Senate Votes to Side With the Middle Class, Gauntlet Thrown Down to House Repubs.

[8537]

That's how we got the longest post-war period between peaks in real revenues. An "explosion" in tax revenues.

The problem is, you're lying.

Hey, it's what democrats do.

You should take it up with the Office of Management and Budget. It's their figures.

Keep being an idiot.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh sure, Republicans can keep the best interests of the 1% as their primary concern, that's fine. But we on the Left are just trying to get them (and their clueless electorate) to own it, that's all. Just own the fact that you've sold out EVERYONE else for people who have more money than God and could literally pay off our national debt and keep the government running completely tax free for six months. But sure, they need four more cents per dollar. Okay!

Lie much?

Oh, yeah I guess you do....

The income of the top 1% of Americans doesn't reach $1.5 trillion, stupid. Even if you took 100% of what they earn, it wouldn't cover what Obama spends, stupid.

 

[BlindBoo]

For the record you do know that everyone in the upper tax bracket will still be getting the tax break in the 15%, 25% and 28% brackets (everything below $200,000 for individuals). And extending the cuts for the lower brackets will increase the debt 800 billion dollars over the next 10 years.

No one is getting a tax break, as you well know. Those above $150 individually, or $250 joint, will see a tax INCREASE as the BUSH tax cuts are descender. The rest will see taxes remain at what BUSH lowered them to.

Everyone who pays has been recieving tax breaks since 2001. Everyone will still recieve the Bush tax cuts in the below 200 (or 250 for families) income range if this bill passes the house (not likely), including those making over that amount. That is they will pay the reduce rate on the first 200,000 dollars and pay the regular tax on amounts above that threshold.

 

[Uncensored2008]

When all else fails, play a game of semantics! You're doing well.

He asked for a yes or no answer, and got it.

The fact is that not everyone will see a reduction in taxes. No one will. But some will see taxes increased.

The truth of this is that the revenue is irrelevant. I don't feel like looking it up, but I read that the increase will fund the government for something like 43 minutes. This is purely about class warfare, it's about Obama creating a scapegoat in hopes of distracting the people from what a miserable failure he is.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Oh sure, Republicans can keep the best interests of the 1% as their primary concern, that's fine. But we on the Left are just trying to get them (and their clueless electorate) to own it, that's all. Just own the fact that you've sold out EVERYONE else for people who have more money than God and could literally pay off our national debt and keep the government running completely tax free for six months. But sure, they need four more cents per dollar. Okay!

Lie much?

Oh, yeah I guess you do....

The income of the top 1% of Americans doesn't reach $1.5 trillion, stupid. Even if you took 100% of what they earn, it wouldn't cover what Obama spends, stupid.

Who said anything about income, dummy? I'm talking their entire worth. Because as Mitt has proven, it's entirely possible to have shitloads of money and not get taxed on all of it.

So now that you know what the adults were talking about, please go fuck yourself. Mkthx.

 

[DontBeStupid]

That's how we got the longest post-war period between peaks in real revenues. An "explosion" in tax revenues.

The problem is, you're lying.

Hey, it's what democrats do.

8537 isn't lying.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

 

[Uncensored2008]

You should take it up with the Office of Management and Budget. It's their figures.

Uh no, it's not. The OMB figures don't say what you claim, in fact quite the opposite.

Keep being an idiot.

Keep on being a partisan shill.

 

[8537]

When all else fails, play a game of semantics! You're doing well.

He asked for a yes or no answer, and got it.

Except you didn't understand the question, of course.

But you're a rightwing nut, so of course you can never admit you were wrong.

 

[8537]

You should take it up with the Office of Management and Budget. It's their figures.

Uh no, it's not. The OMB figures don't say what you claim, in fact quite the opposite.

That's precious. Would you like me to cut and paste them a bit later, or would you like to just admit you're wrong?

Oh, nevermind - Don'tbestupid provided the information above. So hey, quit being stupid.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Oh sure, Republicans can keep the best interests of the 1% as their primary concern, that's fine. But we on the Left are just trying to get them (and their clueless electorate) to own it, that's all. Just own the fact that you've sold out EVERYONE else for people who have more money than God and could literally pay off our national debt and keep the government running completely tax free for six months. But sure, they need four more cents per dollar. Okay!

Lie much?

Oh, yeah I guess you do....

The income of the top 1% of Americans doesn't reach $1.5 trillion, stupid. Even if you took 100% of what they earn, it wouldn't cover what Obama spends, stupid.

Who said anything about income, dummy? I'm talking their entire worth. Because as Mitt has proven, it's entirely possible to have shitloads of money and not get taxed on all of it.

So now that you know what the adults were talking about, please go fuck yourself. Mkthx.

Well, technically, when Romney dies and his heirs get his wealth, his heirs would pay some tax on it. Which is why the GOP is against estate taxes.

 

[RDD_1210]

When all else fails, play a game of semantics! You're doing well.

He asked for a yes or no answer, and got it.

The fact is that not everyone will see a reduction in taxes. No one will. But some will see taxes increased.

The truth of this is that the revenue is irrelevant. I don't feel like looking it up, but I read that the increase will fund the government for something like 43 minutes. This is purely about class warfare, it's about Obama creating a scapegoat in hopes of distracting the people from what a miserable failure he is.

The truth is you changed what he asked to fit your agenda. And you know it. But you haven't amounted to much in your life, so why should we expect anything of you here?

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Lie much?

Oh, yeah I guess you do....

The income of the top 1% of Americans doesn't reach $1.5 trillion, stupid. Even if you took 100% of what they earn, it wouldn't cover what Obama spends, stupid.

