Post #330,921
8/6/10 5:54:48 PM
|
Read it again S-L-O-W-L-Y
RepubliCANTS are claiming that letting Bush's tax cuts expire are "Across the Board Tax Hikes" and say it all the Democrats' fault.
Shrub and his minions, the RepubliCANTS who controlled both houses of Congress, passed the tax cuts into law while including the expiration date. Today they, the RepubliCANTS, are screaming that the Democrats are going to raise your taxes - by letting Shrub's tax cuts expire ... just like they were designed to back in 2001.
Are you trying to claim that the Democrats FORCED the RepubliCANTS to create the tax cuts specifically like this so that it can be used against them 10 years into the future?
"Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from."
-- E.L. Doctorow
|
Post #330,930
8/6/10 6:55:58 PM
|
you betcha
democunts wouldnt have gone along without the expiration date so it was the best deal they could get at the time
If the democunts cant pass some legislation that provides relief to those who dont make a shitload of money then it is their fault, only their fault since they have a veto proof majority. Buncha pussies cant even get THAT done.
|
Post #330,945
8/6/10 10:19:51 PM
|
No, Bush controlled EVERYTHING
democrats NEVER had control of the senate or house in those 8 years. republicans would NEVER have made compromises to actually accomplish things...and NO democrat would have ever voted for those changes to the tax code.
(hint, all above statements are false)
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
|
Post #330,967
8/7/10 12:23:19 PM
|
How are the RepubliCANTS compromising today
to get things done? Why won't they deal with the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate - cause they're afraid of the "big scary black man" in the White House? Maybe cause he was born in Kenya and is a Socialist ... ?
"Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from."
-- E.L. Doctorow
|
Post #330,969
8/7/10 12:25:55 PM
|
Is Kagan being sworn in today?
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
|
Post #330,987
8/7/10 3:34:21 PM
|
nope republiCANTS didnt vote for her
|
Post #330,988
8/7/10 4:06:27 PM
|
5 did
not a great number...but a number greater than zero.
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
|
Post #330,992
8/7/10 5:10:36 PM
|
dont tell lincoln, he wont beleive it
The 2001 tax cuts passed 58-33. All the Republican senators (with the exception of John McCain, R-Ariz.) were joined by 12 Democrats to pass the measure.
But the tax cuts were across-the-board rate reductions for all tax filers, a detail that Grayson omitted when describing them as being "for the rich."
It's true that the wealthy tend to pay the most taxes and thus saw the biggest drops to their tax bills. But many other taxpayers saw declines in their tax bills as well. Our previous reporting indicates that the tax cuts for the middle class during the Bush years were more costly than the tax cuts for the highest incomes, because the middle class outnumbers the very wealthy.
|
Post #330,989
8/7/10 4:27:07 PM
|
And that has what to do with Bush tax cuts?
You're changing the subject.
The vote was unanimous for S. Res 591 - "A resolution recognizing and honoring the 20th anniversary of the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990." http://www.senate.go...sion=2&vote=00217 I guess that means the Senate is bipartisan on important issues facing the country in your view?
:-/
Don't be disingenuous, Beep. It's unbecoming.
The topic is Bush's tax cuts and federal taxes in general. Try to keep up. ;-)
HTH.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #330,990
8/7/10 4:39:51 PM
|
Why don't you back read the thread
before you barge in somewhere else?
The you would know the answer to the question you are trying to use as a "gotcha" here.
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
|
Post #330,991
8/7/10 4:40:25 PM
|
Heh.
|