- Joined
- Jun 11, 2011
- Messages
- 31,089
- Reaction score
- 4,384
- Location
- The greatest city on Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Nonsense. Obama has increased the deficit more than every other President combined!
Require E-Verify; $5,000 per head fine from the employers, split between the federal government and the agency that makes the bust.
Require E-Verify; $5,000 per head fine from the employers, split between the federal government and the agency that makes the bust.
From the article ptif219 linked to (post #225):Fact: Half the country pays NO TAXES now.
j-mac
As Bruce Bartlett at The New York Times notes, those in the bottom quintile have incomes of less than $16,812.
...
Bruce Bartlett points out that between 2000 and 2008, during the presidency of George W. Bush, the percentage of filers who paid no federal income tax rose from 25.2 percent to 36.3 percent. During this time, Bartlett says, Republicans added a significant child credit to the tax code, resulting in a rise in nonpayers.
In fact, the number of filers paying no federal income tax has hovered between 40 and 50 percent for the past several years.
Does it matter who created it or who is screwing it up? The fact is when it was created it supposed to be temporary which as we see it is still here
From the [tif219;1059618880]article ptif219 linked to (post #225):
I point this out because it kinda flies in the face of the Conservative mantra..."keep more of what you earn". Of course, instilling the child tax credit only helped to reduce the gross income of low wage earners that much more, but here's the rub...
A tax subsidy is a tax subsidy. The question becomes does impossing such a subsidy help the overall economy? Does the child tax credit put more money in the pockets of low-income families and, thus, providing more disposable income and, thus, allowing them to spend and/or save more? You guys (Conservatives) have said so yourselves that all poor people will do with their money is spend it on "things". They can't invest; $16K/annual will buy you very little in today's economy. As such, should the government take away this tax credit for the working poor for the sake of non-investment or should it remain because it spurs 1-time consumer spending (around tax refund time)?
Really????? And with equal or nearly equal support from both parties??????
Lets look at the facts:
The 2001 Bush tax cuts had the following votes
House of Representative
Republicans YES 211 NO 0 (thats zero)
Democrats YES 28 NO 153
Senate
Republicans YES 46
Democrats YES 12
2003 Bush tax cut bill
House
Republicans YES 224 NO 1
Democrats YES 7 NO 198
Senate
Republicans YES 48 NO 3
Democrats YES 2 NO 46
Add those YES votes up. Republicans cast a total of 529 YES votes for the two Bush tax cut bills. Democrats cast 49 total votes for the same bills. More than ten Republicans cast YES votes for every one Democrat that cast a YES vote.
Given that this was a Republican President who came up with this idea and that over 91% of the YES votes came from Republicans, the idea floated that this was from both parties, is disingenuous in the extreme. And then for the same person to continually and constantly attack Democrats for making this situation possible, it is bordering on intellectual fraud.
I see, so the world started with George Bush?
j-mac
that seems to be true with so many dems.
they forget how the Wilson era government structured the income tax
how the LBJ war on poverty accentuated New Deal handouts
how the New Deal created all sorts of new powers for congress in degradation of the Tenth amendment
Not a bitch at all. In fact though you have just a little bit off on your actual history....Income tax probably more accurately goes back to Lincoln in the 1860's...
j-mac
I'm sorry, but if you expect Obama to carry the entire burden irrespective of Bush, then you can't point out who ****ed up much earlier in the game. Common logic must apply.
Republicans were way more Left back then, too.
I see this bit a lot so why do so many pay nothing for all those great things and others pay 100X or more of what they use?
Half of the country is, "poor"?
Aren't you some sort of teacher? Are you having problems with the structure of the sentence? R-E-C-I-P-I-E-N-T! Meaning ofcourse that they are getting money that I pay in, and they don't.
j-mac
No, we are concerned now because Obama is about to destroy this country with his spending.
j-mac
You have got to be kidding me!?! :shock:I would say Obama does want a shut down since he refuses to meet with the GOP
:roll:
That boat sailed long before Obama. :coffeepap
Yet somehow Obama's now captain of that same boat... :coffeepap
No, we are concerned now because Obama is about to destroy this country with his spending.
j-mac
Not true they show they are concerned about the out of control spending of Obama. To keep raising the ceiling and not cut spending is hurting our economy
In the past half-century, Congress has acted 78 times to raise, extend or revise the debt limit — the amount of money the government can borrow to repay bond holders. The red ink has risen 49 times under Republican presidents, 29 times under Democrats. It's gone up 10 times since 2001.
No, we are concerned now because Obama is about to destroy this country with his spending.
j-mac
Nonsense. Obama has increased the deficit more than every other President combined! Now, if you too 100% of earnings in this country you may not be able to cure it. So your post is just talking point silliness.
j-mac
False claim!
The War in Iraq, the War on Terror, TARP and the auto bailout were GWB (not to mention both tax cut packages where atleast one was a direct federal stimulus to consumers via paper check). The Stimulus, unemployment comp, Libya - Obama. I'm sure if you really did the math you'd find the GWB has added significantly to our national debt far and above Obama.
This has got to be among the most ridiculous statements I have read lately. TARP was paid back, Iraq, Afghanistan are a drop in the bucket compared to the $1.5 Trillion expenditures that this administration has laid out as far as the eye can see. Now either, you are purposely ignoring Obama's spending, or ignorant to such, but thanks for the laugh.
j-mac
The stimulus package is temporary spending, a third of which were tax cuts (which you guys say doesn't count). The rest of the deficit is almost entirely caused by reduction in revenues due to the recession and the 2001/2003 tax cuts. Why do you guys purposely ignore the temporary part of the temporary spending?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?