Do You Still Believe Only The Rich Benefitted From The Bush Tax-cuts??

[AmericanFirst]

I don't believe that. Who are you talking to?

The idiot left who refuses to believe the truth.

Can you name me some real life people who have said the Bush tax cuts ONLY benefited the Rich,

and link to them saying that?

A few leftwingers on here have said it before. The general thought I get from the left is that the Bush tax cuts benefited only the rich.

 

[mudwhistle]

Nah..they are ready to do it and they have made it clear. Obama is the one saying he will veto it. The house can pass a bill right now giving the middle class the tax cuts. The senate majority leader said he will not allow a vote on it and the President swore to veto it anyway. What do you think the problem is? Maybe Obamas pen is out of ink?

The problem is Obama already has sequestration which is what he wanted in the first place but he's trying to blame the Republicans for what he's getting ready to do.

The Republicans passed sequestration and Boehner said the GOP got 98% of what they wanted.

No...sequestration became law in the PAYGO bill Obama signed Feb. 2010 that was passed during a lame-duck session in 09' along party lines.

The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010: A Description

The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (PAYGO, or "the Act") is part of Public Law 111-139, enacted on February 12, 2010. Briefly, the Act requires that all new legislation changing taxes, fees, or mandatory expenditures, taken together, must not increase projected deficits. This requirement is enforced by the threat of automatic across-the-board cuts in selected mandatory programs in the event that legislation taken as a whole does not meet the PAYGO standard established by the law. PAYGO also established special scorecards and scorekeeping rules.

PAYGO subjects mandatory spending to sequestration, with specified exemptions. Exemptions from sequestration include Social Security; most unemployment benefits; veterans’ benefits; interest on the debt; federal retirement; and the low-income entitlements such as Medicaid, SNAP (food stamps), and Supplemental Security Income.2 The major remaining mandatory programs, which are subject to sequestration, include most Medicare payments, farm price supports, vocational rehabilitation basic state grants, mineral leasing payments to states, the Social Services block grant, and many smaller programs.

 

[Dragonlady]

I read it. You can't lump state and local taxes into the equation because the Bush Tax-cut was a federal tax-cut.

The only way your figures work is if you throw in taxes from state and local....and the federal government didn't pass a state and local tax-cut because they don't have the power.

The federal tax structure recognizes that the poor pay a disproportionately larger share of state and local taxes than do other levels of income because state and federal taxes are regressive. Bush cut federal income taxes, in part, to help balance that inequity, and as a sop to the poor for the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

By continuing to insist that it doesn't matter what other taxes they are paying, federal income tax is the only thing that matters, you are displaying a woefully inadequate grasp of basic economics.

 

[mudwhistle]

I read it. You can't lump state and local taxes into the equation because the Bush Tax-cut was a federal tax-cut.

The only way your figures work is if you throw in taxes from state and local....and the federal government didn't pass a state and local tax-cut because they don't have the power.

The federal tax structure recognizes that the poor pay a disproportionately larger share of state and local taxes than do other levels of income because state and federal taxes are regressive. Bush cut federal income taxes, in part, to help balance that inequity, and as a sop to the poor for the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

By continuing to insist that it doesn't matter what other taxes they are paying, federal income tax is the only thing that matters, you are displaying a woefully inadequate grasp of basic economics.

No.....you're trying to distort the issue.

We are talking about the Bush tax-cuts. Nothing more. In the Bush Tax-cuts most of the federal tax burden was shifted to the wealthy.

For years the Democrats claimed that the Bush tax-cuts only benefited the wealthiest Americans. Quote. "Bush Tax-cuts for the rich".

This of course was a lie.

Give it up. The only way you can save face is if you monkey with the facts.

 

[Vel]

The biggest thing that stands out about the Bush tax cuts is the of millions of Americans that were TAKEN OFF of the Federal income tax roles. And these were lower middle class and lower income people that used to pay some Federal income tax.

That happens because the Republicans' job is to cut taxes for the Rich. That is job one.

BUT, they could never cut taxes just for the Rich that would be political poison. So they cut taxes for lower income Americans every time they cut taxes for the Rich, to make it politically palatable.

Problem is, lower income Americans started from a lower level of taxation, obviously, so pretty soon, the Republicans were cutting low income Americans' taxes to zero.

Get it?

Well they won't be zero if Obama has his way. He's going to raise taxes on EVERYONE. Good job Democrats.

 

[Gadawg73]

The biggest thing that stands out about the Bush tax cuts is the of millions of Americans that were TAKEN OFF of the Federal income tax roles. And these were lower middle class and lower income people that used to pay some Federal income tax.

That happens because the Republicans' job is to cut taxes for the Rich. That is job one.

BUT, they could never cut taxes just for the Rich that would be political poison. So they cut taxes for lower income Americans every time they cut taxes for the Rich, to make it politically palatable.

