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

[mudwhistle]

Another Dispatch from the Bubble from the proud people who gave us the Vince Foster Murder Conspiracy Theory.

Why do these nut jobs in the blogashere all think Obama is out to destroy the United States? You'd think that being the most powerful man in the world would be better but no, he has a master plan. Besides, if that was his real plan, he could have just done nothing to stop W's economic collapse, but no, he's going to get the country back on it's feet again and THEN destroy it all over again.

If any of this makes even the tiniest bit of sense to you, kindly tell the attendant it's time for your meds.

$16 trillion in debt is getting back on our feet?

Now he wants no debt-ceiling so he can shove it up to $25 trillion by the end of his presidency?

Wow, you are a gullible son of a bitch.

 

[Too Tall]

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.

The economy collapsed because of the housing sub-prime fiasco. Obama has rang up more deficit spending in four years than Bush did in eight years.

 

[Too Tall]

Claudette, you've been paying for the uninsured for years. That's why your health insurance premiums are so high. Doctors and hospitals have been using the insured to pay for the uninsured for years. This will get the uninsured off your insurance and you should see your premiums go down as a result. Since they can only keep 20% of your premium for overhead and profit, you should get a refund on the overpayment. Many of my friends got cheques this year.

In other news:

Boehner, GOP Leaders Purge Conservatives from Powerful Committees UPDATE: Boehner Scoffs

I do so love it when the Republicans turn on each other. It's like watching weasels in a barrel. This promises to be at least as much fun as the Republican primary season where Newt, Rick, Mitt and the rest of the boys did to each other what they normally do to the Democratic candidate.

Geez, with Rob Ford staying as Mayor of Toronto, until the appeal of his conflict of interest conviction is heard on January 7th, this promises to be a most entertainment I've had in a while.

My Dentist told me that he has done a thousand hours of volunteer dental work a year for the past 10 years, but that will not happen any more. It seems the ACA will require him to pay taxes for doing volunteer work next year.

Poor people will still get free dental care, but instead of it being done for free by volunteers, the government will pay for it by raising taxes on working people.

 

[Dragonlady]

All of us pay taxes. We just sometimes don't know it. But Romney wasn't just talking about the poor. He was talking about the leeches that want something for free.

Why are you so obsessed with the idea that somebody somewhere might get something they didn't, to your way of thinking, earn in some fashion? Those people a tiny number of the "takers". What about the other 90+% percent of the 47%, plus their dependents, all of whom are getting screwed over by a system which keeps them in poverty and sucks every last dollar they have to put a roof over their heads and food on the table.

You're picking up the peanuts while being trampled by the elephants man. Why not save your outrage for the REAL takers? Walmart operates 2010 stores in the US and each store location costs the American taxpayers, on averages, $422,000 for food stamps and Medicaid. That works out to $848 million dollars in low income subsidies and entitlements paid out to the employees of the second most profitable company in the world. Strike One.

The company has personnel in their Human Resources department to help the staff apply for food stamps and Medicaid. At the same time, they ensure that hourly rated employees never work enough hours to qualify for the corporate health insurance plan (more cash in Walmart's coffers), or make so much money that they'll lose their "entitlements". As a consequence, the staff pays no income tax. This is no small-time hustle here mud.

Isn't the whole point of creating an economic climate where everyone has a job, and can pay taxes, is to enable the government to have the resources to enable the genertion to succeed? How can that happen when the second most profitable corporation in the world is siphoning off nearly a billion dollars of taxpayers' hard earned dollars in order to maximize profits, all while making sure that are paid so little, that none of that money flows back to the goverment in the form of income tax.

What's worse, because Walmart is so large and has no compunctions about driving every store within miles out of business, it kills those jobs, destroying those businesses and further reducing the tax base in their communities. Companies who compete against Walmart are forced to adopt similar wage and benefits strategies and now the entire big box retail industry is subsidizing its profits on the backs of the American middle class taxpayers who are paying the highest overall taxes of anyone.

Here's the thing that should be really frosting your cookies. If Walmart paid each and everyone of their 1.4 US employees just $5,000 a year more, that nearly $848 million dollars paid in entitlements goes back into the US treasury, thereby reducing the deficit, and all Walmart employees become federal income tax paying citizens,, thereby reducing the deficit. Walmart still makes very a handsome profit of $8.7 billion dollars which is a very acceptable ROI and is still 2 on the Forbes Fortune 500.

