Okay, so I’m over on Facebook debating AGAIN. I know, I know.

I. Need. A. Life.

But in my latest debate, this point has been cracking me up.

“The top 5% have had the sweetest deal in recent history. Obama’s push has been to return to the Clinton days, which themselves put the Reagan days to shame in terms of upward wealth redistribution that alleviated tax burden on the wealthiest, thus increasing the tax burden on most working Americans.”

Take a gooood look at that argument point. What’s missing? Whaaaaaaaat’s missing? Oh yeah! Those things called facts and figures. (rolling eyes)

A conservative male these days could totally use this as their new pick up line by the way its screamed from the rooftops by liberals – “Give me your phone number if you’ve heard this, but aren’t the rich getting a better tax deal with Obama than under Reagan.”

rosie_odonnell2Okay, maybe it’ll only help out a conservative male if he’s talking to a liberal woman. What was that? The sound of real, grown men in the military shuddering! LOL.

Anystraightmanscaredcelibate, I love how liberals are using this point to defend their Savior-In-Chief (Save Me, Obama! Saaaaaaaaave ME!) on taxing the rich. Basically what they’re trying to say is “don’t worry about Obama’s tax hikes on the “rich” because nearly 30 years ago that same income bracket (not necessarily the same people) had the same tax burden.” And they’re saying this without any statistics, without any correct comparisons between Obama’s tax program and GW Bush’s, and typically base their “point” on feelings/emotions.

Errrrrrrr, an illogical liberal says what?

Here’s what the liberals don’t tell you and I’m going to get all Neal Boortz on you so just watch out. The next time a liberal throws this out on their Facebook status or at the local beatnik coffee shop, respond with this…. (via the Tax Foundation)

The top 5% have the sweetest deal in history? Surely you jest. The top 5% earn around 30% of the total income out there but pay for nearly 55% of the total income taxes. The bottom 50% of tax payers earn 14% of the total income yet pay less than 3% of the income tax revenues. The income spread between the two groups is 16%. But the tax burden spread is 41% against the shoulders of the top 5% of earners and you think that’s unfair on the bottom 50???? Plus if you look at the tax cuts under Bush the amount of tax revenues collected went UP among the top 5% earners (+11% from 2003-2006; +12 from 2002-2006) and went DOWN among the bottom 50% of earners (-14% from 2003-2006; -15% from 2002-2006). So the idea that well, the rich are still getting the good deal under Obama compared to Reagan so people shouldn’t whine about it, well I don’t think that’s a strong argument based in statistics nor is it giving a proper comparison against GW Bush’s administration (where the comparison should be). And BTW, the “working class” actually paid less under Bush than under Clinton as well.

And if you want more, I’ve got all the whole myth about the Bush tax cuts only benefitting the “rich” mapped out on another post.

  • Share/Bookmark