Bush eats ribs

I don't really understand this comment. Seems to me like he was being pestered and acted short with the President.

 

Talk about strange... This comes a close second to Howard Dean's outburst for bizarre.

 

Why is the President questioning his own tax cuts again, for the second time in a week? (see sig for the first). He seems to be alluding to the multiplier effect and recognizing the importance of consumption to economic growth...so then why did the vast majority of his tax cuts go to the upper classes..who are far less likely to consume and far more likely to save/invest?

 

The people more likely to consume will pay lower taxes under Bush than they would under the dems who want to eliminate the tax cuts. The only people who did not get any tax break were the ones that don't pay federal income tax.

 

While I normally agree with you anf Batman, I gotta say that this seems to me to fit under the No Big Deal file. I'm assuming that his economics lessons were said pretty tongue in cheek-the atmosphere and his other comments would make that seem likely-and I think overall this is just pretty standard stuff. If Bush was right, that the setting wasn't a press conference, than his behaviour was appropriate, and almost, God help me, classy.

I think Bush is an idiot. I think he's the worst President I've ever seen, and has done unknowable damage to the US, to our system, to our freedoms, and to our relations with the rest of the world. I think that if he is re-elected, it will be the worst moment in the development of the United States as a superpower, maybe behind Nagasaki, as it will serve as a mandate to future leaders to follow suit. I think there are so many real, substantial reasons we should condemn Bush that something like this isn't necessary, and might even make those of us who oppose him seem more worried about perception than reality ourselves.

Maybe I'm missing the big deal here, and if so I apologize. I certainly don't enjoy dissagreeing with 2 of my favorite posters.

 

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. I'm glad to see you are able to tar and feather the "dems" and ascribe a collective policy to them way before election season...to bad this doesn't reflect reality, but your premises aren't even correct to begin with so I suppose its moot.

The people on the bottom benefitted from the last round of tax cuts as a political gesture...it was the middle 50% that got shafted and only got nominal benefits. (This has been discussed extensively and supported in other threads, so I"m not going to bother here)

A payroll tax cut would have had the effect of more evnly distributing the benefits thereof to the working classes rather than the leisure classes.

Of course, all of this is being done at the expense of the deficit, while increasing spending, so it's just like arguing about which loan shark is better. Apparently going to a loan shark to get money to payoff the super rich is what the President seems to have chose, although even he doesn't seem convinced by this logic now.

 

Obviously this is false. I proved it wrong with my piece from Stephen Moore and bonked you on the cranium in shouting you down on the issue. Sam, you keep hiding behind the "oh it's been discussed ad nauseum so I don't need to reiterate it here" explanation. This circular argument just doesn't hold water.

 

Whoops...unfortunately for you this was linked to the Titanic thread, which I bookmarked for my own amusement.




Do you ever get tired of shooting yourself in the foot?

Maybe you should hunt less challenging game.

 

Well I find that very interesting Sam. Not only do you fail to cite the source for your little graph (anyone could have generated it and used it to back up their flawed, slanted attack), but I also see that you have reverted to thinking that income taxes are the only taxes paid in America. Didn't you chastise others for doing the same thing? Sigh. Instead of looking at Sam's misrepresentations and distortions, I suggest that we simply take a look at the Bush plan and analyze how it has helped tax payers.

Bush's tax plan did the following:

Replacing the current tax rates of 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent with a simplified rate structure of 10, 15, 25, and 33 percent (benefits to all tax payers)

Doubling the child tax credit to $1,000 per child and applying the credit to the Alternative Minimum Tax

Reducing the marriage penalty by reinstating the 10 percent deduction for two-earner couples

Eliminating the death tax

Expanding the charitable deduction to non-itemizers

Making the Research and Experimentation (R&D) tax credit permanent

The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 did the following:

The Jobs and Growth Act reduces federal income taxes across- the-board. And today the Internal Revenue Service will post new withholding tax tables so that employers can begin leaving more money in the pay checks of American workers, starting next months.

The Jobs and Growth Act increases the per child tax credit from $600 to $1,000. So today I'm directing the Department of Treasury to issue checks of up to $400 per child to 25 million eligible families. And those checks will begin arriving in July. (Applause.)

This combination of income tax rate reductions, a higher child credit and a reduction in the marriage penalty will make a difference for families in every part of this country. A family of four with a total income of $75,000 will receive a 19 percent reduction in federal income taxes, saving $1,122 per year, per family. (Applause.) A family of four with an income of $40,000 will see their income taxes drop from $1,178 to $45, a 96 percent tax cut. And under this new law, 3 million individuals and families will have their federal income tax liability completely eliminated. Altogether, 34 million families with children, including 6 million single moms, will receive an average tax cut of $1,549 per year.

