COL Gene

Bush/Cheney 1040's prove Rich NOT overtaxed

▼

Bush/Cheney 1040's prove Rich NOT overtaxed

The boys did good for themselves with the tax cuts

from JoeUser Forums
The 1040's for Bush and Cheney are on the web. Here are the results from their tax returns:

In 2004 Bush had taxable income Line 35 of $784, 219 and paid 26.4% in Federal Income tax. In 2001 Bush before his tax cuts he had taxable income of $811,100 and paid 30.8 % in Federal Income taxes.

The Big winner is Cheney. In 2004, he had taxable income of $1,734,373 and paid 21.3% in Federal Income taxes. In 2001 Cheney had taxable income of $4,356,635 and paid 38% in Federal Income Taxes.

The more you make the less you pay after the Bush tax cuts. The President is in the top 3% and Cheney the top 1% of wage earners . ANYONE THAT BELIEVES THAT PAYING 21% OR 26 % IS TOO HIGH FOR PEOPLE MAKING THIS AMOUNT OF INCOME, HAS LOST THEIR MIND! SO MUCH FOR THE CLAIM THE RICH ARE OVERTXED!
politics
46,391 views 136 replies
Reply #76 from JoeUser Forums Top
The people who fuel the economy are the people who spend (demand) which is the low and middle income workers. They spend a much greater percent of their total income then the wealthy and their total spending in dollars is far greater. They are the source of strength for continued economic growth. The demand side is larger then the supply side (investment) which is the reason the trickle down benefits from tax cuts to the wealthy are less effective then tax cuts to the low and middle income workers.
Reply #77 from JoeUser Forums Top
You didn't answer the question. Do you understand that Americans do not want taxes raised?
CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #78 from JoeUser Forums Top
It has nothing to do with deductions etc. It is the rates on the top two income brachets,


Ahem, in other words, tax them rich buggers more!!

Apparently you are a Colonel among Class Warfare Warriors.

Your original article made the case that, since Prs. Bush and Vice Prs. Cheney made so much, there is no excuse why they should pay so little.

Well my classist friend, YOU make more than most Americans, yet, and YOU use the every deduction you can find, YOU are not different from them.

Until YOU are willing to put your money where your rhetoric is, YOU can shut your classist pie whole!!
Reply #79 from JoeUser Forums Top
Island Dog

I will bet you the VAST majority would choose tax increses for the wealthy over the cuts that would be required to balance the budget with spending cuts.

Yes, I am most likely in the top 10 % of the income pyramidand and as such I pay higher taxes than many Americans. I have no problem with paying more than Americans who earn less. I did not see large changes in my taxes with Bush cuts since I'm not in the top two income brackets and hane no children under 18 or benefit from the elimination of the marriage penalty. I however do support cuts that benefit the middle income worker because it strengthens demand and GDP growth. I also recognize that the big winners from the Bush tax cuts are the wealthy. They did not need the tax cuts to begin with and will not suffer by giving them back in order that we can move closer to a balanced budget. The wealthy did exceptionally well during the 1990s when they paid the higher income tax rates that were in effect prior to the Bush tax cuts. Greed is what is behind the wealthy retaining their tax cuts under Bush at the expense of the growing deficit in this country.
Reply #80 from JoeUser Forums Top
No kiddin. You really think that the vast majority would choose to tax people other than themselves? Namely the people they tend to be bitterly jealous of?

If you WERE right, it would still make sense in a sick way. In reality, most people realize that the money of the wealthy isn't stuffed in mattresses, it is at work in our economy. Robbing the rich just robs the poor.
Reply #81 from JoeUser Forums Top
It would be more effective to eliminate the debt and the interest we must pay. $6.5 Trillion since 1980
Reply #82 from JoeUser Forums Top

More effective than what?

7% of the budget is spent servicing the debt. Big whoop. It's clearly not hurting anything.

I don't like the deficit as a principle.

Also, the reason why tax receipts went down in the past few years was the recession.  If you can't even read a chart, why are you even arguing this point at all? The CBO has plenty of charts that show that the tax cuts aern't the cause but rather the weak economy.  Are you arguing that the economy would have somehow been better if we had sucked more money out of those who create wealth?

The government is largely a parasite on the economy. The less it takes, the better off we all are.  The government collects so much money as is that it has money to toss away on pork projects, re-distribution of wealth projects, welfare, etc.  In short, on things that the federal government really has no business being into.

The government is like the spoiled teen who complains he needs a bigger allowance because he can't afford to buy more CDs each week.