Problem is, lower income Americans started from a lower level of taxation, obviously, so pretty soon, the Republicans were cutting low income Americans' taxes to zero.

Get it?

Bull Shit. More Americans that were middle class and lower class were TAKEN off the tax roles under the Bush cuts than wealthy got tax cuts.
But if your taxes were 150K a year and you got a 15K tax cut and Joe Blow pays 8K a year in taxes and his taxes were cut by 800 dollars it IS THE SAME TAX CUT. 10%. But then we hear the BS " the rich got more tax cuts". Well duh! to anyone that understands math.
THEY PAID A SHIT LOT MORE TO BEGIN WITH.
Americans have turned into complete dumb asses on anything math.
1 plus 1 equals 7 to you folks.

 

[Dragonlady]

We are talking about the Bush tax-cuts. Nothing more. In the Bush Tax-cuts most of the federal tax burden was shifted to the wealthy.

I missed that rule when I read the thread, but I have noticed how you, and others, keep trying the limit the scope and time frame of the discussion to eliminate any fact which refutes your erroneous theories. If you cherry-pick your sources and torture the data long enough, you can make it prove almost anything.

For years the Democrats claimed that the Bush tax-cuts only benefited the wealthiest Americans. Quote. "Bush Tax-cuts for the rich".

This of course is a lie. The biggest benefit has been to the wealthy, but the tax cuts would never has passed had they only benefitted the rich and Bush knew that.

Why do you continue to defend Bush fiscal stupidity? Cut taxes, go to war, ring up the biggest deficit in US history. The entire economy of the country nearly collapsed while Bush rode off into the sunset leaving others to clean up the mess.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The idiot left who refuses to believe the truth.

Can you name me some real life people who have said the Bush tax cuts ONLY benefited the Rich,

and link to them saying that?

A few leftwingers on here have said it before. The general thought I get from the left is that the Bush tax cuts benefited only the rich.

Name them and prove it.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Do You Still Believe Only The Rich Benefitted From The Bush Tax-cuts??

I've never seen, read or heard anyone say that.

Please post proof.

Thanks.

(**wink**wink**)

 

[Luddly Neddite]

We are talking about the Bush tax-cuts. Nothing more. In the Bush Tax-cuts most of the federal tax burden was shifted to the wealthy.

I missed that rule when I read the thread, but I have noticed how you, and others, keep trying the limit the scope and time frame of the discussion to eliminate any fact which refutes your erroneous theories. If you cherry-pick your sources and torture the data long enough, you can make it prove almost anything.

For years the Democrats claimed that the Bush tax-cuts only benefited the wealthiest Americans. Quote. "Bush Tax-cuts for the rich".

This of course is a lie. The biggest benefit has been to the wealthy, but the tax cuts would never has passed had they only benefitted the rich and Bush knew that.

Why do you continue to defend Bush fiscal stupidity? Cut taxes, go to war, ring up the biggest deficit in US history. The entire economy of the country nearly collapsed while Bush rode off into the sunset leaving others to clean up the mess.

And, then blame Obama because the enormous Bush debt is being put on his P&L.

 

[Dragonlady]

I was soooo impressed with the poster who said that because the poor don't own property, they don't pay property tax, they pay rent. When I rent a property, I total up all of the costs - mortgage payments, property taxes, insurance and average maintenance costs, and divide by 12 and that's the minimum, amount of rent I must charge to break even. Of course I will also consider market factors and I'll rent the property for more, if I can.

Renters most definitely do pay taxes, but indirectly, as part of their rent.

 

[mudwhistle]

We are talking about the Bush tax-cuts. Nothing more. In the Bush Tax-cuts most of the federal tax burden was shifted to the wealthy.

I missed that rule when I read the thread, but I have noticed how you, and others, keep trying the limit the scope and time frame of the discussion to eliminate any fact which refutes your erroneous theories. If you cherry-pick your sources and torture the data long enough, you can make it prove almost anything.

For years the Democrats claimed that the Bush tax-cuts only benefited the wealthiest Americans. Quote. "Bush Tax-cuts for the rich".

This of course is a lie. The biggest benefit has been to the wealthy, but the tax cuts would never has passed had they only benefitted the rich and Bush knew that.

Why do you continue to defend Bush fiscal stupidity? Cut taxes, go to war, ring up the biggest deficit in US history. The entire economy of the country nearly collapsed while Bush rode off into the sunset leaving others to clean up the mess.

Actually Obama has rung up the biggest deficit in history so that alone shows you're a lying propagandist. When in our history has a president ever added over $6 trillion to the debt. Only during Bush's last year with an uncooperative Democrat controlled congress did Bush have a deficit even close to Obama's. Bush's last deficit before the Dems started hammering the debt was only $169 billion. His worst deficit was roughly $500 billion. Obama has never had a deficit below $1.2 trillion.

