100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: George W. Bush found guilty of war crimes | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
BUTTERS: WELL I HEARD THAT 911 WAS CAUSED BY PRESIDENT BUSH!?! 
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155282/911-all-over-again Like saying it wasn't even a real trial and it was set up by someone who was clearly biased and could have filled the tribunal with people that felt the same way as him? That it is about as relevant as if you made your own tribunal off of some truther site and held a mock trial?
Its in your own article. Mock tribunal = fake trbunal Mahathir, who stepped down in 2003 after 22 years in power, unveiled plans for the tribunal in 2007 just before he condemned Bush and Blair as “child killers” and “war criminals” at the launch of an annual anti-war conference. Mahathir Mohamad — a fierce critic of the Iraq war Obviously biased. i wouldn't support obama, and i never have... he is just as much as a child killer as bush... Ill say it again dems and repugs are two cheeks on the same @ss. I will vote for Obama anyhow because over all dems support my values far better than republicans.
Our allready strained industrial base would have been totaly destroyed had a republican been in the white house. Republicans do not have a chance at all with Romney. I am glad he is the nomination, but realy he is just a sacraficial lamb. Americans have not forgotten what 8 years of Bush did to the country. The biggest complaint about Obama is he hasnt done enough to erase what Bush did. Its going to be a landslide. still blaming bush? i guess you forget he had a DEMOCRATIC controlled congress and senate during his reign... and aren't you always pointing out how little power the president actually has? they cannot do much without congressional approval... so your anger is really pointless... obama is a loser, just like bush was, and has done nothing to take back (as you put it) what bush has done...didn't repeal the patriot act, like he said he would do, didn't close guantanamo, like he said he would, and is sending mindless drones into friendly nations killing people at will... and bush was bad? A republican will do all that as well but also cut funding to those most in need. Gut environmental regulations cut taxes for the rich and raise taxes on the poor. Increase military spending and cut spending on the infrastructure, etc etc. Do I wish I had a better choice sure do. However right now he is the best choice. i think that clinton did a lot of that too... i'm almost sure it was clintons fault for the housing downfall... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BUTTERS: WELL I HEARD THAT 911 WAS CAUSED BY PRESIDENT BUSH!?!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155282/911-all-over-again Like saying it wasn't even a real trial and it was set up by someone who was clearly biased and could have filled the tribunal with people that felt the same way as him? That it is about as relevant as if you made your own tribunal off of some truther site and held a mock trial?
Its in your own article. Mock tribunal = fake trbunal Mahathir, who stepped down in 2003 after 22 years in power, unveiled plans for the tribunal in 2007 just before he condemned Bush and Blair as “child killers” and “war criminals” at the launch of an annual anti-war conference. Mahathir Mohamad — a fierce critic of the Iraq war Obviously biased. i wouldn't support obama, and i never have... he is just as much as a child killer as bush... Ill say it again dems and repugs are two cheeks on the same @ss. I will vote for Obama anyhow because over all dems support my values far better than republicans.
Our allready strained industrial base would have been totaly destroyed had a republican been in the white house. Republicans do not have a chance at all with Romney. I am glad he is the nomination, but realy he is just a sacraficial lamb. Americans have not forgotten what 8 years of Bush did to the country. The biggest complaint about Obama is he hasnt done enough to erase what Bush did. Its going to be a landslide. still blaming bush? i guess you forget he had a DEMOCRATIC controlled congress and senate during his reign... and aren't you always pointing out how little power the president actually has? they cannot do much without congressional approval... so your anger is really pointless... obama is a loser, just like bush was, and has done nothing to take back (as you put it) what bush has done...didn't repeal the patriot act, like he said he would do, didn't close guantanamo, like he said he would, and is sending mindless drones into friendly nations killing people at will... and bush was bad? A republican will do all that as well but also cut funding to those most in need. Gut environmental regulations cut taxes for the rich and raise taxes on the poor. Increase military spending and cut spending on the infrastructure, etc etc. Do I wish I had a better choice sure do. However right now he is the best choice. Except Bush lowered the tax rate in every bracket. And? You said he raised taxes for the poor. That is a lie. He lowered it for everyone. Having a.bigger decrease for someone that pays a higher percentage seems fair. The highest tax bracket has The highest tax burden. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BUTTERS: WELL I HEARD THAT 911 WAS CAUSED BY PRESIDENT BUSH!?!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155282/911-all-over-again Like saying it wasn't even a real trial and it was set up by someone who was clearly biased and could have filled the tribunal with people that felt the same way as him? That it is about as relevant as if you made your own tribunal off of some truther site and held a mock trial?
Its in your own article. Mock tribunal = fake trbunal Mahathir, who stepped down in 2003 after 22 years in power, unveiled plans for the tribunal in 2007 just before he condemned Bush and Blair as “child killers” and “war criminals” at the launch of an annual anti-war conference. Mahathir Mohamad — a fierce critic of the Iraq war Obviously biased. i wouldn't support obama, and i never have... he is just as much as a child killer as bush... Ill say it again dems and repugs are two cheeks on the same @ss. I will vote for Obama anyhow because over all dems support my values far better than republicans.
