Liberals, how does it feel to see Obama bow to Clinton?

[Cancel 2016.2]

People know they are not defending Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. Nice try.

but as you know, Bush's tax cuts were not just for the wealthy as the left has been proclaiming for the past 8 years.

 

[Bonestorm]

but as you know, Bush's tax cuts were not just for the wealthy as the left has been proclaiming for the past 8 years.

Again with this? Here's a chart:

The left hand chart is the Democratic proposal, extending the cuts for income earned under $250,000. The middle chart is the GOP proposal, extending all cuts. The right-hand chart is the compromise proposal.

The left's gripe with the Bush tax cuts was not that there are no tax cuts for the poor and middle classes, but that the tax cuts for the wealthy are a whole hell of a lot bigger.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Again with this? Here's a chart:

The left hand chart is the Democratic proposal, extending the cuts for income earned under $250,000. The middle chart is the GOP proposal, extending all cuts. The right-hand chart is the compromise proposal.

The left's gripe with the Bush tax cuts was not that there are no tax cuts for the poor and middle classes, but that the tax cuts for the wealthy are a whole hell of a lot bigger.

and again for the mentally challenged. OF COURSE in dollar terms the 'rich' are getting more. THEY FRIGGIN PAY MORE.... MUCH MUCH MORE. The top half pay all but 3% of federal income taxes. Every one of the top half pay more than their equivalent income shares. Meaning they already pay MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE.... which is the common gripe of the class warfare morons.

As a percentage of income, the poor and middle class benefited far more than the wealthy under the Bush cuts.

Under the extension...

Bush tax cuts: $544.3 billion. The package would extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone for two years.

The bulk of that cost -- $463 billion -- is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000, including two years of relief for 2010 and 2011 for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The rest -- $81.5 billion -- is attributable to the extension of cuts that apply to the highest income families.

The cost of extending all the tax cuts over 10 years would have been $3.7 trillion.

 

[Bonestorm]

and again for the mentally challenged. OF COURSE in dollar terms the 'rich' are getting more. THEY FRIGGIN PAY MORE.... MUCH MUCH MORE. The top half pay all but 3% of federal income taxes. Every one of the top half pay more than their equivalent income shares. Meaning they already pay MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE.... which is the common gripe of the class warfare morons.

You're the guy lying, not me. Every time you post the "I thought only the rich got tax cuts, har har" garbage I'm going to respond with the same thing. And then we can have the real disagreement about how best to measure who benefited from the tax cuts.

As a percentage of income, the poor and middle class benefited far more than the wealthy under the Bush cuts.

Under the extension...

And in real dollars, rich people make out a whole hell of a lot better than poor and middle class people.

 

[Bonestorm]

And since you want to post things in really large letters, that $453 billion is shared among a whole hell of a lot of more people than the tax cuts the Republicans were pushing for. On a per person basis it isn't even close.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You're the guy lying, not me. Every time you post the "I thought only the rich got tax cuts, har har" garbage I'm going to respond with the same thing. And then we can have the real disagreement about how best to measure who benefited from the tax cuts.

What lie? The left has had a non-stop bullshit rant going for 8 years on how the Bush tax cuts were for the wealthy. How only the wealthy benfitted from those evil Bush tax cuts.

And in real dollars, rich people make out a whole hell of a lot better than poor and middle class people.

In real dollars those making under $250k received the bulk of the tax breaks. Look at the cost projections for the extensions. Look at who received $463B and which group got $81B.

You want to point to per capita because it makes you feel better. Bottom line, even if you extended JUST the tax cuts for dollars earned under $250k, the RICH would still get VASTLY more in terms of real dollars. BECAUSE THEY PAY MORE.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

And since you want to post things in really large letters, that $453 billion is shared among a whole hell of a lot of more people than the tax cuts the Republicans were pushing for. On a per person basis it isn't even close.

The large letters are to help with your reading comprehension problems.

Now... on a per capita basis show us what the two groups PAY in terms of income taxes. Enough said.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The low and middle income will NEVER benefit more than the rich in tax cuts given that the bottom half only pay 3% of the total income taxes as it is. We have already given the bulk of them a pass on federal income taxes.

 

[Bonestorm]

The low and middle income will NEVER benefit more than the rich in tax cuts given that the bottom half only pay 3% of the total income taxes as it is. We have already given the bulk of them a pass on federal income taxes.

Well, they could benefit just as much as the Democratic plan would have it.

 

[Bonestorm]

What lie? The left has had a non-stop bullshit rant going for 8 years on how the Bush tax cuts were for the wealthy. How only the wealthy benfitted from those evil Bush tax cuts.

No, the wealthy benefited the most.

In real dollars those making under $250k received the bulk of the tax breaks. Look at the cost projections for the extensions. Look at who received $463B and which group got $81B.

On a per capita basis?

You want to point to per capita because it makes you feel better. Bottom line, even if you extended JUST the tax cuts for dollars earned under $250k, the RICH would still get VASTLY more in terms of real dollars. BECAUSE THEY PAY MORE.

I want to point to per capita because it doesn't make sense to say that 156 million people splitting $400 billion are getting a better deal than 4 million people splitting $80 billion.

 

[Bonestorm]

The large letters are to help with your reading comprehension problems.

Now... on a per capita basis show us what the two groups PAY in terms of income taxes. Enough said.

On a per capita basis show me what the two groups earn in income.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

People know they are not defending Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. Nice try.

And since you want to post things in really large letters, that $453 billion is shared among a whole hell of a lot of more people than the tax cuts the Republicans were pushing for. On a per person basis it isn't even close.

Nigey, why are you and Apple trying to pretend this is still up for debate? You know, I don't remember Clinton or Obama saying that we are going to have a debate about the taxes, and Democrats were going to try and push for tax increases for the rich. From my understanding of the press conference, they had worked out a 'compromise' with Republicans, and were going to extend all the tax cuts for two more years, and the argument Clinton made, was that these tax cuts are essential in bringing back the economy. I must have missed the part where he singled out the tax cuts for the rich and told us how they wouldn't be essential in bringing back the economy, can you point that clip out to us?

 

[Bonestorm]

Nigey, why are you and Apple trying to pretend this is still up for debate? You know, I don't remember Clinton or Obama saying that we are going to have a debate about the taxes, and Democrats were going to try and push for tax increases for the rich. From my understanding of the press conference, they had worked out a 'compromise' with Republicans, and were going to extend all the tax cuts for two more years, and the argument Clinton made, was that these tax cuts are essential in bringing back the economy. I must have missed the part where he singled out the tax cuts for the rich and told us how they wouldn't be essential in bringing back the economy, can you point that clip out to us?

Sure:

I have reviewed this agreement that the President reached with Republican leaders. And I want to make full disclosure I make quite a bit of money now, so the position that the Republicans have urged will personally benefit me. And on its own, I wouldn’t support it because I don’t think that my tax cut is the most economically efficient way to get the economy going again. But I don’t want to be in the dark about the fact that I will receive the continuation of the tax rates.

However, the agreement taken as a whole is, I believe, the best bipartisan agreement we can reach to help the largest number of Americans, and to maximize the chances that the economic recovery will accelerate and create more jobs, and to minimize the chances that it will slip back, which is what has happened in other financial collapses.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...-president-obama-and-former-president-clinton