Page 33 of 87 FirstFirst ... 2331323334354383 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 862

Thread: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

  1. #321
    Sage

    Donc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    out yonder
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,426

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    That is about the income my wife and I share, as retirees, and we pay a lot of taxes.


    Here ya go Bill, don,t look like it will be a whole lot of diffrence in your tax statis.
    Last edited by Donc; 08-21-10 at 08:08 PM.
    The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say

  2. #322
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by donc View Post


    Here ya go Bill, don,t look like it will be a whole of diffrence in your tax statis.
    You seem to care about what someone else makes and how much money goes to the Federal Govt. why?

  3. #323
    Sage

    Donc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    out yonder
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,426

    Re: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

    Conservative

    So how many wealthy people do you know that put their money into a mattress?
    ZOOM that metaphor went flying over your ole dome didn’t it conservative? Who stimulates the economy more, the working poor (which is including more and more of the shrinking middleclass with this bush recession) or those making over a mill?


    Think that sending more money to D.C. means Congress will use that money to pay down the debt?
    Sure it will .What’s your crystal ball say?


    When has the Congress ever paid down any of the debt?
    I believe ti was during the Clinton years, which had a Republican majority in Congress that did something besides obstruct that did it.
    The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say

  4. #324
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

    [QUOTE=donc;1058935510]ZOOM that metaphor went flying over your ole dome didn’t it conservative? Who stimulates the economy more, the working poor (which is including more and more of the shrinking middleclass with this bush recession) or those making over a mill?

    So now it is down to who stimulates the economy more, the poor or the rich? Does it really matter? How many jobs do poor people create? Looks to me like both stimulate the economy and why would you hurt any economic class? Seems to me you have a lot of class envy for some reason.



    Sure it will .What’s your crystal ball say?
    History says you are wrong



    I believe ti was during the Clinton years, which had a Republican majority in Congress that did something besides obstruct that did it.
    You believe wrong. From the U.S. Treasury Dept.

    Fiscal
    Year Year
    Ending National Debt Deficit
    FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
    FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
    FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
    FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
    FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
    FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
    FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
    FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
    FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion


    As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

  5. #325
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Can't wait for you to explain how higher taxes are going to get 16 million unemployed people back to work? You don't really seem to understand how our economy works and I would love to hear your qualifications as an expert on job creation and the role of our govt?
    Lowering the taxes has little to do with the number of jobs. You could lower the taxes even more than they are now and it would have little effect on the number people working. The term 'job creation' is somewhat a misnomer because nobody hires simply because they have extra money and want give somebody a job. They hire them because they believe that by doing so, the money spent on salary/benefits will outweigh by the increased revenue they produce.

    Raising taxes will have a significant positive effect on the debt as long as spending is curtailed. However, their always a bone of contention between what should be cut between the left and the right. Notice this liberal Democrat has a whooping $895 billion in Defense much of which could be called pork.

    Taking apart the federal budget (washingtonpost.com)


  6. #326
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Lowering the taxes has little to do with the number of jobs. You could lower the taxes even more than they are now and it would have little effect on the number people working. The term 'job creation' is somewhat a misnomer because nobody hires simply because they have extra money and want give somebody a job. They hire them because they believe that by doing so, the money spent on salary/benefits will outweigh by the increased revenue they produce.

    Raising taxes will have a significant positive effect on the debt as long as spending is curtailed. However, their always a bone of contention between what should be cut between the left and the right. Notice this liberal Democrat has a whooping $895 billion in Defense much of which could be called pork.

    Taking apart the federal budget (washingtonpost.com)
    As I have posted sending more money to D.C. has never lowered the national debt so why do you believe it will happen now? Do you have a job or are you in school? If you have a job what do you do when you get to keep more of your money which tax cuts allow you to do? It is your money that creates jobs but apparently like Donc you seem to believe that rich people put their money under a mattress as does busineses. There are four components of GDP, do you know what they and the affect GDP has on govt. revenue? You seem to believe what you read in the media. I learned a long time ago to trust but verify. Try going to the U.S. Treasury site to learn about the budget process. Maybe there you can explain why there is a line item for Social Security since you and others seem to believe that SS is in a trust fund.

  7. #327
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Lowering the taxes has little to do with the number of jobs. You could lower the taxes even more than they are now and it would have little effect on the number people working. The term 'job creation' is somewhat a misnomer because nobody hires simply because they have extra money and want give somebody a job. They hire them because they believe that by doing so, the money spent on salary/benefits will outweigh by the increased revenue they produce.

    Raising taxes will have a significant positive effect on the debt as long as spending is curtailed. However, their always a bone of contention between what should be cut between the left and the right. Notice this liberal Democrat has a whooping $895 billion in Defense much of which could be called pork.

    Taking apart the federal budget (washingtonpost.com)
    Doesn't it bother you that of the 3.8 trillion dollar budget only 1.4 trillion of it is discretionary spending and the rest entitlement spending? Tell you anything about the Congress and their spending habits. Can you imagine how quickly we could pay off the debt with the current tax rates and only spending on discretionary spending items? Take SS off budget where it belongs, Put Medicare into its own account and why is Medicaid a state program on the Federal Budget?

  8. #328
    Sage

    Donc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    out yonder
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,426

    Re: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

    Conservative

    You believe wrong. From the U.S. Treasury Dept.

    Fiscal
    Year Year
    Ending National Debt Deficit
    FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
    FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
    FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
    FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
    FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
    FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
    FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
    FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
    FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion


    As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.
    To this question I got the above response.

    I believe ti was during the Clinton years, which had a Republican majority in Congress that did something besides obstruct that did it.

    I guess we will have to get “Obvious child” in here to explain the difference to you …again, the difference in debt and deficit.

    Here, look at the National Debt as a percentage of GDP. Notice that the last Republican that managed to put a _ in the column was tricky Dick.

    Check the gippers numbers, two terms of red +followed by one term(George the 1st ) of red + followed by two terms of green _(Clinton ) followed by two super numbers of red +(George the 2nd ).

    Are you seeing the pattern here conservative? Republicans come in a wreck the economy, then comes the Dems in to fix the damage. Hope that the wingers didn’t do so much damage that it is not reparable.

    National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say

  9. #329
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,561

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Lowering the taxes has little to do with the number of jobs. You could lower the taxes even more than they are now and it would have little effect on the number people working. The term 'job creation' is somewhat a misnomer because nobody hires simply because they have extra money and want give somebody a job. They hire them because they believe that by doing so, the money spent on salary/benefits will outweigh by the increased revenue they produce.

    Raising taxes will have a significant positive effect on the debt as long as spending is curtailed. However, their always a bone of contention between what should be cut between the left and the right. Notice this liberal Democrat has a whooping $895 billion in Defense much of which could be called pork.

    Taking apart the federal budget (washingtonpost.com)
    wishful thinking on your part. there is no benefits to raising taxes on a small percentage of voters because the majority of people will have no incentive to force the government to curtail spending.



  10. #330
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,351

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    Did he actually say 95% of the population? or 95% of taxpayers?
    What I keep hearing is that 95% of our citizens will get this tax relief. If he is using word games to trick people into thinking that he meant taxpayers he and the people saying it should be ashamed of themselves.

    Either way it is cheap wedge politics. Change you can believe in? We don't have blue or red states but purple states. Sounds pretty cheap from a hack politician,

Page 33 of 87 FirstFirst ... 2331323334354383 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •