rich?

But again what we are talking about now is not cutting taxes but rather not raising them. Not extending the Bush tax policy will be a tax increase that cannot help but be severely detrimental to any economic recovery.

And however much some despise the rich and want them to pay down the debt, it ain't gonna happen. What WILL start paying down the debt, however, is Congressional restraint that we haven't seen for a very long time now coupled with incentive and good prospects for profits for those 'evil rich' to let go of the capital they are currently hoarding so that they will start making things, providing services, and hiring people again.

You make the rich happy and those of us among the unrich will be a whole lot happier with jobs they'll create than we are without them.

If you're referring to someone saying only the rich got tax cuts I don't know anyone who said that. If you do maybe you can show me?



No. What we are talking about is allowing a "temporary" tax cut to expire. I feel that no matter what the condition of the economy you would oppose allowing them to expire.



Ahhhh....the old phony "Trickles Down Economics" policy. Did you know that Reagan's own economic policy director called it a "Trojan Horse"?



Instead of crying about allowing these temporary tax cuts expire you should be pissed off at the GOP who controlled all three branches of government and put the "Sunset Provision" in it.

Again....If the GOP, who controlled all three branches of government, would have made the tax cuts permanent in the first place we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Reporters Push Spin of Anti-Tax Cut Liberals -- 01/27/2003 - Media Research Center - Media Reality Check

But on Thursday night, Tom Brokaw highlighted Bill Clinton's attack from the left on Bush's plan as “a giveaway to the rich.”

Brokaw announced on the January 23 NBC Nightly News: “Former President Bill Clinton today was the most critical he's been yet of the Bush administration, charging the administration's tax plan is what he called 'a giveaway to the rich' when too many low and middle income Americans are struggling to pay for health care and states are forced to cut back on basic services.”

NBC Insists Frigid Temps Don't Undermine Global Warming -- 01/24/2003 -- Media Research Center CyberAlert (2nd story)

There's lots more at the links. Bush's tax cuts were spun as 'mainly for the rich'.

Interesting how you just overlooked the links that were posted.

Rick

You noticed that too? Yup.

 

[DaGoose]

It's not the government's money in the first place. It's ours. We earned it, government did nothing for it.

While I don't argue that it is, in fact, our money I find it interesting that almost nobody wants to acknowledge the fact that it's our debt as well. And you and I owe a whole lot of money.

 

[rightwinger]

well hell, if the tax cuts are going to add to the dept, then I think a good solution would be to start eliminating Congeresscritter jobs to pay for the "tax cuts"

starting with the Democrats, of course.

We will have to cut alot of Congressmen to make up $2 trilion

 

[DaGoose]

If you're referring to someone saying only the rich got tax cuts I don't know anyone who said that. If you do maybe you can show me?



No. What we are talking about is allowing a "temporary" tax cut to expire. I feel that no matter what the condition of the economy you would oppose allowing them to expire.



Ahhhh....the old phony "Trickles Down Economics" policy. Did you know that Reagan's own economic policy director called it a "Trojan Horse"?



Instead of crying about allowing these temporary tax cuts expire you should be pissed off at the GOP who controlled all three branches of government and put the "Sunset Provision" in it.

Again....If the GOP, who controlled all three branches of government, would have made the tax cuts permanent in the first place we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Reporters Push Spin of Anti-Tax Cut Liberals -- 01/27/2003 - Media Research Center - Media Reality Check



NBC Insists Frigid Temps Don't Undermine Global Warming -- 01/24/2003 -- Media Research Center CyberAlert (2nd story)

There's lots more at the links. Bush's tax cuts were spun as 'mainly for the rich'.

Interesting how you just overlooked the links that were posted.

Rick

You noticed that too? Yup.

Ok. How about words from Bush's own Cabinet people?

THEY said that the massive tax cuts were foolish and mostly favored the rich.

"Haven't we already given money to rich people... Shouldn't we be giving money to the middle?" Suskind says Bush asked, according to what CBS called a "nearly verbatim" transcript of an economic team meeting Suskind said he obtained from someone at the meeting.

O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11 - CNN

 

[Zoom-boing]

Obama: Not Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts Could Hurt Growth


It most certainly will not hurt those "job creators." The Repugs, party of "fack the middleclass."

I thought the Bush tax cuts were only for the rich?

Now all you liberals want us to believe that Bush actually gave the middle class a tax cut?

I think it's time for some of you to get your stories straight.

Rick

Already covered. We're still waiting for proof that anybody said "only the rich got tax cuts".

Put up or shut up Rick.

Interesting how you just overlooked the links that were posted.

Rick

You noticed that too? Yup.

Ok. How about words from Bush's own Cabinet people?

THEY said that the massive tax cuts were foolish and mostly favored the rich.

"Haven't we already given money to rich people... Shouldn't we be giving money to the middle?" Suskind says Bush asked, according to what CBS called a "nearly verbatim" transcript of an economic team meeting Suskind said he obtained from someone at the meeting.

O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11 - CNN

What are you rambling about? Many said the tax cuts were mainly for the rich. Your post to hboats, above, seems to indicate that you believe otherwise.

 

[Ame®icano]

Obama: Not Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts Could Hurt Growth


It most certainly will not hurt those "job creators." The Repugs, party of "fack the middleclass."

Soooo, in about a year from now, when he start campaigning for 2012 elections, he'll most likely say: Not voting for me will hurt middle class. And the growth.