Page 17 of 23 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 228

Thread: Obama Signs Bill To Extend Bush Tax Cuts

  1. #161
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,762

    Re: Obama Signs Bill To Extend Bush Tax Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I think you'd be mistaken that this was a referendum against the President. I'd say it was more an issue of balancing the power of government. Happens every midterm election cycle. Prior to 2006 we had a Republican President and a Republican Congress. The People didn't like that one side had too much control over the government and as a result they elected a Democrat President (given the other choice(s), I can't say I blame them) and a majority Democrat Congress. Four years later, they reversed it. I wouldn't be surprised if the situation changes course again in 2012. However, if Congress remains majority Republican and the state of the nation shows marked improvements, we might see most parties currently in government get re-elected including the President. Stay tuned...

    But I digress...this isn't about the upcoming 2012 election cycle. So, let's try NOT to re-direct the conversation again, shall we? This is about the effectiveness of the Bush tax cuts and/or the concept of "trickle-down economics" overall.
    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    You can get that information from BLS or the U.S. Census, doubt however that it will make any difference in your opinion. GW Bush didn't lose in the 2006 elections because of the economy, he lost because of the war.

    As for the thread topic, Obama spent almost 3 years claiming that the Bush tax cuts only benefited the rich, now he has changed his tune and signed the extension. His economic results showed that he had no choice in doing just that.
    My question to you had NOTHING to do with why former Pres. GW. Bush lost the 2006 midterm elections. I asked:

    Based on the state of the economy today prior to both the 2006 midterms AND the 2008 presidential election, did the Bush tax cuts which has it's roots in the concept of trickle-down economics work as outlined to the American public or did they not?
    To which you replied with GDP figures:

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative
    GDP by year

    2000 9951.50
    2001 10286.20
    2002 10642.30
    2003 11142.10
    2004 11867.80
    2005 12638.40
    2006 13398.90
    2007 14077.60
    2008 14441.40
    2009 14256.30
    Which I agreed where great indicators of how well this country did in selling durable goods and services mostly abroad (exports), but as I indicated to you those figures have nothing to do with the median income level of wage earners during that same timeframe. However, these figures do.

    From U.S. Census data:

    (Note: Figures only show median and mean income levels from 2000 to 2009. Data manipulated to fit screen. Full chart can be viewed from U.S. Census Bureau's website)

    Table with row headings in column A and column headings in rows 4 and 5.
    Table F-23. Families by Total Money Income, Race, and Hispanic Origin of Householder: 1967 to 2009
    (Income in 2009 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars. Families as of March of the following year)

    ALL RACES -- Median income (dollars) -- Mean income (dollars)
    by Year ----- Value -- Standard error -- Value --Standard error

    2009 (36) -- 60,088 - 217 - 78,538 - 321
    2008 -- 61,521 - 194 - 79,634 - 319
    2007 -- 61,355 - 190 - 78,845 - 312
    2006 -- 60,064 - 284 - 79,508 - 351
    2005 -- 59,683 - 220 - 77,855 - 328
    2004 (35) -- 59,342 - 252 - 77,266 - 332
    2003 -- 59,389 - 278 - 77,295 - 322
    2002 -- 59,563 - 196 - 77,185 - 332
    2001 -- 60,206 - 212 - 78,307 - 341
    2000 (30) -- 61,083 - 223 - 79,193 - 349

    As you can see, except for some minor fluxuations the median income level actually went down comparitively from 2001 to 2009, -$118. The mean income level decreased for at least half the decade but even when it did increase comparatively between 2001 and 2009, the change was only a mere +$231. Moreover, if you average out the median and mean incomes for the nine-year period (2001-2009), the figures show a very contrasting picture:

    Avg Median income from 2001-2009: $60,134 (-$72 wages lost when comparing avg median income to 2009 median income level)

    Avg Mean income from 2001-2009: $69,682 (-$8,856 wages lost when comparing avg mean income to 2009 mean income level)

    I understand there are numerous variables that affect these income levels; however, the figures don't lie. The GDP figures show the country did well in overall sales in both imports and exports, but the income level of the average American worker did not change as drastically as those who support the Bush tax cuts would have one believe. And before you say it, I am NOT against people who make money keeping more of what they earn. So, let's not go back to that same tired talking point. I'm just illustrating that the Bush tax cuts weren't as effective for average wage earners. Comparatively speaking, if we were to look at the "lower" income levels of the top wage earners, this is what you'd find:

    Lower limit of top 5 percent (dollars)

    2009 = $200,00
    2008 = $200,000
    2007 = $197.216
    2006 = $191,060
    2005 = $184,500
    2004 (35) = $173,640
    2003 = $170,082
    2002 = $164,323
    2001 = $164,104
    2000 (30) = $160,120

    Except for 2008 and 2009, their income increased every year since 2000!
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 12-23-10 at 11:47 AM.

