Are Bush tax cuts only for the rich???

Taxes...Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these statistics enlightening and amazing.
source

Taxes under Clinton Taxes under Bush 2008

Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married mak ing 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250

Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates

It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the grea test President ever. If Obama or Hillary are elected, they both say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can't wait for it to happen. This is like the movie, The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of some money and they don't even know what happened.

What is conveniently ommitted here is the effect of defecit federal spending on this and future generations.

The Bush "tax cut" is a political illusion. It is actually a tax shift- from one generation of Americans to the next, and the next. Again, Bush did not give anyone a tax cut. He, and Congress, just stole that money from our grandkids. Only if a "tax cut" were accompanied by a commensurate spending cut would it be an honest reduction in taxes.

So that's how BO and/or Hillary and Democrats plan to pay for their $200,000,000,000 (that's a whale of a lot of zeros) spending increase. They're going to RAISE TAXES on the poorest of the poor $3,900 a pop, the next level at $1,500 a pop, the next at $4,500, the next at $17,800, the next at $2,250 and finally the last at $7,500.

What rube votes to increase their taxes again?

BO and Hillary are not my candidates. So I don't need to answer for them. But whatever they do, it would be better to "pay as they go" than to increase the national debt ever further.

Why do you want to talk about "Bush tax cuts", but not about the ever increasing Bush defecit? You and Bush cannot claim one without claiming the other.

ziggy wrote:BO and Hillary are not my candidates. So I don't need to answer for them. But whatever they do, it would be better to "pay as they go" than to increase the national debt ever further.

Why do you want to talk about "Bush tax cuts", but not about the ever increasing Bush defecit? You and Bush cannot claim one without claiming the other.

The only thing I 'claimed' was me and 2 of my children. My ex claimed the other two. As a result, I got back a couple grand more then I would have under BO's or Hillary's plan. I can live with that.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:BO and Hillary are not my candidates. So I don't need to answer for them. But whatever they do, it would be better to "pay as they go" than to increase the national debt ever further.

Why do you want to talk about "Bush tax cuts", but not about the ever increasing Bush defecit? You and Bush cannot claim one without claiming the other.

The only thing I 'claimed' was me and 2 of my children. My ex claimed the other two. As a result, I got back a couple grand more then I would have under BO's or Hillary's plan. I can live with that.

But can your children and grandchildren "live with" the added debt the "Bush tax cuts" allow you to "get back"?

ziggy wrote:What is conveniently ommitted here is the effect of defecit federal spending on this and future generations.

The Bush "tax cut" is a political illusion. It is actually a tax shift- from one generation of Americans to the next, and the next.

MERCY, such a display of stupidity in the mimicking of such idiotic rhetoric is truly amazing.

So, I assume you also believe that a WalMart "price cut" is nothing more than a retailer illusion. That it is actually a price shift- to all Americans that don't shop at WalMart thus forcing them to expend more money for the goods they purchase at other retailers.

ziggy wrote:Again, Bush did not give anyone a tax cut. He, and Congress, just stole that money from our grandkids. Only if a "tax cut" were accompanied by a commensurate spending cut would it be an honest reduction in taxes.

Well Zigster, in that your Accountant implied you were not charging your customers enough for the "service" they received, ........ apparently you were NOT giving your customers a "price cut", ......... you were actually stealing money from your wife, your children and your grandchildren.

And you are badmouthing Bush ......... for the same thing you were doing for 20+- years.

.

No, Bush cut taxes. The Congress and Bush failed to cut spending. We've been paying "farmers" including the Lauder family of Estee Lauder fame, Ted Turner, and a host of folks in downtown Manhattan over $4 billion not to grow crops on their land. Certainly the war which should never have been prosecuted has contributed. There's plenty of waste in government. The tax cuts could have been much deeper.

Case in point - the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee speaks. Has he no authority? Can he not make changes in the Federal budget?

http://wvgazette.com/News/200804160808

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:BO and Hillary are not my candidates. So I don't need to answer for them. But whatever they do, it would be better to "pay as they go" than to increase the national debt ever further.

Why do you want to talk about "Bush tax cuts", but not about the ever increasing Bush defecit? You and Bush cannot claim one without claiming the other.

The only thing I 'claimed' was me and 2 of my children. My ex claimed the other two. As a result, I got back a couple grand more then I would have under BO's or Hillary's plan. I can live with that.

But can your children and grandchildren "live with" the added debt the "Bush tax cuts" allow you to "get back"?

You are under the misguided impression that BO or Hillary will cut spending. You are wrong. Any new money they bring in will be spent above and beyond what is already being spent. They will not reduce the deficit any at all and my children and grand chilren will still have the same debt Bush is giving them WITH lower taxes.

They'll cut MILITARY spending...

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:BO and Hillary are not my candidates. So I don't need to answer for them. But whatever they do, it would be better to "pay as they go" than to increase the national debt ever further.

Why do you want to talk about "Bush tax cuts", but not about the ever increasing Bush defecit? You and Bush cannot claim one without claiming the other.

