posted December 20, 2010 12:37 PM            

For years...all the way back to 2001, leftists have worn out the old Marxist refrain...Tax Cuts for the Rich.

I've pointed out for years that the Bush Tax Cuts were for all income levels and in addition, that legislation took many totally off the tax paying rolls by adjusting the lowest paying tax rate downward.

Now, leftists have been caught in their lies again...which is the usual given some time.

At the signing ceremony, Obama said passage of the law was propelled "by the fact that tax rates for every American were poised to automatically increase on January 1st." If that had happened, "the average middle-class family would have had to pay an extra $3,000 in taxes next year," he said. "That wouldn't have just been a blow to them; it would have been a blow to our economy, just as we're climbing out of a devastating recession."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR20101216062 00.html?hpid=topnews

posted December 31, 2010 09:48 PM            

What this country really needs is a "Cash for Cookies" program to stimulate the economy.

It just stands to reason that if we paid cash to cookie eaters to buy cookies they would eat more cookies and put cookie makers to work all over America.

That in turn would stimulate the farmers, gym businesses and physicians and hospitals. I'm talking snowballing effect here.

While we're on the subject of "Cash for...", how about a "Cash for A Shoe" stimulus bill. Who could disagree that every woman needs at least 1000 pairs of shoes in the closet, ala Imelda Marcos? A shoe for every occasion.

The old economist axiom..."if everyone bought just one shoe...."...the economy would skyrocket into the stratosphere.

Naturally, one shoe couldn't be worn anywhere, forcing consumers to purchase the other shoe to have a matching pair. All the cobblers would go nuts cheering....not to mention the ranchers, stockyards, leather tanners, the shoelace makers...wow!

Anyone care to drop these suggestions in the O'Bomber Suggestion Box?

posted January 05, 2011 08:48 AM            

from page three

quote:

---

Obama ultimately decided to break his long-standing vow to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of taxpayers.

---

wealthiest 2 percent

i seem to recall him repeating that over and over during the campaign debates too...

posted January 05, 2011 09:32 AM            

Let no more be heard of "Tax Cuts for the Rich".

I keep hearing that 2% of the top income earners number but with a cutoff of $250,000 that's obviously a highly bogus number/percentage.

Besides, the top 2% of income earners already pay 40% of all the income taxes in the US. When I ask any leftist...and I have asked repeatedly over the years..."How much income tax...give me a number....is enough for the top income earners to pay, the ducking, bobbing, weaving and evading begins.

emitres, I watched O'Bomber's speech...live. I used what he said..."If that had happened, the average middle-class family would have had to pay an extra $3,000 in taxes next year,"...to prove a point I've made here for years; namely, that the Bush tax cuts were across all income levels, not just for the rich.

By my calculations..if those Bush tax cuts were saving the average middle class family $3,000 per year...then those tax cuts have saved those families about $21,000 over the years. That's $21,000 for them to spend in the way they decide...and not the way the morons in Congress and the White House decide.

However, had it been up to me, those Bush Tax Cuts would have expired...just as the demoscats have...over the years desired...including O'Bomber. Republicans have...over the years since 2003 attempted to make those tax cuts permanent and were thwarted by the demoscats.

There would have been NO deals. Either O'Bomber and the Socialist demoscats in Congress would have agreed to a straight, clean bill to extend them without the almost 1 Trillion dollar pork additions, or they would have expired and the first order of business in the New Congress...beginning today, January 4, 2011...would have been a clean...stand alone bill passed in the Republican House to extend the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Oh, and then, let Hairy Reid, the Socialist Progressives in the Senate and the Marxist Socialist Progressive in the White House either not take the bill up in the Senate...or put O'Bomber in the position of signing a veto...which would bring about the biggest tax increase in the history of the United States.

posted January 05, 2011 02:29 PM            

quote:

---

Have to love it when leftists get caught in their own lies.

---

That Obama gave a Republican line about the taxes does not mean that Bush tax cuts weren't a cut for the rich. If they included tax breaks for everyone, then "everyone" would necessarily encompass the rich as well.

posted January 05, 2011 03:16 PM            

Now, we have....out of O'Bomber's own mouth, the truth...finally...that the Bush Tax Cuts benefited the middle class.

What wasn't said by O'Bomber and the rest of the leftist morons is that the Bush Tax cuts also benefited the so called working poor. Those in the lower tax brackets also had their taxes reduced and in many cases, their tax load was reduced to ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH and many of those don't even have an obligation to file an income tax return.

Maybe you'd like to take a crack at this question acoustic.

How much in income taxes is enough from the so called rich; those who make over $250,000 per year in income; those whom O'Bomber and the Socialist morons equate to being "Millionaires..and Billionaires.

posted January 05, 2011 04:04 PM            

quote:

---

What wasn't said by O'Bomber and the rest of the leftist morons is that the Bush Tax cuts also benefited the so called working poor.

