Senate Votes to Side With the Middle Class, Gauntlet Thrown Down to House Repubs.

[8537]

tax cuts for me but not for thee.


This more then proves democrats as class warfare low life.

This tax cut applies to everyone, not just middle class folks. It's a cut for me, thee and everyone else.

THE ARTICLE SPECIFICALLY CALLS INTO QUESTION YOUR HONESTY.

Dont run off.

The article specifically confirms my point. It calls into question your comprehension.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

From the article.


Tax rates would rise by 4 percent on incomes above $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for single filers

SPLAIN LUCY...............

Yes, those taxes would increase. Every American will benefit from the tax cut extension for all incomes below that.

Every working American at any income level will benefit from the extension of this tax cut.

You are a lying POS. But thanks for playing..............

Seems like you're the one who has nothing to add to the discussion and are just tossing out insults. So, yeah.

 

[8537]

From the article.


Tax rates would rise by 4 percent on incomes above $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for single filers

SPLAIN LUCY...............

Yes, those taxes would increase. Every American will benefit from the tax cut extension for all incomes below that.

Every working American at any income level will benefit from the extension of this tax cut.

You are a lying POS. But thanks for playing..............

I'm wondering if you think calling me a piece of shit makes your point? Because you're still wrong. Every American who works benefits from a reduction in marginal rates.

 

[DontBeStupid]

From the article.


Tax rates would rise by 4 percent on incomes above $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for single filers

SPLAIN LUCY...............

Yes, those taxes would increase. Every American will benefit from the tax cut extension for all incomes below that.

Every working American at any income level will benefit from the extension of this tax cut.

You are a lying POS. But thanks for playing..............

Full Auto doesn't understand how our tax system works. He thinks the tax rate for that income level applies to ALL money earned.

He refuses to educate himself.

 

[Full-Auto]

This tax cut applies to everyone, not just middle class folks. It's a cut for me, thee and everyone else.

THE ARTICLE SPECIFICALLY CALLS INTO QUESTION YOUR HONESTY.

Dont run off.

The article specifically confirms my point. It calls into question your comprehension.

Point out the language that specifically includes everyone.

LIAR............

 

[8537]

THE ARTICLE SPECIFICALLY CALLS INTO QUESTION YOUR HONESTY.

Dont run off.

The article specifically confirms my point. It calls into question your comprehension.

Point out the language that specifically includes everyone.

LIAR............

You should really just quit while you're behind, lest we embarrass you further.

 

[SniperFire]

What source? You HAD no fucking source. That was his point. You can't play the fucking martyr when you're just being called out for what the reality of the situation is. The fact that you'd still not answer the direct challenge to provide a source just proves his point MORE.

Fuck...you suck at this. Really badly.

Uh, actually I referenced the NYT, the CBO and Treasury Department reports in my post. Then, I gave the actual article, date and author. If that's not enough for you, perhaps you and Stupid...suck at this.

I also noticed you've yet to address my challenge. Why don't you tell us what happened to tax revenues after the tax cuts where implemented in 2003? Your buddy Stupid can't seem to look beyond 2002. You also 100% sure tax revenues will rise following a tax hike? Thrill us with your acumen...

You supplied your reference only after being called out on it.

And I did talk about revenue after 2003. You just chose to ignore me. After 2003, revenue as a percentage of GDP, peaked at 18.5% in 2007. That level is 2.1 percentage points LOWER than Clinton's record of 20.1%, which was set in 2000, and is the ONLY time Bush had revenue above the historic average for the country, which is 18.2%. Although, he did tie the average one time. This number is also LOWER than Reagan's peaks of 19.6% and 19.2%.

All facts you are choosing to ignore.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

The precentages are misleading because mindless deficit spending un-naturally drives GDP. If you borrow and spend 40% of every dollar, and if government spending is now approaching half of GDP, even you should be able to figure that one out.

The fact is, the Bush tax cuts exploded Federal tax revenues.

Clinton took in $5.66 trillion of individual income taxes in his 8 years.

Bush took in a whopping $7.45 trillion of individual income taxes in his 8 years.

A cool TRILLION of that extra income tax came from those filthy rich people you envy.

Only an idiot Leftist would want to go back to the Clinton tax rates if you wanted to soak the rich.

 

[Claudette]

You mean the Bush tax cuts weren't only for the rich? Isn't that what we've been told for years now? How Bush was giving the rich some huge break?

Turns out everyone received them. Now its time ot preserve them for the middle class but make sure the rich get soaked.

You LOLberals cant even keep a fucking story straight.

Color. Me. Shocked.

Yup. They forget that everyone got that tax break. Not just the "rich."