You complain that Obama just wants to re-distribute the money that the wealthy have rightfully earned to lazy shiftless bums who are robbing the country blind at the expense of the hard-working American middle class. You're looking in the wrong direction on the economic scale to find out whose's taking the hard earned tax dollars being sucked out of the middle and working classes.

While Rush and Mitt and Newt, and the rest of the smoke and mirrors brigade over at Fox
distract you stories of the lazy 47% Walmart is fleecing the American tax payers to the tune of nearly $1 billion dollars per year. And they're not the only ones doing this. If you read genuine mainstream business publications instead of right win blogs writtenn by conspiracy theory nutjobs, you'd see it going on.

Nothing Walmart and Monsanto and the others do is illegal, but is it fair or moral? All of Walmart's competitive pricing strategies, require that they continuous pressure suppliers to lower their manufacturing costs and again there is pressure to keep wages low enough that their employees fall below the minimum threshold for federal income tax.

The first order of business should be for Fortune 500 businesses to stop forcing the federal government to provide food and medical care to it's employees. If you make that money, you should be paying enough it to your workers that your profits don't look like an obscenity.

How long are you going to continue living in the bubble?

 

[mudwhistle]

All of us pay taxes. We just sometimes don't know it. But Romney wasn't just talking about the poor. He was talking about the leeches that want something for free.

Why are you so obsessed with the idea that somebody somewhere might get something they didn't, to your way of thinking, earn in some fashion? Those people a tiny number of the "takers". What about the other 90+% percent of the 47%, plus their dependents, all of whom are getting screwed over by a system which keeps them in poverty and sucks every last dollar they have to put a roof over their heads and food on the table.

You're picking up the peanuts while being trampled by the elephants man. Why not save your outrage for the REAL takers? Walmart operates 2010 stores in the US and each store location costs the American taxpayers, on averages, $422,000 for food stamps and Medicaid. That works out to $848 million dollars in low income subsidies and entitlements paid out to the employees of the second most profitable company in the world. Strike One.

The company has personnel in their Human Resources department to help the staff apply for food stamps and Medicaid. At the same time, they ensure that hourly rated employees never work enough hours to qualify for the corporate health insurance plan (more cash in Walmart's coffers), or make so much money that they'll lose their "entitlements". As a consequence, the staff pays no income tax. This is no small-time hustle here mud.

Isn't the whole point of creating an economic climate where everyone has a job, and can pay taxes, is to enable the government to have the resources to enable the genertion to succeed? How can that happen when the second most profitable corporation in the world is siphoning off nearly a billion dollars of taxpayers' hard earned dollars in order to maximize profits, all while making sure that are paid so little, that none of that money flows back to the goverment in the form of income tax.

What's worse, because Walmart is so large and has no compunctions about driving every store within miles out of business, it kills those jobs, destroying those businesses and further reducing the tax base in their communities. Companies who compete against Walmart are forced to adopt similar wage and benefits strategies and now the entire big box retail industry is subsidizing its profits on the backs of the American middle class taxpayers who are paying the highest overall taxes of anyone.

Here's the thing that should be really frosting your cookies. If Walmart paid each and everyone of their 1.4 US employees just $5,000 a year more, that nearly $848 million dollars paid in entitlements goes back into the US treasury, thereby reducing the deficit, and all Walmart employees become federal income tax paying citizens,, thereby reducing the deficit. Walmart still makes very a handsome profit of $8.7 billion dollars which is a very acceptable ROI and is still 2 on the Forbes Fortune 500.

You complain that Obama just wants to re-distribute the money that the wealthy have rightfully earned to lazy shiftless bums who are robbing the country blind at the expense of the hard-working American middle class. You're looking in the wrong direction on the economic scale to find out whose's taking the hard earned tax dollars being sucked out of the middle and working classes.

While Rush and Mitt and Newt, and the rest of the smoke and mirrors brigade over at Fox
distract you stories of the lazy 47% Walmart is fleecing the American tax payers to the tune of nearly $1 billion dollars per year. And they're not the only ones doing this. If you read genuine mainstream business publications instead of right win blogs writtenn by conspiracy theory nutjobs, you'd see it going on.

Nothing Walmart and Monsanto and the others do is illegal, but is it fair or moral? All of Walmart's competitive pricing strategies, require that they continuous pressure suppliers to lower their manufacturing costs and again there is pressure to keep wages low enough that their employees fall below the minimum threshold for federal income tax.

