Skip to main content

View Diary: The False Promise of Tax Cuts to the Wealthy (30 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Wealthy Investor Tax Cuts Under Democrats (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NoMoreLies

    Democratic Presidents have a long history of Tax cuts for wealthy investors while they were in office.  Interestingly, Democrats generally don't bring this up today as they argue for high tax rates for wealthy investors.  Republicans don't bring this up as they don't want to give Democrats credit for these policies and prefer to pay homage to Reagan.

    Kennedy - Reduced top rate from 91% to 65%

    Carter - Cut capital gains tax rate (60% of gain became exempt from any tax, rest taxed as ordinary income).  This was done over Carter's objections.

    Clinton - Cut top Capital gains tax from 28% to 20%.  This was done over Clintons objections.

    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

    by nextstep on Tue May 22, 2012 at 12:34:26 PM PDT

    •  A little disingenious (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ozsea1, CalifSherry

      To claim that "Democratic Presidents have a long history of Tax cuts for wealthy investors while they were in office" when two of the three tax cuts you cite were passed over the objections (veto) of the Presidents in office at the time.  

      What was the majority in Congress when those cuts were passed?  Don't tell me, let me guess... Republican.

      I don't enough about the circumstances of the Kennedy tax cut and can't research it here at work, but from the two I do know about, this is hardly as clear-cut an issue as you seem to want it to be.  Those tax cuts may have been passed during Democratic presidential terms, but hanging them around the necks of the Presidents who could not stop them even though they tried is really a stretch.

      "There isn't a way things should be. There's just what happens, and what we do." — Terry Pratchett (A Hat Full of Sky)

      by stormicats on Tue May 22, 2012 at 02:48:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of the 3 cases I show, Democrats had majorities (0+ / 0-)

        in both houses, except for Clinton who had Republican majorities in both houses.

        For any President tax laws And spending authorizations only change with the concent of Congress.

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Tue May 22, 2012 at 10:29:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  "That Was Then, This Is Now" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CalifSherry

      From today's Thom Hartmann show -

      Half of the federal deficit ( YOY ) is due to the Bush Tax Cuts, another one-third to the Mideast Oil Wars ( off-budget until the Obama presidency ), another ten percent to Medicare part D.....

      Charts are available on Google. Lots and lots of supportiing data and links on thinkprogress.org....

      Claiming " The Dems did it too ! The Dems did it too !"
      back in the LAST century is either misguided or blatant misdirection.

      Troll elsewhere, please.

      "What have you done for me, lately?" ~ Lady Liberty

      by ozsea1 on Tue May 22, 2012 at 03:18:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Note that in the Bush/Obama tax cuts (0+ / 0-)

        85% of the lost tax revenue did not go to household with incomes greater than $250,000.  Many Democrats imagine a much larger share went and goes to,the wealthy than is actually the case.  Democracts today support  the continuation of 85% of that tax cut.

        In regards to Medicare part D, keep in mind that Democratic opposition to this enabling bill centered on Democrats wanting higher spending on this program.  

        So of the items you list in your comment, only the wars and tax cuts for the wealthy can be honestly placed on Republicans but not Democrats.

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Tue May 22, 2012 at 10:38:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Willfully oblivious (0+ / 0-)
          Many Democrats imagine a much larger share went and goes to,the wealthy than is actually the case.  
          "some say..."  "I know a guy..." "Many Democrats..."

          I've seen this movie before. Vaguely phrased to cast doubt and concern. Not factual.

          Democracts today support  the continuation of 85% of that tax cut.
          A few bluedogs like Nelson and Lie-berman, maybe. False in sum. Total BS.

          Do the research, if you dare. Meanwhile, as I said upthread, troll elsewhere.

          "What have you done for me, lately?" ~ Lady Liberty

          by ozsea1 on Wed May 23, 2012 at 08:50:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Pres Obama supports the continuation (0+ / 0-)

            of 85% of the tax cut.

            I have not seen any major Democrat in congress who is not calling for the continuation of 85% of the Tax cut (the portion that goes to households with incomes under $250,000).

            Where are the leading Elected Democrats who want to end the tax cut for all?

            The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

            by nextstep on Wed May 23, 2012 at 09:43:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Eighty-five percent? (0+ / 0-)

              Not factual.

              Nope.

              Not even close.

              And, although Obama said he'd prefer to keep the cuts for the under 250k crowd, he's willing to let them ALL expire at the end of the year.

              You keep on trollin'. I guess you can't help yourself.

              "What have you done for me, lately?" ~ Lady Liberty

              by ozsea1 on Wed May 23, 2012 at 09:56:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Your reply is 3 links none relevant. A BS reply (0+ / 0-)

                Here is a link from an article citing a Joint Committee on Taxation report

                Bush tax cuts: $544.3 billion. The package would extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone for two years.

                The bulk of that cost -- $463 billion -- is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000, including two years of relief for 2010 and 2011 for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax.

                The rest -- $81.5 billion -- is attributable to the extension of cuts that apply to the highest income families.

                http://money.cnn.com/...

                Simple Math  $463 billion/$544.3 billion = 85.02%

                You are just a BSer calling those with facts trolls.  People like you just give Republicans support when they assert Democrats don't understand the economy.

                The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

                by nextstep on Wed May 23, 2012 at 12:16:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                  I read your link. CNN? And your percentages are based on a three-year aggregate. Apples and oranges.

                  Here's another link. I'll save you the reading, since you obviously didn't check any of mine:

                  On the other hand, the richest five percent of taxpayers would receive 47.2 percent of the tax cuts, and the richest one percent alone would receive 31.3 percent of the tax cuts.
                  Done with you. Thanks for trolling.

                  "What have you done for me, lately?" ~ Lady Liberty

                  by ozsea1 on Wed May 23, 2012 at 02:50:35 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Your data is from an advocacy group CTJ (0+ / 0-)

                    while my link has its data from the Joint Committee on Taxation. The goal of CTJ is advocacy not accuracy.   In addition, the CTJ does not take into account the impact of AMT in reducing the tax cut for higher incomes.

                    Your math is also off in that richest 5% of taxpayers is not the same as households with incomes over $250,000.  This is especially the case when statistical games are used when the term taxpayers is used instead of tax filers - a much larger population.

                    You are the worst type of troll, whether intentional or not you work at spreading misinformation - making honest Democrats that accept and repeat your misinformation look as stubornly ignorant as you do.

                    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

                    by nextstep on Wed May 23, 2012 at 03:14:01 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site