but but but, obama said the Bush tax cuts where for the evil rich!
 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...s-500-billion/

"Taxmageddon falls 70 percent on middle and low income families. That's because 60 percent of the Bush tax cuts were for middle- and low-income taxpayers,"

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz1sONI5D98

FoxNews.com ... Fuck YEAH!!

"Taxmageddon"


Seriously?

intelligent rebuttal....Fuck YEAH!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/su...pagewanted=all

http://articles.businessinsider.com/...arger-deficits

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...g-taxmageddon/

Better. Unless you're preaching to their respective choirs, Fox and CNN aren't the best places to cite. They are good for learning about something, then cite other sources (preferably primary sources.)

sorry, you're simply incorrect.
both places report news. either one is a source. Intelligent people know where the news ends and the opinion begins.
If you're asking me to show you where the line is in the future, I can.:thumbsup

I was thinking Obama will change america, i see now president is nothing, a clown, he cant do shit

i've always felt that way. most people react so emotionally to the opinions of one writer they forget the news part all together.

So you're only trying to convince INTELLIGENT people? ;) Rightly or wrongly, people THINK that Fox tends to put a conservative slant on the news and CNN a liberal slant. Verbal's post proves that some people, namely him, don't trust Fox News. Anther or not he SHOULD trust Fox is beside the point; the fact is many people don't.

If you want to educate / convince people, use the whole sentence from a Fox article "according to a new report from the Congressional Budget Office, the Bush era tax cuts...". That way you're citing the CBO, not Fox. Whether or not they are right to do so, people do in fact trust primary sources more than they trust Fox. Fox is a great place to find information, just read what their source is. A lot of times the source Obama himself. They can dismiss Fox as being against Obama, but when he implicates himself in his own words they are nearly forced to see the truth.

I agree, although the primary way in which all news sources slant their coverage is in the selection of stories that they choose to cover, or not cover.



.:2 cents:

It will hit the rich more then the middle class but it touches most of us.

How many folks making 6k a year have significant capital gains? Alternative minimum tax does not hit people under 100k or something last time I checked. Gift tax? Inheritance? I get your point in that raising the tax rate across the board is tough but it is the bigger issues will create the real revenue.

The US needs to pay down the debt. Neither side seems to care about this but it is the truth. Doing nothing allows this to happen so they will do nothing. Pretty easy to see why it is happening.

You are personally outraged why?

you miss the point of my posts. besides using them to kill time on a slow day, I use it to identify unintelligent posters. Its like a little trap. Throw up a story from fox that I know is out there everywhere and see who takes the bait.
These posts are never about convincing the other side. its more about laughing at them.:thumbsup

outraged?
No, I'm laughing at all of the outrage of the left over Bush's tax cuts for the rich.

We spend $1trillion a year more than we have. Taxes on the rich won't change that. In fact, NO tax increase will change that.
The spending must stop. our deficit has very little to do with tax cuts.

like the Buffet rule?
that joke will bring in $4.7billion a year according to Congress?s Joint Committee on Taxation.
what's $1 trillion - 4.7 billion?

pretty inconsequential.

true ... but how can you explain that cutting funding for Planned parenthood then would be essential to deficit reduction .. after all, it is only 360 million a year

Whats 4.7 billion - 360 million ?

I'll await any of your links where planned parenthood funds have been cut in an effort to reduce the deficit.

Read .... I did not say that .
But it is discussed on the floor and put forward by the GOP as much as the end of the Bush tax cuts . Neither is done .

Try to think once in a while , otherwise go ask your mommy to explain .

As usual, someone will have to take your word on it as, with all pretend facts, they come with no links.

You can thank John Boenher and the rest of those assholes for always getting in his way.

More brilliant commentary from the uninformed

As usual ... lol ... :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh ... I always post links but stopped as they are not relevant to guys like you ....

So , exception, here is from John Stewart yesterday show . Look at the video, you will see the Senator Thune explaining that to you .... since you brought in the Buffet rule ...

for the video: http://bostinno.com/2012/04/18/jon-s...ibuster-video/
what a loss of time ...

Get ready for "my secretary makes more..." line 1..2..3..

lets choose the republican side or the democratic side and argue who does it better, when in fact shit is all the same!

The Bush tax cuts MARGINALLY help reduce taxes on the middle and lower class, but it's when you start making more than $1 million per year, that's where the giant disconnect begins to show its real colors.

