This is a hot one: Dem Leader: Expiration of Bush Tax Cuts is ‘Republican Tax Increa

[Dr.Traveler]

WHY DO YOU THINK THEY USED THAT PROCEDURE, "POLITICAL GENIUS???????????"

Even McCain opposed the tax cuts. Bush had to agree to a sun set provision to get enough votes!

Not true. They could have simply paid for the tax cuts by making corresponding spending cuts. Instead they actually went on to increase spending on other things they didn't bother to pay for.

Reconciliation doesn't require sunset provisions. Reconciliation used to increase the deficit does (although at that point it's just a gimmick).

Ding Ding Ding.

And by the way, this thread, and the rationals you're seeing, are why the Tea Party is a joke. Its kinda hard to take them seriously when they complain about big spending and a growing Federal Government when they voted for Bush who also increased Federal Spending and expanded the powers of the Federal Government.

If the Tea Party had any conviction or courage, they'd have gone third party. But they haven't and they won't. Its a GOP manufactured movement, and has been from the start.

 

[G.T.]

The unemployment rate under Bush and the Republican Congres was 4.2!!!!!!!!!!

That didn't change until DEMOCRATS TOOK BACK CONGRESS IN 2006.

Another perfect example of how no stat can ever be trusted coming from a CON$ervoFascist.

UE was 4.2% for Bush's FIRST 2 months ONLY, up from Clinton's 2000 year long average of 3.97%!!!
UE was 6.3% in June of 2003 after Bush's first "Job creating" tax cut and with a GOP controlled congress.

Hey idiot! What happened in Bush's first term of his presidency

Not only was he dealing with the dot com bubble recession BUT 9/11 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

And you want to talk about a 6.3% unemployment when we have a 10+% unemployment????

Shall we stroll down memory lane????

The United States Unemployment Rate By Year

What's it been since Obama took office?????

United States Unemployment data

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

These numbers don't lie!

You're the fucking idiot that said it was 4.2 and DID NOT CHANGE UNTIL 2006, then you're shown to be incorrect and it's YOU that does the pointing and giggling?

 

[teapartysamurai]

WHY DO YOU THINK THEY USED THAT PROCEDURE, "POLITICAL GENIUS???????????"

Even McCain opposed the tax cuts. Bush had to agree to a sun set provision to get enough votes!

Not true. They could have simply paid for the tax cuts by making corresponding spending cuts. Instead they actually went on to increase spending on other things they didn't bother to pay for.

Reconciliation doesn't require sunset provisions. Reconciliation used to increase the deficit does (although at that point it's just a gimmick).

You talk about spending increases IN LIGHT OF OBAMA??????????


Sweetheart! I won't argue that Republicans should have cut spending.

But Obama makes them look like pikers! 'Come on!!!!!!

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Sweetheart! I won't argue that Republicans should have cut spending.

But Obama makes them look like pikers! 'Come on!!!!!!

So the solution is to vote back into power the people that increased spending, increased Federal power, and paid for it all by deficit spending?

 

[GHook93]

If you make over $6K a year (or $12K jointly), then your taxes go up. If you have a retirement plan (401k, IRA, Mutual Funds, Money Markets, Pensions etc) then your taxes go up!

Income Taxe:s
Single
Tax Year 2002 - Tax Year 2003
(1)up to $6,000 10% - up to $7,000 10% = Make over btw $6-$7K >5% tax rate
(3) $6,000 - $27,950 15% - $7,000 - $28,400 15% = Make over $27,950 you jump up 12% instead of 10%, meaning a 2% increase for people make this little!
(3) $27,950 - $67,700 27% - $28,400 - $68,800 25% = Lower Middle Class goes up 2%
(4) $67,700 - $141,250 30% - $68,800 - $143,500 28% = Middle Class goes up 2%
(5) $141,250 - $307,050 35% - $143,500 - $311,950 33% = Upper Class goes up 2%, which is attainable to all Americans through hard work
(6) over $307,050 38.6% over $311,950 35% = Upper Class p 3.6%
NOTE: This is before you toss in State Taxes, which are NUTZ in some states like CA, NY and IL!


JOINT Married filing jointly or Qualifying widow(er)
Tax Year 2002 - Tax Year 2003
In
(1) up to $12,000 10% - up to $14,000 10% = Increase at $12K
(2) $12,000 - $46,700 15% [/B]
(3) $46,700 - $112,850 27% - $56,800 - $114,650 25% = Middle class Increase by 2%
(4) $112,850 - $171,950 - 30% $114,650 - $174,700 28% = Upper Middle Class increase by 2%
(5) $171,950 - $307,050 35% - $174,700 - $311,950 33% = Upper Class increase by 2% a level attainable by all Americans!
(6) over $307,050 38.6% - over $311,950 35% = Highest Level increase by 3.6%

2. Capital Gains:
If you have investments, 401(k), IRA, Pension, Universal Whole Life Insurance, money market market, stocks, mutual Funds, really any type of retirement fund, etc your taxes went up. You will have less money for same rate of return!

