American Politics during the Bush Presidency

DB, You're the one that's full of it. Read the thread. Go back to the original post that got Stowe on my case. The left wing, Democrat supported Citizens for Tax Justice published data showing the wealthy in 2007 paid a higher % of income taxes after the Bush tax cuts than they would have under the tax regime that was in effect under Clinton. You take a 39.6% marginal tax rate, in effect up to the year 2000, add to it state income tax, and you've got people paying close to half their marginal income in taxes. As Hunt says, they start doing what they can to avoid paying taxes. With a lower tax rate the government collected more income tax from the rich than it would have with higher tax rates, according to a bunch of lefties (Citizens for Tax Justice)

You and other Democrats want to tax the wealthy more, even if it means everyone ends up with less after tax income. That makes a lot of sense, huh?

I say Warren Buffet effectively pays 5% to 10% tax on dividends, and poor schmo's like me were paying 39.6% (before Bush tax cuts). Guess I should have deleted the words "like me", as that really wasn't necessary to make the point, and maybe you wouldn't have written an essay on how I'm a liar and a UNGRATEFUL fucking CRYBABY.

Only the 440 richest families are subject to the death tax? That's bull shit. Anybody with an estate worth over $2 million is subject to it. I've read that the costs associated with the estate tax are about as high as the revenue raised. I'm not sure I believe that's true, but either way it wouldn't make any difference to you -- I guess as long as we're soaking the rich you're all for it.

[QUOTE=Stowe]I guess it is you who just doesn't understand.

Al Qaeda WASN'T in Iraq until after the bushman took our Sadam. We could have just stayed in Afghanistan where we ALREADY had a 'battleground' and let the crazies come to us there. There was no reason to invade Iraq just so we could 'fight them there rather than here'. That would have been achieved by our presence in Afghanistan.

Do you get it now?

Suerte.

Stowe[/QUOTE]It seems that I have to explain everything to those who appear to be deliberately obtuse.

Afghanistan wasn't a sufficiently large enough prize to motivate Al Qaeda into committing "suicide by US military confrontation". Simply put, they didn't give a fuck if we succeeded in Afghanistan. Iraq however, was a different story in that they knew that if we were successful in establishing a secular democracy there that it would mark a major turning point in the ultimate demise of their radical philosophy.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Tiny12]Take a look at the table on this web page from a left wing, pro-Democrat group, the Citizens for Tax Justice. Look at the column labeled "Income tax":

[url]http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxshares.pdf[/url]

Note that the top 1% of taxpayers paid 39.1% of income taxes for 2007.[/QUOTE]My question for all the liberals posting here is simple:

What percentage of the total income taxes should be paid by the top 1% of all taxpayers?

Should the top 1% pay 50% of the total bill?

60%?

90%?

Go ahead, put a number on it so we all know what you think is fair.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Tiny12]Only the 440 richest families are subject to the death tax? That's bull shit.[/QUOTE]You don't read. I am not surprised.

I went to the trouble of doing the research for you, but it was too much trouble for you to click the link and educate yourself. So I will copy and paste the paragraph right here for you:

"And though the ad focuses on family farms and businesses, the truth is that very few actually pay the estate tax. The Tax Policy Center projects that roughly 440 taxable estates were primarily made up of farm and business assets in 2004."

BTW, I did not call you a liar. You can't find that word in my post. But I did have a hunch you were full of shit and called your bluff.

Hmmm, are you telling me my hunch was right?

[QUOTE=Tiny12]Guess I should have deleted the words "like me", as that really wasn't necessary to make the point, and maybe you wouldn't have written an essay on how I'm a liar and a UNGRATEFUL fucking CRYBABY.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Dodger Bulldog]You don't read. I am not surprised.

BTW, I did not call you a liar. You can't find that word in my post. But I did have a hunch you were full of shit and called your bluff.[/QUOTE]Here's what you wrote:

"the 440 richest families in America ... are the only ones with enough assets to be subject to the estate tax."

Please go back to your link, read the web page, and let me know whether what you wrote is true. Or even remotely close to what it says on that site.

[QUOTE=Jackson]My question for all the liberals posting here is simple:

What percentage of the total income taxes should be paid by the top 1% of all taxpayers?[/QUOTE]Jackson, that is way TOO easy!