The first order of business should be for Fortune 500 businesses to stop forcing the federal government to provide food and medical care to it's employees. If you make that money, you should be paying enough it to your workers that your profits don't look like an obscenity.

How long are you going to continue living in the bubble?

As long as Obama is in office.

A 47%er is by definition someone who votes Democrat because of, as G.T. said; 'All of the benefits and grants that are out there' that Obama has made available. There are some who are doing just fine because they know how to take advantage of the system. They're happy with the status-quo. They don't want to change anything regardless how it effects the debt because they personally aren't hurting, at least for now. They could care less how much this is costing.

Obama is goosing up prices by raising excise taxes on products to consumers. He's changing regulations that are costly to the manufacturer who then has to pass that cost onto the little guy who buys it. This is great for him because then he can say that prices are going up but it's not something he can be blamed for directly. As long as he has a media that refuses to act as watchdogs nobody is going to blame Obama for the simple fact that it's getting harder every day to pay our bills. He can demonize the rich all the while he's screwing the rich who in turn are forced to screw the poor.

One of the facts of capitalism is you can't make money if you don't offer an affordable product to the consumer. If you try to gouge them you tend to lose customers. However if you have a president that believes in Keynesian economics you are really just the anvil that the government hammers. You have to do what you can to stay in business.

 

[RDD_1210]

All of us pay taxes. We just sometimes don't know it. But Romney wasn't just talking about the poor. He was talking about the leeches that want something for free.

Why are you so obsessed with the idea that somebody somewhere might get something they didn't, to your way of thinking, earn in some fashion? Those people a tiny number of the "takers". What about the other 90+% percent of the 47%, plus their dependents, all of whom are getting screwed over by a system which keeps them in poverty and sucks every last dollar they have to put a roof over their heads and food on the table.

You're picking up the peanuts while being trampled by the elephants man. Why not save your outrage for the REAL takers? Walmart operates 2010 stores in the US and each store location costs the American taxpayers, on averages, $422,000 for food stamps and Medicaid. That works out to $848 million dollars in low income subsidies and entitlements paid out to the employees of the second most profitable company in the world. Strike One.

The company has personnel in their Human Resources department to help the staff apply for food stamps and Medicaid. At the same time, they ensure that hourly rated employees never work enough hours to qualify for the corporate health insurance plan (more cash in Walmart's coffers), or make so much money that they'll lose their "entitlements". As a consequence, the staff pays no income tax. This is no small-time hustle here mud.

Isn't the whole point of creating an economic climate where everyone has a job, and can pay taxes, is to enable the government to have the resources to enable the genertion to succeed? How can that happen when the second most profitable corporation in the world is siphoning off nearly a billion dollars of taxpayers' hard earned dollars in order to maximize profits, all while making sure that are paid so little, that none of that money flows back to the goverment in the form of income tax.

What's worse, because Walmart is so large and has no compunctions about driving every store within miles out of business, it kills those jobs, destroying those businesses and further reducing the tax base in their communities. Companies who compete against Walmart are forced to adopt similar wage and benefits strategies and now the entire big box retail industry is subsidizing its profits on the backs of the American middle class taxpayers who are paying the highest overall taxes of anyone.

Here's the thing that should be really frosting your cookies. If Walmart paid each and everyone of their 1.4 US employees just $5,000 a year more, that nearly $848 million dollars paid in entitlements goes back into the US treasury, thereby reducing the deficit, and all Walmart employees become federal income tax paying citizens,, thereby reducing the deficit. Walmart still makes very a handsome profit of $8.7 billion dollars which is a very acceptable ROI and is still 2 on the Forbes Fortune 500.

You complain that Obama just wants to re-distribute the money that the wealthy have rightfully earned to lazy shiftless bums who are robbing the country blind at the expense of the hard-working American middle class. You're looking in the wrong direction on the economic scale to find out whose's taking the hard earned tax dollars being sucked out of the middle and working classes.

While Rush and Mitt and Newt, and the rest of the smoke and mirrors brigade over at Fox
distract you stories of the lazy 47% Walmart is fleecing the American tax payers to the tune of nearly $1 billion dollars per year. And they're not the only ones doing this. If you read genuine mainstream business publications instead of right win blogs writtenn by conspiracy theory nutjobs, you'd see it going on.

