T
Tokugawa
Guest
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "tokugawa" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > If Social Security is in trouble, why is our unelected pResident proposing ANOTHER tax cut for
> > the very wealthy, this time on corporate dividends. Why isn't the money being used to prevent
> > the bankruptcy of Social Security?
>
> Total tax income - about 1 trillion dollars. Proposed tax cuts? $2 billion.
Are you really stupid or do you just get all your information from Rush? The latest proposed Bush43
tax cuts will cost over $600 BILLION. Or are you saying that only $2 BILLION will be effective THIS
YEAR? As far as stimulus is concerned, that's a drop in the bucket. Meanwhile it shovels tons of
money to Bush's fat-cat friends like Enron's Ken Lay in future years. It must be nice to be worth
over $100 MILLION after looting your former company into bankruptcy. Ken Lay's political
contributions to the Bush family were the best investment he ever made.
> > Total Bush43 tax cuts enacted and proposed: $2 TRILLION. Total Bush43 spending to save Social
> > Security: $0.
>
> I suggest you cite that since the yearly tax take of the government is something like $2 trillion.
The TOTAL tax cuts over the next 10 years total $2 TRILLION, you moron.
> > Footnote: Supply-Side tax cuts do not work in the short run. Upon enactment in August, 1981, the
> > Reagan tax cut immediately induced a sharp recession, which peaked at double digit unemployment.
> > That's why the Republicans lost seats in the 1982 mid-term elections.
>
> Actual footnote: During the rein of Carter unemployment peaked
Carter never had double digit unemployment. Reagan did. You can't change history. Look it up. Stop
lying. The reason Carter lost to Reagan was that Reagan made a deal with the Iranians to delay the
release of the hostages until after Reagan became President. And they were freed the day Reagan was
inaugurated.
> > Footnote 2: Since enactment of the first Bush43 tax cut, over ONE MILLION American jobs have
> > been lost. Unemployment now exceeds 6% and is growing. Bush43's solution? More tax cuts! Forget
> > about balanced budgets. Bush43 is a Keynesian!
>
> ... when Reagan put in his tax cuts, despite your incorrect assertions, again business took off.
The first Reagan tax cut went into effect in August 1981. The economy IMMEDIATELY went into a
tailspin. Again this is history, despite your lies to the contrary. By the way, it's the reason Rush
always starts his analysis in 1983, after the Reagan recession, rather than 1981, when Reagan became
President. Want proof? Look at the 1982 mid-term election results. Not pretty for the Republicans.
You also do not refute that over ONE MILLION American jobs have been lost since the first Bush43 tax
cut. Can you say FAILURE? Can you say DISASTER for all those American who lost their jobs (and their
health insurance)?
news:<[email protected]>...
> "tokugawa" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > If Social Security is in trouble, why is our unelected pResident proposing ANOTHER tax cut for
> > the very wealthy, this time on corporate dividends. Why isn't the money being used to prevent
> > the bankruptcy of Social Security?
>
> Total tax income - about 1 trillion dollars. Proposed tax cuts? $2 billion.
Are you really stupid or do you just get all your information from Rush? The latest proposed Bush43
tax cuts will cost over $600 BILLION. Or are you saying that only $2 BILLION will be effective THIS
YEAR? As far as stimulus is concerned, that's a drop in the bucket. Meanwhile it shovels tons of
money to Bush's fat-cat friends like Enron's Ken Lay in future years. It must be nice to be worth
over $100 MILLION after looting your former company into bankruptcy. Ken Lay's political
contributions to the Bush family were the best investment he ever made.
> > Total Bush43 tax cuts enacted and proposed: $2 TRILLION. Total Bush43 spending to save Social
> > Security: $0.
>
> I suggest you cite that since the yearly tax take of the government is something like $2 trillion.
The TOTAL tax cuts over the next 10 years total $2 TRILLION, you moron.
> > Footnote: Supply-Side tax cuts do not work in the short run. Upon enactment in August, 1981, the
> > Reagan tax cut immediately induced a sharp recession, which peaked at double digit unemployment.
> > That's why the Republicans lost seats in the 1982 mid-term elections.
>
> Actual footnote: During the rein of Carter unemployment peaked
Carter never had double digit unemployment. Reagan did. You can't change history. Look it up. Stop
lying. The reason Carter lost to Reagan was that Reagan made a deal with the Iranians to delay the
release of the hostages until after Reagan became President. And they were freed the day Reagan was
inaugurated.
> > Footnote 2: Since enactment of the first Bush43 tax cut, over ONE MILLION American jobs have
> > been lost. Unemployment now exceeds 6% and is growing. Bush43's solution? More tax cuts! Forget
> > about balanced budgets. Bush43 is a Keynesian!
>
> ... when Reagan put in his tax cuts, despite your incorrect assertions, again business took off.
The first Reagan tax cut went into effect in August 1981. The economy IMMEDIATELY went into a
tailspin. Again this is history, despite your lies to the contrary. By the way, it's the reason Rush
always starts his analysis in 1983, after the Reagan recession, rather than 1981, when Reagan became
President. Want proof? Look at the 1982 mid-term election results. Not pretty for the Republicans.
You also do not refute that over ONE MILLION American jobs have been lost since the first Bush43 tax
cut. Can you say FAILURE? Can you say DISASTER for all those American who lost their jobs (and their
health insurance)?