Care to prove me wrong?

 

You're the one that brought it up...Prove that what you said isn't anything more than a warped opinion.

The same answer I get when I ask where the jobs are that the rich have created while enjoying the tax cuts. :lol: I take that as proof you can't refute my theory. :lol: When we can't answer, deflect attention and attack the questioner. :lol:

The same answer I get when I ask where the jobs are that the rich have created while enjoying the tax cuts. :lol: I take that as proof you can't refute my theory. :lol: When we can't answer, deflect attention and attack the questioner. :lol:

 

That's fair. At least you realize you're as guilty as anyone else here.:thumb:

Kinda wondering the same concerning stimulus and bailouts.

 

True. As a result, I wouldn't promote any further stimulus or bailouts. I doubt the feeling is reciprocated by those that champion the tax cuts for the rich.

This ... what? :lol:

It's forum shorthand for agreeing with some one to quote them and post "This"

 

Or with a "^ This" so that you're pointing at their comment.

 

I guess not on BGP.

The same answer I get when I ask where the jobs are that the rich have created while enjoying the tax cuts. :lol: I take that as proof you can't refute my theory. :lol: When we can't answer, deflect attention and attack the questioner. :lol:

 

How is it an attack to ask someone to substantiate a theory with some fact? You threw out your belief that the rich are intentionally holding the economy hostage until Obama is no longer president. Your backing for this statement was a lack of new jobs being created. Where is the bridge connecting these two things? Where is some proof? As I said earlier, it is as hard to prove correct as it is incorrect.

I'm not literate in the Bush Tax cuts. Someone help me out here. If repealed, what are the ranges of household incomes that get hit by it. I've heard several different things. Thanks for the education

The same answer I get when I ask where the jobs are that the rich have created while enjoying the tax cuts. :lol: I take that as proof you can't refute my theory. :lol: When we can't answer, deflect attention and attack the questioner. :lol:

 

My answer about the tax cuts is: I don't know. But if you are right that they haven't generated many jobs, then what will happen if they're no longer in place?

It's forum shorthand for agreeing with some one to quote them and post "This"

 

Or with a "^ This" so that you're pointing at their comment.

 

I guess not on BGP.

I've learned something ... :lol:

I'm not literate in the Bush Tax cuts. Someone help me out here. If repealed, what are the ranges of household incomes that get hit by it. I've heard several different things. Thanks for the education

First off, there's no repeal. When the tax cuts were first passed, they were set to expire at the end of ten years. This was because the tax cuts are unsustainable. They are a significant budget problem.

 

The Obama administration and nearly all of the Democrats that will be seated in the next Congress want to do is EXTEND the tax cuts for every household making less than $250,000 a year. $250,000 a year is the top 1.5% of the US population-- in a group of 1000 households, 15 make more than $250,000 a year.

The same answer I get when I ask where the jobs are that the rich have created while enjoying the tax cuts. :lol: I take that as proof you can't refute my theory. :lol: When we can't answer, deflect attention and attack the questioner. :lol:

 

Actually the numbers have been posted before that when the tax cuts went into effect jobs were created. I will see what I can find and post it again.

First off, there's no repeal. When the tax cuts were first passed, they were set to expire at the end of ten years. This was because the tax cuts are unsustainable. They are a significant budget problem.

 

The Obama administration and nearly all of the Democrats that will be seated in the next Congress want to do is EXTEND the tax cuts for every household making less than $250,000 a year. $250,000 a year is the top 1.5% of the US population-- in a group of 1000 households, 15 make more than $250,000 a year.

 

Why would they not extend them for all of them? Makes zero sense not to. You let the taxes go up for those making the top 1.5% and you can say bye bye to even more jobs.

Well, everyone keeps preaching the tax cuts need to be extended or the rich won't create jobs. And, they're currently under the tax cuts and have been for a "few" years, and they haven't been creating jobs. Their GOP buddies have made it clear their goal is to hold Obama to one term. So, my question, again, is....does anyone else feel the rich are holding passive-agressively holding the economy hostage? On the other hand, it could be agressively holding the economy hostage. I tend to lean toward passive-agressive because they aren't coming right out and saying it.

 

You and I rarely agree, but I've always found your posts clear and informative. This, however, is way out there.

First off, there's no repeal. When the tax cuts were first passed, they were set to expire at the end of ten years. This was because the tax cuts are unsustainable. They are a significant budget problem.

 

The Obama administration and nearly all of the Democrats that will be seated in the next Congress want to do is EXTEND the tax cuts for every household making less than $250,000 a year. $250,000 a year is the top 1.5% of the US population-- in a group of 1000 households, 15 make more than $250,000 a year.

 

Thanks for your help. I did know it was expiration. Let's just say nothing is extended. What's the damage per household?

Actually the numbers have been posted before that when the tax cuts went into effect jobs were created. I will see what I can find and post it again.

First link if you google "Did the Bush Tax Cuts increase revenue?"

 

As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has shown, “the 2001-2007 economic expansion was among the weakest since World War II with regard to overall economic growth.” Even singling out the boomiest years -- 2003-2007 -- growth in GDP was below average.