All I've read of your posts are you scutinizing others posts with one sentence questions and no answers or opinions with substance. Why not provide some substance instead of one line questions?

Would you like to point out where I 'whined' about the loopholes that rich people use? Please.

Why not ask the OP to provide some backup to his original statement that every single democrats has said that the tax cuts only benefit the rich.

B/c if he doesn't, he has no credibility in anything he ever posts.

Scott:
I think somethings would surprise you.

Fair question Paul S. I watch Foxnews, CNN, and MSNBC regularly, and I've heard that claim a zillion times. I don't work in a TV studio, so I don't have access to years' worth of video footage. I googled it, and found a ton of sites that said "despite the fact that liberals claim the Bush tax cuts only benefit the rich, here is the proof that's not true...". Alas, I couldn't find a site that listed all of the people who have told that lie.

So my opinion (I can't prove it with physical evidence) is that the liberals invented that lie to further their cause. If you say you never heard anyone say that, I can't do anything about it.

Here are some of these sites I described. None listed specific liberals who said that lie, but all address it in general...

AP Shocker: Bush Tax Cuts Didn't Just Help The Rich
Why do so many liberals say that Bush's tax cuts only helped the wealthy? - Yahoo! Answers
Aren't liberals ignoring facts when claiming that Bush tax cuts helped the rich? - Yahoo! Answers
Tax cuts "for the rich" - Living Lake Country
American Thinker: Lying About Bush's Tax Cuts
Letting The Bush Tax Cuts Expire Will Only Hurt The Rich, Right? | Right Wing News
The Absurd Report Income Taxes: Liberal vs. Present
Did The Bush Tax Cuts Favor The Wealthy | Media | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA

from the last link...

""It is politically popular to say that tax cuts benefit the wealthy," said Michael D. Stroup, a Stephen F. Austin University economist who authored the NCPA report. "The accusation does not match the reality."

There are a ton of sites out there that dispel the lie that the Bush tax cuts only benefitted the rich. It stands to reason that something motivated all those people to do the research...i.e., there were those that claimed that the cuts only benefitted the wealthy.

As I said, I can't get youtube clips. But I've heard a million people say it, and it always bothered me. Take it or leave it, your choice.

In my humble opinion, if yuo deny that the Democrats and the media have been making that claim for years, you have no credibility. Because it was everywhere, until the cuts were about to expire, causing 100 percent of us to see tax increases, and thus that myth was exposed as the lie it was.

If you say I have no credibility, I'll have to try and soldier on somehow...

Jim is right, its been all over the media for years

The Democrat Party has for years decried the Bush Tax Cuts as one of the most egregious acts against the middle class and the working poor. Democrat Progressive mouthpieces from Julian Epstein to Representative Anthony Weiner NY (D) have accused former President Bush’s tax cuts of being a benefit for the wealthy and a yoke for the rest of America. On January 1, 2011 those supposedly oppressive tax cuts are set to expire. The tax bill owed by every American will revert to rates that existed under those gloriously wonderful Clinton days. The difference between the tax rates during the Clinton Era and the Bush Era are highlighted below in a chart from the non-partisan Taxfoundation.org.

Thanks, it's nice to know someone else out there lives in the real world...

The pres. said it correctly hundred of times. If you can't back up your original statement you have no credibility. Seems your the only one lying in this post.

absolutely...like why you reply to my post after you so proudly put me on your "ignore list" :confused:

what a surprise!:bounce:

oooops...I think he got ya Jim...clearly only most single democrats and Barney Frank has said this....:rotf2:

was that classy??:confused:

Your problem is, I'm not lying. Thousands of sites are out there to dispel that lie. A professor of economics said that it's "politically popular" to suggest that the cuts only benefitted the wealthy (see the link I posted before). What do you think he meant by that?

I think Jim put up plenty of evidence.
Heres more....anyone remember the 2004 campaign

1. Senator John Kerry (D)
The following quotes are from the John Kerry for President web site unless otherwise indicated.
George W Bush has chosen tax cuts for the wealthy and special favors for the special interests over our economic future. John Kerry's priority will be middle class families who are working hard to cover the mortgage, pay the high cost of health care, child care and tuition, or just trying to get ahead.

2. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush have cost middle-income U.S. residents $3,500 in higher state and local taxes, health care costs and college tuitions.

``Rain or shine, surplus or deficit, George Bush's economic plan begins and ends with tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans with special connections,'' Kerry said in remarks
3. Dateline: WASHINGTON Sen. John Edwards, in calling for a series of measures to keep the country safe, says the Bush administration's policy of favoring tax cuts for the wealthy over adequate funding for domestic security are "out of whack."

I could keep going but its tiresome. Jim is right on, you guys are whacked. Its been the democrats mantra for the past 6 years or so.

dangerous question:morons:

im bored today...

1. Ex-president Bill Clinton is blasting President Bush's economic policies as "immoral" and "unethical," saying he blames administration tax cuts for increasing hostility towards the U.S. around the world.

"I hear all this talk about family values and all this stuff," Clinton told an audience at the University of Minnesota on Saturday, before explaining how an old friend had been hurt by cuts in subsidies for Americans in need while the wealthy got tax cuts.

yawn....

I guess libs never heard that knowledge is power.

lol... never been the liberal's strong suit. They prefer picking a 'victim' to defend and then arguing like its a filibuster until everyone has left the room, then declare victory.

YouTube - Republicans Want to Tax YOU, But Breaks for the Rich!

YouTube - Pr. Obama - 'GOP WANTS YOU TO PAY THAT $700B TO RICH' - Congressional Black Caucus


and lastly!

