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.

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.

And - regardless of who "needs" it (and in my opinion, a government whose
biggest expense is paying interest on its out-of-control-spending is the
abso****ing *LAST* one who needs it) if a tax rate - any tax rate - is
lowered, of course the ones who pay the most will save the greatest
number of dollars. It's just math.

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.

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:40:54 -0700, jps wrote:

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.


And excluding the wealthy from an across-the-board tax cut isn't going to
change whatever "wiping out" you think is going on. If you really think
people have zero claim to what they earn, you might as well advocate all
wages being put together and divided equally. I guess you'd think that's
"fair"?

I've asked others with no good answer. The state and feds take 50% of my
income (before gas tax, sales tax, property tax, liquor tax, etc., etc.,
etc.,). You apparently think that's not too much - but to you, how much
*would be* too much?


What you don't recognize is fair play or perhaps we just have radically
different views on parity.

Evidently so.

Yes, I believe in the crazy notion that people are entitled to what they
work for.

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.