---

What do you mean it wasn't said? When Obama said he wanted to keep all the tax cuts in place except for those making over $250 grand, wasn't he saying that there was benefit in retaining the Bush tax cuts? Don't be silly now.

As to your question which lacks a question mark, what do I care how much is enough from people making over $250,000? Really. What difference does it make to me? Do I think they're going to suffer unnecessarily? No. I don't. And those of my party that make that much don't seem to mind either.

quote:

---

Oh, and acoustic, we know the morons who are into Marxist class warfare do make that equation because they lump them all together trying to raise their taxes by the very same percentages....and lying that they represent only the top 2% of earners.

---

posted January 05, 2011 05:28 PM            

Funny acoustic, that you wouldn't understand plain English. But then, you've always had a hard time with the language.

Wrong acoustic. No where will you find a word from leftists about tax cuts for the so called working poor contained in the Bush Tax Cuts.

Until O'Bomber opened his mouth and let the cat out of the bag...that there were tax cuts for the middle class in the Bush Tax Cut packages, it was a steady diet of bullshiiit..."Tax Cuts for the rich".

posted January 05, 2011 06:17 PM            

quote:

---

I knew you couldn't or wouldn't answer the question of "how much is enough" acoustic. Just the usual ducking, bobbing, weaving and evading when leftists are asked that question.

---

It's nonsense. It's a bullsh!t question. It's just your regular tactic of trying to duck being wrong by going on the offensive. You said that Obama backtracked on a lie, and I proved you wrong swiftly and easily, because your thinking was poor. Asking a question about how much they should be taxed is besides the point.

quote:

---

Wrong acoustic. No where will you find a word from leftists about tax cuts for the so called working poor contained in the Bush Tax Cuts.

---

It's NOT wrong, Jwhop. I already disproved this.

quote:

---

Until O'Bomber opened his mouth and let the cat out of the bag...that there were tax cuts for the middle class in the Bush Tax Cut packages, it was a steady diet of bullshiiit..."Tax Cuts for the rich".

---

No. That's wrong. It WAS a steady diet of let's keep the tax breaks for EVERYONE except those making over $250k. End of story.

posted January 05, 2011 10:18 PM            

You disproved nothing acoustic...except that perhaps you don't understand plain English.

Until O'Bomber opened his mouth and started talking about the huge tax increases for the middle class, the lying rhetoric of class warfare Socialist Progressives...including O'Bomber...was that the Bush Tax Cuts only benefited the rich.

Now, the class warfare rhetoric is up in smoke.

posted January 05, 2011 11:29 PM            

quote:

---

Hahaha, the question...how much is enough for upper income filers to pay was ducked, evaded and weaseled on...by you and other leftists here.

---

It doesn't matter. It never mattered. Why do you think that by asking a question you're magically off the hook for what you're actually being challenged on? If I gave you a number would I suddenly win a prize? Anyone could say a number. This is such a stupid tactic. Which part do you not understand?

If you must have some number, because you're fixated on numbers or something, how about 39.6% like it was under Clinton? Ah hell, why not round up to 40%? What the heck does anyone care?

quote:

---

Until O'Bomber opened his mouth and started talking about the huge tax increases for the middle class, the lying rhetoric of class warfare Socialist Progressives...including O'Bomber...was that the Bush Tax Cuts only benefited the rich.

---

posted January 06, 2011 10:11 AM            

To reasonable people, the top 1% of income earners paying 40% of the income taxes IS enough.

To reasonable people, the top 10% of income earners paying 70% of income taxes IS enough.

It's only the carping Marxist Socialist Progressive income redistribution whiners and screechers who don't think the top earners are paying enough.

These leftist morons have been caught in their own lies..."Tax Cuts for the Rich" when all along, it was "Tax Cuts for Everyone".

Memo to the uninformed.

From 2001 forward, the whining screeching, shrieking leftists have mouthed the words..Tax Cuts for the Rich at every opportunity. No where...prior to the current debate...was it ever mentioned that the Bush Tax Cuts benefited the middle class or the working poor...and that, only very recently.

posted January 06, 2011 11:46 AM            

quote:

---

To reasonable people, the top 1% of income earners paying 40% of the income taxes IS enough.

To reasonable people, the top 10% of income earners paying 70% of income taxes IS enough.

---

They're currently paying 35%. If you're satisfied with 40%, why would you put up a stink about it?

quote:

---

These leftist morons have been caught in their own lies..."Tax Cuts for the Rich" when all along, it was "Tax Cuts for Everyone".

---

No, they weren't. I don't know where you're getting this garbage. I know you are all over Conservative news, but the Bush tax cuts were one consistent thing. They didn't change. The Democrats didn't characterize them as only a tax break for the rich. Memo to the uninformed is right. You get caught up in that echo chamber long enough, and you can't see what's plain.

quote:

---

From 2001 forward, the whining screeching, shrieking leftists have mouthed the words..Tax Cuts for the Rich at every opportunity. No where...prior to the current debate...was it ever mentioned that the Bush Tax Cuts benefited the middle class or the working poor...and that, only very recently.

