PDA

View Full Version : Meet the press.



Qtec
07-19-2010, 06:26 AM
The GOP personified. blah blah blah (http://www.youtube.com/user/DemRapidResponse#p/u/1/-HLlSfgJQh4)

When pressed for specifics, the guy goes into Palinesque-gibberish mode. ie speaks a lot but says nothing. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>It seems their only idea is to repeat the disasterous Bush tax cuts

[ of which <u>1/3 goes to the top earning 5% ] </u></span>

..which will add to the debt of course.

The Party of Bush (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykzbg33Pq9E&feature=player_embedded)

Again, blah blah blah.

More waffle. link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi4x_viEfXk&feature=related)


Wonder what the GOP would say if Obama said 'yes' to continuing the Bush tax cuts BUT only for thos earning less than $250,000?

Q

LWW
07-19-2010, 06:41 AM
Please cease and desist from spreading fishy rumors as your own sources have confirmed that the tax cuts increased revenue while the new regime's policies have shrank them.

The problem is spending and only spending.

LWW

Gayle in MD
07-20-2010, 04:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The GOP personified. blah blah blah (http://www.youtube.com/user/DemRapidResponse#p/u/1/-HLlSfgJQh4)

When pressed for specifics, the guy goes into Palinesque-gibberish mode. ie speaks a lot but says nothing. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>It seems their only idea is to repeat the disasterous Bush tax cuts

[ of which <u>1/3 goes to the top earning 5% ] </u></span>

..which will add to the debt of course.

The Party of Bush (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykzbg33Pq9E&feature=player_embedded)

Again, blah blah blah.

More waffle. link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi4x_viEfXk&feature=related)


Wonder what the GOP would say if Obama said 'yes' to continuing the Bush tax cuts BUT only for thos earning less than $250,000?

Q
</div></div>There are many reasons why I would never vote for any Republican, last sunday the Republicans on Meet The Press, tells the story even better than I ever could.

G.

Sid_Vicious
07-20-2010, 07:41 PM
"Wonder what the GOP would say if Obama said 'yes' to continuing the Bush tax cuts BUT only for thos earning less than $250,000?"

Now THAT! would increase way more trickle down than the Chimp's 1% giveaway. Think about how many more "below $250 a year Americans there are, which BTW actually SPEND liquid assets like new found money! NAAAAAA, any nut-brained republican would rather STILL give it all away to the 1%. It make too gooda common sense for the whole economic issue, rather than the bush-shit cuts. That's why they are called the nutty-right, even though they really have no individual nuts at all...sid

Stretch
07-20-2010, 08:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Wonder what the GOP would say if Obama said 'yes' to continuing the Bush tax cuts BUT only for thos earning less than $250,000?"

Now THAT! would increase way more trickle down than the Chimp's 1% giveaway. Think about how many more "below $250 a year Americans there are, which BTW actually SPEND liquid assets like new found money! NAAAAAA, any nut-brained republican would rather STILL give it all away to the 1%. It make too gooda common sense for the whole economic issue, rather than the bush-shit cuts. That's why they are called the nutty-right, even though they really have no individual nuts at all...sid </div></div>

lol! St.

LWW
07-21-2010, 03:57 AM
It would be nice if a leftist would just once tell the truth about the tax cuts ... but, that would be against the agenda.

LWW

LWW
07-21-2010, 04:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Americans of every income have benefited from a drop in federal income tax rates as Bush administration tax cuts enacted since 2000 took effect, an independent analysis of newly released IRS data shows.
But those earning $75,000 to $500,000 are shouldering a larger share of total taxes paid as millions more of them earn higher incomes and get hit with the Alternative Minimum Tax, the analysis also found.

The review by the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan research group that favors low taxes, provides one of the first detailed looks at the impact of federal tax changes phased in between 2000 and 2004.

Alluding to the political debate that often surrounds tax issues, Gerald Prante, a Tax Foundation economist, said, "It is true that in dollar amounts the rich have gained the most. But everybody's tax rates have fallen."

The analysis showed, for example, that a taxpayer who earned $35,000 in 2000 would have paid 8.54% of that income $2,989 after credits in federal taxes. In 2004, federal taxes would have accounted for 5.12% of that taxpayer's annual income, or $1,792. That represents a 40% decrease in tax burden.

At the higher end of the income brackets, a $1.75 million earner would have paid $513,625 in 2000 federal taxes, when the rate for that earning bracket was 29.35%. Four years later, when the rate dropped to 25%, that earner would have paid $437,500. That represents a 14.8% cut in tax burden, the analysis shows.

