On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:47:45 GMT, KK wrote:
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.
That's likely because you don't really know what we sound like.
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.
That's not necessarily true. Many of us are straight C corps who
leave the value in the company at the end of the year.
Think real hard: if the government takes more of your money, will you be
able to hire more employees? or fewer?
If government takes another $5K of my $250K in gross earnings, you
think that's going to make a difference for me?
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.
The top 1% took the majority of those tax cuts. They didn't need
them. As Warren Buffet proposed, they should have given 1 million
middle class taxpayers $1000 each. The money would have gone straight
back into the economy, not into savings.
You trickle down idiots don't bloody get it, nor will you ever.
And the term "trickle down", as you know, was coined long before the Bush
cuts you're bitching about.
Did I say they were? Trickle down has been around since Regan's
supply siders convinced him of the theory. It was bull**** then and
it's bull**** now.
I doesn't trickle down.
The middle class is getting slammed and you idiots think the rich need
more money.
Meanwhile the disparity between rich and poor grows and more lose
their homes and livelyhoods.
Get a ****ing clue.