The only thing I 'claimed' was me and 2 of my children. My ex claimed the other two. As a result, I got back a couple grand more then I would have under BO's or Hillary's plan. I can live with that.

But can your children and grandchildren "live with" the added debt the "Bush tax cuts" allow you to "get back"?

You are under the misguided impression that BO or Hillary will cut spending.

I make no such assumption. And if BO or Hillary start claiming credit for a "tax cut", but while increasing defecit spending, I'll be giving them hell for it too.

Again, why do you want to focus on a "Bush tax cut", but ignore the Bush defecit spending?

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:BO and Hillary are not my candidates. So I don't need to answer for them. But whatever they do, it would be better to "pay as they go" than to increase the national debt ever further.

Why do you want to talk about "Bush tax cuts", but not about the ever increasing Bush defecit? You and Bush cannot claim one without claiming the other.

The only thing I 'claimed' was me and 2 of my children. My ex claimed the other two. As a result, I got back a couple grand more then I would have under BO's or Hillary's plan. I can live with that.

But can your children and grandchildren "live with" the added debt the "Bush tax cuts" allow you to "get back"?

You are under the misguided impression that BO or Hillary will cut spending.

I make no such assumption. And if BO or Hillary start claiming credit for a "tax cut", but while increasing defecit spending, I'll be giving them hell for it too.

Again, why do you want to focus on a "Bush tax cut", but ignore the Bush defecit spending?

I'm not ignoring anything. I agree he has spent out of control. Congress is the body that changes that. Why are you ignoring the simple fact that it is they that control the purse strings thus it is they that are responsible for the defecit spending?

ohio county wrote:No, Bush cut taxes. The Congress and Bush failed to cut spending.

How is it that "Bush cut taxes", but that "Congress and Bush" failed to cut spending? It takes an act of Congress to cut taxes just as it takes an act of Congress to spend.

I am willing to blame Congress for spending if you give them credit for a tax cut that is somehow ascribed only to Bush- as long as it's made plain that the "tax cut" was negated by increased defecit spending. I am not asserting that Congress is at all innocent in regards to wreckless fiscal management. But I am asserting that Bush is absolutely complicit in it.

Aaron wrote:I'm not ignoring anything. I agree he has spent out of control. Congress is the body that changes that. Why are you ignoring the simple fact that it is they that control the purse strings thus it is they that are responsible for the defecit spending?

Why are you ignoring the simple fact that Congress, not Bush, controls tax rates? If it's a "Bush tax cut", then it's also a "Bush spending and defecit increase".

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:What is conveniently ommitted here is the effect of defecit federal spending on this and future generations.

The Bush "tax cut" is a political illusion. It is actually a tax shift- from one generation of Americans to the next, and the next.

MERCY, such a display of stupidity in the mimicking of such idiotic rhetoric is truly amazing.

So, I assume you also believe that a WalMart "price cut" is nothing more than a retailer illusion. That it is actually a price shift- to all Americans that don't shop at WalMart thus forcing them to expend more money for the goods they purchase at other retailers.

Is Wal-Mart putting that "price cut" on the federal government tab by increasing government defecit spending accordingly?

ziggy wrote:Again, Bush did not give anyone a tax cut. He, and Congress, just stole that money from our grandkids. Only if a "tax cut" were accompanied by a commensurate spending cut would it be an honest reduction in taxes.

Well Zigster, in that your Accountant implied you were not charging your customers enough for the "service" they received, ........ apparently you were NOT giving your customers a "price cut", ......... you were actually stealing money from your wife, your children and your grandchildren.

And you are badmouthing Bush ......... for the same thing you were doing for 20+- years.

No, as I have said before here, Ms. Ziggy is quite happy with the way I conducted my business.

Does it get any better than that?

As to our children and grandchildern, they'll have to make it on their own. Whether it's a few thousnad or a million or a zillion, it's ours, and Ms. Ziggy and I expect to spend it all. We will not leave our children or grandchildren a fortune in either assets or indebtedness.

Of course, you are entirely correct: Bush and Congress are equally at fault for failing to cut spending. Bush could have vetoed any of those spending bills. He did not have the intestinal fortitude, apparently. Conversely, the Congress could have failed to pass the tax cuts. Why should Bush get any credit for them? He proposed them. The Congress could have but did not.

But it was netiher me nor Aaron who began calling them the "Bush" tax cuts. Hillary Clinton does. Obama does. When Kennedy famously said that a "rising tide raises all boats" to sell a tax cut, it became "his" tax cut. When Reagan proposed tax cuts during his first term, they became "his" tax cuts. Your point that Bush did not cut taxes by himself is entirely correct. Whether or not they are "his" is an evolution of common usage.

ohio county wrote:Of course, you are entirely correct: Bush and Congress are equally at fault for failing to cut spending. Bush could have vetoed any of those spending bills. He did not have the intestinal fortitude, apparently. Conversely, the Congress could have failed to pass the tax cuts. Why should Bush get any credit for them? He proposed them. The Congress could have but did not.

