The big republican tax lie - Page 4

Miguel Cervantes · #**151** 07-15-2012, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waddler

And the likes of you are not qualified to render that decision!

You know, it was getting boring in hear with the other two milledgeville escapees. Thank God cheap entertainment is easy to come by, and that you followed the bait back in here..

waddler · #**152** 07-15-2012, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miguel Cervantes

You know, it was getting boring in hear with the other two milledgeville escapees. Thank God cheap entertainment is easy to come by, and that you followed the bait back in here..

You are welccome.

tommyhawk · #**153** 07-15-2012, 12:19 PM

The bottom line here is that MSNBC in general and Ed Shultz in particular have acomplished exactly what they intended. That is further separation/division and hostility between us as Americans.

waddler · #**154** 07-15-2012, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommyhawk

The bottom line here is that MSNBC in general and Ed Shultz in particular have acomplished exactly what they intended. That is further separation/division and hostility between us as Americans.

You may be right, but can't you say the same thing about all the rest including Fox and especially Rush?

tommyhawk · #**155** 07-15-2012, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waddler

You may be right, but can't you say the same thing about all the rest including Fox and especially Rush?

I can agree with some on FOX. I don't listen to Rush. The fact is undeniable that the press influences and sometimes controls the atmosphere, political and otherwise, in the world today. And, that is evidenced right here in this forum. They can say and/or do anything they want without repercussions. They can construe anything any way they want.

You hear reporters talk about how viscious the presidential campaign is. Who makes it that way?

Who actually owns the news outlets? What are their goals?

VTRman · #**156** 07-15-2012, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommyhawk

I can agree with some on FOX. I don't listen to Rush. The fact is undeniable that the press influences and sometimes controls the atmosphere, political and otherwise, in the world today. And, that is evidenced right here in this forum. They can say and/or do anything they want without repercussions. They can construe anything any way they want.

You hear reporters talk about how viscious the presidential campaign is. Who makes it that way?

Who actually owns the news outlets? What are their goals?

Why to provide We The Sheeple with the unvarnished truth, of course.

tommyhawk · #**157** 07-15-2012, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VTRman

Why to provide We The Sheeple with the unvarnished truth, of course.

Of course. The truth as they want us to know it.

waddler · #**158** 07-15-2012, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommyhawk

I can agree with some on FOX. I don't listen to Rush. The fact is undeniable that the press influences and sometimes controls the atmosphere, political and otherwise, in the world today. And, that is evidenced right here in this forum. They can say and/or do anything they want without repercussions. They can construe anything any way they want.

You hear reporters talk about how viscious the presidential campaign is. Who makes it that way?

Who actually owns the news outlets? What are their goals?

They are only influential if you let them, by not developing opinions from several sources and keeping an open mind. Every outlet has its own agenda, and that has been the history of politics in this country. Newspapers used to endorse candidates outright, this was far more honest than claiming to represent the "truth" and proceeding to trash one side or the other. It used to be only during the campaigns, but now it is a constant hammer for Ideology rather than nominee. Now the media goes for constituency and have divided up the Public for advertisements.

It is wrong, but we let it happen. People are especially susceptible to hate, greed and blame. If you can find a constituency that hates, blames and sees profit in the demise of another constituency, you can throw in with them and sell ads because you have a pretty much captive audience to offer.

Money, that is where it starts and stops, and the unfettered quest for money has no morals or integrity.

VTRman · #**159** 07-15-2012, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waddler

They are only influential if you let them, by not developing opinions from several sources and keeping an open mind. Every outlet has its own agenda, and that has been the history of politics in this country. Newspapers used to endorse candidates outright, this was far more honest than claiming to represent the "truth" and proceeding to trash one side or the other. It used to be only during the campaigns, but now it is a constant hammer for Ideology rather than nominee. Now the media goes for constituency and have divided up the Public for advertisements.

It is wrong, but we let it happen. People are especially susceptible to hate, greed and blame. If you can find a constituency that hates, blames and sees profit in the demise of another constituency, you can throw in with them and sell ads because you have a pretty much captive audience to offer.

Money, that is where it starts and stops, and the unfettered quest for money has no morals or integrity.

It is about much more than "money".

booboy · #**160** 07-15-2012, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbradley

Well, can't say you didn't warn me.

Source?