  2. #162
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,856
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Obama Signs Bill To Extend Bush Tax Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Then there is the IRS Data, which one is more accurate and why do you care what Warren Buffet says? Warren Buffet or any other rich person can send in whatever they want to the Federal Govt. Why does it have to be mandated by the Federal Govt? Is it fair that 47% don't pay ANY Federal Income Taxes but 53% pay them all? Why are you so concerned about what someone else pays in taxes but not that 47% of the income earners don't pay ANY?

    The top 1% of wage earners make 20% of all income and pay 38% of all Federal Income taxes.
    The top 5% of wage earners make 34.7% of all income and pay 58.7% of all Federal Income taxes.
    Are you saying that Warren Buffet doesn't know what he pays in taxes? Doesn't know what his employees pay in taxes? Did you watch the video?

    As far as those that don't pay any taxes...how can you get blood from a turnip? The reason that they don't pay taxes is that they don't make enough money. (duh) The federal government realizes that if someone can't pay thier bills and at least have a roof over thier head they're not going to be very productive.

    Tell ya what. Tell me exactly how you are going to get ANY money out of someone that lives on the streets in order to send the federal government enough money to where people like turtledude would stop complaining? (fat chance of that since he thinks he is entitled to rule over the poor)
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  3. #163
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:45 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,604

    Re: Obama Signs Bill To Extend Bush Tax Cuts

    Conservative... please tat least try to follow this for just the two minutes that it takes to read it. Please.

    1- People pay taxes, all kind of taxes to different level of government.
    2- The tax burden on Americans includes ALL of those taxes.
    3- To discuss one tax in an isolated environment that intentionally ignores ALL other taxes for pure political or ideological purposes is not an honest discussion on taxation or its burden on Americans.
    4- All I am trying to do here is to bring an element of honesty to the discussion so that the complete picture of taxation and the tax burden on the average American is seen.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  4. #164
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: Obama Signs Bill To Extend Bush Tax Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    My question to you had NOTHING to do with why former Pres. GW. Bush lost the 2006 midterm elections. I asked:



    To which you replied with GDP figures:



    Which I agreed where great indicators of how well this country did in selling durable goods and services mostly abroad (exports), but as I indicated to you those figures have nothing to do with the median income level of wage earners during that same timeframe. However, these figures do.

    From U.S. Census data:

    (Note: Figures only show median and mean income levels from 2000 to 2009. Data manipulated to fit screen. Full chart can be viewed from U.S. Census Bureau's website)

    Table with row headings in column A and column headings in rows 4 and 5.
    Table F-23. Families by Total Money Income, Race, and Hispanic Origin of Householder: 1967 to 2009
    (Income in 2009 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars. Families as of March of the following year)

    ALL RACES -- Median income (dollars) -- Mean income (dollars)
    by Year ----- Value -- Standard error -- Value --Standard error

    2009 (36) -- 60,088 - 217 - 78,538 - 321
    2008 -- 61,521 - 194 - 79,634 - 319
    2007 -- 61,355 - 190 - 78,845 - 312
    2006 -- 60,064 - 284 - 79,508 - 351
    2005 -- 59,683 - 220 - 77,855 - 328
    2004 (35) -- 59,342 - 252 - 77,266 - 332
    2003 -- 59,389 - 278 - 77,295 - 322
    2002 -- 59,563 - 196 - 77,185 - 332
    2001 -- 60,206 - 212 - 78,307 - 341
    2000 (30) -- 61,083 - 223 - 79,193 - 349

    As you can see, except for some minor fluxuations the median income level actually went down comparitively from 2001 to 2009, -$118. The mean income level decreased for at least half the decade but even when it did increase comparatively between 2001 and 2009, the change was only a mere +$231. Moreover, if you average out the median and mean incomes for the nine-year period (2001-2009), the figures show a very contrasting picture:

    Avg Median income from 2001-2009: $60,134 (-$72 wages lost when comparing avg median income to 2009 median income level)

    Avg Mean income from 2001-2009: $69,682 (-$8,856 wages lost when comparing avg mean income to 2009 mean income level)

