Are Bush tax cuts only for the rich???

ziggy wrote:

SamCogar wrote: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.

Well Zigster, maybe you had better tell Ohio that these people .....

ohio county wrote: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.

are also quite happy with the way Congress conducts its business.

.

ziggy wrote:
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.

So Zigster, does that mean that a "tax increase" is not a tax increase unless it is accompanied by an INCREASE in spending?

Mercy gawds Zig, if that is the case how in hell will they ever be able to "payoff" the government debt?

.

SamCogar wrote: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).

Like Aaron, you deliberately offer a false analogy. Increasing spending DOES negate the meaning of "cutting taxes"- which is just what Bush and Congress are doing- as evidenced by the steeply increasing national debt.

(SamCogar)- 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).

But again in the sutuation at hand increasing one- government spending- does negate the meaning of the other- "tax cuts".

(SamCogar)- A tax cut is a DECREASE in taxpayer spending...............

No, when accompanied by defecit spending, it is only a delay in spending by some taxpayers- and an increase for others.

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

But "cutting taxes" while increasng government spending is a double debt- passed on to some other taxpayers or some other generation of taxpayers.

(SamCogar)- A "stimulus rebate payment" paid to taxpayers is an INCREASE in government spending.

And when the government is already in a spending deficit mode, a "stimulus rebate payment" is an increase in that debt- which also means an increase in taxes and spending for future taxpayers.

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:
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.

So Zigster, does that mean that a "tax increase" is not a tax increase unless it is accompanied by an INCREASE in spending?

It depends on what that "increase in spending" is for. If the increase in spending is to pay down the defecit, then it is a tax decrease to future taxpayers.

(SamCogar)- Mercy gawds Zig, if that is the case how in hell will they ever be able to "payoff" the government debt?

"They" will be able to "pay off" the government debt by reversing the process that created that debt- by spending less on non-debt items, and/or increasing revenues- just as any American pays off his or her personal debts.

I put on my waders before I trudged into your tripe Ziggy...

His tripe?

You're tickled pink you're paying less in taxes while our government is creating an albatross of debt for your children and grandchildren. It's sickening.

Do you think China & Japan are just going to forgive our debt, like we sometimes forgive the debt of third world nations? Perhaps they will, when we're a third world nation. That day could be coming sooner than anyone thinks.

I don't disagree with any of that what you said. I don't disagree that our children are going to end up paying for our transgressions. I don't disagree with what he is saying.

What I disagree with is his characterization. First, according to MW, he's using a word that is not a word. Second, he's trying to convince us that cutting taxes is not a tax cut.

He's full of it and that is his tripe.

Understand now???

Ziggy, ......... your head hurts.

Try 10 or 15 Excedrins at one time.

Now if you can get hold of 2 or 3 hydrocodones, pop them, .......

you will still be in "La La Land".............

but your head won't hurt and you will be in a happy mood.

.

Stephanie wrote:His tripe?

You're tickled pink you're paying less in taxes while our government is creating an albatross of debt for your children and grandchildren. It's sickening.

But Stephanie, maybe Aaron's children and grandchildren will all "sign up" to be "trough feeders", ....... and if so, ....... they won't have to be paying off any debt.

I mean like "GEEEEEZE", when your son gets old enough to "get a job", he has one hell of a decision to make.

If he accepts a job offer, ....... goes to work, .......... then he is actually committing himself, ....... accepting liability, ....... to "paying off" his $75K+- share of the Federal Debt ......... plus his $35K+- share of State of WV Debt.

So "DUH", the first day on the job he is "in debt" ..... $110K+- and hasn't earned a dime. But when he does, and he gets paid, the government will start deducting his "liability payments" out of his paycheck.

Course now, he can decide to "join the ranks of the trough feeders", either forget about getting any kind of job or get a job as a Public Employee, ....... then he will not be liable for any part or share of said $110+- debt.

cheers

No, Aaron, I guess I don't get your meaning. I don't get you at all.

You say you think Bush is great because his tax cuts saved you a couple of grand. That would be all well and good if he cut spending but he didn't. In concert with the US Congress he increased spending in part by creating an NIGHTMARE entitlement program we can't afford and launching a needless preemptive strike against a country that posed no serious threat to America or her people. Now he wants to increase our aid to Israel by billions, while we fall trillions in debt to China.

Cutting taxes is only beneficial to Americans if spending is cut as well. Cutting taxes while increasing spending is a recipe for disaster. We are beginning to see the result of these actions sooner than most involved in creating this train wreck had probably thought we would.