I have done some looking around, and perhaps I was off base. The top 1% apparently received ONLY 38% of the benefits. The top 10% took 55%. So, yeah, I think it equitable in tough economic times to ask those who received the most benefit to help out a little more than those at the bottom.

http://www.epi.org/publication/tenth...-era_tax_cuts/

Patriot44 · #**161** 07-15-2012, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by booboy

I have done some looking around, and perhaps I was off base. The top 1% apparently received ONLY 38% of the benefits. The top 10% took 55%. So, yeah, I think it equitable in tough economic times to ask those who received the most benefit to help out a little more than those at the bottom.

http://www.epi.org/publication/tenth...-era_tax_cuts/

I think waddlers politics are horiffic, but I'm quite sure I could sit in a duck blind and wax some green heads with him and have a good time. I don't think I could have breakfast with you without throwing my silverware at you.

**grim** · #**162** 07-15-2012, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by booboy

Here you go. And before you whine about the source, the tax cuts are listed for you. If you don't trust Politifact, they have made it easy for you to look up each and every one.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...x-cuts-last-y/

I had wondereed how long it would take you two to actually identify the tax cuts obama is so proud of.

Most are refundable credits, all are temporary and most didnt impact the middle class. All were part of the stimulus package.

From the article you lnked to:

Quote:

Which leads us to the question of whether all of these 25 qualify as tax cuts?

"In a way this reminds me of Clinton's 'It depends on what your meaning of is is' comments," said Rosanne Altshuler, director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. "It depends on what you mean by tax cuts."

These cuts were heavily weighted toward the welfare slant and very few benefited the average working tax payer. Most would have had no impact on the graph from the OP.

I have been waiting for 4 days to see how long it would take you guys to even find out what the cuts were since they are buried in various places and like jimbo said, required action beyond just working and paying less. If this type of cut was given to the "rich", you would have labeled them loopholes, or subsidies.

But back to the op, this does not make schultz' interpretation of the graph correct.

Cthulhu · #**163** 07-15-2012, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommyhawk

The bottom line here is that MSNBC in general and Ed Shultz in particular have acomplished exactly what they intended. That is further separation/division and hostility between us as Americans.

Maybe! But has anyone bothered to challenge him with his pursuit of the truth with something they can truly debunk of what Shultz has presented as the truth, according to his information? Haven't seen one yet. People throw insults at it and nothing else. Still haven't seen any one with another tax chart besides what he presented the other day from CBO, that dismisses the claim of taxes going down. We have a lot of big shots on here with nothing but hot air. It's beginning to get boring. They can't even throw me a bone except for their own out of the sky opinions of what their masters on Fox news have told them. Then they paste the info on here as the gospel, which ends up being, no information.

**jimbo4116** · #**164** 07-15-2012, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grim

I had wondereed how long it would take you two to actually identify the tax cuts obama is so proud of.

Most are refundable credits, all are temporary and most didnt impact the middle class. All were part of the stimulus package.

From the article you lnked to:

These cuts were heavily weighted toward the welfare slant and very few benefited the average working tax payer. Most would have had no impact on the graph from the OP.

I have been waiting for 4 days to see how long it would take you guys to even find out what the cuts were since they are buried in various places and like jimbo said, required action beyond just working and paying less. If this type of cut was given to the "rich", you would have labeled them loopholes, or subsidies.

But back to the op, this does not make schultz' interpretation of the graph correct.

I can assure you this will be ignored. Why? Because it is the simple truth.

Other than the entertainment value of seeing the non responsive responses nothing is accomplished by pointing out the truth to those who do not want to see.

I am still waiting for a reason it is fair for me to subsidize some one else's power bill savings.

tommyhawk · #**165** 07-15-2012, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

Maybe! But has anyone bothered to challenge him with his pursuit of the truth with something they can truly debunk of what Shultz has presented as the truth, according to his information? Haven't seen one yet. People throw insults at it and nothing else. Still haven't seen any one with another tax chart besides what he presented the other day from CBO, that dismisses the claim of taxes going down. We have a lot of big shots on here with nothing but hot air. It's beginning to get boring. They can't even throw me a bone except for their own out of the sky opinions of what their masters on Fox news have told them. Then they paste the info on here as the gospel, which ends up being, no information.

Truth??? You have to be kidding. These people wouldn't report the truth if it walked up and kissed them. Look what they did multiple times to video and audiotapes. They affect every facet of our lives with their spewing of "their truth." These people have about as much credibility as Eric Holder. Fox is pretty much the same except they haven't gotten caught.

As far as statistics from gov't agencies-who owns them? They have, I'm sure, statistics to support any story they have and/or tell. Just look what you did with their statistics. If you can do this with them, imagine what they do with them.

waddler · #**166** 07-16-2012, 08:50 AM

There is only one statistic that is important for your future. The relationship between the Upper, Middle and Lower Classes. All the rest are subject to manipulation and misrepresentation. From BOTH sides of the Aisle.

