The democrat lie about bush's tax cuts

[rightwinger]

And I believe that if his bill is not passed, he should allow them to expire. Fiscal sanity.

And the added tax revenue should go towards debt reduction

 

[Charles_Main]

The Republicans continue to lie about what our President is doing. If his bill passes, those making 50,000 will see no increase in their taxes.

Straight up lie. If he allows the Bush Tax cuts to expire all tax brackets will see their taxes go up. Only those not making enough to pay any federal taxes will not see an increase.

Boy, what a lyng asshole you are. If the President allows the tax cuts to expire. It is not the President that is allowing the tax cuts to expire, it is the Republicans that are going to allow it to expire if their rich buddies do not get their tax cut extended. The proposed tax bill would leave the tax cuts in place for all that are in tax brackets below $250,000. However, if the President's bill is prevented from passing by the Republicans, then the tax cuts will expire, as written into the original tax cut bill by REPUBLICANS.

That is correct. The present expiration date was put there by Republicans, and if the Republicans prevent our President from changing the passing a bill exempting those making below $250,000 from the expiration, then all will have to pay higher taxes again.

Wasn't lying bud, I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were saying if the tax cuts expired only the rich would see their taxes go up.

 

[Charles_Main]

And I believe that if his bill is not passed, he should allow them to expire. Fiscal sanity.

And the added tax revenue should go towards debt reduction

What added tax revenue lol. If we let them all expire the blow to our economy would likely cause revenues to fall.

 

[rdean]

not a peep about the fear mongering lie that bush's tax cuts are only for the wealthy....

facts and the far left like the two posters above mix like oil and water

More than 52% of 2.4 TRILLION dollars went to 1% of the people. While no one said they were ONLY for the wealthy, it was said they were designed to help only the wealthy, which they did.

If they were such a good idea the FIRST time, why didn't they help the economy?

Besides, you're not rich. When are you going to support the "middle class"? After all, how many rich fight in Iraq compared to how many middle class and poor? Why must everything be designed to help so very few?

 

[The Infidel]

No, they were not just for the wealthy.

But the loss of revenue was primarily due to the wealthy paying taxes at a lower rate. When you have 35% of the wealth concentrated in 1% of the taxpayers, that tax cut is going to help that 1% tremendously

That 1% hires most of the rest of us..... So get back to me when some poor guy gives you a job.

This class warfare has got to stop!

 

[The Infidel]

More than 52% of 2.4 TRILLION dollars went to 1% of the people. While no one said they were ONLY for the wealthy, it was said they were designed to help only the wealthy, which they did.

If they were such a good idea the FIRST time, why didn't they help the economy?

Besides, you're not rich. When are you going to support the "middle class"? After all, how many rich fight in Iraq compared to how many middle class and poor? Why must everything be designed to help so very few?

Oh brother.... that failed arguement again????

There are alot of wealthy men and women who decided they wanted to "ask what they could do for their counttry..... "

I dont have the numbers, and Im not going to waste my energy getting them, but I do know you are WRONG!
Just ask Patrick Daniel "Pat" Tillman......

"In May 2002, eight months after the September 11 attacks and after completing the fifteen remaining games of the 2001 season which followed the attacks (at a salary of $512,000 per year), Tillman turned down a contract offer of $3.6 million over three years from the Cardinals to enlist in the U.S. Army."



Dude... give me a break!

 

[concept]

I can't hear myself think with all the screeching of the goalposts being moved by the left.

 

[Dick Tuck]

No, they were not just for the wealthy.

But the loss of revenue was primarily due to the wealthy paying taxes at a lower rate. When you have 35% of the wealth concentrated in 1% of the taxpayers, that tax cut is going to help that 1% tremendously

That 1% hires most of the rest of us..... So get back to me when some poor guy gives you a job.

This class warfare has got to stop!

Yeah, grovel up for a job. Bush also gave them tax benies for moving those jobs off-shore.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't remember hearing liberals claim that all of Bush's tax cuts went to the extremely wealthy.

Just MOST of them.

Then you must have been on a different planet. Al Gore, in his 2000 debate, showed a chart showing exactly that. Yes, the Bush tax cut mostly went to those who needed it least, and it was financed by debt. As I recall, 95% of the tax cut went to the top 5% of income earners.

I don't think you really looked at the chart.

Al Gore never claimed that "all" of the tax cuts went to the rich. Just most of them.

Which is, of course, entirely true.

 

[Charles_Main]

I don't remember hearing liberals claim that all of Bush's tax cuts went to the extremely wealthy.

Just MOST of them.

Then you must have been on a different planet. Al Gore, in his 2000 debate, showed a chart showing exactly that. Yes, the Bush tax cut mostly went to those who needed it least, and it was financed by debt. As I recall, 95% of the tax cut went to the top 5% of income earners.

I don't think you really looked at the chart.

Al Gore never claimed that "all" of the tax cuts went to the rich. Just most of them.

Which is, of course, entirely true.

Which is entirely expected when you acknowledge the fact that the top % pay the LIONS share of all taxes.

When you pay the most, you stand to get the most when cuts are handed out.

I know that is hard to understand but it is the truth.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Then you must have been on a different planet. Al Gore, in his 2000 debate, showed a chart showing exactly that. Yes, the Bush tax cut mostly went to those who needed it least, and it was financed by debt. As I recall, 95% of the tax cut went to the top 5% of income earners.

I don't think you really looked at the chart.

Al Gore never claimed that "all" of the tax cuts went to the rich. Just most of them.

Which is, of course, entirely true.

Which is entirely expected when you acknowledge the fact that the top % pay the LIONS share of all taxes.

When you pay the most, you stand to get the most when cuts are handed out.

I know that is hard to understand but it is the truth.

So you're agreeing with me?

Cool.

 

[Charles_Main]

I don't think you really looked at the chart.

Al Gore never claimed that "all" of the tax cuts went to the rich. Just most of them.

Which is, of course, entirely true.

Which is entirely expected when you acknowledge the fact that the top % pay the LIONS share of all taxes.

When you pay the most, you stand to get the most when cuts are handed out.

I know that is hard to understand but it is the truth.

So you're agreeing with me?

Cool.

Do I agree the rich got the biggest bang from the tax cuts? Of course as I said they did because they pay the most in. It is rather simple. When you cut taxes by a % those who pay the most in will always get the most back in cuts.