The rich are different — and not in a good way...

Well, you see them as freeloaders who want to put their hand in your pocket. I see it as people who are trying to improve their lives, but don't have the same breaks that you have. I'm pretty sure you'll never see life from a different point of view.

Not having a "FEDERAL income tax liability" is NOT THE SAME THING as "not paying any taxes"... Taxes are paid, credits and deductions are taken AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, which, if you are in the lowest income group, sometimes results in a zero tax-liability. That doesn't mean they don't pay sales taxes, property taxes, state taxes, county taxes, fuel taxes, etc...

On the other hand, we have millionaires who, because they can afford good CPA's, earn MILLIONS and pay no taxes on it. Then you jump to the silly-assed conclusion that because they earn millions, they "create jobs"... I call bullsh*t... The number of them that DO create jobs is on the order of 4%...

The number of them that DO create jobs is on the order of 4%...

If the number is only 4%- policies like taxing the top earners will cut that number down.

3%

2%

1%

Gone.

:Snooze

Nice way to ignore the rest of the facts and worry about the 4% of the fat-cats...WHO ARE NOT PAYING ANY TAXES...

Now I gotta repost my chart- cause LJ messed up the whole thread with her commie charts. LJ- those charts of yours were made by the folks that told you the republicans were gonna lose in WI.

You've got charts.... We've got charts....







http://www.good.is/post/must-see-chart- ... dget-cuts/

LJ,
Your hero Obama disagrees with you, he knows cutting taxes helps the eocnomy because he kept the Bush tax cuts which would have sunset. And he wants to continue reducing payroll taxes.

That's B.S. and you know it... He didn't agree with them... He was forced to accept an extension to get the bill passed... Any more lies you'd like to tell?

Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues

Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts of the past six years haven't paid for themselves.

If there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that slashing taxes brings the government more money. "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase," President Bush said in a speech last year. Keeping taxes low, Vice President Dick Cheney explained in a recent interview, "does produce more revenue for the Federal Government." Presidential candidate John McCain declared in March that "tax cuts ... as we all know, increase revenues." His rival Rudy Giuliani couldn't agree more. "I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues," he intones in a new TV ad.

If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.

The yawning chasm between Republican rhetoric on taxes and even informed conservative opinion is maddening to those of wonkish bent. Pointing it out has become an opinion-column staple. But none of these screeds seem to have altered the political debate. So rather than write yet another, I decided to find out what Arthur Laffer thought.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 27,00.html

No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don’t Pay for Themselves
By BRUCE BARTLETT, The Fiscal Times
June 17, 2011

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, supports a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution but also wants an $8 trillion tax cut. He rationalizes this contradiction by asserting that his tax cut will not actually lose any revenue. As Pawlenty told Slate reporter Dave Weigel on June 13:

“When Ronald Reagan cut taxes in a significant way, revenues actually increased by almost 100 percent during his eight years as president. So this idea that significant, big tax cuts necessarily result in lower revenues – history does not [bear] that out.”

In point of fact, this assertion is completely untrue. Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.

The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2 ... elves.aspx

Meet The Press
Guest: Alan Greenspan

MR. GREGORY: All right. Well, Dr. Greenspan, it’s not often that you hear Democrats and liberals quoting you. But, in this case, they did when it come to–came to tax cuts because of an interview you gave recently with Judy Woodruff on Bloomberg television. Here was the question: “Tax cuts [that] are due to expire at the end of this year. Should they be extended? What should Congress do?” You said, “I should say they should follow the law and then let them lapse.” Question: “So to those interests who say but wait a minute, if you let these taxes go my taxes go up, it’s going to depress growth?” You said, “Yes, it probably will, but I think we have no choice in doing that, because we have to recognize there are no solutions which are optimum. These are choices between bad and worse.” You’re saying let them all go, let them all lapse?

MR. GREENSPAN: Look, I’m very much in favor of tax cuts, but not with borrowed money. And the problem that we’ve gotten into in recent years is spending programs with borrowed money, tax cuts with borrowed money, and at the end of the day, that proves disastrous. And my view is I don’t think we can play subtle policy here on it.

And on what has become an article of faith in many sectors of the conservative movement:

MR. GREGORY: You don’t agree with Republican leaders who say tax cuts pay for themselves?

MR. GREENSPAN: They do not.

Repeating "tax cuts create jobs" over and over doesn't make it true...

But I was told in November 2008 that Obama had a mandate and had swept into office on his coat tails, majorities in both houses. And that the Republican Party was on its death bed, unlikely to ever win anything again. Whoopsie! Obama, Pelosi, & Reid ruined thier mandate, increased unemployment numbers and got many of those new Dem congressman voted out of office after one term.

Now will the penduleum swing back in 2012?

Yeah, and we were told George W. Bush was a good president...

After two unnecessary, unpaid for wars, $700 Billion of unfunded Medicare plans, only 3million jobs created in 8 years, the worst recession since the Great Depression of 1929, a job-loss rate of 800,000/month, a TARP and Bank Bailout program that he signed, and increase in the national debt of how many trillions?... I guess you can't always believe what you hear, can ya....?