Our allready strained industrial base would have been totaly destroyed had a republican been in the white house. Republicans do not have a chance at all with Romney. I am glad he is the nomination, but realy he is just a sacraficial lamb. Americans have not forgotten what 8 years of Bush did to the country. The biggest complaint about Obama is he hasnt done enough to erase what Bush did. Its going to be a landslide. still blaming bush? i guess you forget he had a DEMOCRATIC controlled congress and senate during his reign... and aren't you always pointing out how little power the president actually has? they cannot do much without congressional approval... so your anger is really pointless... obama is a loser, just like bush was, and has done nothing to take back (as you put it) what bush has done...didn't repeal the patriot act, like he said he would do, didn't close guantanamo, like he said he would, and is sending mindless drones into friendly nations killing people at will... and bush was bad? A republican will do all that as well but also cut funding to those most in need. Gut environmental regulations cut taxes for the rich and raise taxes on the poor. Increase military spending and cut spending on the infrastructure, etc etc. Do I wish I had a better choice sure do. However right now he is the best choice. Except Bush lowered the tax rate in every bracket. And? You said he raised taxes for the poor. That is a lie. He lowered it for everyone. Having a.bigger decrease for someone that pays a higher percentage seems fair. The highest tax bracket has The highest tax burden. wasn't there a big stink over obama stopping the bush era tax cuts?... seems to me there was... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also The rich were not The best off. Not by a long shot. The best off were families filing jointly who made between 46,700 - 56800 as their tax percentage went from 27% to 15%. That is a 12% decrease.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also The rich were not The best off. Not by a long shot. The best off were families filing jointly who made between 46,700 - 56800 as their tax percentage went from 27% to 15%. That is a 12% decrease. President Bush's tax cuts since 2001 have shifted more of the tax burden from the nation's rich to middle-class families, according to a study released Friday by the Congressional Budget Office. The tax rate declined across all income levels — but more so in the top brackets, the report said. The study found that the effective tax rate for the top 1 percent of taxpayers dropped from 33 percent in 2001 to 26.7 percent this year, a decline of 19 percent. The middle 20 percent of taxpayers saw a decline of 4 percent. The study, requested by congressional Democrats in May, quickly provided fodder for the presidential campaign over the fairness of more than $1 trillion in tax cuts Mr. Bush has pushed through Congress since taking office. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-636398.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Chazster
on
Mon 05/14/12 07:37 PM
|
|
Also The rich were not The best off. Not by a long shot. The best off were families filing jointly who made between 46,700 - 56800 as their tax percentage went from 27% to 15%. That is a 12% decrease. President Bush's tax cuts since 2001 have shifted more of the tax burden from the nation's rich to middle-class families, according to a study released Friday by the Congressional Budget Office. The tax rate declined across all income levels — but more so in the top brackets, the report said. The study found that the effective tax rate for the top 1 percent of taxpayers dropped from 33 percent in 2001 to 26.7 percent this year, a decline of 19 percent. The middle 20 percent of taxpayers saw a decline of 4 percent. The study, requested by congressional Democrats in May, quickly provided fodder for the presidential campaign over the fairness of more than $1 trillion in tax cuts Mr. Bush has pushed through Congress since taking office. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-636398.html Married filing jointly or qualifying widow or widower Tax Year 2002[3] Tax Year 2003[4] Income level Tax rate Income level Tax rate up to $12,000 10% up to $14,000 10% $12,000 - $46,700 15% $14,000 - $56,800 15% $46,700 - $112,850 27% $56,800 - $114,650 25% $112,850 - $171,950 30% $114,650 - $174,700 28% $171,950 - $307,050 35% $174,700 - $311,950 33% over $307,050 38.6% over $311,950 35% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_and_Growth_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2003 look at the tax laws. Notice in 2002 46.7k - 112,850 was 27% In 2003 it changed that 14k - 56.8k was in the 15% bracket thus the people between 46.7k and 56.8k got moved from the 27% bracket to the 15% bracket. What now boy? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bestinshow
on
Tue 05/15/12 01:30 AM
|
|
Also The rich were not The best off. Not by a long shot. The best off were families filing jointly who made between 46,700 - 56800 as their tax percentage went from 27% to 15%. That is a 12% decrease. President Bush's tax cuts since 2001 have shifted more of the tax burden from the nation's rich to middle-class families, according to a study released Friday by the Congressional Budget Office. The tax rate declined across all income levels — but more so in the top brackets, the report said. The study found that the effective tax rate for the top 1 percent of taxpayers dropped from 33 percent in 2001 to 26.7 percent this year, a decline of 19 percent. The middle 20 percent of taxpayers saw a decline of 4 percent. The study, requested by congressional Democrats in May, quickly provided fodder for the presidential campaign over the fairness of more than $1 trillion in tax cuts Mr. Bush has pushed through Congress since taking office. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-636398.html Married filing jointly or qualifying widow or widower Tax Year 2002[3] Tax Year 2003[4] Income level Tax rate Income level Tax rate up to $12,000 10% up to $14,000 10% $12,000 - $46,700 15% $14,000 - $56,800 15% $46,700 - $112,850 27% $56,800 - $114,650 25% $112,850 - $171,950 30% $114,650 - $174,700 28% $171,950 - $307,050 35% $174,700 - $311,950 33% over $307,050 38.6% over $311,950 35% look at the tax laws. Notice in 2002 46.7k - 112,850 was 27% In 2003 it changed that 14k - 56.8k was in the 15% bracket thus the people between 46.7k and 56.8k got moved from the 27% bracket to the 15% bracket. What now boy? 