Nothing to do with it, but god I love Selma! Happy Friday everyone!

YouTube - Salma Hayek - Dancing in 'From Dusk Till Dawn' [1996]

Salma.....:drool:

they're all on factcheck.org right now :gh:

for you?:rotf2:

you said "every single democrat", not thousands of sites. See you have no credibility.

It must suck to have so much hate.

Like I said, statistics are useless without context.
The whole subject is about who made out better. Dollars speak a whole lot louder and mean a whole lot more than percentages do.

$11,500 > $1000
The guy making $250k benefited more.

ahh, benefited! Its a benefit! I thought he EARNED more and thus gets to keep the percentage of what he EARNED!

See EARNED is controlled by the INDIVIDUAL . The tax percentage is controlled by the governement.

how do you always end up at the same, predictable dead end?

Johnny, my undergraduate degree (from UCONN) is in statistics. This is NOT statistics, it is elementary school mathematics. A 33 percent tax decrease is larger than an 11.6 percent tax decrease. Sorry if that ruffles your political feathers.

I'd also argue that giving an extra $1,000 to a guy making $20k a year, means more to him than giving $11,500 back to a guy making $250K. Why? Something called "diminishing marginal returns". Simply puit, a $100 raise means more to someone earning minimum wage than a $1 million raise to Bill Gates.

Every time someone proves you wrong, you just keep telling yourself that they are "taking it out of context". The other kook here keeps accusing me of "spin" for making the outrageous claim that 33 is, in fact, greater than 11.6.

Yup, benefited. He benefited by being able to keep more of his hard-earned money.

Listen, I'm all about lower taxes on the people. I completely agree with your suggestions on how to cut costs, but forgot to include social services as an area where a lot can be saved. I'd also support closing that large number of easily exploited tax loopholes, along with removing a lot of deductions and then instituting a flat tax.

It'll never happen though. Regardless of what party is in office, the overall tax burden on the people will decrease at a rate slower than what's being paid out until eventually we have a drawback period like the UK is feeling now.

Johnny, you want context? How's this...who gets screwed by the government more, the guy who pays $2,000 a year in taxes, or the guy who pays $87,500 a year in taxes?

You want to switch from percentages (which is all that matters) to absolute dollars? That's where you REALLY get blown out of the water. We have a progressive tax system. The rich should pay more, and they do.

Hypocrite....plain and simple. Everyone should pay more for the poor except me.

People forget that Bill Clinton pulled it off, and the left still worships him. He was extremely conservative with fiscal policy, no reason why we can't go back to that.

I'm sorry...where's Spence...off on another revisionist history conference?...these arguments are moronic, sorry JohnnyLesbaru( it's OK, he never sees my posts because I'm on his ignore list too:buds:) but that is some pathetic rationalization :yak5:

benefited more? no, both are keeping more of the income that they earn...the difference between the two is the level of compensation based on the value or the amount of the work being performed, you can't set the numbers side by side and say that one is benefiting more than the other...unless you are fostering class envy


"look...he got to keep more than you....KILL HIM!"

Hey Jim, do you feel like you are getting your money's worth?

Ah, a fellow Husky, I was a senior when the men's and women's teams won the championships in the same year.

You're right. I keep typing statistics and that's the completely incorrect term. I'm a jackass in that aspect. You aren't ruffling my political feathers at all... mostly because, like usual from very partisan people, you think I'm a liberal because I disagree with you.

And every time someone proves you wrong, you change the context of your original statement. First, who benefited more from the change in policy, then it's who appreciates it more, now it's whoever pays more overall is screwed? Benefits can be quantified, appreciation cannot.

If I give a bum on the street a $100 bill, he'll certainly appreciate it more than someone on Wall Street that cashed in a $1M deal. But the bum certainly didn't benefit more.

[QUOTE=JohnnyD;808316]If I give a bum on the street a $100 bill

QUOTE]

if you are truly a liberal you will take a hundred dollar bill from your neighbor and give it to the bum...:uhuh: and then congratulate yourself....see, you both benefit

now to debate who benefits more...the bum or the liberal

Johnny, I have re-read this thread and not once has anyone even came close to proving Jim wrong.

If you want to take Jim literally, "that every single Democrat" like PaulS did, well yes, Jim is wrong. But us classy people (Hi Paul!) know Jim meant that every single Democrat voice, leader or spokesperson has said that and its demontrably true. Go to google and type in __________ on Bush tax cuts and fill the blank in with any lead Democrat you'll see Jim is correct.

back to factcheck.org :gh:

George Bush hates black people.
















I just thought I'd throw that in there for Kanye West.

You're all over the place. You even sort of proved my point.

Consider the bum getting $100 or Warren Buffet getting $1 million. The $1 million is meaningless to Buffet, it doesn't change his life at all. $100 to a homeless person can have a very meaningful impact (that's the 'diminishing marginal returns' I was referring to).

A bum "makes out better" getting $100 than Buffet does getting $1 million. You practically said that yourself. Because the $100 adds more incrementalutility to the bum's life than $1 million does to Buffet.

Same logic with the tax decrease, it's the same thing.

In civilian life? No. Way too much waste drains my taxes.

When I was a Marine, I felt like I was part of a system that worked the way it was supposed to, I really felt like we had all the support we needed. And because I was wounded, I received some pretty nice healthcare benefits. I feel like that system worked the way it's supposed to...probably because politicians don't run the military, the military runs the military.

i've been a cpa 25 years. Stick to economics where everything is theory - butter and guns. I deal with people and their money and taxes that is real life.

No tax accountant could make a client feel better with your % crap. They want real world results.