Obama's $900 Billion giveaway - guess what which class gets the cash?

[MannyGoldstein]

According to the http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/us/politics/07cong.html?_r=1&hp">NY Times, the "compromise" will increase the federal debt by $900 Billion. Who gets the loot?

- The Unemployed get $60 Billion
- Workers get $120 Billion
- The Rich get $700 billion

(But guess who gets to pay back most of the incurred deficits... not a difficult thing to guess, honest...)

Congratulations to the Predator Class! You kicked our asses again, well done!

[Skittles]

1. it was always a given the rich would get theirs

I mean, who exactly was going to stop it? Not this fucking "Democratic" crowd :thumbsdown:

[geckosfeet]

2. The used to call us 'consumers'. Now it is crystal clear that it us who are being consumed.

[Individualist]

3. - The elderly get shafted.

[laughingliberal]

6. Yep. Keeping the deficit blowing up with tax cuts for billionaires is the set up for cutting SS. nt

[Subdivisions]

4. n/t

[BzaDem]

5. That is completely and utterly false. The 700 billion figure would be the costs for the rich over 10

years, not 2 years. It is 140 billion over 2 years (out of 900 billion for the whole package). The article says this:

"Continuing the lowered tax rates for the highest-earners, by contrast, would cost the government $700 billion in lost revenue over the next 10 years, according to budget analysts."

In reality, over 80% of this bill affects only income below 250k. You should fix the OP, though I doubt it will happen.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Why does that matter?

Just because the aid to the little people ends quicker, it doesn't somehow mean that the Predator Class are getting less.

I'd appreciate either a cogent argument or a retraction, thanks.

[BzaDem]

8. Your OP is factually false. The 900 billion package only includes 140 billion for the wealthy rates,

not 700 billion.

In reality, more than 80% of this package affects income below 250k.

[MannyGoldstein]

13. Show me your numbers

According to the Times:

"Continuing the lowered tax rates for the highest-earners, by contrast, would cost the government $700 billion in lost revenue over the next 10 years, according to budget analysts."

I'll go with the Times until I see your numbers.

[BzaDem]

15. The times is correct. You are inaccurate in your summary of the times.

IF we continued the lowered tax rates for the rich for 10 years, it WOULD cost 700 billion.

We are not doing that.

From the article:

"President Obama said Monday that he had agreed to the main elements of a deal with Congressional Republicans to extend the Bush-era tax cuts at all income levels for two years"

[MannyGoldstein]

16. Show me your numbers

Until I see otherwise, I can only assume that the Times is accurately portraying the long-term costs, including interest, from slashing income, capital gains, and estate taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

[BzaDem]

17. I just did. If you can't read it, that is your problem (not mine).

The times said the extension was for 2 years. Then they quoted how much it WOULD cost if they were extended for 10 years.

2/10 of 700 billion is 140 billion. Why continue digging in when you are just going to have to retract it later? I'm not the only one pointing out the falsehood in your OP.

[MannyGoldstein]

18. Well, we can both agree that one of us is data-challenged.

Good luck.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MannyGoldstein]

Feel free to accuse me of ignorance (and please back it up)

But to accuse me of intentionally lying is really nasty, and a violation of DU rules.

[BzaDem]

25. Even Hannah Bell reads the same article you linked and gets to 140 billion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=9704961

"The rich get the Bush tax cuts extended 2 years = $140 billion."

I did back it up. You saw my post backing it up. The fact that you don't want to acknowledge the information in your own link is not the same thing as me not backing it up.

[MannyGoldstein]

29. And perhaps you're both right

And the NY Times was wrong or misleading.

I'm sure that we'll see more figures shortly. Until then, I gotta go with the NY Times.

[bvar22]

31. No.

They are going with the MYTH that the Tax Cut for Billionaires is "Temporary". LOL

The ruinous Bush Tax Cuts are NOW PERMANENT!

I DARE anyone on DU to show me how anything will change politically over the next 2 years that will change the situation so that these cuts won't be permanent.

Even Obama KNOWS that this in NOW the NEW Permanent Status Quo.
You could see it in his eyes when he repeated the Big Lie that this was only "temporary."

[MannyGoldstein]

30. And perhaps you're both right

And the NY Times was wrong or misleading.

I'm sure that we'll see more figures shortly. Until then, I gotta go with the NY Times.

[MannyGoldstein]

24. Feel free to accuse me of ignorance (and please back it up)

But to accuse me of intentionally lying is really nasty, and a violation of DU rules.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lorien]

22. Give it up. There's no defending the indefensible

the rich don't deserve a goddamn dime.

[BzaDem]

23. If it is indefensible, why use falsehoods to criticize it? If it really is bad policy, why can't it

be criticized with facts, as opposed to falsehoods?

[JamesA1102]

9. Actually that would be $140 Billion not $700 Billion

the cost of extending the tax cuts is $70 Billion a year. The $700 billion figure is over ten years not two.

[BzaDem]

10. +1 for facts.

[asdjrocky]

12. I'm sure it's brilliant somehow and I'm just not bright enough to get it.

On another note, I found the red with a blue tank, but it looks like Herbs is gone.

[Moondog]

14. Bend over

everyone, and grab your ankles. We'll be paying for this sell-out of Democratic principles for a long, long time to come.

[sarcasmo]

26. Kick back to the top. Corporate WHORES

[The Gunslinger]

27. More welfare for the rich..

[Kablooie]

28. Oh boy! So many jobs will be created with that wonderful cash! Whoopee!

[Catherina]

32. I could fucking cry right now. n/t