General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I was 19 years old when Ronald Reagan was first elected... [View all]BumRushDaShow
(127,312 posts)but you know that, although your continue to argue that fallacy, right?
And thank you for correcting yourself with respect to your assertion that the Bush tax cuts didn't expire although you and others continue to equivocate about it.
And you do know the difference between regressive taxes versus progressive taxes? The current system finally attempted to correct some of Raygun's and Shrub's regressive rates, where the top 1% manage (with all the loopholes) to pay a lower effective rate than everyone else. So "cutting" the taxes and rates for lower incomes *should* happen to try to get back to more progressive taxation, with corresponding increases for the top 1%. But you intended to obfuscate that point, eh?
And how about checking out the FULL text of the bill that you linked to - http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/reports/american-jobs-act.pdf
because when you don't link to that, the uninformed would miss what was not shown in the summary - i.e., the closure of some of the most egregious tax loopholes (e.g., "close loophole for corporate jet depreciation", "repeal of oil subsidies", etc" and it redirects that money to stabilizing the employment of teachers, to infrastructure, to vets, to training for long-term unemployed, etc. But that doesnt fit the argument, because your argument, by omission of critical information, insinuates that the tax cuts are only directed to the top 1% when they aren't at all (particularly if the closure of the loopholes ever happens)?