Reply #83 from JoeUser Forums Top
Draginol

You are looking at the NET Interest. That does not count the interest paid on the debt held by Social Security and Medicare. For example, in 2004 net interest was $160 Billion. The total interest paid on the $7.6 Trillion on the debt was $322 Billion not $160 Billion. This is the result of the "unified Budget" that combines the federal budget, Social Security and Medicare. that distorts the actual deficit and the net interest. Tax payers are not just paying the "net Interest but the total which is about double the net interest amount..

The real issue is that because interest rates are inceasing and the debt is heading toward $10 Trillion ( by 2008), the interest could reach $500 Billion which will be about 20% of the 2008 projected budget. That is a lot more then 7%. In fact the interest with a $10 Trillion national debt will be greater then ANY other single item including national defense.

The receipts in 2003 are below 2000 after the economic recovery and three years of GDP growth. The revenues are down because of the tax cuts. If you add back the $275 billion of lower revenue from the tax cuts in 2004, the revenue would be UP.

The main reason the interest issue is not worse now is that interest rates are at a 45 year low.That will not last. The average interest paid on the debt over time has been 5.1% If you apply 5.1% times a debt of $10 Trillion you get $510 Billion i n interest EVERY YEAR. That money buys us nothing. In addition, over 40 % is paid to foreign interests whuich means 40% ( $200 Billion in 2008) of the interest payments leave the American economy!
Reply #84 from JoeUser Forums Top
I will bet you the VAST majority would choose tax increses for the wealthy over the cuts that would be required to balance the budget with spending cuts.


Only the parts of the "VAST majority" who, like you, think that, any plan that doesn't affect you, it a great plan!

You are pretty generous with other people's money, aren't you!! ;~D
Reply #85 from JoeUser Forums Top
ParaTed2K

No, I mean the vast majority of ALL voting Americans. Since I did not reveive anything major from the Bush tax cuts, I have nothing to give up. The wealthy can not say that. I am willing to return to the rates in 2000 and see what that does to the deficit! Please note the impact on the interest from allowing the deficit to grow. That is scary.
Reply #86 from JoeUser Forums Top
I will bet you the VAST majority would choose tax increses for the wealthy over the cuts that would be required to balance the budget with spending cuts



Americans had that choice in November. They chose not to.
Reply #87 from JoeUser Forums Top
island Dog\\

No that was not why Bush got reelected. He played the Gay marriage/abortion card. It had nothing to do the economic reality, Social Security or any of the other issues that are front and center. In fact if George Bush had said what he wanted to do with Social Security ,the farm subsidy and a number of other issues he would not have been reelected even with the gay marriage/ abortion issues. If he were to run on maintaining the deficit and his huge tax cuts to the wealthy he'd be in Texas work on the ranch.
Reply #88 from JoeUser Forums Top
island Dog\\

No that was not why Bush got reelected. He played the Gay marriage/abortion card. It had nothing to do the economic reality, Social Security or any of the other issues that are front and center. In fact if George Bush had said what he wanted to do with Social Security ,the farm subsidy and a number of other issues he would not have been reelected even with the gay marriage/ abortion issues. If he were to run on maintaining the deficit and his huge tax cuts to the wealthy he'd be in Texas work on the ranch.


You must not have paid alot of attention to what he was saying then. Because everything your talking about WAS mentioned during his campaign.
Reply #89 from JoeUser Forums Top
there have been a flood of polls taken concerning Social Security, border security, amnesty to illegal aliens and Bush is on the opposite side of the vast majority of Americans. polls all how dissatisfied Americans are with his policies especially economic policies show he has very little support. Now he wants to push his energy policy because gas prices are rising and so is inflation. He talks about conservation but will not do anything to improve mileage for cars which is the issue that has driven up demand for oil. nothing that Bush has done in terms of the policies have made any of the issues better in this country. Not the deficit, not trade, not jobs, not Social Security, not health care and its rising costs, not energy - nothing. He has been ineffective in dealing with the issues that face this country and people like you and others on this site support the idiot. you deserve what is coming and it will not be long before for the American public begins to smart , big-time, from the idiocy of Congress and President George W. Bush.
Reply #90 from JoeUser Forums Top
He talks about conservation but will not do anything to improve mileage for cars which is the issue that has driven up demand for oil. nothing that Bush has done in terms of the policies have made any of the issues better in this country. Not the deficit, not trade, not jobs, not Social Security, not health care and its rising costs, not energy - nothing.


