On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:36:07 -0400, "Harry"
wrote:

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Aug 11, 5:17 pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 06:46:29 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:
well no. when the economy tanked they were responsible for the fact
that the deficit was as large as it was. they are the single largest
factor in the deficit

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036


Umm, NO. The CBPP? The one funded by the Democracy Alliance, the
liberal crackpot organization? Honestly Bob, if you're not even gonna
try...



. 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.



well it seems you're missing the point. the point is not that this
bill will prevent PAST abuses..but FUTURE ones. it does so by

And we arrive at the real problem... you're retarded!! How could one
ever prevent "past" abuses? They are... drum roll please... in the
PAST!!

ROFLMAO!!

that's EXACTLY MY POINT YOU MORON!!

being a conservative is a learning disability

On Aug 13, 12:24*am, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:36:07 -0400, "Harry"
wrote:





"Jack" wrote in message
....
On Aug 11, 5:17 pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 06:46:29 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:
well no. when the economy tanked they were responsible for the fact
that the deficit was as large as it was. they are the single largest
factor in the deficit

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

Umm, NO. *The CBPP? *The one funded by the Democracy Alliance, the
liberal crackpot organization? *Honestly Bob, if you're not even gonna
try...

. 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...s-favored-rich

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



well it seems you're missing the point. the point is not that this
bill will prevent PAST abuses..but FUTURE ones. it does so by

And we arrive at the real problem... you're retarded!! *How could one
ever prevent "past" abuses? *They are... drum roll please... in the
PAST!!

ROFLMAO!!

that's EXACTLY MY POINT YOU MORON!!


Your idea of making a point is to state the obvious?
Is your brain pickled or are you on drugs?

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 06:03:17 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

On Aug 13, 12:24*am, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:36:07 -0400, "Harry"
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...s-favored-rich

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

that's why i know conservatism is a learning disability. you guys
wrecked this country now you're weeping because you can't blame it on
anyone else



well it seems you're missing the point. the point is not that this
bill will prevent PAST abuses..but FUTURE ones. it does so by

And we arrive at the real problem... you're retarded!! *How could one
ever prevent "past" abuses? *They are... drum roll please... in the
PAST!!

ROFLMAO!!

that's EXACTLY MY POINT YOU MORON!!


Your idea of making a point is to state the obvious?
Is your brain pickled or are you on drugs?

it's so obvious you can't understand it. the essence of conservatism

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





On Aug 13, 12:24*am, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:36:07 -0400, "Harry"
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.


"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."

"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."

"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."

"As such, despite what the Left and their media minions have been
claiming, 82 percent of the Bush tax cuts benefited the poor, middle-
class, and upper-middle class in this country."

It would seem that the one with a learning disability is you.

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...

On Aug 13, 11:55*am, bpuharic wrote:
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?

It worked in the original post, but of course you didn't look at it...
that would require you learn something new.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...s-favored-rich

Try it this time instead of knee-jerking. You may, with hard work,
overcome your many deficiencies.

On Aug 13, 1:05*pm, Jack wrote:
On Aug 13, 11:55*am, bpuharic wrote:





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?

It worked in the original post, but of course you didn't look at it...
that would require you learn something new.

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

Try it this time instead of knee-jerking. *You may, with hard work,
overcome your many deficiencies.

Crickets, of course.

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 10:05:44 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

h

Try it this time instead of knee-jerking. You may, with hard work,
overcome your many deficiencies.


guess you missed the part that the rich get a 3.8% tax cut

the middle class? 1.5%.

this is why the economy collapsed. the middle class gets zip. we cant
spend because the weatlhy keep taking more and more.

try looking at the figures yourself. a guy making 50K gets 772 in tax
cuts. a person making a million gets far far more.

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:09:14 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 11:55:36 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

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

If that is a middle class family with kids they got twice as good a
deal.

sorry sport. i compare apples to apples.

If you want proof, just let the whole package expire, across the board
and see who bitches the loudest. I bet your taxes go up. I know mine
will.

yep they will go up. but they're going up anyhow. the wealthy will see
to that. you dont think they're ever going to pay their fair share, do
you?

I still think that may be the best option if you really think the
Clinton era was so great.
I notice you didn't get a raise then either. It was great for that guy
with the $6000 umbrella stand tho. Bush put him in jail.

nope i didnt get a raise. me and the entire middle class

but the right ignores THAT little bit of fact

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 12:07:19 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 07:44:28 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:09:14 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 11:55:36 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

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

If that is a middle class family with kids they got twice as good a
deal.

sorry sport. i compare apples to apples.

No you are cherry picking out one number that makes your point. You
don't think people with kids deserve a break?

uh no. unless you want me to post a jpg of the entire chart here. i
picked 1 number because it was the median middle class income vs the
millionaires.


yep they will go up. but they're going up anyhow. the wealthy will see
to that. you dont think they're ever going to pay their fair share, do
you?


I am willing to go back to the Clinton era tax rates where you think
the world was perfect. There is no making you happy is there?

you mean when we had full employment and a balanced budget??

uh...yeah. i'll take those days vs bush's depression era economics.



I still think that may be the best option if you really think the
Clinton era was so great.
I notice you didn't get a raise then either. It was great for that guy
with the $6000 umbrella stand tho. Bush put him in jail.

nope i didnt get a raise. me and the entire middle class

but the right ignores THAT little bit of fact

I never ignored that, You are the one who seems to think everything
bad in your life is GW Bush's fault.

and you think it's the fault of the black president.