On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:02:22 -0700, jps wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:35:48 GMT, KK wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:38:48 -0700, jps wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:18:58 -0500,
(Gray Ghost) wrote:
jps wrote in
news:valud5thjtqeip36977gdd8c5smk8am1et@ 4ax.com:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:35:19 GMT, KK wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:01:58 -0700, jps wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:36:16 GMT, KK wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:12:25 -0700, jps wrote:
Yeah, that was the money Bush insisted was ours and proceeded to
give it to the wealthiest 1%.
That's a lie. 70% of people in the second-lowest quintile
benefited from the cuts. Even 16% of those in the *lowest* 20%
benefited - and most of them don't pay income tax.
The share of total federal taxes paid by the 80-99th percentile of
earners *increased* by half a percent (you're welcome).
Those in the top 1% had the greatest absolute benefit, yes -
because they pay more in taxes than anyone else.
And they need the money more than anyone else.
It's astounding that you place no significance whatsoever on the
fact that it's theirs in the first place. They've worked or risked
or invested to obtain it.
What's astounding is that folks like you don't recognize the middle
class is getting wiped out while the wealthy increase their lot.
What you don't recognize is fair play or perhaps we just have
radically different views on parity.
Evidently so.
Since the "rich" need a comsumption oriented middle class to buy thier
products and services, how do you figure?
If anyone is destroying the middle class it's the government.
Another tinkle down economist heard from.
Have you heard it doesn't work?
No? Then I guess poor people start the businesses that create jobs, and
companies with the least profit hire the most and pay the best.
I'm a small business owner
You don't sound like one.
and I'm likely to create jobs if the economy
recovers. I'm all in favor of helping small business and individuals
who need to stay afloat.
Most small business owners file under their personal tax returns and are
most likely to get ****ed by the tax increases on those "rich" people
making $200K + that he specifically targeted in his campaign.
Think real hard: if the government takes more of your money, will you be
able to hire more employees? or fewer?
What's that got to do with trickle down? Do you think small business
owners are among the top 1%?
As I showed you (again), those tax cuts did not only benefit the "top 1%"
that you seem to have a raging hard-on for.
And the term "trickle down", as you know, was coined long before the Bush
cuts you're bitching about.
Idiot.