As the Middle Class goes, so goes the lives of you and your children.

booboy · #**167** 07-16-2012, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grim

I had wondereed how long it would take you two to actually identify the tax cuts obama is so proud of.

Most are refundable credits, all are temporary and most didnt impact the middle class. All were part of the stimulus package.

From the article you lnked to:

These cuts were heavily weighted toward the welfare slant and very few benefited the average working tax payer. Most would have had no impact on the graph from the OP.

I have been waiting for 4 days to see how long it would take you guys to even find out what the cuts were since they are buried in various places and like jimbo said, required action beyond just working and paying less. If this type of cut was given to the "rich", you would have labeled them loopholes, or subsidies.

But back to the op, this does not make schultz' interpretation of the graph correct.

You must not be looking at the same list of cuts as I am. Many of the ones I see directly impact the middle class, for example, the first-time home buyers credit, education tax credit, suspension of tax on unemployment, credit for home improvements, sales tax deduction for automobile purchases. And then of course there are many for small businesses.

So I don't get your "welfare slant" comment.

And I didn't offer this list as a comment on the graph in the OP, merely to point out that Obama has cut taxes for the middle class, as he promised he would.

***elfiii*** · #**168** 07-16-2012, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by booboy

I have done some looking around, and perhaps I was off base. The top 1% apparently received ONLY 38% of the benefits. The top 10% took 55%. So, yeah, I think it equitable in tough economic times to ask those who received the most benefit to help out a little more than those at the bottom.

http://www.epi.org/publication/tenth...-era_tax_cuts/

This is how you know the link is bogus.

Quote:

6 The Bush tax cuts were so expensive that they added greatly to the debt.

Miguel Cervantes · #**169** 07-16-2012, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by booboy

You must not be looking at the same list of cuts as I am. Many of the ones I see directly impact the middle class, for example, the first-time home buyers credit, education tax credit, suspension of tax on unemployment, credit for home improvements, sales tax deduction for automobile purchases. And then of course there are many for small businesses.

So I don't get your "welfare slant" comment.

And I didn't offer this list as a comment on the graph in the OP, merely to point out that Obama has cut taxes for the middle class, as he promised he would.

News flash, if you are on unemployment income, you are no longer middle class.

**grim** · #**170** 07-16-2012, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by booboy

You must not be looking at the same list of cuts as I am. Many of the ones I see directly impact the middle class, for example, the first-time home buyers credit, education tax credit, suspension of tax on unemployment, credit for home improvements, sales tax deduction for automobile purchases. And then of course there are many for small businesses.

So I don't get your "welfare slant" comment.

And I didn't offer this list as a comment on the graph in the OP, merely to point out that Obama has cut taxes for the middle class, as he promised he would.

They are not benefiting the middle class, they are benefiting people that are first time home buyers, are unemployed, buy a green auto or appliance, are in school, or that qualify for make work pay, or EITC, both of which are phased out over what we call the middle class.

Those arent tax cuts, those are subsidies.

waddler · #**171** 07-16-2012, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miguel Cervantes

News flash, if you are on unemployment income, you are no longer middle class.

Yep, that lower class group is growing daily, and the middle class shrinks down, down, down. As the middle class goes. so goes the economy, down,down,down. You think you are safe, but when the economy goes far enough, you will go with it.

Nobody except the elite high class benefits in a depression. You are advocating for one with every post you make.

Miguel Cervantes · #**172** 07-16-2012, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waddler

Yep, that lower class group is growing daily, and the middle class shrinks down, down, down. As the middle class goes. so goes the economy, down,down,down. You think you are safe, but when the economy goes far enough, you will go with it.

Nobody except the elite high class benefits in a depression. You are advocating for one with every post you make.

Thank God you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

drhunter1 · #**173** 07-16-2012, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elfiii

This is how you know the link is bogus.

It's a dead give away.

It is odd how they think though. A tax cut = expense.

Michael F. Gray · #**174** 07-16-2012, 02:24 PM

Rather Biased from the git go. If you are trying to keep everyone from figuring out you are a closet liberal, you're failing miserably.

waddler · #**175** 07-16-2012, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miguel Cervantes

Thank God you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Great front you are putting up, but this cowboy has been in many rodeos , and this rodeo is going to follow the same rules.

When you get your depression, we will be able to communicate better.

waddler · #**176** 07-16-2012, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael F. Gray

Rather Biased from the git go. If you are trying to keep everyone from figuring out you are a closet liberal, you're failing miserably.

Miguel Cervantes · #**177** 07-16-2012, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waddler

Great front you are putting up, but this cowboy has been in many rodeos , been bucked off and cracked his skull way too many times. Please forgive my rants, I'm just not clear headed now days.

There, that's better.