Help! Need Reich "tax cut" statistic for argument

[AngryYoungMan]

Hi all,

Earlier today or yesterday Robert Reich (I think) said something that got quoted a lot here on DU.

It was a hypothetical proposal: if HALF of the top $1 percent's tax cut were repealed, it would pay for the $78 billion for the war. (or something like that.)

Can someone give me the real stat, or a link to it, so I can win my argument? Thanks everyone!

[fob]

1. Here's the rule, make your statement, and have them PROVE

you're wrong! Althoughmake sure you take the $ out from the 1% and the amount to reference is $87 billion not $78. If they come back with "proof", call bullshit on them and ask if they're Un-American or something. It may also pay to sex up the quote too! Remember the bigger the lie the farther it goes.

And sorry, I don't have the quote, but search for Robert reich here on DU, I know there was a thread earlier that may have what you're looking for.

fob

The ONLY unelectable candidate is...bush*!

[AngryYoungMan]

3. Thanks!

I think it worked. And I would have looked stupid with the digits transposed like that.

[Yupster]

2. I bet he's using

the figures for the tax cut for the next 10 years or something like that.

Most of Bush's tax cuts haven't even been fazed in yet, and many of the more expensive ones don't come in for another couple of years. I don't think the number is close to correct for one year, or the amount that's been saved so far.

If you can project as many years in the future as you want, then the number is correct. For instance, if a person got a $ 870 tax cut, you could say just ending that tax cut could save the whole $ 87 billion. Of course you wouldn't add that he'd have to give back that tax cut for the next 100 million years, just to give an absurd example.

[AngryYoungMan]

4. Respectfully, no

It was a more legitimate statistic. It was more bulletproof; I just can't remember it. Thanks for chiming in though.

[blm]

5. AP is the expert on that.

Check out his posts.