Bullshit. If that was true then they would allow the presidential candidates to speak longer during debates.
Sorry Elvis! My bad! I was totally whoosed! I don’t like smiley, either, but now I know why some people use them.
Damn. Elvis, I just figured out that you whooshed me too. Oops. :smack:
Well, only a tiny portion of those 1.35 Trillion dollar cuts have taken effect. This must have been what he was talking about because he was referring to the effects it was having. Unless you are prepared to argue that he was somehow saying that the planned tax cuts over the next 10 years are somehow hurting the economy.
It’s crazy to argue that any tax cut can hurt the economy anyway. Tax cuts stimulate the economy. Bush’s tax cut was just too small to really have any effect on the major downturn that was coming.
And, yes, 1.35 Trillion is small. Tiny, actually. This number is over a 10 year period in which the government will spend well over 20 Trillion dollars. Since when is a small percentage like that huge. If that’s huge, then whats the word that you would use to describe what libertarian’s tax cut would look like?
In fact, I can remember a debate on the “liberal media” in GD where people used instances of the press referring to the tax cut as “huge, large, or massive, etc” for a good example of proving liberal leanings, because the cuts clearly were very small.
I admit no such thing. I acknowledged that yes, we have some technologies now that we didn’t then. However, we have less armed forces now than then, and this is what would commonly be reffered to as the “strength” of the US military.
Cite?
You must have missed the part where the Slate article quotes The White House budget office as stating:
Of course you won’t consider this large, but there is no question that the tax cuts contributed to the deficit.
The military being as strong as you’d like does not equal weaker no matter how many times you say it. I must admit I admire your tenacity in the face of facts.
Bush AWOL cite Since you seem to have trouble with my links here is some relevent info (from the Washington Post Friday, November 3, 2000)
From this Pit thread:
These people clearly have an agenda, but some of their evidence is provocative.
Tax cuts for the rich?
I bet most of you here, including myself, got that $300 or $600 check in the mail last year. In fact, My tax refund this year is LARGER than it was last year. And I made less money!
I make under $30k a year…Does that mean I got the tax cut because I’m wealthy? I think you Libs need to define “wealthy”. I can already see that Uncle Sam is taking less from my paycheck than last year. And trust me, It helps.
Were you aware that that check was basically considered an early refund? If you paid attention, that was factored into any refund that you got and was deducted from it. Some people (I know a few of them), actually had to pay some of that check back last year. These people would have otherwise had a refund, but wound up having to pay instead.
Those checks were not a “tax cut” by any definition. They were more like a cash advance.
Individual anecdotes are next to useless when talking about tax law, at least without more info than you’ve provided. What else changed for you last year? You already said your income was lower… did it put you in a lower tax bracket? Did your living arrangements change, did you get a credit for something you bought? Do you own your own business? You may be getting less taken out, but it ain’t the same for everyone.
The issue is the law itself, and it clearly gives more benefit to the wealthy than it does to middle- and lower-classes. If you have a general refutation for that, I’d love to see it.
Interesting…Do you have any info about what income levels the tax cut affects? I’ve tried looking on the IRS web site but I couldn’t find that info.
HELP!!!
If I could see the info with my own eyes, it would really be an eye-opener.
Thanks.