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

[웃 910]

must be noobs to challenge the gecko on financial matters.

I'm not smart enough to challenge the gecko but if the debate is about whether the Bush Tax Cuts benefited the poor more than the rich then I will put all my money on Mr. Big Dog if they go head to head.

[^_^ 5,021]

mawilson's numbers aren't his. they're the CBO's.

big dog provided some clarity to those numbers by pointing out how many taxpayers live inside each of the two groups in mawilson's post.

but mawilson's point (unsaid in this thread afaik but he has said it before) that simply removing the bush tax cuts for the 200/250+ cohort will not make much of a dent in the debt.

that's his point and he's right.

[slim 1,530]

If my wife wasted all our money at the mall every weekend I wouldn't fix the problem by giving her more money to spend.

It's amazing to me there are people out there who keep insisting we're in this mess because the government doesn't take in enough money and they need more. They blame it on this guy or that guy or these cuts or those... but the bottom line is, the government will never have enough money and will always spend more and more and more.

We can't fix that by giving them more money.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I'm not smart enough to challenge the gecko but if the debate is about whether the Bush Tax Cuts benefited the poor more than the rich then I will put all my money on Mr. Big Dog if they go head to head.

Bush Tax Cuts

That right there should tell you who's getting the pot of gold, and who's getting the shaft.

Since when did a Bush ever look out for anyone but their crony's ?

[luckytxn 2,265]

mawilson's numbers aren't his. they're the CBO's.

big dog provided some clarity to those numbers by pointing out how many taxpayers live inside each of the two groups in mawilson's post.

but mawilson's point (unsaid in this thread afaik but he has said it before) that simply removing the bush tax cuts for the 200/250+ cohort will not make much of a dent in the debt.

that's his point and he's right.

Been saying that too. The only next targets to go after is the middle class when they want taxes again to try and close deficit spending. The only other targets are the poor and they will not be touched.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

but mawilson's point (unsaid in this thread afaik but he has said it before) that simply removing the bush tax cuts for the 200/250+ cohort will not make much of a dent in the debt.

that's his point and he's right.

Yup.

[웃 910]

mawilson's numbers aren't his. they're the CBO's.

big dog provided some clarity to those numbers by pointing out how many taxpayers live inside each of the two groups in mawilson's post.

but mawilson's point (unsaid in this thread afaik but he has said it before) that simply removing the bush tax cuts for the 200/250+ cohort will not make much of a dent in the debt.

that's his point and he's right.

I don't care about mawilson's point in the 80s, the 90s, back in 2007, or last night.

His point in this thread is: "Bush Tax Cuts Helped Lower Income Earnings Most"

[^_^ 5,021]

Been saying that too. The only next targets to go after is the middle class when they want taxes again to try and close deficit spending. The only other targets are the poor and they will not be touched.

The only way that happens is if you re-elect this President. Only a President who no longer cares about winning again is going to hit the middle class and/or the poor.

[^_^ 5,021]

I don't care about mawilson's point in the 80s, the 90s, back in 2007, or last night.

His point in this thread is: "Bush Tax Cuts Helped Lower Income Earnings Most"

Actually, he said:

... the tax cuts benefitted the poor and the middle class more than the rich.

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.

Edited August 1, 2011 by \

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Been saying that too. The only next targets to go after is the middle class when they want taxes again to try and close deficit spending. The only other targets are the poor and they will not be touched.

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.

[luckytxn 2,265]

The only way that happens is if you re-elect this President. Only a President who no longer cares about winning again is going to hit the middle class and/or the poor.

Then how do we get a President that will quit spending more than we bring in?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

The only way that happens is if you re-elect this President. Only a President who no longer cares about winning again is going to hit the middle class and/or the poor.

Did that happen when Clinton was reelected?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Then how do we get a President that will quit spending more than we bring in?

Balanced budget amendment.

[^_^ 5,021]

Then how do we get a President that will quit spending more than we bring in?

Ironically enough, the President who will do that is more likely to be a pacifist than a war mongering neocon.

Did that happen when Clinton was reelected?

I didn't say it will happen. I said it could

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Ironically enough, the President who will do that is more likely to be a pacifist than a war mongering neocon.

I didn't say it will happen. I said it could

I agree. I am an isolationist. I wish more politicians were the same.