It's Clinton's fault...again

[TOAD6147]

BUSH TWICE TRIES TO MISLEAD AMERICA ABOUT THE ECONOMY IN 24 HOURS

Within a span of 24 hours, President Bush twice attempted to mislead the
American people about the economy and his tax policies. On Friday, the
president said, "Unemployment dropped today to 5.7% [which] is a positive
sign that the economy is getting better."

But the president didn't add that the unemployment drop occurred not because
the economy was getting better, but because continued weak job growth led
309,000 people to stop looking for work. As one nonpartisan economist said,
"Most of these dropouts would still be in the labor force working or trying
to work if the economy were doing better," The president made no mention
that only 1,000 total jobs were created in December - a "shockingly low
number," where most economists had expected job growth to be around 100,000
to 150,000 for the month. 33 months after the beginning of the recession,
this recovery is distinguished from all previous cycles of job contraction
and resumed growth since 1939, according to the Economic Policy Institute,
for not having fully recovered job levels to those above the
pre-recessionary peak within 31 months from its start.

The following day, the president touted the same economic policies that
helped create the unemployment crisis. Despite the bad economic news, he
said, "Tax relief has got this economy going again," and bragged, "every
American who pays income taxes got a tax cut." His use of the phrase "income
tax," however, was tailored to divert attention from the millions of
low-income American taxpayers (who pay payroll tax but not income tax) who
received nothing. Bush's 2001 tax cut completely excluded 31% of all
families in America. Similarly, Bush's 2003 tax cut completely excluded 31%
of all taxpayers - including one million children of military families.

Read the Mis-Lead -->
< http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1155689&l=14381 >

[Bill in SD, CA]

How can you give a tax cut to someone who pays no taxes?

What is less than nothing other than a redistribution of wealth?

Bill

[TOAD6147]

Bill,
I don't understand what you're asking or the point you're trying to make. What they said is rather confusing and if you can shed more light on it I'd appreciate it but I think their point is that Bush was able to exclude them from rebates by suggesting they didn't pay income tax when they only paid payroll taxes which really is income tax but got none of it back. Is there any validity to this or are they misleading?

[osprey4]

Toad, it is you, rather, that have been misled by the widely reported but now discredited krugman lie that the number of people who have stopped looking for work (known as "discouraged workers") has increased dramatically. If you care to actually read something about this, you'll find some good stuff in this article.

[TOAD6147]

osprey4,
What I read at your right-wing rag has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about or asking. This guy wasted a whole lot of breath and my time splitting hairs concerning the semantics of "What does "many" mean? What does it mean to "seem" to have any particular employment status?" And what was the word so many faulted Clinton for arguing semantics on? Do you not even realize that is the sole meat and potatoes of that entire dribble? I seriously doubt it. How sad that you can say anybody's views are discredited and, therefore, must be lies because someone aligned with your views disagrees with his evaluation and interpretation of data. Based on that same premise Luskin is no less a liar.

[RedFury]

I think what Osprey was trying to say about the "31%" is that even though they pay payroll taxes, they don't pay income tax because at the end of the year, they are getting it all back anyway, because the way the tax code is set up, the lowest income reaps the most benefits from tax deductions, such as the child tax credit. 2 kids can wipe out any tax burden the gov't may put on them.

Now, if we give the lowest 31% money back, above and beyond what they've already paid in, then all we are doing is redistributing the wealth. They didn't earn the money, why should we just "hand it out"?

[osprey4]

Toad, if you can't find half a dozen bogus points in that article you're quoting, there's something seriously wrong with your ability to comprehend what you're reading.

What's the expression, don't argue with a pig. You won't win the argument, you'll just end up with an annoyed pig.

[TOAD6147]

Thanks RedFury. That actually has something to do with this discussion and the question I asked but I believe it was Bill that was trying to make that point. But Osprey4 didn't address the 31% nor did the article he linked. And yes, osprey4, I did find half dozen bogus points in that article you posted...or was it six? And you have convinced me that pigs can fly.

[osprey4]

Toad, your sophomoric attitude doesn't warrant an intelligent response.

[whitebeard21]

Leetle white lies get you impeached big fat whopping multicolored lies so far has gotten over 500 American soldiers killed an somewhere betwee 9000 and 14,000 maimed for life.

The pentagon says they don't even know how many wounded because some of the may be counted twice.
Is it any wonder they can't find OBL they can't even count hospital beds.