Pre-Bush Cuts rates where 8/10 and 20% and Post-Bush Cuts are 5 and 15%. Therefore, if you have any investments or retirement fund your tax increase will be 5% (could be 3% in some case)!

Estate Taxes:
If your luck enough to get money, goods or real estate left over after a loved one passes, you will pay higher taxes on the. Personally I think the Death Tax Dual Taxation is highway robbery, therefore, any increase here on anyone is immoral!

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--2002.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--2003.pdf


So Obama plans to raise taxes on the middle, upper and even lower class! So much for no tax increases! Another Obama broken promise!

Video here:

Steny Hoyer: “We have no intention of allowing the Republican tax increase — that their policies would lead to — to go into effect for working Americans. Period... We’re going to act and make sure that the Republican phase out and increase in taxes does not end as they provided for in the laws they passed.”

Breitbart.tv Dem Leader: Expiration of Bush Tax Cuts is ‘Republican Tax Increase’



This is rich! I mean now stupid do they think we are? How desperatye are they, to come up with this one!

If Democrats let the tax cuts expire, it's THE REPUBLICAN'S FAULT?????????

That's like a drunk driver blaming the accident on the innocent person, because if he hadn't been there, the drunk wouldn't have hit him.

It's the republican's fault if Democrats allow the tax cuts to sunset??????

Oh man they really ARE desperate with November looming.

How on earth do they think this one works?????

Yea, let's take a look at those. Republicans passed trillions in tax cuts through reconciliation which is why they are "expiring".

52% went to the top 1% meaning the burden of the cost of two unpaid for Republican wars was shifted to the Middle Class.

The "reason" for the tax cuts was to create jobs. Only they were created in China. Companies were able to use that money to move those jobs overseas. Those companies appreciated the help of the Republican leadership.

In China, they just had a strike because of all the suicides in one of those enormous electronic sweatshops. Corporations gave into worker's demands and DOUBLED their salaries to 73 dollars a week, which I guess is what Republicans want American workers to make.

Those are the facts that Republicans keep defending. Why?

It's like Republicans are saying to corporations, "Give me a black eye" and then saying, "Can you make the other one black so they match?"

And then, when they have two black eyes, complain, "They aren't BLACK enough!"

 

[teapartysamurai]

Hi, you have received -361 reputation points from jillian.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
lying imbecile

Regards,
jillian

Hey Jillian, if I'm lying, show me where!

Don't just do something cowardly like this and then run and hide.

This is what a three year old does when they know they can't win the argument. They just yell liar and run away.

wah wah wah... i told you, i don't try to teach pigs to talk. you're too stupid for air and i can't be bothered educating you.

do your own homework, nutter.

Boy that really refuted me. Oh, I am sooooooo embarrassed. How will I EVER be able to beat a poltiical genius like Jillian.

Now that, that fantasy bit is over, we can come back to reality and laugh at Jillian again!

 

[teapartysamurai]

WHY DO YOU THINK THEY USED THAT PROCEDURE, "POLITICAL GENIUS???????????"

Even McCain opposed the tax cuts. Bush had to agree to a sun set provision to get enough votes!

Not true. They could have simply paid for the tax cuts by making corresponding spending cuts. Instead they actually went on to increase spending on other things they didn't bother to pay for.

Reconciliation doesn't require sunset provisions. Reconciliation used to increase the deficit does (although at that point it's just a gimmick).

Ding Ding Ding.

And by the way, this thread, and the rationals you're seeing, are why the Tea Party is a joke. Its kinda hard to take them seriously when they complain about big spending and a growing Federal Government when they voted for Bush who also increased Federal Spending and expanded the powers of the Federal Government.

If the Tea Party had any conviction or courage, they'd have gone third party. But they haven't and they won't. Its a GOP manufactured movement, and has been from the start.

It's PATHETICALLY HILARIOUS for liberals to use the argument of government spending as an attack against the Tea Party GIVEN THEY VOTED FOR OBAMA AND HOW MUCH HE HAS SPENT SINCE TAKING OFFICE.

Good grief do you liberals even have brains?

Your argument is Repubs didn't cut spending enough? HEY, NO ARGUMENT FROM ME ON THAT ONE!

And if you morons would have paid attention, YOU WOULD HAVE NOTICED CONSERVATIVES COMPLAINED ABOUT THAT SINCE 2001!!!!!!!!!

