Quote Originally Posted by Lyle
1. Tax cuts for the rich are not transfered to the lower classes...trickle down economics doesn't work that way. You don't move the burden you just releive the burden on the people who provide jobs to the lower income brackets so that perhaps they will provide more jobs and the taxes are made back by increased spending by sales tax.

I just explained to you how the tax burden has indeed been transferred from the top 1%. If you want to argue using actual numbers, go right ahead.

Tax revenues have fallen so clearly you don't "make taxes back". You remember I just showed you a trillion dollar yearly shortfall in tax revenues since the Bush tax cuts in the previous post using actual facts, right? So where are these new revenues that have been "made back" by the tax cuts, hmmm?

If cutting taxes "relieves the burden" on the top 1% so that they can invest in the economy, why did business investment fall to the lowest level since the civil war under Reagan, and why has it collapsed again under Bush 43? Why did investment hit an all-time record after Clinton raised taxes on the top 1% ?



2. The last time the taxes were raised on the middle class was when Bill Clinton was in office. And just because some people have money and some people don't it doesn't make the people that have bad or the ones that have not good.....so get over that right now.

Every government raises some of the thousands of various taxes at some point and so any administration can be accused of "raising taxes on the middle classes." The fact is that Clinton reversed the direction the tax burden was taking, raising taxes on the top 1% while Reagan/Bush 41/43 have done the opposite. In simple terms, Reagan/Bushes robbed the poor to give to the rich and Clinton did the opposite. And like you say, whether rich or poor people are good or bad is irrelevant.

But none of your answer actually answers my question.

Here it is again :

Does it bother you that a trillion dollar a year revenue shortfall caused by tax cuts for the top 1% is going to be be met by raising taxes yet again on low/middle income earners?


3. Bush is not preventing democracy he is providing time for the Shi'ia and Sunni's to work out their differences and need I remind you that America didn't just take off running wild with democracy after The Revolution we actually had a failed government before the one that is in effect now came into existance....it was called the Articles of Confederation. Soldiers soldier....it's their job it's what they signed up for and it's what they are paid to do....I hate it when they are used as pawns in these politics and yeah I care very deeply about our soldiers no one just sends them out to be killed needlessly without remorse not even George Bush who isn't as heartless as everyone thinks.

Bush tried to prevent any elections taking place in Iraq till he'd written the constitution and ok'd the election contestants. Elections were only held when an Iranian Ayatollah insisted on them and issued a fatwa demanding them. After trying to ignore it, Bush eventually bent to the Ayatollah's will and agreed to elections, but had to go begging to the UN to set them and the new Iraq Constitution up because nobody in Iraq trusted him anymore. Now the country is run by people the Bush administration was calling terrorist groups in 2003.

Elsewhere Bush has tried to destroy the democratically elected government of Palestine and we prop up dictators and tyrannies all over the Middle East including four countries which border Iraq, so how is he not preventing democracy there?

4. You're retreating because you have been out dueled in this debate but yes I will digress and say that ILLEGAL immigration is one of many issues that needs tending to.

No attempt to answer my question again.

Define "out-dueled."