If they are after revenue then taxing the rich ain't gonna get em far. Taxing The middle class would bring in way more revenue. Way more of them than their are "rich" folks.

Of course if class warfare, divide and conquer, is on the name of the game, and we all know it is, then taxing the rich fits right in with their bs.

Color me shocked as well.

 

[eflatminor]

What source? You HAD no fucking source. That was his point. You can't play the fucking martyr when you're just being called out for what the reality of the situation is. The fact that you'd still not answer the direct challenge to provide a source just proves his point MORE.

Fuck...you suck at this. Really badly.

Uh, actually I referenced the NYT, the CBO and Treasury Department reports in my post. Then, I gave the actual article, date and author. If that's not enough for you, perhaps you and Stupid...suck at this.

I also noticed you've yet to address my challenge. Why don't you tell us what happened to tax revenues after the tax cuts where implemented in 2003? Your buddy Stupid can't seem to look beyond 2002. You also 100% sure tax revenues will rise following a tax hike? Thrill us with your acumen...

You supplied your reference only after being called out on it.

And I did talk about revenue after 2003. You just chose to ignore me. After 2003, revenue as a percentage of GDP, peaked at 18.5% in 2007. That level is 2.1 percentage points LOWER than Clinton's record of 20.1%, which was set in 2000, and is the ONLY time Bush had revenue above the historic average for the country, which is 18.2%. Although, he did tie the average one time. This number is also LOWER than Reagan's peaks of 19.6% and 19.2%.

All facts you are choosing to ignore.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

One last time, let's get to the heart of this. Do you acknowledge that after the 2003 tax cuts kicked in, revenue increased? Yes or no?

 

[DontBeStupid]

Uh, actually I referenced the NYT, the CBO and Treasury Department reports in my post. Then, I gave the actual article, date and author. If that's not enough for you, perhaps you and Stupid...suck at this.

I also noticed you've yet to address my challenge. Why don't you tell us what happened to tax revenues after the tax cuts where implemented in 2003? Your buddy Stupid can't seem to look beyond 2002. You also 100% sure tax revenues will rise following a tax hike? Thrill us with your acumen...

You supplied your reference only after being called out on it.

And I did talk about revenue after 2003. You just chose to ignore me. After 2003, revenue as a percentage of GDP, peaked at 18.5% in 2007. That level is 2.1 percentage points LOWER than Clinton's record of 20.1%, which was set in 2000, and is the ONLY time Bush had revenue above the historic average for the country, which is 18.2%. Although, he did tie the average one time. This number is also LOWER than Reagan's peaks of 19.6% and 19.2%.

All facts you are choosing to ignore.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

The precentages are misleading because mindless deficit spending un-naturally drives GDP. If you borrow and spend 40% of every dollar, and if government spending is now approaching half of GDP, even you should be able to figure that one out.

The fact is, the Bush tax cuts exploded Federal tax revenues.

Clinton took in $5.66 trillion of individual income taxes in his 8 years.

Bush took in a whopping $7.45 trillion of individual income taxes in his 8 years.

A cool TRILLION of that extra income tax came from those filthy rich people you envy.

Only an idiot Leftist would want to go back to the Clinton tax rates if you wanted to soak the rich.

And here we go again. No source to back up your numbers and you're obviously NOT using inflation adjusted numbers, so big fucking deal!

Seriously, why do you guys refuse to learn about this topic?

 

[Pho_King]

Where would the dems get access to a gauntlet? From which conservative would such a manly glove have to be confiscated?

Oh look everyone, the moron is using the age-old rhetoric that Liberals are wusses.

Hey, I forget, which President actually had the balls to train our focus on Bin Laden and then to pull the fucking trigger when we had him in our sights?

Who was that, Pho_King Retarded?

Yes, liberals are pussies. Otherwise hey would take care of themselves instead of commanding others to take car of them. And it does not take balls to order others to tackle a dangerous task. But that is the liberal understanding of masculinity.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Uh, actually I referenced the NYT, the CBO and Treasury Department reports in my post. Then, I gave the actual article, date and author. If that's not enough for you, perhaps you and Stupid...suck at this.

I also noticed you've yet to address my challenge. Why don't you tell us what happened to tax revenues after the tax cuts where implemented in 2003? Your buddy Stupid can't seem to look beyond 2002. You also 100% sure tax revenues will rise following a tax hike? Thrill us with your acumen...

You supplied your reference only after being called out on it.

And I did talk about revenue after 2003. You just chose to ignore me. After 2003, revenue as a percentage of GDP, peaked at 18.5% in 2007. That level is 2.1 percentage points LOWER than Clinton's record of 20.1%, which was set in 2000, and is the ONLY time Bush had revenue above the historic average for the country, which is 18.2%. Although, he did tie the average one time. This number is also LOWER than Reagan's peaks of 19.6% and 19.2%.