Millions of upper-middle and moderately high-income earners also benefited from tax rate cuts. But the analysis shows their savings was limited by the Alternative Minimum Tax, which eliminates some deductions and credits they could otherwise claim on federal tax returns. The levy particularly hits those whose high state and local taxes become ineligible for federal tax deductions.

For instance, taxpayers who earned between $100,000 and $200,000 in 2004 paid 22.5% of all federal taxes, up from 19.4% four years earlier. Those who earned between $200,000 and $500,000 in 2004 paid 17.9% of all federal taxes, up from 15.4% in 2000, the analysis showed.

Prante said the federal government "cut ordinary income tax rates but left AMT alone. So the middle range (of taxpayers) ended up getting less of a reduction."

The Tax Foundation also found that:

Millions of lower-income Americans those earning $25,000 annually or less have been taken off the federal tax rolls. In 2000, roughly 29 million tax returns had no federal tax owed. Four years later, the number rose to about 43 million returns.

The increase resulted from the doubling of the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, as well as the Earned Income Tax Credit, a federal benefit program for low-income workers.

Income for the highest-earning Americans dropped sharply from 2000 to 2002, following the end of the bull stock market of the late 1990s, then grew rapidly from 2002 to 2004 as the economy recovered. </div></div>

This topic is yet another example of what Q's recent thread referred to ... the far left will become even more welded to false "TRUTH" after being shown the facts.

&gt;&gt;&gt;TRUTH VS TRUTHINESS&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2006-10-02-taxes-usat_x.htm)

LWW

Qtec
07-21-2010, 04:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Millions of lower-income Americans those earning $25,000 annually or less have been taken off the federal tax rolls. In 2000, roughly 29 million tax returns had no federal tax owed. Four years later, the number rose to about <u>43 million returns.</u> </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is total number of people in US workforce?


The U.S Department of Labor has the unemplyment rate currently at 7.2%, which it states is 11.1million people out of work. So divide 11.1/.072=154 million in the workforce </div></div>

ie 25% of the workforce got zip from the tax cuts.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Tax Foundation is not a reliable source </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The most accurate, and generally-accepted measure of state and local tax burden is produced by the United States Census Bureau. Unlike the Tax Foundation report, it is based on actual taxes paid and not estimates and projections. Most recently, the Census Bureau reported that in 2002 Connecticut was 22nd highest in the nation in state and local taxes as a percentage of personal income, 11 places lower than in the original Tax Foundation estimate (placing Connecticut as
11th), and <u>12 places lower than the revised Tax Foundation rank </u>(placing Connecticut as 10th).6 </div></div>
pdf (http://www.ctkidslink.org/publications/bud05taxfreedom04.pdf)

Q

LWW
07-21-2010, 04:52 AM
The 25% of those paying no tax in the first place benefitted the most.

Tax cuts resulted in investment in new business which lowered the UE rate which drove companies to increase wages and benefits and working conditions to attract workers.

IOW ... you cannot give a tax cut to someone paying no taxes, however you can get them a better job.

Please, try to deal with reality.

LWW

Qtec
07-21-2010, 06:03 AM
Lets try dealing with the topic, ie the GOP have no ideas except repeating the failed policies that the Bush Admin followed. When pressed for specific things they would do to reduce the Debt they were too cowardly to give an answer.

Q

Gayle in MD
07-21-2010, 06:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lets try dealing with the topic, ie the GOP have no ideas except repeating the failed policies that the Bush Admin followed. When pressed for specific things they would do to reduce the Debt they were too cowardly to give an answer.

Q </div></div>

That's because the GOP are colossal liars, with no integrity, just like LWW. A total liar.

G.

LWW
07-21-2010, 07:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lets try dealing with the topic, ie the GOP have no ideas except repeating the failed policies that the Bush Admin followed. When pressed for specific things they would do to reduce the Debt they were too cowardly to give an answer.

Q </div></div>

Why do you insist upon basing your "OPINION" on mythology?

What you claimed to be "FAILED" policy led to increased federal income, increased net household income for all classes of America, and a robust economy. It was only when the new regime began tinkering with tax rates and wage controls that things deteriorated.

These "FAILED" policies brought prosperity in the 1920's ... and misery in the 1930's when they were abandoned. It then brought prosperity in the 1960's when they were resumed ... followed by misery in the 1970's when they were abandoned again. Followed by prosperity in the 1980's when they were restarted ... and misery in the early 1990's when abandoned ... and prosperity in the 2000's when they were redone ... and misery now that they are being abandoned.

You were correct the other day ... exposure to the truth makes you cling ever more desperately to the myth.

LWW