Let me take you back to a period in time when unemployment went lower than economists predicted it ever could, below the 4% "full employment" line. McDonalds and other companies had to pay a couple dollars over minimum wage just to find workers.

But it didn't hurt their profits any. Business profits were at an all-time high, to the point that the Dow Jones average more than tripled from 93-01.

Some say Republicans are good for the economy and Wall Street, but today the market is quite a bit below where it was when the conservatives wrested away control and took office in 2001, isn't it?

How is everyone's 401k doing out there?

Oh, and it had seemed completely impossible at the time, but the Treasury went from record deficits under Daddy Bush (remember Ross Perot's charts in the '92 election) to surpluses for as far as the eye could see.

Until W. Destroyed the surplus and had us back in a deficit within three months in office.

Yes, Jackson, it is simple. Let's go back to the tax rates that brought us incredble prosperity in the 90's - the Clinton years!

If only we could go back in time to January '01 and start the millennium over agan, huh?

Too bad we can't.

But we can repeal EVERYTHING that Bush and the conservatives foisted on us to throw our economy under the bus, and QUIT pouring $10 billion a month into the spider hole he created for us in Iraq!

Now, I would like to ask you a question.

George H. W. Bush lost reelection because we remembered reading his lips and he did introduce a small tax increase for everyone.

But Clinton targeted his increase for only the upper income earners which brought us all of that prosperity, we have been cutting tax rates at both the federal and state level since Reaganomics took precedence in '80.

So when would you have us stop cutting taxes? I would like to see you pick a number.

Do you want the maximum rate to be 10%? 5%? 1%?

Or no taxes at all? 0.000000000%?

DB

[QUOTE=Tiny12]Here's what you wrote:

"the 440 richest families in America. Are the only ones with enough assets to be subject to the estate tax."

Please go back to your link, read the web page, and let me know whether what you wrote is true. Or even remotely close to what it says on that site.[/QUOTE]Well Tiny, that is because there were two links in my original post, and you clicked on the WRONG one.

For some reason you were not capable of clicking on both links.

I copied and pasted paragraph six from the second link.

That is what quote marks mean, Tiny. They tell you I did not write any of it, I quoted it.

Apparently, you are so lacking in intellectually curiousity and initiative that you didn't even go back to read my post to learn how you screwed up.

Just dash off a thoughtless post that contains no meaning.

Congratulations. You just demonstrated that you are the perfect symbol of exactly how deep and insightful conservative thought is!

This is a hopeless discussion. I have no more time to waste on one who refuses to read for comprehension.

DB

[QUOTE=Sidney]The Muslim Liar's bullshit oratory will convince the financial community that all is ok! He will lead us to the ''promised land''! But, sometimes I get confused? Are the markets down partly because of his possible election? But then, I remember Musliah's prophecy--

''He will bring Change''![/QUOTE]Give up your citizenship?

So much hatred. Post after post. What motivates all this?

[QUOTE=Punter 127]

Government involvement is the reason we're dependent on foreign oil,

[/QUOTE]See the world as it really is old man.

Q1 What is real reason the USA is dependent on foreign oil?

Answer because there are not enough reserves of oil within the borders of the USA.

Q2 Why did the USA invade Iraq.

Answer because there are not enough reserves of oil within the borders of the USA.

[QUOTE=Jackson]My question for all the liberals posting here is simple:

What percentage of the total income taxes should be paid by the top 1% of all taxpayers?

Should the top 1% pay 50% of the total bill?

60%?

90%?

Go ahead, put a number on it so we all know what you think is fair.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]Top 1% should pay 33.3%

Next 19% should pay 33.3%

Bottom 80% should pay 33.3%

Lower taxes are not the answer to everything.

It is hard to see the US lowering taxes in the years after this credit crisis.

At some point the party comes to an end and the US will repay its debts.

And as a foreigner it is obvious how you will do this.

US debt is in US dollars.

The US will simply depreciate the value of its currency and then repay its debts.

With the consequence of lower living standards for America's citizens.

With the consequence of 'burning' foreign creditors.

1. Punter those 19 Saudis and 1 guy from Trenton trained in Afghanistan with the blessing of the regime in power those Taliban fellas, so that regime change thingy we did was proportional to the attack that was planned, rehearsed and launched from their country. The war in Afghanistan is and was righteous, abandoning it to attack Iraq was folly.

