Why haven't the Dems jumped on this Bush lie?

[Palestinian Jew]

About Bush's 1.4 trillion dollar tax cut, Bush said “by far, the vast majority of the help goes to the people at the bottom end of the economic ladder.” In fact, the bottom 60% recieved only 14.7% of the tax cut!

Do you think Bush even knows this considering he says he doesn't read any newspapers, watch tv news, or listen to raidoshows?

 

[wonderwench]

If you are going to make such claims, citing the source wouldn't hurt.

Until then, all I can do is disregard this as hysterical ranting.

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
About Bush's 1.4 trillion dollar tax cut, Bush said “by far, the vast majority of the help goes to the people at the bottom end of the economic ladder.” In fact, the bottom 60% recieved only 14.7% of the tax cut!

Do you think Bush even knows this considering he says he doesn't read any newspapers, watch tv news, or listen to raidoshows?

What I want to know is why we have a "bottom" that's ten
percent larger than our top What kind of division is that?

At any rate. Do you mean they received only 14.7% of the money
saved by the tax cut, or does your percentage refer to a percentage of something else?

Possible answers to your question:
[a] There's no lie to jump on.
They're formulating bigger, better lies.
[c] They're busy perfecting their metrosexual looks.
[d] The twinkies they ate at state fairs keep coming back to them.
[e] They're boxes of jello and cannot talk.
[f] All of the above.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
About Bush's 1.4 trillion dollar tax cut, Bush said “by far, the vast majority of the help goes to the people at the bottom end of the economic ladder.” In fact, the bottom 60% recieved only 14.7% of the tax cut!

Do you think Bush even knows this considering he says he doesn't read any newspapers, watch tv news, or listen to raidoshows?

Anyone can quote statistics but unfortunately your ratios aren't apples to apples. There is no lie to jump on. Gimme a break.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Here are some of the links I used:

http://www.andrewtobias.com/bkoldcolumns/030929.html
http://www.fair.org/activism/usnews-taxes.html

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m2548/2001_Sept/79151382/p1/article.jhtml
http://www.fairtaxesforall.org/news/03_14_ftfa_release.shtml

Anyone can quote statistics but unfortunately your ratios aren't apples to apples. There is no lie to jump on. Gimme a break.

I think these articles prove that "by far, the vast majority" of the tax cuts DID NOT go to the people at the bottom end of the economic ladder, I even included an extra 10% and that still didn't make it true. And besides, this is all about statistics, thats what the tax cut is all about.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
Here are some of the links I used:

http://www.andrewtobias.com/bkoldcolumns/030929.html
http://www.fair.org/activism/usnews-taxes.html

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m2548/2001_Sept/79151382/p1/article.jhtml
http://www.fairtaxesforall.org/news/03_14_ftfa_release.shtml



I think these articles prove that "by far, the vast majority" of the tax cuts DID NOT go to the people at the bottom end of the economic ladder, I even included an extra 10% and that still didn't make it true. And besides, this is all about statistics, thats what the tax cut is all about.

These articles prove nothing but my theory: And despite the claim that low-income households would get a larger percentage cut, the poorest fifth of households, who have an average income of $8,600, would see their federal tax burden fall the least, by 5.5 percent, while the richest 1 percent-- making an average of $915,000-- would see their tax burden fall the most, 11.6 percent (Center on Budget & Policy Priorities, 2/6/01; Citizens for Tax Justice, 2/8/01).

recrunch your numbers. Anyone can take percentages and use them to prove a point. If Bush stated that the vast majority of the help benefits those at the lower end of the spectrum, he didn't say that the vast majority of each penny goes directly in their pocket. It's pretty clear that "benefits" can be had in many forms...refunds on money the poor never even paid in taxes---seems to me that ONLY benefits the poor. I, who paid the tax, didn't get any back. Taxing dividends twice eliminates money used in business to pay salaries, lower costs of goods, etc. By eliminating that double hit CAN YOU PROVE IT DOESN'T BENEFIT PEOPLE BY CREATING MORE JOBS? HIGHER WAGES? LOWER CONSUMER COSTS? No, you can't. Therefore, I asset that there was no lie. Bush said the economic impact of his program would benefit those in the lower economic brackets...you've not proven that they have not nor will benefit from them.