    I understand there are numerous variables that affect these income levels; however, the figures don't lie. The GDP figures show the country did well in overall sales in both imports and exports, but the income level of the average American worker did not change as drastically as those who support the Bush tax cuts would have one believe. And before you say it, I am NOT against people who make money keeping more of what they earn. So, let's not go back to that same tired talking point. I'm just illustrating that the Bush tax cuts weren't as effective for average wage earners.
    What you don't seem to understand is the components of GDP, there are four, figure them out and what percentage the contribute to the national economy? Second tax cuts allow the American people to keep more of what they earn and has nothing to do with personal income, but it does affect personal take home pay. It isn't the government's role to guarantee any individual a specific wage or that their wages will grow. Where do you get these ideals?

    Tax cuts allowed the American taxpayer to keep more of what they earn and only a true liberal ideologue would argue against that. Why are you passionate about what someone else pays in taxes and wanting the govt. to keep more of what you earn? Do you think it is fair for 47% of the people not to pay any Federal Income taxes while you focus on the top 2% that pay the lion's share?

    I don't understand the liberal mindset and their definition of fairness. Not one person here has explained it without trying to interject state and local taxes into the equation. Instead of talking about fairness why aren't you defining it? could it be that you really do understand there is nothing logical about the liberal position?

  5. #165
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: Obama Signs Bill To Extend Bush Tax Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Conservative... please tat least try to follow this for just the two minutes that it takes to read it. Please.

    1- People pay taxes, all kind of taxes to different level of government.
    2- The tax burden on Americans includes ALL of those taxes.
    3- To discuss one tax in an isolated environment that intentionally ignores ALL other taxes for pure political or ideological purposes is not an honest discussion on taxation or its burden on Americans.
    4- All I am trying to do here is to bring an element of honesty to the discussion so that the complete picture of taxation and the tax burden on the average American is seen.
    If you want to talk honesty then focus on the thread topic which has nothing to do with all the taxes people pay. This thread is about what Obama signed and it has nothing to do with state and local taxes. You want to talk total taxes start a new thread. In the meantime tell me what is fair about 47% of the people paying zero federal income taxes to fund the items in the FEDERAL BUDGET? I know why you divert because you know there is no defense for your position thus you have to bring in other taxes yet you never answered the questions I posted about those other taxes. Wonder why?

    How much sales tax do you pay if you don't buy anything that is taxable? How much excise tax do you pay if you don't drive a car? How much property taxes do you pay if you don't own a home or live in a rural area? Please understand the various taxes we pay and what action generates those taxes. With income it is about what you earn and everyone that earns something should be paying something for the Federal govt. expenses. You don't think that is fair?

    I posted the list of items in that budget which of course you ignore. Tell me what items there are duplicated at the state level and why we are paying both?

    I disagree, you aren't trying to bring any element of honesty to the topic, just diverting from that topic.

  6. #166
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,762

    Re: Obama Signs Bill To Extend Bush Tax Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    What you don't seem to understand is the components of GDP, there are four, figure them out and what percentage the contribute to the national economy? Second tax cuts allow the American people to keep more of what they earn and has nothing to do with personal income, but it does affect personal take home pay. It isn't the government's role to guarantee any individual a specific wage or that their wages will grow. Where do you get these ideals?

    Tax cuts allowed the American taxpayer to keep more of what they earn and only a true liberal ideologue would argue against that. Why are you passionate about what someone else pays in taxes and wanting the govt. to keep more of what you earn? Do you think it is fair for 47% of the people not to pay any Federal Income taxes while you focus on the top 2% that pay the lion's share?

    I don't understand the liberal mindset and their definition of fairness. Not one person here has explained it without trying to interject state and local taxes into the equation. Instead of talking about fairness why aren't you defining it? could it be that you really do understand there is nothing logical about the liberal position?
    Did I say the government had to guarantee anyone's income? Did I say the government had to guarantee what my employer paid me in an hourly wage? Did I say anything about fairness (although in essence that's truly what this debate is all about). No, I did not.

    I asked a simple question, provided you with facts from the source YOU suggested I utilize, and when those facts turn your argument on it's ear you do as you've always done - move the argument somewhere else instead of addressing the facts that have been laid out before you. So, again, my question is very simple and straight-forward:

    Based on the state of the economy today prior to both the 2006 midterms AND the 2008 presidential election, did the Bush tax cuts which has it's roots in the concept of trickle-down economics work as outlined to the American public or did they not?
    Yes or no will do.