Nothing Walmart and Monsanto and the others do is illegal, but is it fair or moral? All of Walmart's competitive pricing strategies, require that they continuous pressure suppliers to lower their manufacturing costs and again there is pressure to keep wages low enough that their employees fall below the minimum threshold for federal income tax.

The first order of business should be for Fortune 500 businesses to stop forcing the federal government to provide food and medical care to it's employees. If you make that money, you should be paying enough it to your workers that your profits don't look like an obscenity.

How long are you going to continue living in the bubble?

As long as Obama is in office.

A 47%er is by definition someone who votes Democrat because of, as G.T. said; 'All of the benefits and grants that are out there' that Obama has made available.

Obama is goosing up prices by raising excise taxes on products to consumers. He's changing regulations that are costly to the manufacturer who then has to pass that cost onto the little guy who buys it. This is great for him because then he can say that prices are going up but it's not something he can be blamed for directly. As long as he has a media that refuses to act as watchdogs nobody is going to blame Obama for the simple fact that it's getting harder every day to pay our bills. He can demonize the rich all the while he's screwing the rich who in turn are forced to screw the poor.

There are some who are doing just fine because they know how to take advantage of the system. They're happy with the status-quo. They don't want to change anything regardless how it effects the debt because they personally aren't hurting, at least for now. They could care less how much this is costing.

You mean like taking in section 8 tenants?

 

[mudwhistle]

Why are you so obsessed with the idea that somebody somewhere might get something they didn't, to your way of thinking, earn in some fashion? Those people a tiny number of the "takers". What about the other 90+% percent of the 47%, plus their dependents, all of whom are getting screwed over by a system which keeps them in poverty and sucks every last dollar they have to put a roof over their heads and food on the table.

You're picking up the peanuts while being trampled by the elephants man. Why not save your outrage for the REAL takers? Walmart operates 2010 stores in the US and each store location costs the American taxpayers, on averages, $422,000 for food stamps and Medicaid. That works out to $848 million dollars in low income subsidies and entitlements paid out to the employees of the second most profitable company in the world. Strike One.

The company has personnel in their Human Resources department to help the staff apply for food stamps and Medicaid. At the same time, they ensure that hourly rated employees never work enough hours to qualify for the corporate health insurance plan (more cash in Walmart's coffers), or make so much money that they'll lose their "entitlements". As a consequence, the staff pays no income tax. This is no small-time hustle here mud.

Isn't the whole point of creating an economic climate where everyone has a job, and can pay taxes, is to enable the government to have the resources to enable the genertion to succeed? How can that happen when the second most profitable corporation in the world is siphoning off nearly a billion dollars of taxpayers' hard earned dollars in order to maximize profits, all while making sure that are paid so little, that none of that money flows back to the goverment in the form of income tax.

What's worse, because Walmart is so large and has no compunctions about driving every store within miles out of business, it kills those jobs, destroying those businesses and further reducing the tax base in their communities. Companies who compete against Walmart are forced to adopt similar wage and benefits strategies and now the entire big box retail industry is subsidizing its profits on the backs of the American middle class taxpayers who are paying the highest overall taxes of anyone.

Here's the thing that should be really frosting your cookies. If Walmart paid each and everyone of their 1.4 US employees just $5,000 a year more, that nearly $848 million dollars paid in entitlements goes back into the US treasury, thereby reducing the deficit, and all Walmart employees become federal income tax paying citizens,, thereby reducing the deficit. Walmart still makes very a handsome profit of $8.7 billion dollars which is a very acceptable ROI and is still 2 on the Forbes Fortune 500.

You complain that Obama just wants to re-distribute the money that the wealthy have rightfully earned to lazy shiftless bums who are robbing the country blind at the expense of the hard-working American middle class. You're looking in the wrong direction on the economic scale to find out whose's taking the hard earned tax dollars being sucked out of the middle and working classes.

While Rush and Mitt and Newt, and the rest of the smoke and mirrors brigade over at Fox
distract you stories of the lazy 47% Walmart is fleecing the American tax payers to the tune of nearly $1 billion dollars per year. And they're not the only ones doing this. If you read genuine mainstream business publications instead of right win blogs writtenn by conspiracy theory nutjobs, you'd see it going on.