Who said anything about income, dummy? I'm talking their entire worth. Because as Mitt has proven, it's entirely possible to have shitloads of money and not get taxed on all of it.

So now that you know what the adults were talking about, please go fuck yourself. Mkthx.

Well, technically, when Romney dies and his heirs get his wealth, his heirs would pay some tax on it. Which is why the GOP is against estate taxes.

LOL.

Of course, they'd pay taxes on the percentage of wealth they get in non-blind trust, non-hidden foreign bank accounts.

 

[eflatminor]

100% false.

The first round of cuts happened in 2001, retroactive to the beginning of that year.

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It would appear that your buddy Conserva would disagree with the magnitude of the 2001 cuts. In post #83 he states: "In 2001 he lowered the top marginal rate one percentage point. Are you trying to really claim that lowering it 1% caused a boom in revenue?"

You see, even he acknowledges that the 2001 cuts were paltry. It wasn't until the more significant 2003 were enacted that any positive effect was realized...and revenues increased.

You're pathetic grasping of straws here is revealing. My guess is you'd NEVER admit you're wrong.

If I'm wrong, I admit it. You on the other hand ....

Conserva is clearly talking about just the top tax rate, which we all know wasn't the ONLY rate cut. There were others.

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seriously. I'm begging you. Read up on this topic.

Bullshit. You don't admit anything. It's that mysterious deflation in 2001 and 2002 that caused revenue to fall and magically, inflation in 2003 and beyond that caused a rise in revenues. That's what you claimed and it's bullshit. Yet, you're just sure if we raise tax rates now, more revenue will come. Again, more bullshit.

The 2003 cuts were more dramatic than in 2001. When combined, we saw less taxes, more revenue. You can't bullshit your way out of that.

 

[DontBeStupid]

It would appear that your buddy Conserva would disagree with the magnitude of the 2001 cuts. In post #83 he states: "In 2001 he lowered the top marginal rate one percentage point. Are you trying to really claim that lowering it 1% caused a boom in revenue?"

You see, even he acknowledges that the 2001 cuts were paltry. It wasn't until the more significant 2003 were enacted that any positive effect was realized...and revenues increased.

You're pathetic grasping of straws here is revealing. My guess is you'd NEVER admit you're wrong.

If I'm wrong, I admit it. You on the other hand ....

Conserva is clearly talking about just the top tax rate, which we all know wasn't the ONLY rate cut. There were others.

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seriously. I'm begging you. Read up on this topic.

Bullshit. You don't admit anything. It's that mysterious deflation in 2001 and 2002 that caused revenue to fall and magically, inflation in 2003 and beyond that caused a rise in revenues. That's what you claimed and it's bullshit. Yet, you're just sure if we raise tax rates now, more revenue will come. Again, more bullshit.

The 2003 cuts were more dramatic than in 2001. When combined, we saw less taxes, more revenue. You can't bullshit your way out of that.

I don't have to bull shit my way out of it. I've clearly explained why you're wrong and why revenue would increase with a rise in tax rates. You choosing to ignore facts is not my problem.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The truth is you changed what he asked to fit your agenda. And you know it. But you haven't amounted to much in your life, so why should we expect anything of you here?

Nope, he asked for a yes or no answer, and got it.

So say you get your tax increase on middle class earners, because no one can honestly say a couple making $250K is anything more than middle class. So you get this increase on the middle class, how much will that alter the finances of the nation? How long will if fund the federal government?

43 minutes, right?

Then can you deny that this is nothing more than class warfare? That this is about Obama creating a show of attacking "the rich" and that it has nothing to due with the actual revenue stream?

 

[SniperFire]

When all else fails, play a game of semantics! You're doing well.

He asked for a yes or no answer, and got it.

The fact is that not everyone will see a reduction in taxes. No one will. But some will see taxes increased.

The truth of this is that the revenue is irrelevant. I don't feel like looking it up, but I read that the increase will fund the government for something like 43 minutes. This is purely about class warfare, it's about Obama creating a scapegoat in hopes of distracting the people from what a miserable failure he is.

He will still get his 44% of the vote, however.

 

[ConzHateUSA]

You mean the Bush tax cuts weren't only for the rich? Isn't that what we've been told for years now? How Bush was giving the rich some huge break?

Turns out everyone received them. Now its time ot preserve them for the middle class but make sure the rich get soaked.

You LOLberals cant even keep a fucking story straight.

Color. Me. Shocked.

soak the rich?

dear god, please tell me you are not smart enough to operate a computer and dumb enough to have said that, please tell me your 4 yr old grandson was using your computer while you were taking a shit and he wrote that?

 

[SniperFire]

You mean the Bush tax cuts weren't only for the rich? Isn't that what we've been told for years now? How Bush was giving the rich some huge break?

Turns out everyone received them. Now its time ot preserve them for the middle class but make sure the rich get soaked.

You LOLberals cant even keep a fucking story straight.

Color. Me. Shocked.

soak the rich?

dear god, please tell me you are not smart enough to operate a computer and dumb enough to have said that, please tell me your 4 yr old grandson was using your computer while you were taking a shit and he wrote that?

Who told you that you deserved the other guy's stuff, derp?

 

[Stephanie]

Just remember folks, the Democrats in the Senate voted to RAISE TAXES in this economy and with 8.2% unemployment..

vote in November

 

[SniperFire]

Just remember folks, the Democrats in the Senate voted to RAISE TAXES in this economy and with 8.2% unemployment..

vote in November

Any fucking idiot knows you shouldn't do that!