The benefits of the Jobs and Growth Act will also go to investors. The top capital gains tax rate will be reduced by 25 percent, which will encourage more investment and risk-taking, and that will help in job creation.

The bill also allows for dividend income to be taxed at a lower rate. This will encourage more companies to pay dividends, which, in itself, will not only be good for investors, but will be a corporate reform measure. It's hard to pay dividends unless you've actually got cash flow. The days when people could say, invest with me because the sky's the limit, will be changed by dividend policy. It's hard to promote the sky being the limit and pay dividends unless you're actually profitable and have cash flow. Getting -- reducing the tax rate on dividends will also increase the wealth effect around America and will help our markets.

And the good news is a lot of senior citizens rely on dividend income to meet their daily needs. And under this legislation, 12 million seniors will receive an average tax reduction of $1,401. We're delivering substantial tax relief to small business owners and entrepreneurs.

Most small business owners are subchapter S -- own subchapter S corporations, or sole proprietorships, or limited partnerships, so the small business pays taxes at the individual tax rate. By cutting individual tax rates and by delivering other incentives for investment in new equipment, 23 million small business owners will receive an average tax cut of $2,209.

Sorry Sam, but your little graph doesn't stand up to the actual FACTS. You lose again. The dismay on your face is quite telling:




OWNED

 

Obviously, you are a tool.

 

I am still BEAMING after that last response I just posted! Has there ever been a single post that so utter obliterated another poster in the HISTORY of this BBS? I really don't think that there has been.

The recipe for the SHAMING of SamFisher
1) See that Sam posts his old, tired criticism of the Bush tax plan
2) Bait him into engaging me on the subject by challenging him personally on the issue
3) Sam goes for the bait and posts a flawed, incomplete analysis
4) Sam goes a step further and sets himself up for utter humiliation by giving me a picture to work with
5) Simply post the cold hard facts regarding the positive impacts of the Bush tax plans and their effects on tax payers.
6) Successfully refute Sam's false claims and EXPOSE them for all to see
7) To add insult to injury, take Sam's picture and post a *better* picture which makes Sam's argument look all the worse. Beat him at his own picture-posting game.
8) Puree for 5 minutes and then flush the liberal trash down the toilet.

 

Your nomenclature also arises to the fact he is a "tool" for pronouncing evidentiary facts as he did in his last post...

 

LOL, you get completely, 110 percent, Muay Thai high kicked in the face style owned....


...and you pretend that its not true and respond with one of the administrations press releases?

EDIT: even worse, here's what it comes from:

YOu've taken the function of being a parrot for the administration to a completely new level, instead of even attempting to engage in the dishonest form of economic analysis you usually subject us to, with citations to discredited cranks like Lawrence Kudlow and Stephen Moore you are simply copying and pasting Bush's speeches and passing them off as economic analysis

Pathetic. The President's actual economic analysis is completely clear, and is found in my signature.

Conservatives and Liberals alike agree that Bush's tax cuts have shifted more of the tax burden onto the middle class...what does that make you?

By the way, getting us back on track, why don't we go back to the basic premise? Do you dispute that people with lower incomes are more likely to spend and less likely to save than those with higher incomes? Do you dispute the multiplier effect? Even President Bush seems to have grasped these basic principles...can you?

 

Keep editing Sam. I really am responding to you merely as a courtesy, not out of necessity. I have already SHAMED you mercilessly in this thread by exposing your half-truths. Your train has been diverted off the tracks and has crashed.

Please tell me that you know what the multiplier effect is. Your logic above indicates that you do not. Must I embarrass you again for lack of financial understaning, in a similar fashion to The Tax Deferred Conquest? I'm giving you a second chance here. Google it, come back, rewrite your attack, and apologize. Then I will deal with you.

 

Looking at the original post, I'm reminded of something my wife observed. She said that when Bush tries to explain something, he does it in the simplest of terms and it sounds like he's tecahing a grade-schooler. Her explanation is that Bush's staff have to teach him about the issue using similar techniques and he can only explain things in the same parrotted way. If he's asked to elaborate, he repeats the same thing more forcefully.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong I only took the most basic economics class in college. Isn't investing much different than saving. In a way, it is the best consumption spending we can do.

And this doesn't seem like that big a deal, the guy was bugging him when he was trying to eat.

 

Wow, the President has a sense of humor.

What a b*stard...

 

What you consider a sense of humor, many others describe as a sense of arrogance.