Nothing Walmart and Monsanto and the others do is illegal, but is it fair or moral? All of Walmart's competitive pricing strategies, require that they continuous pressure suppliers to lower their manufacturing costs and again there is pressure to keep wages low enough that their employees fall below the minimum threshold for federal income tax.

The first order of business should be for Fortune 500 businesses to stop forcing the federal government to provide food and medical care to it's employees. If you make that money, you should be paying enough it to your workers that your profits don't look like an obscenity.

How long are you going to continue living in the bubble?

As long as Obama is in office.

A 47%er is by definition someone who votes Democrat because of, as G.T. said; 'All of the benefits and grants that are out there' that Obama has made available.

Obama is goosing up prices by raising excise taxes on products to consumers. He's changing regulations that are costly to the manufacturer who then has to pass that cost onto the little guy who buys it. This is great for him because then he can say that prices are going up but it's not something he can be blamed for directly. As long as he has a media that refuses to act as watchdogs nobody is going to blame Obama for the simple fact that it's getting harder every day to pay our bills. He can demonize the rich all the while he's screwing the rich who in turn are forced to screw the poor.

There are some who are doing just fine because they know how to take advantage of the system. They're happy with the status-quo. They don't want to change anything regardless how it effects the debt because they personally aren't hurting, at least for now. They could care less how much this is costing.

You mean like taking in section 8 tenants?

This is how class-warfare works. Obama forces a provider into having to do something that in turn can be criticized by his superficial thinking voters. It doesn't take much brain power to draw what you think is a rational conclusion but when the full context is taken into consideration is totally different.

Obama needs retards like you to vote for him. His whole presidency is based on entertainment and stereotypes. No deep thinkers are needed.

 

[mudwhistle]

A 47%er is by definition someone who votes Democrat because of, as G.T. said; 'All of the benefits and grants that are out there' that Obama has made available. There are some who are doing just fine because they know how to take advantage of the system. They're happy with the status-quo. They don't want to change anything regardless how it effects the debt because they personally aren't hurting, at least for now. They could care less how much this is costing.

Obama is goosing up prices by raising excise taxes on products to consumers. He's changing regulations that are costly to the manufacturer who then has to pass that cost onto the little guy who buys it. This is great for him because then he can say that prices are going up but it's not something he can be blamed for directly. As long as he has a media that refuses to act as watchdogs nobody is going to blame Obama for the simple fact that it's getting harder every day to pay our bills. He can demonize the rich all the while he's screwing the rich who in turn are forced to screw the poor.

One of the facts of capitalism is you can't make money if you don't offer an affordable product to the consumer. If you try to gouge them you tend to lose customers. However if you have a president that believes in Keynesian economics you are really just the anvil that the government hammers. You have to do what you can to stay in business.

 

[zeke]

It's happening to everyone around Mr. Whistle, but he does not apparently need any help from those not struggling as much. Good for him, but I don't believe Obama's hurt him one bit.

Mr whistle is a landlord. His tenants use Sec 8 housing vouchers to pay their rent.

Of course Muddy is doing ok. All those tenants with guaranteed rent money. What a moocher Muccy is. Living off the guvment teat.

Just doing whatever I can to get by biatch.

So STFU.

Muddy muddy, LMAO.

Just doing what you can to get by eh? By sucking on the hated guvmint teat. Just like your tenats. Trying to get by. Doesn't that make you a government mooch to?

Sure it does. I am a landlord. I turn down sec 8 vouchers. There are tenants out there that have jobs muddy. And pay their rent with paychecks. Amazing isn't it? They are not asking for one fuking thing from the guvmint that you live off of.

It is YOU muddy that is the problem. Hypocritic Mooch.

 

[mudwhistle]

Obama wants prices to go up. Maybe he doesn't have an evil purpose for this but since he believes in Keynesian economics dropping prices are the last thing he wants to see.

This is why he said that lower gas prices is the sign of a weak economy. He forgets how rising gas and diesel prices effects everything in our economy.

Obama wants higher prices and lower income. If you need help you can go to the government for help. If you're dependent on government then you're more prone to vote Democrat because they're Santa Claus. Problem is somebody eventually has to pay the bill. Well, you can always soak the rich.

 

[mudwhistle]

Mr whistle is a landlord. His tenants use Sec 8 housing vouchers to pay their rent.

Of course Muddy is doing ok. All those tenants with guaranteed rent money. What a moocher Muccy is. Living off the guvment teat.

Just doing whatever I can to get by biatch.