But it was netiher me nor Aaron who began calling them the "Bush" tax cuts. Hillary Clinton does. Obama does. When Kennedy famously said that a "rising tide raises all boats" to sell a tax cut, it became "his" tax cut. When Reagan proposed tax cuts during his first term, they became "his" tax cuts. Your point that Bush did not cut taxes by himself is entirely correct. Whether or not they are "his" is an evolution of common usage.

And, I would argue, an error of common usage- a deliberate, political error- perpetuated for the sole purpose of political propagandizing.

Either way, they are not really "tax cuts" at all if the revenue shortfalls are simply added to the national debt.

Let me say that I agree that spending the country into perdition is truly an insult to our children and morally reprehensible. As a fellow nominal head of the household (I've seen the job and I don't want it), when you realize that you are going into the red do you first look for ways to increase revenue or do you stop unnecessary spending? I know I stop spending.

With regard to cutting taxes at a time you know you are going to war, that's crazy on the face of it. But what do you do? Go back a year later and say, "This won't work. I made a mistake." Or, do you freeze spending and start looking for cuts?

This may be where we naturally diverge because I'm always going to try to cut spending even when times are flush.

ziggy wrote:

ohio county wrote:Of course, you are entirely correct: Bush and Congress are equally at fault for failing to cut spending. Bush could have vetoed any of those spending bills. He did not have the intestinal fortitude, apparently. Conversely, the Congress could have failed to pass the tax cuts. Why should Bush get any credit for them? He proposed them. The Congress could have but did not.

But it was netiher me nor Aaron who began calling them the "Bush" tax cuts. Hillary Clinton does. Obama does. When Kennedy famously said that a "rising tide raises all boats" to sell a tax cut, it became "his" tax cut. When Reagan proposed tax cuts during his first term, they became "his" tax cuts. Your point that Bush did not cut taxes by himself is entirely correct. Whether or not they are "his" is an evolution of common usage.

And, I would argue, an error of common usage- a deliberate, political error- perpetuated for the sole purpose of political propagandizing.

Either way, they are not really "tax cuts" at all if the revenue shortfalls are simply added to the national debt.

If your boss cut your pay and you had to buy your gas with a credit card, you've still suffered a 'pay cut' have you not?

If someone (me-thankyou very much) is paying LESS taxes as a result of the legislation, then yes, it is a tax cut.

ziggy wrote: That is not at all anagalous to what were are talking about here

Whatever you say dude...whatever you say...

Aaron wrote:If your boss cut your pay and you had to buy your gas with a credit card, you've still suffered a 'pay cut' have you not?

That is not at all analogous to what were are talking about here.

And someone actually PAYS YOU to manage a fleet of trucks? If the answer to that is yes, then we know that you are deliberately circumventing the focus of the thread you started.

If someone (me-thankyou very much) is paying LESS taxes as a result of the legislation, then yes, it is a tax cut.

No, it is not. It is only a tax shift- from you to someone else, or from one generation to another. It is not a tax cut unless it is accompanied by a cut in spending that creates or increases a deficit- unless we adopt the proposition that spending borrowed money means that borrowed money is interest free, and that it does not need to be re-paid.

But I appreciate that you now finally acknowledge that whatever the tax rate, it is established by Congress, not by the President.

ohio county wrote:No, Bush cut taxes. The Congress and Bush failed to cut spending. We've been paying "farmers" including the Lauder family of Estee Lauder fame, Ted Turner, and a host of folks in downtown Manhattan over $4 billion not to grow crops on their land. Certainly the war which should never have been prosecuted has contributed. There's plenty of waste in government. The tax cuts could have been much deeper.

So, did Congress and Clinton cut spending?

It is only unknowledgeable and/or desperate people who attempt to compare apples to cumquats.

Now tax cuts are tax cuts, ......... and decreased government spending is decreased government spending, ............ and doing one (1) without doing the other does not negate the meaning of the one (1).

Likewise, tax increases are tax increases .......... and increased government spending is increased government spending, ............ and doing one (1) without doing the other does not negate the meaning of the one (1).

In actuality, ..........

A tax cut is a DECREASE in taxpayer spending and/or a DECREASE in government revenue (income).

A tax increase is an INCREASE in taxpayer spending and/or an INCREASE in government revenue (income).

A "stimulus rebate payment" paid to taxpayers is an INCREASE in government spending.

.

ziggy wrote:Why are you ignoring the simple fact that Congress, not Bush, controls tax rates? If it's a "Bush tax cut", then it's also a "Bush spending and defecit increase".

YUP, and "yesterday" ............ it was "a Clinton Budget Surplus".



.

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:Why are you ignoring the simple fact that Congress, not Bush, controls tax rates? If it's a "Bush tax cut", then it's also a "Bush spending and defecit increase".

YUP, and "yesterday" ............ it was "a Clinton Budget Surplus".

Says who? Sam Cogar? Then it must be so.