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
Here are some of the links I used:

http://www.andrewtobias.com/bkoldcolumns/030929.html
http://www.fair.org/activism/usnews-taxes.html

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m2548/2001_Sept/79151382/p1/article.jhtml
http://www.fairtaxesforall.org/news/03_14_ftfa_release.shtml



I think these articles prove that "by far, the vast majority" of the tax cuts DID NOT go to the people at the bottom end of the economic ladder, I even included an extra 10% and that still didn't make it true. And besides, this is all about statistics, thats what the tax cut is all about.

I'm glad you took the time to find such unbiased and reliable sources. Even picked the site of the treasurer of the Democratic National Committee.

 

[Righty]

What percentage of individuals pay over 50% of the American tax burden???

 

[wonderwench]

I know! I know!

5%

5% of individuals pay 50% of the federal income taxes - and they are evil, evil people who should pay EVEN MORE!

 

[Righty]

Since people go out and earn millions of dollars, say Mr. Gates, they should be forced to pay for lazy, good for nothing, scabs so they can buy their cigs and booze with food stamps and drive their new fancy cars?

That makes sense.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by wonderwench

5% of individuals pay 50% of the federal income taxes - and they are evil, evil people who should pay EVEN MORE!

That really funny .

 

[wonderwench]

HJA has infected ME!

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

Originally posted by Righty
What percentage of individuals pay over 50% of the American tax burden???

Excellent question.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

The point isn't who pays the most(obviously the top 2-5%) but that Bush said the majority of the money would head straight to the bottom half.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
The point isn't who pays the most(obviously the top 2-5%) but that Bush said the majority of the money would head straight to the bottom half.

I think you need to reread his entire statement before you imply that he said the lowest half would receive the most money. He said that they would benefit the most...sounds like a completely different statement to me.

 

[MtnBiker]

Good point Moi, and an interesting choice of words by PJ

the majority of the money would head straight to the bottom half.

What money, its a tax cut not wealth redistribution.

 

[Jeff]

looks like another Idiot........

 

[Palestinian Jew]

In what way does this help the bottoms half? The bottom 20% rely on our social programs, which happen to be funded by tax dollars, so if the gov't hands out the tax dollars to the rich, there is little funding to the programs.

And I thought that he was implying that the money would go to the bottom directly, not indirectly.

The money I was talking about is the $300 I received in the mail.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
In what way does this help the bottoms half? The bottom 20% rely on our social programs, which happen to be funded by tax dollars, so if the gov't hands out the tax dollars to the rich, there is little funding to the programs.

And I thought that he was implying that the money would go to the bottom directly, not indirectly.

The money I was talking about is the $300 I received in the mail.

Which I did not...so that says a lot about who received what. People who DIDN'T EVEN PAY TAXES received a "refund". What else can I call that but funding a social program when they received something as a refund that they never even paid to begin with? Especially when I, who paid, received NOTHING.

What benefits the lower eschelon isn't just money in their pocket and I can't see how anyone could mistake his intent when he clearly didn't say that the $ from the tax cuts would be handed to the poor. He said that they would benefit the most. A dollar to a rich person doesn't benefit him as much as a dollar to a poorer one...especially, if I may repeat myself, HE DIDN'T EARN THAT DOLLAR IN THE FIRST PLACE. Getting something for nothing is a heck of a lot more beneficial than earning something and not being robbed of it.

There may be a misunderstanding as to the words Bush used but that doesn't make his statement a lie.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
In what way does this help the bottoms half? The bottom 20% rely on our social programs, which happen to be funded by tax dollars, so if the gov't hands out the tax dollars to the rich, there is little funding to the programs.

And I thought that he was implying that the money would go to the bottom directly, not indirectly.

The money I was talking about is the $300 I received in the mail.

And that's the problem - that the bottom 20% have to rely on social programs. The permanent career bureaucracy that administers those services are the true beneficiaries of the system. The cost of these programs is completely out of line with the supposed benefits.

It is better to teach people to fish than to hand them a McDonald's Filet-o-Fish sandwich.