So STFU.

Muddy muddy, LMAO.

Just doing what you can to get by eh? By sucking on the hated guvmint teat. Just like your tenats. Trying to get by. Doesn't that make you a government mooch to?

Sure it does. I am a landlord. I turn down sec 8 vouchers. There are tenants out there that have jobs muddy. And pay their rent with paychecks. Amazing isn't it? They are not asking for one fuking thing from the guvmint that you live off of.

It is YOU muddy that is the problem. Hypocritic Mooch.

Since I live in a military town we have these constant deployments. A larger percentage of my tenants before this last deployment were in the military.

Like I told G.T. all economies are local. So you have to adapt to what the economy has to offer. This isn't a town where people wait in line to get into an apartment or a condo. Housing is readily available here so competition for renters may be greater here than where you live. This also makes rent more affordable. If I bought properties in Nashville it would be a totally different story.

So basically, you're talking out of your ass panty-sniffer.

 

[zeke]

What is it you are claiming there Muddy? That you rent to military families that are so poor that they qualify for sec 8 vouchers. Gee doesn't that suck.

Or that you don't want to rent to military families? Becaue they may/will be deployed? And do not qualify for sec 8?

You suck on the government teat muddy. One way or the other. No way around that. Your reasoning (if that is what you call it) is shaky and weak and makes no sense.

Not that I give a flying fuk. Except it makes you a hypocrite. And I really do not like hypocrites.
So. I will take my shots at you when presented. Please feel free to do the same. But you really need to try and get a little better at this shit. With 26000 posts, you sure are "experienced". You were handed your ass yesterday. And will have it given to you again today. Funny stuff hypo.

 

[mudwhistle]

What is it you are claiming there Muddy? That you rent to military families that are so poor that they qualify for sec 8 vouchers. Gee doesn't that suck.

Or that you don't want to rent to military families? Becaue they may/will be deployed? And do not qualify for sec 8?

You suck on the government teat muddy. One way or the other. No way around that. Your reasoning (if that is what you call it) is shaky and weak and makes no sense.

Not that I give a flying fuk. Except it makes you a hypocrite. And I really do not like hypocrites.
So. I will take my shots at you when presented. Please feel free to do the same. But you really need to try and get a little better at this shit. With 26000 posts, you sure are "experienced". You were handed your ass yesterday. And will have it given to you again today. Funny stuff hypo.

Now you're really reaching. Now I can't rent to a military family because they're paid by the government?

You're really getting desperate Mr. Panty-sniffer.

 

[mudwhistle]

You know.....there are discrimination laws. You know this. If anyone complains to the authorities that you're discriminating for any reason other than age you'd be in for a huge fine from the government.

You really need to drop it.

And nobody handed my ass to me like I just did to you.

 

[RDD_1210]

As long as Obama is in office.

A 47%er is by definition someone who votes Democrat because of, as G.T. said; 'All of the benefits and grants that are out there' that Obama has made available.

Obama is goosing up prices by raising excise taxes on products to consumers. He's changing regulations that are costly to the manufacturer who then has to pass that cost onto the little guy who buys it. This is great for him because then he can say that prices are going up but it's not something he can be blamed for directly. As long as he has a media that refuses to act as watchdogs nobody is going to blame Obama for the simple fact that it's getting harder every day to pay our bills. He can demonize the rich all the while he's screwing the rich who in turn are forced to screw the poor.

There are some who are doing just fine because they know how to take advantage of the system. They're happy with the status-quo. They don't want to change anything regardless how it effects the debt because they personally aren't hurting, at least for now. They could care less how much this is costing.

You mean like taking in section 8 tenants?

This is how class-warfare works. Obama forces a provider into having to do something that in turn can be criticized by his superficial thinking voters. It doesn't take much brain power to draw what you think is a rational conclusion but when the full context is taken into consideration is totally different.

Obama needs retards like you to vote for him. His whole presidency is based on entertainment and stereotypes. No deep thinkers are needed.

Oh you were forced to accept section 8 tenants? Is that your angle?

So you don't support the government subsidizing the cost of living for people who can't afford rent?

 

[mudwhistle]

You mean like taking in section 8 tenants?

This is how class-warfare works. Obama forces a provider into having to do something that in turn can be criticized by his superficial thinking voters. It doesn't take much brain power to draw what you think is a rational conclusion but when the full context is taken into consideration is totally different.