  7. #167
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: Obama Signs Bill To Extend Bush Tax Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Are you saying that Warren Buffet doesn't know what he pays in taxes? Doesn't know what his employees pay in taxes? Did you watch the video?

    As far as those that don't pay any taxes...how can you get blood from a turnip? The reason that they don't pay taxes is that they don't make enough money. (duh) The federal government realizes that if someone can't pay thier bills and at least have a roof over thier head they're not going to be very productive.

    Tell ya what. Tell me exactly how you are going to get ANY money out of someone that lives on the streets in order to send the federal government enough money to where people like turtledude would stop complaining? (fat chance of that since he thinks he is entitled to rule over the poor)
    Nope, have no interest in what Warren Buffet says about someone else's taxes. The question is why do you care what his opinion is and why aren't you asking the question as to why 47% don't pay any Federal income taxes? Are you telling me that in today's world that all the people in that 47% don't make enough to pay something in income taxes? You are speculating without true knowledge nor do you seem to care.

    Instead of focusing on the real problem you build a strawman, how many of those people who don't pay any income taxes live on the streets? you don't seem to understand the Federal Income system, we are talking ONLY those with income not the total population. Those on the streets probably don't have a job thus aren't earning any income.

    Stop thinking with your heart and think with the brain God gave you.

  8. #168
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: Obama Signs Bill To Extend Bush Tax Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Did I say the government had to guarantee anyone's income? Did I say the government had to guarantee what my employer paid me in an hourly wage? Did I say anything about fairness (although in essence that's truly what this debate is all about). No, I did not.

    I asked a simple question, provided you with facts from the source YOU suggested I utilize, and when those facts turn your argument on it's ear you do as you've always done - move the argument somewhere else instead of addressing the facts that have been laid out before you. So, again, my question is very simple and straight-forward:



    Yes or no will do.
    Yes, they indeed did help and continue to help those today who are working. If you are working you are still benefiting from the Bush tax cuts getting to keep more of your own money thus higher take home pay. If you have a problem keeping more of what you earn, send it to the govt.

  9. #169
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,762

    Re: Obama Signs Bill To Extend Bush Tax Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Yes, they indeed did help and continue to help those today who are working. If you are working you are still benefiting from the Bush tax cuts getting to keep more of your own money thus higher take home pay. If you have a problem keeping more of what you earn, send it to the govt.
    The question wasn't did they help wage earners keep more money in their pockets. Pres. Obama's tax cuts via the Stimulus did that, but a mere $15-25 put back in my paycheck isn't going to get me into that $50-100K income bracket. Of course, anyone who thinks such a meager tax decrease would move the bar so drastically is just plain foolish. What I and others here have been arguing is that the Bush tax cuts (or the continuance of Reaganomics..."tickle-down economics") didn't do as promised. They didn't:

    - create new jobs for lower income people
    - increase salaries to lower and middle income people
    - expand business opportunities particularly in manufacturing and infrustructure
    - reduce poverty

    Instead, by all accounts they did the exact opposite. Why? Because the tax breaks were geared more to aid the higher wage earns than those at lower income brackets which I totally understand. However, the issue many lower and middle-class wage earners have a problem with is those at the top didn't put their money back into growing their businesses, didn't increase wages substantially, and they didn't provide those opportunities for prosperity that those who believe in the tax cuts claimed they would do. The Census data I presented bore out those facts which you really can't deny (though you will continue to try).
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 12-23-10 at 12:16 PM.

  10. #170
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,219

    Re: Obama Signs Bill To Extend Bush Tax Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Are you saying that Warren Buffet doesn't know what he pays in taxes? Doesn't know what his employees pay in taxes? Did you watch the video?

    As far as those that don't pay any taxes...how can you get blood from a turnip? The reason that they don't pay taxes is that they don't make enough money. (duh) The federal government realizes that if someone can't pay thier bills and at least have a roof over thier head they're not going to be very productive.

    Tell ya what. Tell me exactly how you are going to get ANY money out of someone that lives on the streets in order to send the federal government enough money to where people like turtledude would stop complaining? (fat chance of that since he thinks he is entitled to rule over the poor)
    A person with 3 kids, making up to $43,000 a year can qualify for the earned income credit. They can't afford to give up $500, or $1,000 a year to the government? A person making $25,000 a year can't afford to give up $200 a year to the government? I bet they could. How many billions would that add up to?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Page 17 of 23 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... 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
  •