All facts you are choosing to ignore.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

One last time, let's get to the heart of this. Do you acknowledge that after the 2003 tax cuts kicked in, revenue increased? Yes or no?

For the hundredth time, yes, revenue went up from 2003 to 2004 and then again in 2005. THAT'S BECAUSE OF INFLATION! You are refusing to use inflation adjusted numbers so of course revenue will look like it's growing. If you look at non-inflation adjusted numbers from the past 100 years, there are only a couple of years the number did not go up. And then Bush made it DROP 3 years in a row! That had never happened before.

But of course, you don't believe that happened, so no wonder you don't understand inflation adjusted numbers.

 

[Stephanie]

don't be fooled people
links in article at site

SNIP:

Morning Bell: Senate Votes to Raise Taxes on Small Businesses


Amy Payne

July 26, 2012 at 8:57 am

Yesterday, the Senate narrowly voted (51-48) to raise taxes on 1.2 million small businesses, which will likely kill more than 700,000 jobs at a time when nearly 13 million Americans are out of work. Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Jim Webb (D-VA) joined all Republicans in bipartisan opposition to the tax hike.

This is President Obama’s economic plan. This is what he asked Congress to do. And he recently told a fundraising crowd that his economic plan has been working.

“Just like we’ve tried [Republicans'] plan, we tried our plan—and it worked,” he said.

But Obama’s Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, said yesterday that “the economy is not growing fast enough,” acknowledging that “unemployment is very high.” “The institutions with authority should be doing everything they can to try to make economic growth stronger,” he said.

The President’s plan, now endorsed by the Democratic majority in the Senate, has little chance of going anywhere in the House of Representatives. But it has put the 51 Senators who want to raise taxes on record.

Perhaps the biggest lie in the tax debate is that this vote affects only “the rich.” That’s simply not true. Many small businesses, known as flow-through businesses, pay their taxes through the individual income tax. Ernst and Young estimates that these types of businesses “employ 54% of the private sector work force.” This tax hike squarely hits 1.2 million of these businesses that hire workers and have incomes above $200,000.

Rather than punishing just “the rich,” as Heritage’s Curtis Dubay notes, “By pinpointing his tax increase on incomes over $200,000, President Obama has maximized the detrimental impact that his tax increase would have on job creation.”

all of it here
Morning Bell: Senate Votes to Raise Taxes on Small Businesses

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Where would the dems get access to a gauntlet? From which conservative would such a manly glove have to be confiscated?

Oh look everyone, the moron is using the age-old rhetoric that Liberals are wusses.

Hey, I forget, which President actually had the balls to train our focus on Bin Laden and then to pull the fucking trigger when we had him in our sights?

Who was that, Pho_King Retarded?

Yes, liberals are pussies. Otherwise hey would take care of themselves instead of commanding others to take car of them. And it does not take balls to order others to tackle a dangerous task. But that is the liberal understanding of masculinity.

You listen to Right Wing media WAY too much. What Liberals want is for the tax dollars WE pay to go towards helping people. I know, that makes us assholes. But it also puts us right in line with the teachings of one of the greatest socialist philosophers this world has ever seen: Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Full-Auto]

The article specifically confirms my point. It calls into question your comprehension.

Point out the language that specifically includes everyone.

LIAR............

You should really just quit while you're behind, lest we embarrass you further.

You have had your head up your ass for quite some time.

Its OK I like punking democrats, I really do.

This sentence is from a recent article. I like sand bagging the idiots.


The Obama administration said Tuesday that it strongly supported a Senate proposal to give tax breaks for certain small businesses.

 

[SniperFire]

You supplied your reference only after being called out on it.

And I did talk about revenue after 2003. You just chose to ignore me. After 2003, revenue as a percentage of GDP, peaked at 18.5% in 2007. That level is 2.1 percentage points LOWER than Clinton's record of 20.1%, which was set in 2000, and is the ONLY time Bush had revenue above the historic average for the country, which is 18.2%. Although, he did tie the average one time. This number is also LOWER than Reagan's peaks of 19.6% and 19.2%.

All facts you are choosing to ignore.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

The precentages are misleading because mindless deficit spending un-naturally drives GDP. If you borrow and spend 40% of every dollar, and if government spending is now approaching half of GDP, even you should be able to figure that one out.

The fact is, the Bush tax cuts exploded Federal tax revenues.

Clinton took in $5.66 trillion of individual income taxes in his 8 years.

Bush took in a whopping $7.45 trillion of individual income taxes in his 8 years.

A cool TRILLION of that extra income tax came from those filthy rich people you envy.

Only an idiot Leftist would want to go back to the Clinton tax rates if you wanted to soak the rich.

And here we go again. No source to back up your numbers and you're obviously NOT using inflation adjusted numbers, so big fucking deal!

Seriously, why do you guys refuse to learn about this topic?

You doubt the numbers?

RealClearMarkets - The Hidden Truth About the Bush Tax Increases


Eat shit and die.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

You supplied your reference only after being called out on it.

And I did talk about revenue after 2003. You just chose to ignore me. After 2003, revenue as a percentage of GDP, peaked at 18.5% in 2007. That level is 2.1 percentage points LOWER than Clinton's record of 20.1%, which was set in 2000, and is the ONLY time Bush had revenue above the historic average for the country, which is 18.2%. Although, he did tie the average one time. This number is also LOWER than Reagan's peaks of 19.6% and 19.2%.

All facts you are choosing to ignore.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

One last time, let's get to the heart of this. Do you acknowledge that after the 2003 tax cuts kicked in, revenue increased? Yes or no?

For the hundredth time, yes, revenue went up from 2003 to 2004 and then again in 2005. THAT'S BECAUSE OF INFLATION! You are refusing to use inflation adjusted numbers so of course revenue will look like it's growing. If you look at non-inflation adjusted numbers from the past 100 years, there are only a couple of years the number did not go up. And then Bush made it DROP 3 years in a row! That had never happened before.

But of course, you don't believe that happened, so no wonder you don't understand inflation adjusted numbers.

Conservatives HATE adjusting for inflation apparently. That's why they kept claiming that Obamacare IS the highest tax hike in history simply because in sheer, whole dollars it is. Despite tons of independent fact checkers calling bullshit, they bitterly cling to it...it'll be just like Social Security, a hundred years from now Conservatives will be shouting from the rooftops that Obamacare is going bankrupt and it's a ponzi scheme.

 

[8537]

Point out the language that specifically includes everyone.

LIAR............

You should really just quit while you're behind, lest we embarrass you further.

You have had your head up your ass for quite some time.

Its OK I like punking democrats, I really do.

This sentence is from a recent article. I like sand bagging the idiots.


The Obama administration said Tuesday that it strongly supported a Senate proposal to give tax breaks for certain small businesses.

So, let's review.

if the tax cut extension passed by the Senate becomes law, will everyone who works see a reduction in their taxes relative to what they would pay without this legislation?

A simple yes or no will do, thanks,

 

[ConservaDerrps]

The precentages are misleading because mindless deficit spending un-naturally drives GDP. If you borrow and spend 40% of every dollar, and if government spending is now approaching half of GDP, even you should be able to figure that one out.

The fact is, the Bush tax cuts exploded Federal tax revenues.

Clinton took in $5.66 trillion of individual income taxes in his 8 years.

Bush took in a whopping $7.45 trillion of individual income taxes in his 8 years.

A cool TRILLION of that extra income tax came from those filthy rich people you envy.

Only an idiot Leftist would want to go back to the Clinton tax rates if you wanted to soak the rich.

And here we go again. No source to back up your numbers and you're obviously NOT using inflation adjusted numbers, so big fucking deal!

Seriously, why do you guys refuse to learn about this topic?

You doubt the numbers?

RealClearMarkets - The Hidden Truth About the Bush Tax Increases


Eat shit and die.

Hey, idiot, your numbers in that link aren't adjusted for inflation either. WHY ARE YOU GUYS SO FUCKING STUPID ON THIS ISSUE?

 

[8537]

You supplied your reference only after being called out on it.

And I did talk about revenue after 2003. You just chose to ignore me. After 2003, revenue as a percentage of GDP, peaked at 18.5% in 2007. That level is 2.1 percentage points LOWER than Clinton's record of 20.1%, which was set in 2000, and is the ONLY time Bush had revenue above the historic average for the country, which is 18.2%. Although, he did tie the average one time. This number is also LOWER than Reagan's peaks of 19.6% and 19.2%.

All facts you are choosing to ignore.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

One last time, let's get to the heart of this. Do you acknowledge that after the 2003 tax cuts kicked in, revenue increased? Yes or no?

For the hundredth time, yes, revenue went up from 2003 to 2004 and then again in 2005. THAT'S BECAUSE OF INFLATION! You are refusing to use inflation adjusted numbers so of course revenue will look like it's growing. If you look at non-inflation adjusted numbers from the past 100 years, there are only a couple of years the number did not go up. And then Bush made it DROP 3 years in a row! That had never happened before.

But of course, you don't believe that happened, so no wonder you don't understand inflation adjusted numbers.

Real tax revenues did not reach their year 2000 levels until 2006 - the longest period between revenue peaks in modern US history.