Personally I think they should just end across the board....

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...x592-23659.gif

i saw this a couple weeks ago, pretty interesting. i normally don't pay attention to this guy, but he breaks it down pretty cool

https://youtube.com/watch?v=jboTeS9Okak

Obama never said that, obviously.

Man, you can tell when the dead beats roll out of bed.

Jon Stewart.
Christ, no wonder you're clueless.:1orglaugh

The unintelligent bottom loves running this graph out.
Now run out the comparable graph showing who PAYS the most. :1orglaugh

Which, also obviously, is why Obama always says tax cuts for those making over 1 million dollars a year should go back to the levels they were at before the bush tax cuts.

Luckily all of those big tax breaks has created so many jobs that unemployment is virtually.. non.. exist.. ant.. hmm..

FoxNews, no wonder ...

BTW, the clip shows the senator advocating to cut , not John Stewart ...

See why it makes no sense to post links for people like you :2 cents:

Some people think "paying the most" means paying more volume of dollars.

Luckily the intelligent person knows that it's a percentage.

A person with 1 million dollars pays 10%
A person with 100 dollars pays 10%


Who just paid "more"?

You should never post links to a comedian to intelligent people.
We don't find them credible.
In your little argument.
Because after years of railing against Bush's tax cuts, you don't have shit to say when your nose is rubbed in the truth.

Shit you are dumb ...

Go install a membrane and shingles .... and believe you are rich ... :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Someone just bought your car from you.
person with 1 million dollars pays you 10%
A person with 100 dollars pays you 10%
An intelligent person will know who paid you more.

Ah yes, the bitter retort of the Internet loser.
Take a look around your apartment. I wouldn't let my DOG live there.:1orglaugh

If they were to buy the same car they both paid the same - 10% of car's price.

What was that about intelligent people? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Where is the second book on the guy who divided the country and pushed the deficit to 15 trillion?

One person has 100 dollars and gives you 50 dollars
Another person has 1 million dollars and gives you 50 dollars

Which person is in more financial crisis by the giving of 50 dollars? (who gave "more"?)

Fox"news" makes Goebbels look like a newb

The second $50 will buy you the same goods that the first $50 does. You have an odd perception of what value is.

Call me a fucking moron.

I would never call you or 12clicks or anyone else a moron.

The $50 is not the important number which is what I'm trying to illustrate here. The word "more" is in reference to what value it HAD to the giver, not the receiver. Who gave "more" is the person who could least afford to give it.

In the tax debate, the word "more" refers to the volume of dollars as if that means they should pay less of a percentage. It's silly and juvenile. Paying less of a percentage yet calling it "more" is just as much a twist as what I did.

I disagree.

I have $10 million. You have $1 million.

I pay 10%. You pay 20%.

I pay $1 million. You pay $200,000.

I have never learned of any math in existence where $200,000 is "more" than $1 million. The pool of money that paid money came from has no bearing on whether or not $1 million is more than $200,000.

$1 million is more than $200,000, fact.

Takin $100 million of your money and giving it to Fred Phelps (Westboro) wouldn't affect the deficit either, yet I'm pretty sure you're see it as unconscionable.

Forcing 50% of the country to pay for murdering babies (as they see it) has nothing to do with the deficit. It has to do with they don't want to participate in the slaughter of innocents, financially or otherwise. Much like you might feel if you were forced to pay for NAMBLA, the KKK, etc. You can argue that the KKK, Westboro, or Planned Parenthood has the right to exist and to do what they please with THEIR money, but that's different from forcing all of us to pay their bills for them.

The only relationship to the deficit is that once we realize we're spending about $180,000 billion too much each year and we need to cut a lot out, we may as well start by stopping unconscionable spending - anything we're giving to hate groups, terrorists organizations, groups who do something similar to murder, etc.

(Not that partial birth abortion is necesarily murder per se, but it's certainly similar enough to murder that people shouldn't be forced to participate in it, financially or otherwise.)

fact is: that multi millionaires use their tax cuts to create jobs is a myth.

not that they dont create jobs at all, they just dont create more cause they just saved 1 or 2 million USD in taxes. Cause a reasonable company owner only creates jobs that he needs, not just for fun cause he has an extra million to spend

12clicks
 

"Pearls before swine".

:2 cents: