Bush Tax Cuts only helped "The Rich"... another lefty lie exposed!

Did you even bother reading the link? Or did you just jump into the normal Class Warfare talking points, as if nothing new was offered?

The article entitled "$860 bil tax-cut deal: cost breakdown"? Yeah, I also looked at the other 300 some odd billion in cuts Business tax break 69 billion: 11 billion in energy credits and 21 billion to write off 100% of costs for 2011. Estate tax cut 68 billion: raising the taxable limit from 1 million to 5 million, and reducing it by 20%, only helps out millionaires =138 billion for the rich Social Security break 112 billion: will make the middle class happy. =112 billion for everyone Unemployment benefits 56 billion: extend benefits for people who lost their jobs. Individual tax credit 8 billion: aimed at the lower and middle class. =64 billion for the poor and unemployed. about half the tax breaks are going to apply either in large or exclusively to the rich or big business. What's funny is the last time I think saw the government make a move concerning almost 800 billion tax dollars it went to big banks, who then distributed large amounts of that money to executives as bonuses for a scam well done. I not only read the article I did some research. Roughly 3% of households make over 250k and 81 billion is roughly 15% of the $544 billion Bush tax cut. So yes, roughly 15% of what isn't getting paid by the Bush tax cut benefits the top 2-3%

Kenzie, they think that because the think everything (including our own lives) belongs to the government, and it's up to them to decide what we should be able to keep.

How about we quit hating people based on their income?

Sorry, but $250,000 IS considered upper middle class. I don't make the rules or define the terms. The fact is, Obama promised that he we lower taxes for everyone making less than $250,000, that's his number, not mine. The left has always tried to say that the Bush Tax Cuts only helped "the rich", but as you can see from the link, it helped the middle class a lot more than it helped the rich. Sorry that bothers you.

I don't hate people who make a lot of money...I hate people who don't appreciate what they have. And anyone who considers themselves "low income" when they can afford a huge house, multiple cars, endless gadgets, and still be able to pay flat out for all of their kids college educations...and contribute over 50,000 a year to an investment portfolio really doesn't understand how well off they are. I know a lot of people who are rich (and they know they are, even though they make less than 250,000 per year!) who are wonderful, kind, hardworking people. They appreciate that they have stable jobs with great salaries and benefits. They don't whine about how hard it is to make mortgage payments on their mansion, and their summer house, and that little property they picked up last year as a real estate investment, etc, etc. I know you hate people who whine for handouts from your other discussions...when someone who makes a ton of money thinks of themselves as "low income" and expects greater tax cuts or other things from the government, that seems a lot like whining for handouts in my book. Whenever I catch myself thinking that it's "not fair" that I don't make more money, I remind myself that I must have plenty, since we're all fed and clothed, with enough left over to indulge in luxuries like ordering pizza once in awhile instead of eating the cheapest possible groceries all the time. Here's an interesting thought exercise: if it was your personal money that you were paying out, can you think of any job you'd be willing to pay someone 250,000 a year to do? I can think of a few, but they're the jobs that don't get that kind of money! Good firefighters, police officers, and paramedics deserve that kind of money, soldiers deserve that for being willing to risk their live to defend us, and truly good teachers have a value that isn't really measurable (too bad there's so many bad ones mixed in with the good ones) but people who sit behind desks answering phone calls? No sir. It probably does sound like I hate rich people, but honestly, I've racked my brain over and over, and I just can't come up with that many jobs that I would be willing to pay someone that much money to perform. I was raised to be extremely frugal, so I see a lot of waste where other people see "normal" spending. (like cable, for example.) And I do practice what I preach: where I live, lifeguards with little to no experience teaching swimming lessons charge $50+ an hour for backyard swimming lessons. I have over 8 years experience teaching swimming, plus years of tutoring, coaching, and babysitting under my belt, including children with special needs. I get more requests than any other instructors at my full-time job, and could easily charge $50 or more per hour. Instead, I charge $30-35, because that's all I need to charge. When you factor in travel time (either on my rollerblades or public transit, because I don't have a car) I'm making just over minimum wage. I hope that if I ever did land a job making tons of money, that I would stick to my principles and use that extra money for good causes rather than being seduced by gadgets and entertainment.

Cross, that is partially true, Clinton "balanced" the budget mostly through "off budget" spending and unfunded mandates to the states. It must be nice to claim a "balanced budget" simply by picking and choosing what spending should and shouldn't count... as well as making others pay for things they never chose to do.

Sierras236, I hope you're not suggesting that Bush got us into the Iraq War because Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 or we were threatened by WMD, which did not exist. According to the record, the intelligence about WMD was largely faked and the American people were misled about it. Your economic arguments are theoretical and not based on empirical evidence. I do believe that tax reductions can increase investment and economic activity if matched by spending cuts. However, the fact remains that with the Bush tax cuts his administration produced only 3 million jobs over 8 years. Going back a decade earlier, Clinton raised the top marginal rate to 38.6%, and during his term the bond and stock markets rallied, 23 million new jobs were created, and the federal budget was in balance by the end of his term. That was because Clinton got America's fiscal house in order. Bush on the other hand borrwed 4 trillion to finance his tax cuts as well as 2 unfunded wars. In any event, since you're an incorrigible Bushite, I don't believe you will accept any facts inconsistent with your beliefs.

