In article ,
says...

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:18:34 -0700, wrote:


You keep saying the richest 400 people. Do you really think there are
only 400 people in the US who make more than $250K per year????

No that is about 5 million but that curve from 250k to the top 400 is
a hockey stick.

I would like to see them dump all of the Bush tax cuts but most people
only want to see the taxes go up for people who make more than they do
and assume that will fix the debt.

Dumping the tax cuts are fine eventually. Not now. Not for the middle
class. Dump them for those who make more than $250K. It's a good
start, but you deny that.

I only deny that limiting this to people who make more money than you
will not make that much difference. In this case the difference is
about 10% of the whole tax cut.

More than me? Your figures are wrong. It will make a huge difference
even if you don't want to accept that.

OK I am wrong but the FACTS are the tax on $250k will get us 70
billion a year, assuming they actually pay it (no tax avoidance
schemes)
The tax on the $250K is $300 billion a year (the total tax cut costs
$3.7T over 10 years) so it is 18.9%, not 10%

So when you look at the whole thing, assuming we went back to the
Clinton levels, it would only cover about 24.6% of the deficit.
$370B vs a $1.5T deficit)

You continually claim that the argument being made is that it'll fix
the debt. Nobody is making that claim. Another diversion and lack of
facts.

I hear it every day by guys like Bernie Sanders. They blame the whole
budget crisis on the Bush tax cuts and use platitudes like "going back
to Clinton tax rates when the budget was balanced".
I agree we should go back to the Clinton tax rates and I have said
that repeatedly. I also point out it won't make a dent in a $1.5
trillion dollar deficit.

A huge percentage of the problems can be laid at the feet of the Bush
admin. Sorry if you're not willing to admit it.


Changing the subject again?
I agree. Bush was a huge part of the problem but he had a congress
that actually spent all of that money. If the president could actually
spend money, we wouldn't have all of this shut down the government
talk.

The point is, even if there were no Bush tax cuts, we would still be
well over a trillion in the hole.($1.13T)

The fact is, it is not Bushs fault at all. It's the congress that spends
the money and Pelosi was in charge of that. I remember the lying sack of
**** saying "gas prices will be my first issue if I am elected"... Among
other things, depending on who she was talking to at the time. Either
way, this recession is right at the feet of Pelosi, Obama, Kerry, and
Frank...

--
Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese!

I_am_Tosk wrote:

The fact is, it is not Bushs fault at all. It's the congress that spends
the money and Pelosi was in charge of that. I remember the lying sack of
**** saying "gas prices will be my first issue if I am elected"... Among
other things, depending on who she was talking to at the time. Either
way, this recession is right at the feet of Pelosi, Obama, Kerry, and
Frank...


It's Stunatz Scotty, our own little Glenn Beck.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 18:19:59 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

I_am_Tosk wrote:

The fact is, it is not Bushs fault at all. It's the congress that spends
the money and Pelosi was in charge of that. I remember the lying sack of
**** saying "gas prices will be my first issue if I am elected"... Among
other things, depending on who she was talking to at the time. Either
way, this recession is right at the feet of Pelosi, Obama, Kerry, and
Frank...


It's Stunatz Scotty, our own little Glenn Beck.

I wonder if he's picking up Beck on the tiny transistor in his head?
Sort of like Knuckles claiming he can't get Beck in Canada only in his
case he thinks the voice he hears is Beck and he thinks its his own.