Bush favoring the rich

I got this e-mail today... might make ya think:

"After watching a focus group of democrats that watched the democratic debate the other day in Vegas, I literally wanted to puke. For the most part, all of them bashed Bush over and over again on how he is out for his millionaire friends and the big oil companies and he has totally forgotten or disregarded the little guy. So being an ex-IRS employee, I decided to look back on the tax tables to see if there is any truth to what they said and the media keeps stating as fact, “Bush is only out for the rich in this country.
Based on using the actual tax tables (see link below), here are some examples on what the taxes were/are on various amounts of income for both singles and married couples… so let’s see if the Bush tax cuts only helped the rich. www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html (http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html)

Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K – tax $8,400 Single making 30K – tax $4,500
Single making 50K – tax $14,000 Single making 50K – tax $12,500
Single making 75K – tax $23,250 Single making 75K – tax $18,750
Married making 60K – tax $16,800 Married making 60K – tax $9,000
Married making 75K – tax $21,000 Married making 75K – tax $18,750
Married making 125K – tax $38,750 Married making 125K – tax $31,250


If you want to know just how effective the mainstream media is, it is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If any democrat is elected, ALL of them say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can’t wait for it to happen. This is like the movie the Sting with Paul Newman, you scam somebody out of some money and they don’t even know what happened. Now this is effective (maybe not honest) marketing or maybe a better word is brain washing."

The Bush adminsitration has favoured the rich since it's inception many years ago. This is not new information.

Just like the war in Iraq is NOT about "revenge" for 9/11 (wrong country and group) and it is NOT about biological or nuclear weapons. It is about money and oil.

All that chart does is confirm the point that those who pay more in taxes save more in taxes when the tax rate drops. In fact your chart would prove the opposite of your hypothosis.

These are your numbers. The last column is the percent saved. Clearly the lower end is saving vastly more of their own money then those on the upper end.

8400 4500 46.42857
14000 12500 10.71429
23250 18750 19.35484
16800 9000 46.42857
21000 18750 10.71429
38750 31250 19.35484

It doesn't even show the over 40% of people who pay ZERO in income tax. How does that favor the rich?

I also suspect you're confusing Rich with Wealth.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

:confused:

Bush, Iraq War? Here we go again. :screwy:

It looks like many missed the point of the article posted and this so called email. What? Did we flunk math and reading comprehension? :rolleyes: All the article shows is the Demos tax, tax, tax regardless of your income bracket and the tax is and has been lower under the Bush administration. Not vouching for the accuracy but based on the examples provided from what I see the more you make the more you pay in taxes period. Nothing to do with rich or poor. Also, note that the article is anti-Democrat. It pokes fun at Bill Clinton not Bush and the brainwashed Democrats (sheep) and the liberal mainstream media.

I got this e-mail today... might make ya think:

being an ex-IRS employee shouldn't you have noticed that those tax tables are for lower to middle class wage earners and don't touch on being rich. also those taxes you quote are based on "earned income" i.e. actualy earned from actual labor while the rich recieve a lower tax rate on "unearned income" from inheritance or investments while actully contributing less to the economy.

Also, note that the article is anti-Democrat. It pokes fun at Bill Clinton not Bush and the brainwashed Democrats (sheep) and the liberal mainstream media.

And I think it's reading things like that that distract people from what is actually being dicussed here. If you start saying that a group of people that readers might associate themselves with are all brainwashed, of course they will get defensive. It makes me think that articles like this are written to do nothing more than make people feel justified in their own beliefs and try to provoke the other side into saying something that can be used for ammunition.

I also think it's kind of a joke that the article seems to suggest that the media as a whole is aligned to make people think Bush is doing the wrong thing. Is this the same media that is trying to tell me we're fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq?

Income taxes are just a small part of how tax laws can affect the lower classes, and I don't think these few numbers should be enough to sway anybody's opinon. He made sweeping changes to corporate tax law too, and the way that this affects the American worker are not so easy to quantify. Add to that all the massive contracts awarded to big businesses with no accountability for performance and it's not hard to see why some think he just wants the rich to get richer.

:confused:

Bush, Iraq War? Here we go again. :screwy:

I know what you mean. I tried to set up a thread in memory of those who lost their lives at the mall in Omaha, but instead a few select people decided it would be better not to make the thread about remembering those who were gunned down, but instead make multiple pages of arguments about gun safety.......are you f**king kidding me? That really discouraged me.

About the original post, nice work. I try to take everything I see and here in the media with a grain of salt. Regardless if it is a liberal or conservative media source.

I know what you mean. I tried to set up a thread in memory of those who lost their lives at the mall in Omaha, but instead a few select people decided it would be better not to make the thread about remembering those who were gunned down, but instead make multiple pages of arguments about gun safety.......are you f**king kidding me? That really discouraged me.

About the original post, nice work. I try to take everything I see and here in the media with a grain of salt. Regardless if it is a liberal or conservative media source.

Your thread was different. You weren't talking politics so that was a bad redirection, but you just can't talk about Bush's economic policy without bringing certain things up.

Especially in a case when a person's political viewpoint is being expressed and supported by numbers that don't have a meaning upon which people can commonly agree, of course some are going to bring up the obvious arguments from the contrary viewpoint.

Bush is just so full of questionable deals and shady associates that I know I'll never believe he's as upright as he tries to act, no matter what the numbers might mean to me. Though I don't think he's evil or any more greedy than the next politician, I just think he's a moron.

Your thread was different. You weren't talking politics so that was a bad redirection, but you just can't talk about Bush's economic policy without bringing certain things up.

How so? If you will take the time to read this section it says: Politics, Investments & Current Affairs. So that was bad that I brought up a current affair? I even said in the thread, to try and keep it on topic and asked that if a gun debate was going to occur, to please take it to a thread. But that is enough about another thread in this thread. No sense in taking over another.

Raising arguments against a controversial idea, no matter how tired they may be, is not changing the subject or ruining a discussion. Taking a discussion about something that nobody can disagree with and turning it into an argument sucks, but that's not the case now.

Both discussions belong here, it's just unfortunate that when people cannot find something about an idea to argue with (like the tragedy of loss of innocent lives), they will revert back to any of the related old ones (like gun control).

I also suspect you're confusing Rich with Wealth.

I am not confusing rich and wealth... I just don't know what one of them means... not sure which one, however. What's the difference?

About the original post, nice work. I try to take everything I see and here in the media with a grain of salt. Regardless if it is a liberal or conservative media source.

I'm glad someone understood what I meant. I understood it, so I figured everyone would. Sorry for the confusion.

I get sick when I hear people say "I heard on the news". Sure, it is almost always true, but usually leaves a lot out. I guess there's just no money in saying "everything's ok". People are getting too lazy to give more effort than sitting in front of a TV for an hour and listening to what someone else says they should know. And whoever says it loudest and with the most supporters is right. I watch the weather and that's about it, although to be fair, they get that wrong a lot too.