Why do you think Democrats finally took back the Congress in 2006? They were trying to "teach the Republicans a lesson" about spending.

Boy was THAT STUPID. Conservatives warned people that was a mistake.

But to hold up Republican spending in light of WHO YOU GUYS VOTED FOR, is a JOKE!

Come back when you vote for someone willing to actually CUT SPENDING!!!!!!

 

[teapartysamurai]

Another perfect example of how no stat can ever be trusted coming from a CON$ervoFascist.

UE was 4.2% for Bush's FIRST 2 months ONLY, up from Clinton's 2000 year long average of 3.97%!!!
UE was 6.3% in June of 2003 after Bush's first "Job creating" tax cut and with a GOP controlled congress.

Hey idiot! What happened in Bush's first term of his presidency

Not only was he dealing with the dot com bubble recession BUT 9/11 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

And you want to talk about a 6.3% unemployment when we have a 10+% unemployment????

Shall we stroll down memory lane????

The United States Unemployment Rate By Year

What's it been since Obama took office?????

United States Unemployment data

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

These numbers don't lie!

You're the fucking idiot that said it was 4.2 and DID NOT CHANGE UNTIL 2006, then you're shown to be incorrect and it's YOU that does the pointing and giggling?

That's an average you moron.

That was the average in my state before Obama took office.

A Decade of Unemployment |

Now thanks to Democrats, the last I heard, we are at something like 12-17% unemployment, THANKS TO DEMOCRATS!

So, you can see I didn't lie. I'm not responsible nor would it be possible for keeping track of the whole country.

But let's just take your argument to it's illogical conclusion.l Even if wasn't 0.000% correct YOU REALLY THINK THAT'S AN ARGUMENT AGAINST WHERE IT IS NOW??????????????????

Let's say it was 6.6% or even as high as 7% (which btw, it never was), THAT'S SURE AS HELL BETTER THAN OBAMA'S AVERAGE!!!!!!

Geesh you people are desperate to put this all on Bush aren't you?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

It's PATHETICALLY HILARIOUS for liberals to use the argument of government spending as an attack against the Tea Party GIVEN THEY VOTED FOR OBAMA AND HOW MUCH HE HAS SPENT SINCE TAKING OFFICE.

Considering most Cons are hypocrites on the topic of government spending, its a valid point to raise.

Personally, I've been voting for Democrats because Democrats are for Tax and Spend, while the GOP under DeLay/Frist/Bush has become Borrow and Spend. Given the choice, I'll take the more economically responsible Tax and Spend any day of the week.

Now, if the Tea Party can find the balls to become a viable for third party that wants to actually cut spending, across the board, I may actually support them. But the fact is if the deficit bothers you, you won't be able to drastically cut taxes for at least a generation. Servicing the debt is a sizable part of the budget now. Taxes are here to stay.

So the short version is this: Clean up the GOP, hold them responsible, and people might take you seriously. If all you have is Democrats=bad and my Borrow-and-Spend-GOP good, then your movement is a joke.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Geesh you people are desperate to put this all on Bush aren't you?

Presidents spend a good portion of their first term cleaning up the mess their predecessors leave behind. That's a fact. Look at Mr. Bush's first term. Look at Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, JFK.... all of them got left with pretty serious messes that defined the first term (or in some case the whole part) of their Presidency.

Obama will be well into 2010 cleaning up messes his predecessor left behind. I know a lot of the GOP wants to forget that 2001-2008 ever happened, but it sadly just doesn't work that way.

 

[boedicca]

If Obama has such a huge Predecessor Mess to clean up, it would behoove him not to quadruple it with his own programs.

Just sayin'.

 

[teapartysamurai]

It's PATHETICALLY HILARIOUS for liberals to use the argument of government spending as an attack against the Tea Party GIVEN THEY VOTED FOR OBAMA AND HOW MUCH HE HAS SPENT SINCE TAKING OFFICE.

Considering most Cons are hypocrites on the topic of government spending, its a valid point to raise.

Personally, I've been voting for Democrats because Democrats are for Tax and Spend, while the GOP under DeLay/Frist/Bush has become Borrow and Spend. Given the choice, I'll take the more economically responsible Tax and Spend any day of the week.

Now, if the Tea Party can find the balls to become a viable for third party that wants to actually cut spending, across the board, I may actually support them. But the fact is if the deficit bothers you, you won't be able to drastically cut taxes for at least a generation. Servicing the debt is a sizable part of the budget now. Taxes are here to stay.

So the short version is this: Clean up the GOP, hold them responsible, and people might take you seriously. If all you have is Democrats=bad and my Borrow-and-Spend-GOP good, then your movement is a joke.