I've never said anywhere, anytime that Bush is great. That doesn't change the fact that the tax cuts are beneficial to Americans. I am paying almost $3K less then I would be were it not for those tax cuts.

As the President said in his state of the union address, if you don't want your tax cut, you can mail a check to the IRS. Do you need me to find the address for you?

That would be irresponsible, foolish, and unjustified. I want spending drastically cut. Sending them the money now won't alleviate me of paying again when the shit really hits the fan.

We need real leadership. We need somebody with a spine to stand up and say we can't be all things to all people. America needs a president who will stop squandering America's wealth on aid to foreign nations that lines the pockets of dictators or is used to oppress other people.

We're not going to get it from the presumptive GOP nominee and we're sure as hell not going to get that from Clinton or Obama.

Stephanie wrote:That would be irresponsible, foolish, and unjustified. I want spending drastically cut. Sending them the money now won't alleviate me of paying again when the shit really hits the fan.

We need real leadership. We need somebody with a spine to stand up and say we can't be all things to all people. America needs a president who will stop squandering America's wealth on aid to foreign nations that lines the pockets of dictators or is used to oppress other people.

We're not going to get it from the presumptive GOP nominee and we're sure as hell not going to get that from Clinton or Obama.

I agree. I had that very conversation with some teenagers last night. We are leaderless and no one with the capabilities to lead is willing to run for public office. It's sad.

Well I guess if anyone is rich enough to benefit from Bush's so-called tax cut for the rich, then they won't qualify for the "stimulus" check.

(I think I am right about that. As I understand it, if an individual makes over 75K they dont get the stimulus check. And I doubt if anyone making under that amount benefitted from Bush's afore-mentioned budget buster.)

No Sherman, you are not right. Go to the first page and read the chart and it will show you where you are wrong.

As I understand Hillary's proposal, it provides for additional tax cuts for those under 200K and re-instates the old rates for the upper end.

I could not get your link to work.

The link worked fine for me.

And if Hillary is providing additional tax cuts for those under 200K, it's a new plan that she's flip flopped on.

Maybe she came up with it while she was landing under sniper fire!!!

Well whatever it takes, Aaron.

Anyhow it seems to be working.

She is back ahead in the National Gallup poll for the first time in a long time.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106606/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-46-Obama-45.aspx

But they told them they would be landing with snipers so being under sniper fire does not mean they are whizzing all around.

The so-called media is obviously all for Obama till after the primaries are over.

I have never been a big Clinton fan but if she wins I will really enjoy listening to the republicans whine for the next 8 years...

I agree. I had that very conversation with some teenagers last night. We are leaderless and no one with the capabilities to lead is willing to run for public office. It's sad.

Now we disagree. There is at least one candidate for President with the knowledge, experience, and courage we need to lead America out of this quagmire. The Rhino's and neocons currently controlling the party continue to work in concert with the mainstream media to marginalize him. I'm sure they're all surprised at popular his message is and how successful he continues to be.

shermangeneral wrote:Well whatever it takes, Aaron.

Anyhow it seems to be working.

She is back ahead in the National Gallup poll for the first time in a long time.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106606/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-46-Obama-45.aspx

But they told them they would be landing with snipers so being under sniper fire does not mean they are whizzing all around.

The so-called media is obviously all for Obama till after the primaries are over.

I have never been a big Clinton fan but if she wins I will really enjoy listening to the republicans whine for the next 8 years...

What, Sherm? Don't Snuffleupagus, Gibson & Co. over at ABC count as "so-called media" any more?

LOL

Correction Sherm. IF she wins (she won't but on the off chance she does) Republicans will whine for 4 years, not 8.

Stephanie wrote:

I agree. I had that very conversation with some teenagers last night. We are leaderless and no one with the capabilities to lead is willing to run for public office. It's sad.

Now we disagree. There is at least one candidate for President with the knowledge, experience, and courage we need to lead America out of this quagmire. The Rhino's and neocons currently controlling the party continue to work in concert with the mainstream media to marginalize him. I'm sure they're all surprised at popular his message is and how successful he continues to be.

I didn't know you were a McCain fan.

Hmmm. Well, that's cool. After all he is the very best of those in the running by a LOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGG shot.

You know, when I've had a couple of cocktails, you're almost funny.

Drink 3 or 4 more and I become hilarous.

Drink 5 or 6 and then you become a Democrat, or U.S. trade policy makes sense, or both.