Obama needs retards like you to vote for him. His whole presidency is based on entertainment and stereotypes. No deep thinkers are needed.

Oh you were forced to accept section 8 tenants? Is that your angle?

So you don't support the government subsidizing the cost of living for people who can't afford rent?

No. I thought I made that clear.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I can see why you're so easily fooled.

I won't go back and elaborate further because you're not listening anyway.

It's dumbshits like you that put a corrupt asshole like Obama in office because it's easy to trick you into believing nonsense due to your antipathy towards those with different ideological beliefs.

 

[RDD_1210]

This is how class-warfare works. Obama forces a provider into having to do something that in turn can be criticized by his superficial thinking voters. It doesn't take much brain power to draw what you think is a rational conclusion but when the full context is taken into consideration is totally different.

Obama needs retards like you to vote for him. His whole presidency is based on entertainment and stereotypes. No deep thinkers are needed.

Oh you were forced to accept section 8 tenants? Is that your angle?

So you don't support the government subsidizing the cost of living for people who can't afford rent?

No. I thought I made that clear.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I can see why you're so easily fooled.

I won't go back and elaborate further because you're not listening anyway.

It's dumbshits like you that put a corrupt asshole like Obama in office because it's easy to trick you into believing nonsense due to your antipathy towards those with different ideological beliefs.

I'll take "Things Hypocrites say for $100"

You should be proud. You're a small government tea party conservative who hates moochers but has no problem taking big government money to house people who are doing the "mooching".

You're the definition of a raging hypocrite who is ALL talk and doesn't actually practice what you preach.

 

[mudwhistle]

Oh you were forced to accept section 8 tenants? Is that your angle?

So you don't support the government subsidizing the cost of living for people who can't afford rent?

No. I thought I made that clear.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I can see why you're so easily fooled.

I won't go back and elaborate further because you're not listening anyway.

It's dumbshits like you that put a corrupt asshole like Obama in office because it's easy to trick you into believing nonsense due to your antipathy towards those with different ideological beliefs.

I'll take "Things Hypocrites say for $100"

You should be proud. You're a small government tea party conservative who hates moochers but has no problem taking big government money to house people who are doing the "mooching".

You're the definition of a raging hypocrite who is ALL talk and doesn't actually practice what you preach.

You can only come to that conclusion if your thought processes are paper thin.

I've already stated my position. You continue to distort it.

Personally I think you're a glutton for punishment. Sticking to this fallacious argument will only end up biting you in the ass. Keep talking.

 

[Friends]

The OP asked the following question: "Do You Still Believe Only The Rich Benefitted From The Bush Tax-cuts??" without defining "benefited."

If a person paid $2,000 in income taxes before the Bush cuts, and $1,920 after the cuts, the person benefited by paying $80 less. However, if the person lost his job as the result of the over all Bush economy, do we still agree that he benefited?

When George W. Bush was inaugurated the unemployment rate was 4.2 percent. When he left office it was 7.8 percent.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

Consequently, there is a good chance that our hypothetical friend, who may have celebrated his $80 tax cut by donating half of it to the Republican Party, was out of work when Bush left office, or was working for less than when Bill Clinton left office.

Now as it happens, that kind of thing did happen to most Americans. Indeed: "On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially."
Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy - Ronald Brownstein - The Atlantic

"Ah," you say, "but that includes the Great Recession, which began after the Democrats achieved majorities in both houses of Congress."

O.K., lets see how things looked in 2006, when Republican commentators were telling us that the health of the economy proved that tax cuts worked: "Commerce Department data released today show that the share of national income going to wages and salaries in 2006 was at its lowest level on record with data going back to 1929.[1] The share of national income captured by corporate profits, in contrast, was at its highest level on record.[2]"
Share of National Income Going To Wages and Salaries at Record Low in 2006 — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

"Oh ho," you chortle, "but that information is presented by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. That is a liberal organization."

Well then, let's see what The Wall Street Journal had to say about the Bush economy in January 9, 2009: "President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.

"His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton‘s administration."
Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

The Wall Street Journal article also points out that from the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of George W. Bush there has nearly always been more job creation under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.

We must also remember that the Bush tax cuts turned the Clinton budget surpluses into yearly and growing deficits.

History of the United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, ""Do You Still Believe Only The Rich Benefitted From The Bush Tax-cuts??" That depends on how you define "benefit." If we look at the entire U.S. economy it is clear that most Americans did not benefit from the Bush economy, but the rich did.