That would only be a valid argument if it WERE being made by cons.

Unfortuantely, it's being made by RINOS like McCain.

That's why the Tea Party is out there. We are sick and tired of Republicans who say one thing and do the exact opposite once in office.

But a third party is NOT a valid option.

Take a look at the history of third party candidates going back to Lincoln and you will see it gets the person you LEAST WANT, ELECTED.

Just take a look at recent history. John Anderson, Perot, and Ralph Nader.

Third Parties split up the vote. They never work.

Liberals and Rinos HOPE we got third party to keep us forever a small minority.

It would be a very stupid mistake held by fantasy laden political wannabes that won't accept the history of real politics.

Ask Teddy Roosevelt what became of his Bull Moose party.

But frankly, liberals attacking the Republicans for government spending is like Stalin or Lennin attacking FDR for being too socialist.

It's a joke!

Yes, FDR was a socialist, but he wasn't ANYWHERE CLOSE TO STALIN OR LENIN.

Well the same goes here! Yes, Republicans spend too much, but they are PIKERS COMPARED TO OBAMA.

The only reason you desperate lefties keep hyping on republican spending is you KNOW YOU CAN'T DEFEND OBAMA'S.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Geesh you people are desperate to put this all on Bush aren't you?

Presidents spend a good portion of their first term cleaning up the mess their predecessors leave behind. That's a fact. Look at Mr. Bush's first term. Look at Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, JFK.... all of them got left with pretty serious messes that defined the first term (or in some case the whole part) of their Presidency.

Obama will be well into 2010 cleaning up messes his predecessor left behind. I know a lot of the GOP wants to forget that 2001-2008 ever happened, but it sadly just doesn't work that way.

Nice try but Bush had the dot com bubble burst of Clinton's and 9/11 and he still had the economy rolling along by 2002.

By comparison, Obama's economy is plummeting.

The desperate attempt to put this all on Bush, reveals Democrats have nothing to hold up as reasons to vote for them.

Obama's admin is a failure.

 

[teapartysamurai]

If Obama has such a huge Predecessor Mess to clean up, it would behoove him not to quadruple it with his own programs.

Just sayin'.

Exactly! The desperate attempt by liberals to claim this is all Bush's doing, and then BASH REPUBLICANS FOR GOVT SPENDING?????????

That's like a murderer telling a cop, "Yeah, but that guy just jay walked, why don't you arrest him?????????"

It's ludicrous!

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Bush had the dot com bubble burst of Clinton's and 9/11

Thank you for agreeing that Presidents spend the first part of their administration dealing with problems from the previous one. Bush's mess was quite substantial. It will take quite a while to clean up.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

But a third party is NOT a valid option.

My response: Grow some balls.

Seriously, you expect people to take you seriously with your "No Compromise!" act when the first thing you do in the ballot box is compromise and vote for the GOP candidate who will act exactly like his DNC counterpart once he's in office?

So again: Grow some balls. The GOP will not change one little bit as long as they know that you'll vote for them out of fear of Democrats.

 

[G.T.]

You're a small person. Glad to not know ya.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Bush had the dot com bubble burst of Clinton's and 9/11

Thank you for agreeing that Presidents spend the first part of their administration dealing with problems from the previous one. Bush's mess was quite substantial. It will take quite a while to clean up.

Um, no sorry because by this time in Bush's term HE HAD THE MESS CLEANED UP and was rolling on such a booming economny the Republicans went on to pick up seats in that 2002 election.

Nice try.

 

[teapartysamurai]

But a third party is NOT a valid option.

My response: Grow some balls.

Seriously, you expect people to take you seriously with your "No Compromise!" act when the first thing you do in the ballot box is compromise and vote for the GOP candidate who will act exactly like his DNC counterpart once he's in office?

So again: Grow some balls. The GOP will not change one little bit as long as they know that you'll vote for them out of fear of Democrats.

A), I'm a woman, you moron!

B) If i'm the one that needs to grow balls, why are you living in such girly fantasy world??????

Show me the third party candidate that ever won a persidential election in the last 140 years, in this country and you will have your argument.

THEY DON'T WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It has nothing to do with your idiotic men's idea of machismo, which is about as laughable as bull fighting, or trying to prove to your friends how drunk you can get on a Saturday night, IT'S STILL STUPID!!!!!!!!!

The fact of the matter is, third parties DON'T WIN.

It's like saying, Obama should grow a pair and continue with socialism despite the fact THAT NEVER WORKS.

How, is it so "ballsy" to live outside of reality??????

 

[teapartysamurai]

You're a small person. Glad to not know ya.

I think we see the small person.

You know you lost the argument but you still have to have some parting shot.

Hope it made you feel better.