increased the exemption amount for the individual Alternative Minimum Tax, and lowered taxes of income from dividends and capital gains. The 2001 and 2003 acts are known together as the "Bush tax cuts". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_and_Growth_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2003 Would you like me to explain what capital gains are or dividends? Clue Its something most poor people do not have. THey may be talking payroll tax but how many billionaires do you know that depend on a paycheck? At the same time we got our little tax cut we had to pass a library levy a police levy and a school levy because of fed cut backs. Of course one would have to own a home to be effected by that. Do you own a home? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Futterneid anyone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bestinshow
on
Tue 05/15/12 01:40 AM
|
|
■The one-fifth of households in the middle of the income spectrum will receive an average tax cut of $647.
■The top one percent of households will receive tax cuts averaging almost $35,000 — or 54 times as much as that received on average by those in the middle of the income spectrum. ■Households with incomes above $1 million will receive tax cuts averaging about $123,600. The tax cuts for millionaires will cause their after-tax income to jump by 6.4 percent, nearly three times the percentage increase received by the middle fifth. The overall shares of the tax cuts that are going to different households also are illuminating. The TaxPolicyCenter data show that: ■In 2004, the middle 20 percent of households will receive 8.9 percent of the tax cuts. ■By contrast, millionaires — totaling just 0.2 percent of U.S. households — will receive 15.3 percent of the tax cuts.[3] In other words, the small handful of millionaires will receive total tax cuts far larger than those received by the entire middle 20 percent of households. ■The tax cuts will confer more than $30 billion on the nation’s 257,000 millionaires in 2004 alone. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1811 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also The rich were not The best off. Not by a long shot. The best off were families filing jointly who made between 46,700 - 56800 as their tax percentage went from 27% to 15%. That is a 12% decrease. President Bush's tax cuts since 2001 have shifted more of the tax burden from the nation's rich to middle-class families, according to a study released Friday by the Congressional Budget Office. The tax rate declined across all income levels — but more so in the top brackets, the report said. The study found that the effective tax rate for the top 1 percent of taxpayers dropped from 33 percent in 2001 to 26.7 percent this year, a decline of 19 percent. The middle 20 percent of taxpayers saw a decline of 4 percent. The study, requested by congressional Democrats in May, quickly provided fodder for the presidential campaign over the fairness of more than $1 trillion in tax cuts Mr. Bush has pushed through Congress since taking office. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-636398.html Married filing jointly or qualifying widow or widower Tax Year 2002[3] Tax Year 2003[4] Income level Tax rate Income level Tax rate up to $12,000 10% up to $14,000 10% $12,000 - $46,700 15% $14,000 - $56,800 15% $46,700 - $112,850 27% $56,800 - $114,650 25% $112,850 - $171,950 30% $114,650 - $174,700 28% $171,950 - $307,050 35% $174,700 - $311,950 33% over $307,050 38.6% over $311,950 35% look at the tax laws. Notice in 2002 46.7k - 112,850 was 27% In 2003 it changed that 14k - 56.8k was in the 15% bracket thus the people between 46.7k and 56.8k got moved from the 27% bracket to the 15% bracket. What now boy?
increased the exemption amount for the individual Alternative Minimum Tax, and lowered taxes of income from dividends and capital gains. The 2001 and 2003 acts are known together as the "Bush tax cuts". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_and_Growth_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2003 Would you like me to explain what capital gains are or dividends? Clue Its something most poor people do not have. THey may be talking payroll tax but how many billionaires do you know that depend on a paycheck? At the same time we got our little tax cut we had to pass a library levy a police levy and a school levy because of fed cut backs. Of course one would have to own a home to be effected by that. Do you own a home? Most billionaires own a business. Capital gains are for investments. Stocks bonds and real estate. Short term capital gain is the same as income tax rate. Only long term is different. So then only long term investors would be at low percentages. The "rich" are not necessarily long term investors and anyone can be an investor. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Futterneid anyone?
|
|
|
|
|