---

That's not true. You seem to confuse the fact that Democrats view the cuts on the rich as the least valuable of the cuts with some blindness they have regarding the rest of the cuts. Republicans claim that they want budgets balanced and all this, but Republicans refuse to even entertain taking a more appropriate amount in taxes. During Bush years the tax income never reached the 30-year average even.

Now, here's a story from your favorite news media the NYT, which makes the case against the cuts for the Rich while acknowledging that the cuts were across all income levels:

Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.

Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says

posted January 06, 2011 12:22 PM            

Sadly, it appears you are.

Oh wait, maybe you think that's a clever argument. It's not!

"From 2001 forward, the whining screeching, shrieking leftists have mouthed the words..Tax Cuts for the Rich at every opportunity. No where...prior to the current debate...was it ever mentioned that the Bush Tax Cuts benefited the middle class or the working poor...and that, only very recently."..jwhop

"That's not true"...acoustic

Yes acoustic, that is absolutely true and further acoustic, the fact these sleazy leftist whiners and shriekers always referred to the Bush Tax Cuts as..."Tax Cuts for the Rich" while never mentioning the tax cuts were also for the middle class and the working poor they attempted to lie to the American people by their exclusionary ommissions. They didn't need to say "only". "Only" was implicit in their lies.

Take the Treason Times and stuff it where the sun don't shine acoustic. If there's room, stuff the CBO, the supposedly non partisan Congressional Budget Office, there too.

The other lie O'Bomber and leftist Socialist hacks told America was equating incomes of $250,000 per year with being millionaires and billionaires.

posted January 06, 2011 01:20 PM            

No, I don't think it's a clever argument. Nor do I think the Conservative argument that they deserve the 35% tax rate is clever. What I think is smart is collecting an appropriate amount of taxes. Conservatives are (or like to claim to be) financially responsible. So why is it SO difficult to get Conservatives to properly fund the government? Conservatives would rather borrow.

quote:

---

Yes acoustic, that is absolutely true and further acoustic, the fact these sleazy leftist whiners and shriekers always referred to the Bush Tax Cuts as..."Tax Cuts for the Rich" while never mentioning the tax cuts were also for the middle class and the working poor they attempted to lie to the American people by their exclusionary ommissions. They didn't need to say "only". "Only" was implicit in their lies.

---

No, they didn't! I'm smiling, but how is it possible you think Democrats have NO conception of what the Bush tax cuts were? Really. It's beyond comprehension that you'd think that way. Democrats have had a problem with Bush lowering the tax rates for the rich. Yes. That is all. That doesn't imply in any way whatsoever that they completely disregarded the cuts that were given all the way down the line. Obama, while campaigning for Presidents DID say that the Bush tax cuts were a mistake, which is a bit of a blanket statement, but the only rational way of looking at his line of thinking is that he believed Clinton had the tax rates correct.

quote:

---

Take the Treason Times and stuff it where the sun don't shine acoustic. If there's room, stuff the CBO, the supposedly non partisan Congressional Budget Office, there too.

---

I know. Don't you hate it when you're so obviously wrong?

quote:

---

The other lie O'Bomber and leftist Socialist hacks told America was equating incomes of $250,000 per year with being millionaires and billionaires.

---

What do you suggest is the net worth of people making $250,000 a year? You have a fixation on the concept of lying, but you're not real great at understanding what they are.

posted January 06, 2011 05:17 PM            

What I said is that demoscats have lied about it for years calling them...Tax Cuts for the Rich.

I don't suppose to know what the balance sheet of those making $250,000 per year shows. But then acoustic, you don't know, O'Bomber doesn't know and the brain dead Socialists in Congress don't know either.

However, lumping those making $250K per year in with those being called millionaires and billionaires as O'Bomber does on a routine basis is a lie.

Among those showing income of $250K are those running small businesses filing income tax returns as Sub Chapter S Corporations. Which means all their retail/wholesale sales dollars are imputed to them by the IRS as "income". It would be a very small business indeed which didn't show gross receipts of at least $250K.

About 50% of those who O'Bomber says are the rich...making $250K+...are small business owners filing as Sub Chapter S corporations.

posted January 06, 2011 06:30 PM            

and if you think 250K is not rich, try living on the AVERAGE wage of 35K for a year. 250K IS rich. and no one is asking them to pay 40% on the 250K but only whatever they earn OVER that. so if you earn 350K you will pay 40% on the extra 100K...

that is if you haven't found a way to WRITE OFF MOST OF YOUR INCOME the way the richer people tend to do, one way or another.,

so you are saying that the extra 5K that said 350K/yr person would have to pay is enough to make him hurt? REALLY????