The Heritage Foundation said the biggest benefit was to the folks making the least because many of them stopped paying income tax so more of the burden shifted to the rich. Now you want to lump all of their state and local taxes into the mix to provide a distorted picture of what the Bush tax-cuts did.

Should Bush be also responsible for all of their poor financial decisions as well?

Part of the reason the poor are poor is because of their poor choices. Many don't even know the meaning of savings. They just spend it as soon as they get it. If a person doesn't like paying as much in state and local taxes then tailor your portfolio accordingly. Move to another state that doesn't have an income tax. Talk to an accountant on how to minimize your exposure. These are things that the Bush tax-cut cannot and never will be able to address. And one more thing, people that don't even have a pot to piss in usually don't own property which is were the rich get hammered the hardest. One way that a liberal hypocrite like Bon Jovi uses to avoid paying high property taxes is by claiming that he's a farmer growing a crop. Bruce Springstein takes advantage of the same law that exempts him from paying higher property taxes. Does Bush have control of the property tax laws in New Jersey? No.

 

[mudwhistle]

I was soooo impressed with the poster who said that because the poor don't own property, they don't pay property tax, they pay rent. When I rent a property, I total up all of the costs - mortgage payments, property taxes, insurance and average maintenance costs, and divide by 12 and that's the minimum, amount of rent I must charge to break even. Of course I will also consider market factors and I'll rent the property for more, if I can.

Renters most definitely do pay taxes, but indirectly, as part of their rent.

Not on paper they don't.

Now if you want to get into this mess let's talk about the way Obama has been indirectly raising taxes on the poor. You opened this can of worms.

When Obama raises excise taxes on a company that manufactures and distributes cigarettes and booze he's hammering the poor. This is what Obama did to raise the price of cigarettes, alcohol, gasoline, and fast food.

And if you really want to get into the nitty-gritty, raising taxes on the rich only effects the poor because they buy the overpriced goods that the rich business owner supplies to the consumer, or how about all of those increases in the minimum-wage the Democrats hammered through congress. Somebody has to pay for the extra wages that costs the company. All of those unemployment insurance and workman's compensation payments have to come out of somebody's wallet. The rich guy passes it onto the customer because if he didn't he'd have to close his damned doors in little or no time.

Does any of this make any sense to you????

 

[zeke]

Hey Muddy, you still making your living on the backs of the tenants that get those sec 8 governmnet housing vouchers?

Hypocrite much?

How much more of the nations wealth and income does the ultra wealthy control now vs. what they had BEFORE the Bush tax cuts went into effect? Is it the same, less or more?

If the ultra rich controlled 90% of the nations wealth and income, should they only pay 10% of the income tax?

 

[mudwhistle]

Hey Muddy, you still making your living on the backs of the tenants that get those sec 8 governmnet housing vouchers?

Hypocrite much?

How much more of the nations wealth and income does the ultra wealthy control now vs. what they had BEFORE the Bush tax cuts went into effect? Is it the same, less or more?

If the ultra rich controlled 90% of the nations wealth and income, should they only pay 10% of the income tax?

Well, since they pay over 70% of it I don't see your point. Course wealth and income are two different things. The federal government doesn't tax wealth. They mostly tax income. Only when someone dies do they tax wealth. Course Obama now feels emboldened to tax wealth and who do you think will suffer? When the IRS starts walking into your house and begins counting rooms and furniture then you'll know this is a Socialist country.

Of course whenever Obama uses regulations and hidden taxes and fees and attaches them to our phone bills he's hammering everyone. Or he raises the costs of good by slamming the distributors with hidden excise taxes they have no choice in the matter. Shit rolls downhill buddy. When it gets to the point where the employee is clearing more profit than the boss then we'll be in your special brand of Socialist Utopia.

 

[Claudette]

This is about the Bush tax cuts. Fed taxes. Not State and local.

Everyone who pays Fed taxes benifited from the Bush tax cuts. Not just the wealthy.

If Barry didn't like the tax cuts he shouldn't have agreed to the extention. You can blame the Reps all you want but He and the Dems agreed to the extention.

The tax cuts should expire for all and go back to the pre tax cut levels.

I'm sure the economy will rebound and take off like a rocket. YR

 

[mudwhistle]

This is about the Bush tax cuts. Fed taxes. Not State and local.

Everyone who pays Fed taxes benifited from the Bush tax cuts. Not just the wealthy.

If Barry didn't like the tax cuts he shouldn't have agreed to the extention. You can blame the Reps all you want but He and the Dems agreed to the extention.

The tax cuts should expire for all and go back to the pre tax cut levels.

I'm sure the economy will rebound and take off like a rocket. YR

As long as Barack H. Obama is president this country's economy will never take off like a rocket. He's the wild card that makes it impossible for job producers to trust their futures to. He's a vindictive SOB with a tax policy designed to punish, not pay off the debt. And as long as there are more people that feel the same way than the other option this country is in for some really hard times.