http://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/archives/2012/09/17/congressional-research-service-says-tax-cuts-for-wealthy-doesnt-spur-economic-growth Comments On: Congressional Research Service Says Tax Cuts For Wealthy Don't Spur Economic Growth (And Other Liberal Lies!) by Jonathan Meador en-us Copyright 2013 Nashville Scene. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Nashville Scene readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Nashville Scene. wil@desert.net (Nashville Scene Webmaster) Mon, 20 May 2013 00:00:01 -0500 Mon, 20 May 2013 21:45:00 -0500 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss >I wonder what the Rom-ster is hiding in his tax returns.<<

I hope he never releases them. It's no one's GD business what his tax returns are.
Posted by bobsguns]]> Thu, 20 Sep 2012 05:53:57 -0500 Nashville Scene >You people are wanting to raise taxes on working families<<

Horseshit.

Conservatives want to CUT taxes by reducing spending. Simple as that.
Posted by bobsguns]]> Thu, 20 Sep 2012 05:52:43 -0500 Nashville Scene
"Traditional social welfare" eh?

What that means is they think they can get by with living out the biggies - social security, medicare and medicaid.

In 2011, $731 billion was spent on Social Security and $769 billion was spent on Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP.

Another, $466 billion went to safety net programs.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&…


The total for all of the above combined is $1.966 trlllion.



Posted by Gilbert Martin]]> Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:39:45 -0500 Nashville Scene
Not if whoever dreamed that claim is counting tax deductions as "subsidies" it isn't

Keeping your own money isn't a subsidy.


Posted by Gilbert Martin]]> Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:42:08 -0500 Nashville Scene FACT ALERT: Federal corporate subsidies are 150% that of the federal money spent on social welfare.
Posted by Ingleweird]]> Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:40:40 -0500 Nashville Scene
"About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies.
Posted by Ingleweird]]> Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:35:03 -0500 Nashville Scene
LOL

More upside down economic nonsense from a liberal.

People KEEPING THEIR OWN money is not redistrubtion.
Posted by Gilbert Martin]]> Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:37:57 -0500 Nashville Scene Posted by mattintn]]> Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:10:03 -0500 Nashville Scene
So what happens if you Romney supporters get what you say you want?
Posted by mattintn]]> Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:06:09 -0500 Nashville Scene >Republicans have a deep hatred for America<<

Yeah, how dare they demand that people get off their ass & WORK for a living! How dare they demand that the taxpayer take home more of their $ instead of forking it over to the gubbermint!

How dare they demand that countries that get large sums of American foreign aid not attack us via terriorists!
Posted by bobsguns]]> Tue, 18 Sep 2012 17:30:04 -0500 Nashville Scene >you and your gay lovers<<

It must be awfully sad for you to have to do this sort of thing for attention. Sad that you have no life otherwise, that you have to act childish & petulent in order to gain the attention you so desperately desire.
Posted by bobsguns]]> Tue, 18 Sep 2012 17:24:10 -0500 Nashville Scene >They should pay a rate commensurate to that wealth.<<

Why? Why punish those whom do well?
Posted by bobsguns]]> Tue, 18 Sep 2012 17:21:47 -0500 Nashville Scene
The concept of unlimited liabilty whereby a person in a partnership can be requried to pay for a tort commited by another partner regardless of his individual fault simply because he has money and the person who actually committed the tort does not is every bit as much an artificial construction of government as the other way around.


It doesn't count as government "protection" to be exempted from a construct created by government itself.




Posted by Gilbert Martin]]> Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:25:13 -0500 Nashville Scene
Also, that corporations exist at all is entirely because of government, done to protect individuals from personal liability. If government did not offer that level of protection, do you think it would hinder or help with people starting new enterprises?
Posted by AnglRdr]]> Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:58:11 -0500 Nashville Scene Posted by rook]]> Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:26:42 -0500 Nashville Scene
If so, that book isn't a very good example. Based on the recap listed on Amazon, most of the things listed aren't services at all.
Posted by Gilbert Martin]]> Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:53:29 -0500 Nashville Scene
THIS.
Posted by TobintheGnome]]> Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:32:38 -0500 Nashville Scene
However, there have been studies which indicate the wealthy do, in fact, make greater use of government services than do the poor (http://www.amazon.com/The-Conservative-Nan… as an example).
Posted by AnglRdr]]> Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:58:38 -0500 Nashville Scene
Yes they didn't say effective tax rates - and that is my point.
Posted by Gilbert Martin]]> Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:47:18 -0500 Nashville Scene Posted by no wimps allowed]]> Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:40:17 -0500 Nashville Scene Posted by no wimps allowed]]> Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:37:58 -0500 Nashville Scene Posted by AnglRdr]]> Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:20:35 -0500 Nashville Scene Posted by xray]]> Tue, 18 Sep 2012 07:19:44 -0500 Nashville Scene >You could catch aids off that load....FAG<<

I hear your dad teaches how to swallow............
Posted by bobsguns]]> Tue, 18 Sep 2012 05:51:06 -0500 Nashville Scene
If they're basing their study on nominal tax brackets, the only thing they've proven is that the don't know how to conduct a study.

It is the effective tax rate taking into account all the tax deductions, credits and shelters that people could (and did) avail themselves of in any given period of time that counts- not nominal tax brackets.

Nobody was actually paying 90% of their income in taxes in the 1950's.
Posted by Gilbert Martin]]> Mon, 17 Sep 2012 22:53:14 -0500 Nashville Scene