Lawdude you cannot win on here. They will just say just say the reason the economy was booming under Clinton was because of the internet. Which is partly true. Then they will just say Clinton did not balance nothing, it was all the Republicans in congress that did it. It is funny everyone thinks the Republicans are so fiscally responsible. The last Republican President to balance the budget was Eisenhower in 1956-1957. Well I guess we can use their logic that they use on here, and say that was a Democratic congress and that is why the budget was balanced then.

Lawdude, how many times did the Republicans try to get the Congressional leaders of Freddie and Fannie, only to have the LIE about how strong the two organizations were? But you are right in that both parties are to blame for the housing bubble.

Fatcat44, you should check your facts. Bush had a Republican Senate and House through the end of 2006 and a Democratic Congress the last 2 years - not 4 years - of his administration. The housing bubble and investment banking industry began to implode in 2007 and crashed in 2008 under Bush. Bush had Congress pass TARP in 2008 to borrow 700 billion to bail out the banking industry. I'm not an Obama fan and did not vote for him. But when he came to office, we faced an economic meltdown characterized by a credit crunch and deflation that could have resulted in a great depression if the major steps were not taken to stabilize the economy. Much of the debt that accrued resulted from the drop in economic activity caused by the failed economic policies of Bush. Of course, Obama exacerbated our debt problem by borrowing to stimulate the economy - which so far has been ineffective.

Very good points in this discussion. 1. Until1965, the top tax level was, as someone wrote and I can't remember the exact number, but it was like 95%. Imagine, you can only make x amount of money and after that you will have to pay all of it, or at least 95% to the government. Talk about a rip off, a discouraging tax and job curbing tool. A company or individual after a certain amount of income would not have any incentive, and actually be dis9ncentive to try to grow, hire working and make over a certain amount of money because all of the income would go to the government. And how everyone forgets that it was a democrat, a lefty. Pres. Kennedy, that was one of under his leadership the tax rate was lowered. Or how no one understand that any taxes corporation pay are just passed on to the consumer through higher prices on their products. So corporation do not pay taxes, the consumer does. Also, how approximately 49% of Americans do not pay any taxes at all, and many actually get tax rebate checks. The tax burden is not their's. But that at the same time 1$ of the people pay about 25% of the taxes. Where is the tax loop holes really at. Also, must the rich have their money tied up in stocks and bonds. They basically own the companies and corporations that employ the rest of the people. So a tax on them is a tax on the corporations, which in return id passed on to the consumer in high priced commodities. The best way around this is to limit spending. Spending has gotten out of hand real bad. Everyone accuses George Bush for the debt he accumulated. Everyone forgets, that when this debt occured during the last 4 years of his administration he had a total democrat controlled congress. A congress who is in control of every dollars spent, or should I say over spent. This same democrat congress during the last 3 years have not been able to even create a budget, non the less balance one. Spend, spend, spend was the theme from our democrat controlled congress. The only solution we have, since we are out of money, and it is time to pay the fiddler, is to cut spending. Any tax increases will kill any recovery. We have to money wise and prudent. This is the only way. We need leaders that will cut spending and help us recover. Or we will be like Greece and the other socialistic, lefty countries that has had socialism fail on them. When the poeple over there get hungry enough, the will start working and take care of themselves, but many will go hungry for while until they learn.

So if I was to call for taxes on Gay people, you wouldn't consider that homophobic, or "picking on" them, right? I don't buy the whole, "I'm willing to pay more in taxes" thing I hear from the more affluent lefties. No one is telling them they can't pay more now. They are free to pay whatever they choose... but if you notice, they don't.

Nope, I'm not letting you get away with this. The left has constantly said that the Bush tax cuts were only for the wealthiest Americans. Prs. Obama is the one that decided $250,000 was the cut off point. This is not spin, and it isn't some kind of revisionism. It's facts, laid out, plain and simple. Even Obama said that he wanted to keep the parts that benefit the middle class, which means there are parts that benefit the middle class. Unless you are saying Obama lied through his teeth. The fact is, class warfare is nothing but bigotry. The only difference is the target of the bigotry hasn't been granted "victim" status by the left, so there is no reason for the left to have any respect for them. Don't blather on about justice when all you want is to see other fall.

Here is another thing about the misconception that people hate the rich. Of course you are going to to have people out there who are jealous of the rich. I personally love Bill Gates. I would hate to see what the American Economy and the worlds economy would look like with out the internet right now. I think Bill Gates deserves every penny he has made so far. I just don't don't see Bill Gates jumping up and down throwing a tantrum, going, "stop picking on me because I am one of the richest people in the world." Just because his taxes were raised from 35 percent to 39.

Yeah, I caught that too, but I was making a different point, so I left it alone. Glad you brought it up though! Money we get to keep isn't "costing" the government anything!

To many people vote for candidates for the same reason too many politicians vote for spending... They vote for the highest bidder.