On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 07:27:12 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

On Aug 13, 10:20*am, bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 06:03:17 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:



. the fact is the GOP congress in 2001 and 2003 passed tax cuts that
focused on the rich

There you go again... repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

really? care to refute? got any data?

no...i thought not.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...iberal-think-t...

Try reading something other than your liberal propaganda. *Hmm..
actually, this is from one of your liberal sources. *Enjoy.

ROFLMAO!! i read national review online every day, for a laugh, and
also subscribe to the 'weekly spectator' newsletter


I don't blame you for trying to deflect. So what about the data? It
proves you wrong.

gee the link is busted. is that your data?



"With this in mind, the Tax Policy Center, a division of the liberal
Brookings Institution, published a report on July 29 that included
Treasury Department estimates of tax revenue losses that would
accompany an extension of Bush's cuts."

ah. so in lieu of data, just toss out that, instead of begging the
question and accepting far right mythology, anything that questions
right wing fairy tales is 'liberal'

uh huh.


"Inside the accompanying PDF was evidence the Left and their media
minions have been misrepresenting the beneficiaries of these cuts for
a very long time:"

"According to Treasury, the total ten-year cost of completely
extending the Bush tax cuts is $3.675 trillion. The ten-year cost
exclusively associated with extending tax cuts to folks Obama, the
Democrats, and the media consider rich is $679 billion."

ah. 'the media'? like fox news? the wall street journal?


"This means that almost $3 trillion of the cost associated with the
Bush tax cuts over the next ten years, or 82 percent, is not for
benefits to the so-called rich."


well let's see...the middle class guy earning 50K gets a 1.4% tax cut.
the millionaire making 1M gets a 3% tax cut

so, unless you can't count, it seems you're full of ****...again...