 

[Too Tall]

Why are you so obsessed with the idea that somebody somewhere might get something they didn't, to your way of thinking, earn in some fashion? Those people a tiny number of the "takers". What about the other 90+% percent of the 47%, plus their dependents, all of whom are getting screwed over by a system which keeps them in poverty and sucks every last dollar they have to put a roof over their heads and food on the table.

You're picking up the peanuts while being trampled by the elephants man. Why not save your outrage for the REAL takers? Walmart operates 2010 stores in the US and each store location costs the American taxpayers, on averages, $422,000 for food stamps and Medicaid. That works out to $848 million dollars in low income subsidies and entitlements paid out to the employees of the second most profitable company in the world. Strike One.

The company has personnel in their Human Resources department to help the staff apply for food stamps and Medicaid. At the same time, they ensure that hourly rated employees never work enough hours to qualify for the corporate health insurance plan (more cash in Walmart's coffers), or make so much money that they'll lose their "entitlements". As a consequence, the staff pays no income tax. This is no small-time hustle here mud.

Isn't the whole point of creating an economic climate where everyone has a job, and can pay taxes, is to enable the government to have the resources to enable the genertion to succeed? How can that happen when the second most profitable corporation in the world is siphoning off nearly a billion dollars of taxpayers' hard earned dollars in order to maximize profits, all while making sure that are paid so little, that none of that money flows back to the goverment in the form of income tax.

What's worse, because Walmart is so large and has no compunctions about driving every store within miles out of business, it kills those jobs, destroying those businesses and further reducing the tax base in their communities. Companies who compete against Walmart are forced to adopt similar wage and benefits strategies and now the entire big box retail industry is subsidizing its profits on the backs of the American middle class taxpayers who are paying the highest overall taxes of anyone.

Here's the thing that should be really frosting your cookies. If Walmart paid each and everyone of their 1.4 US employees just $5,000 a year more, that nearly $848 million dollars paid in entitlements goes back into the US treasury, thereby reducing the deficit, and all Walmart employees become federal income tax paying citizens,, thereby reducing the deficit. Walmart still makes very a handsome profit of $8.7 billion dollars which is a very acceptable ROI and is still 2 on the Forbes Fortune 500.

You complain that Obama just wants to re-distribute the money that the wealthy have rightfully earned to lazy shiftless bums who are robbing the country blind at the expense of the hard-working American middle class. You're looking in the wrong direction on the economic scale to find out whose's taking the hard earned tax dollars being sucked out of the middle and working classes.

While Rush and Mitt and Newt, and the rest of the smoke and mirrors brigade over at Fox
distract you stories of the lazy 47% Walmart is fleecing the American tax payers to the tune of nearly $1 billion dollars per year. And they're not the only ones doing this. If you read genuine mainstream business publications instead of right win blogs writtenn by conspiracy theory nutjobs, you'd see it going on.

Nothing Walmart and Monsanto and the others do is illegal, but is it fair or moral? All of Walmart's competitive pricing strategies, require that they continuous pressure suppliers to lower their manufacturing costs and again there is pressure to keep wages low enough that their employees fall below the minimum threshold for federal income tax.

The first order of business should be for Fortune 500 businesses to stop forcing the federal government to provide food and medical care to it's employees. If you make that money, you should be paying enough it to your workers that your profits don't look like an obscenity.

How long are you going to continue living in the bubble?

As long as Obama is in office.

A 47%er is by definition someone who votes Democrat because of, as G.T. said; 'All of the benefits and grants that are out there' that Obama has made available.

Obama is goosing up prices by raising excise taxes on products to consumers. He's changing regulations that are costly to the manufacturer who then has to pass that cost onto the little guy who buys it. This is great for him because then he can say that prices are going up but it's not something he can be blamed for directly. As long as he has a media that refuses to act as watchdogs nobody is going to blame Obama for the simple fact that it's getting harder every day to pay our bills. He can demonize the rich all the while he's screwing the rich who in turn are forced to screw the poor.

There are some who are doing just fine because they know how to take advantage of the system. They're happy with the status-quo. They don't want to change anything regardless how it effects the debt because they personally aren't hurting, at least for now. They could care less how much this is costing.

You mean like taking in section 8 tenants?

Where do you suggest that section 8 tenants live?