« Would it matter if George W. Bush were a robot? Part II | Main | Health stories for (and by) idiots »

September 15, 2004

Comments

d meyers

And how the hell does Kerry relate to the common man??? When you look up ELITE in the dictionary there is Lurch staring back at you...

"It sure is easy to cut taxes for the rich when you've never been poor."

HUH???? It is called econ 101. And just what part of "Everyone who pays INCOME taxes had their taxes cut".

Do yourself a favor and look at the INCOME tax burden distribution charts to see just how little the bottom 50% actually pay.

Kristoff couldn't have exposed the difference between the two parties then with the statement above, especially "noblesse entitlement".

It is laughable to here Kristoff use the word "entitlement" because that is the word that divides the two parties. There is the left's "entitlement class" where people believe others should pay for their "entitlements". My noblesse entitlement is my expectation of the federal government to provide an environment where the individual can thrive through hard work without being punished for success.


Have you not learned that class warfare, tax cuts for the rich, retoric DOES NOT WORK? Keep it up because spouting a loser message is good for republicans

here's what's left

there is not a single bit of evidence for any of you claims, so i won't respond to them.

and i would ask you again, please avoid just repeating republican talking points. this is a site for serious discussion, and if i want to hear about class warfare, i'll listen to sean hannity.

if you have a serious point to make, by all means, let us know what it is.

d meyers

And the line, "tax cuts for the rich" is not a Democrat talking point?? HAH HAH HAH HAH.. that is soooooo funny. That is talking point #1 of the Dems.

"there is not a single bit of evidence for any of you claims" What are you talking about. President Bush's tax cut reduced taxes on EVERYONE who pays income tax. That is a FACT. When the lowest tax bracket is lowered from 15% to 10% then everyone who pays income taxes has their taxes reduced. So why don't you through some facts into the mix so we can have a serious discussion.

Do yourself a favor and look at the tax rate table to see that the lowest rate is 10%, it is not difficult to find.

What type of serious discussion can you have when you do not know what the hell was in Bush's tax cut?

here's what's left

Bush tax cuts

d, do really you think i don't know how much the Bush tax cuts were? or did you just want me to do your research for you?

i say "tax cuts for the rich" because the richest 5% in this country got 37% of the tax cut this year. quite simple really.

but what you really want to do is turn this into a debate on tax cuts so you can feed me the same talking points you always use, and then change the subject when i refute them.

if you had actually read my post, it was a just a short little post, really, you would see that it was quoting nicholas kristof on the ethics of the bush tax cuts, and their apparent contradiction. i wish you had actually addressed that.

d meyers

please tell me how you cut ALL INCOME taxes without it affecting the people who pay the majority of the tax burden. Your stat is right, why don't you include the percentage of the total income tax burden that to 5% pays to give a more accurate picture.

When the bottom 50% of the income earners pay less than 5% of the total income tax burden it is mathematically impossible to cut taxes across the board and have the greatest share of the total cuts go to this group. Unless you want to give people money who don't pay income taxes then given the massive progressive nature of our tax burden the majority of any across the board income tax cut will go to the group that pays the most taxes.

The comments to this entry are closed.