And you know that this is a fact HOW? GW have a transmitter in his head that ONLY you have the freq for? And just an FYI..... I believe *your* the idiot.
Reply #91 from JoeUser Forums Top
No that was not why Bush got reelected. He played the Gay marriage/abortion card. It had nothing to do the economic reality, Social Security or any of the other issues that are front and center. In fact if George Bush had said what he wanted to do with Social Security ,the farm subsidy and a number of other issues he would not have been reelected even with the gay marriage/ abortion issues. If he were to run on maintaining the deficit and his huge tax cuts to the wealthy he'd be in Texas work on the ranch.


Wrong again. Kerry made the economy and war top priority, but as usual the liberal aolution is the worst.

there have been a flood of polls taken concerning Social Security, border security, amnesty to illegal aliens and Bush is on the opposite side of the vast majority of Americans.


You and the polls again. If they took a poll and it said the majority want to live under a monarchy, should we change then?
Reply #92 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

If the current energy proposal is like the earlier bill, it will not address the mileage issue. We will know very soon if the current bill is passed. The other issue is where the money comes from. In the first bill, the $50 Billion was added to the debt since there was no provision to fund any of the cost. It like the prescription drug benefit that begins in 2006. Today there is not one cent toward the over $60 Billion annual cost of that new benefit!
Reply #93 from JoeUser Forums Top
Island Dog

You are so full of BS. Bush won because he got his voters out with the Gay marriage issue. Given the job loss and the economic issues in Ohio the way in which he won was because of the gay marriage amendment was on the ballot. And that drug out people to vote that were more interested in that issue than in the economic devastation that Bush policies have had raked on Ohio. That is exactly what Bush did in 10 other states. Karl Rove worked to place ballot initiatives banning gay marriage on states that they wanted to ensure would will go Republican. I have read too many analysis of the election to believe anything but that and I will admit it was a political stroke of genius. It stirred people up on an issue that overrode their better judgment on things like jobs, inflation, deficit ,trade policy and Social Security reform all of which which are not handling either well or the way the majority would like these issues handled. Your position is it doesn't matter what the American people want it's what George Bush wants. That form of government is called a dictatorship not a representative democracy.
Reply #94 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you think Bush won because of gay bashing, there's really little reason to take you seriously on any issue again.  That's such as facile reading of exit polling data that it's not even worth discussing.
Reply #95 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Gay marriage in 11 states, all of which Bush won including Ohio, helped re-elect him. Without the gay issue in Ohio he would not have won that state. the economic issues and job loss during his first term were serious issues! His policies did NOTHING to help the workers or economy in Ohio!
Reply #96 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Gay marriage in 11 states, all of which Bush won including Ohio, helped re-elect him. Without the gay issue in Ohio he would not have won that state. the economic issues and job loss during his first term were serious issues! His policies did NOTHING to help the workers or economy in Ohio!


Like Draginol said no one need ever take you seriously again. Go away you insignificant little bug.
Reply #97 from JoeUser Forums Top
I do not have to prove anything to a piss ant like you. You do not have the most basic understanding of anything!
Reply #98 from JoeUser Forums Top
I do not have to prove anything to a piss ant like you. You do not have the most basic understanding of anything!


And you are the *most* ignorant person I've EVER met! And your STILL an insignificant little bug! It just seems a little ridiculous that you think you are so smart and more intelligent than the rest of us on JU. And yet you have been *proven* wrong time and again by the most insignificant of us. BTW, here's an example.

Link
Reply #99 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Gay marriage in 11 states, all of which Bush won including Ohio, helped re-elect him. Without the gay issue in Ohio he would not have won that state. the economic issues and job loss during his first term were serious issues! His policies did NOTHING to help the workers or economy in Ohio!


You have confirmed that you know absolutely nothing.
Reply #100 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is the conclusion of people who have looked at the turnout. The impact of the Gay marriage amendments in the 11 states was to increase turnout of fundamentalist Christian and Catholic voters in greater numbers than in the past. Exit polls clearly indicated in those states that the reason for the higher turnout were the amendments. It is you that do not know what you're talking about. All you want to do is defend Brother Bush. I accept it was a brilliant political strategy that has nothing to do the major issues that face this country such as higher energy costs, trade, the federal deficit, Social Security, loss of jobs. Tthe policies Bush is following are not improving any of these problems and do not agree with what the general public says they wouldn't the government to do. Thus on the issues Bush would've lost because if he had lost Ohio he would not be President of the United States. Anyone looking at the economic impact between 2000 and 2004 on Ohio that believes the Bush policies help that state have lost their mind.