Debt Limit Deal: Almost 100% of the burden will be borne—via spending cuts—by the poor and the middle-class.

[^_^ 5,021]

When I stop seeing the poor coming out of Walmart with LCD TV's and six kids in tow, then I will take all this bleeding heart ####### seriously.

They should be forced to sell their kids to wealthy Arab sheikhs. Might drive down the price of oil too, win win for everybody where everybody is defined as everybody who isn't poor.

[luckytxn 2,265]

When I stop seeing the poor coming out of Walmart with LCD TV's and six kids in tow, then I will take all this bleeding heart ####### seriously.

So you against the poor having a LCD TV. How else they going to babysit the kids?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So you against the poor having a LCD TV. How else they going to babysit the kids?

How about they stop having them.

[웃 910]

And he's right, when the poor and the middle class are combined together into a single class of people and then put up against the rich, also defined as a single class of people (with 200/250 being the demarcation).

But he's wrong if you look at it from a per capita point of view, as pointed out by BD.

between 2001 and 2008, the bottom 80 percent of filers received about 35 percent of the cuts. The top 20 percent received about 65 percent—and the top 1 percent alone claimed 38 percent.

If you want to look at it from a Heritage.org perspective they still benefited the rich more. top 20 percent got 65% of the cuts. bottom 80 percent got 35% of the cuts

http://www.taxpolicy....cfm?Docid=1860

http://www.slate.com/id/2296578/

Oh, and do you have a source for the bolded?

Edited August 1, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

So you against the poor having a LCD TV. How else they going to babysit the kids?

Seriously though, if there was ever a better baby sitter than the Cartoon Channel and/or Ninspendo, I have yet to find it.

[Ban Hammer 13,554]

Seriously though, if there was ever a better baby sitter than the Cartoon Channel and/or Ninspendo, I have yet to find it.

duct tape

Edited August 1, 2011 by charles!

[luckytxn 2,265]

How about they stop having them.

I can maybe buy into us having an involuntary sterilization program as long as they don't come after me.

[slim 1,533]

filers received about 35 percent of the cuts. The top 20 percent received about 65 percent—and the top 1 percent alone claimed 38 percent.[/font]

So when you say they "received" something, what did they actually get? Did a check come in the mail with the amount of money they "saved" or did they get a bank account opened in their name or something?

Unlike cuts for college tuition (which people actually do receive something for) when someone gets a tax rate cut they're not actually receiving anything - they're just paying less.

How can that ever be a bad thing? We should all strive to pay the government as little money as possible.

[^_^ 5,021]

between 2001 and 2008, the bottom 80 percent of filers received about 35 percent of the cuts. The top 20 percent received about 65 percent—and the top 1 percent alone claimed 38 percent.

If you want to look at it from a Heritage.org perspective they still benefited the rich more. top 20 percent got 65% of the cuts. bottom 80 percent got 35% of the cuts

http://www.taxpolicy....cfm?Docid=1860

http://www.slate.com/id/2296578/

Oh, and do you have a source for the bolded?

Yes, it's mawilson's post.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

duct tape

[^_^ 5,021]

I can maybe buy into us having an involuntary sterilization program as long as they don't come after me.

There was a tea party congressman on some news show yesterday, raul something.. he said he hears this from his constituents all the time - reduce government spending but don't touch my programs.

[웃 910]

Yes, it's mawilson's post.

Does this table mean anything to you:

[luckytxn 2,265]

There was a tea party congressman on some news show yesterday, raul something.. he said he hears this from his constituents all the time - reduce government spending but don't touch my programs.

Never heard them referred as 'programs' before. Must be a regional thing.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

With all this gloom and doom, I'm just thankful I got a Fed extension on my unemployment benefits. Six more months of spamming this board.

[mawilson 2,133]

You have a source for the non sense you speak?

In its January 2010 report, "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020," the CBO projects that a full extension of the Bush tax cuts, plus a permanent fix to the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax), will cost $3.7 trillion over 10 years, not including debt service costs.

The Joint Committee on Tax estimated in a March 2010 report, "Present Law And The President’s Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Proposals Related To Selected Individual Income Tax Provisions Scheduled To Expire Under The Sunset Provisions Of The Economic Growth And Tax Relief Reconciliation Act Of 2001," that the cost of extending just those cuts that affect people making less than $250,000 and permanently fixing the alternative minimum tax will cost $3 trillion.

The difference — a bit less than $700 billion — is the cost of extending just those cuts for the wealthy.

The 700 billion figure is also quoted in this CBO report.