1b. Pelosi sucks and I don't see the Dems doing SHIT with the house and senate (lower case not an accident, they don't deserve capitals in the capitol) I want to vote for Colin. Since he's not running I'm gonna give the other brother a chance.

1c. Fire engine red? So it matches your lipstick? Hahahahahahaha.

2. Sid if your serious about managing a fund like that send me an email about who you would pick as unfortunates. I would send you checks up to, I don't know, say 5% of my take home. I don't make much but this sounds like a great idea, would you match it with 5% of your income. I really think it's a great idea and I'm serious about helping out. If you get tax exempt status so I can write it off (that pesky 39% bracket thingy) On the other hand if it's just some bullshit way to piss people off and you'll spend the money on Dominicanas with big butts count me out.

3. Jax, sorry bubba but that guy Al Quada was already in Afghanistan, havng shwarma with Joe Jihadist. What you're saying is that we needed to get them out of the country they were in and where our troops already were, into another country in order to attack them? I never went to college and I'm not very smart but that doesn't make any sense brother. There was already a secular government in Iraq, the Baathist, Saddam didn't wear one of those robes and funny hats like the Reverend Mothers from the movie Dune. Those guys were some party animals, drinking, whoring, raping, gambling, smoking hash kinda guys. We got rid of the secular government in Iraq and most likely when we leave there will be a Islamic Government there. Shaira pretty much cuts out all the fun stuff.

3b. I just gotta ask it again, we couldn't attack them in the place they were but had to entice them to move to another place (along with our Army) in order to let them commit suicide by flinging themselves on our bayonets? Because Afghanistan wasn't a big enough prize because they were there already?

Who else. Stowe you fucking lost me with those number thingys.

It was great to see Paul Krugman win the Nobel.

[QUOTE=Dodger Bulldog]Jackson, that is way TOO easy!

Let me take you back to a period in time when unemployment went lower than economists predicted it ever could, below the 4% "full employment" line. McDonalds and other companies had to pay a couple dollars over minimum wage just to find workers.

But it didn't hurt their profits any. Business profits were at an all-time high, to the point that the Dow Jones average more than tripled from 93-01.

Some say Republicans are good for the economy and Wall Street, but today the market is quite a bit below where it was when the conservatives wrested away control and took office in 2001, isn't it?

How is everyone's 401k doing out there?

Oh, and it had seemed completely impossible at the time, but the Treasury went from record deficits under Daddy Bush (remember Ross Perot's charts in the '92 election) to surpluses for as far as the eye could see.

Until W. Destroyed the surplus and had us back in a deficit within three months in office.

Yes, Jackson, it is simple. Let's go back to the tax rates that brought us incredble prosperity in the 90's - the Clinton years!

If only we could go back in time to January '01 and start the millennium over agan, huh?

Too bad we can't.

But we can repeal EVERYTHING that Bush and the conservatives foisted on us to throw our economy under the bus, and QUIT pouring $10 billion a month into the spider hole he created for us in Iraq!

Now, I would like to ask you a question.

George H. W. Bush lost reelection because we remembered reading his lips and he did introduce a small tax increase for everyone.

But Clinton targeted his increase for only the upper income earners which brought us all of that prosperity, we have been cutting tax rates at both the federal and state level since Reaganomics took precedence in '80.

So when would you have us stop cutting taxes? I would like to see you pick a number.

Do you want the maximum rate to be 10%? 5%? 1%?

Or no taxes at all? 0.000000000%?

DB[/QUOTE]It figures, I've been asking liberals this question for years, and I've never received a straight answer.

The answer to the same question, which you failed to answer while simultaneously bouncing it back to me is: [b]We should all pay the same percentage![/b]

Right now, 51% of the voters (not 51% of the taxpayers) are telling the other 49% of the voters how much they have to pay.

"Democracy is not nine wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

Thanks,

Jackson.

BTW, Reagan's tax cuts are what made the US economy so strong during the Clinton terms, although Clinton had no compulsion against claiming the credit.

[QUOTE=Dodger Bulldog]Until W. Destroyed the surplus and had us back in a deficit within three months in office.[/QUOTE]We were attacked, remember?

We're in a war, remember?

Every war-time administration has run up huge deficits, remember?

Thanks,

Jackson