http://porter.house.gov/?sectionid=188&sectiontree=3,4,188&itemid=949

Which equates to a 3k per person tax increase if you make more than 31k a year. tie that with a 12% + increase in food costs coming over the next few months and 4 + a gallon gas.

At least all illegal aliens in this country will become citizens and we will all have access to healthcare if you can afford to get to a Dr. to be told you are malnourished and starving.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/SuperModels/CouldWeReallyRunOutOfFood.aspx

defintley fun times ahead.

Before we unleash any new tax plan I'd like to see a 20 year accounting for all Sen/congressmen for earmarks they personally attached.

Let's clean up the spending bullshit before we give those flipping crooks more cash...

You mean like the one Obama delivered to his wife's employer just before she got a pretty sweet raise?

You should probably read about stories like this from sites that don't spin it for their own political gain....I know, that's nearly impossible. At least read from both sides then decide. The GOP are really living this up...nothing like scare tactics. It's been working well for them, so why stop now. Of course the democrats just sit back like spineless worms and let it be spun, idiots!

The "greatest increase in taxes" occurs because the Bush tax cuts for the rich programs run out. Rich people will see a great increase in taxation...as they should, they've been living high off the hog with the idiot and crook in office. It also doesn't make huge cuts in Medicare and medicaid as Bush and the GOP would like. It also invests in education...but of course, we can't have THAT!!

It might have helped if the GOP hadn't gotten us into a half a trillion dollar unnecessary war taking a balanced budget to the worst deficits EVER!! Granted we would have been in a deficit after 9/11 and the Afghan war or better termed "the forgotten war" (which I fully supported) That wasn't Bush's fault, it's not like he planned 9/11...or did he? <Tin foil hat off> :cool:

I do agree with Fandros however, increasing taxes must come with much better accountability...and that problem is not a GOP or Democratic problem...it's an American problem. I'm 100% willing to pay more taxes IF I have reasonable assurance they are being spent wisely on things that help this country and the world. I willing to start paying the price to start cutting into our deficit...the politicians, all of them, need to stop wasting money left in right.

Of course the democrats just sit back like spineless worms and let it be spun, idiots!

The "greatest increase in taxes" occurs because the Bush tax cuts for the rich programs run out. Rich people will see a great increase in taxation...as they should, they've been living high off the hog...Why wait for the Democrats, you spin it just fine yourself.

By the way, the tax rate is about the most progressive it's ever been. Letting them lapse will hurt the middleclass more than those "rich" people you so loathe.

There were two links in Nekko's post, and I hope folks give equal interest to the second link regarding the looming food shortage on Mother Earth.

The argument that the tax cuts Bush gave the rich being taken back is a tax increase is just as laughable as the "tax increase" we are seeing in Minnesota, where the license registration fees that were cut by former Governor Ventura (because he wanted to pay less for his tabs each year and so made a feel-good cut in those fees for 'the people') are being raised back up to pay for road and bridge repairs.

Because someone reduces something to please some folks should never be equated as an increase when a more level headed person or group puts it back in place to serve the larger group. That is simply slimy politicking, which is what everyone keeps claiming they want to stop from occurring.

BTW, I wonder if they are already budgeting for the influx of revenues from the monies collected in taxes next year from the Bush "stimulus"......

......here, have $300 to make your life better for a day or two...now, give me back a hundred, sucker! :rolleyes:

9 trillion dollar deficit... Let's make sure we harp on about the earmarks that make up less than 1% of the budget.

This needs to happen. How many of these stupid stimulus plans and tax cuts are we going to have to suffer through before people finally realize that they do not work?

What is $3,000 / person compared to inflation? I'm guessing it is only sounding so big because our dollar is becoming worthless. Anyone have a good read on that?

It does not mean that every person is going to see their tax rate go up by $3000.00 a year. That's just a great way to make the retarded nervous.

Bottom line is this: Those that have felt the "relief" from the Bush tax cuts are the ones who needed relief the least...and if you tax them at what they should pay...they will still have plenty of liquid cash left.


Just an FYI...I benefit from the Bush tax cuts...it is not fair that those who make less pay a higher rate.

My guess is that that is an average taking the highrollers "tax increase" after the cuts are removed and spreading it out over everyone.

If you take one person being taxed on let's say $20 mill income and put him in a group of 100 people who mostly make $30-70k per year, and then do an average, that $20 mill can make things look a tad distorted. Bad example, yes, but you get my idea, I think.

Ya'll miss the point, the govt could make do with less if we held them to be accountable for the spending.

Before I smile about losing another 3k a year in taxes I want those fuckers to feel it.

No more lifetime pay for a mere 4 years of service...c'mon

No earmarks for bullshit we flat out don't look at closely.

That's not a fucking spin job, that's common sense.

Here's a novel idea...

Get the fuck out of Iraq... that would pay for the entire thing, with shit ton left over.

Someone remind me why we are fighting this 3,000,000,000,000 dollar war again...

Because the cost to ignore it would have been far greater than 3,000,000,000,000...

Why wait for the Democrats, you spin it just fine yourself.

By the way, the tax rate is about the most progressive it's ever been. Letting them lapse will hurt the middleclass more than those "rich" people you so loathe.


No shit, lol you are going to realize this isn't hurting the million/billionares....its hurting the people who spent 50+K on school, land a job making 50+k a year and with tax increases, high cost of living...hell would have been better off working at the grocery store down the road.

Someone remind me why we are fighting this 3,000,000,000,000 dollar war again...

Here...Dick reminds us all (http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080318/wl_mcclatchy/2883358)!

Because the cost to ignore it would have been far greater than 3,000,000,000,000...


Spoken like a true child of the Fatherland!!!!!

By the way, the tax rate is about the most progressive it's ever been. Letting them lapse will hurt the middleclass more than those "rich" people you so loathe.Laughably incorrect. The middle class has been losing for years -- wages are down since 1999, and the middle class just gets smaller. On the other hand, the very rich have successfully gotten richer, but even they've been losing out to the super-extremely rich.

And Furtivus, as usual, is just bloviating.

A. There we options other than a disastrous invasion open to us to contain Saddam

B. Exactly what would have been the cost or the repercussion? Would Saddamn have given his invisible WMDs to the invisibile Al Queda Army in Iraq?

We still have a middle class? I'm pulling in three times household median income and still would have to be in debt my whole life to buy anything important.

I 100% agree with you.

the govt could make do with less if we held them to be accountable for the spending.

No more lifetime pay for a mere 4 years of service...c'mon

No earmarks for bullshit we flat out don't look at closely.


Point 1: Agree

Point 2: Agree

Point 3: Agree

But still, Porter's average per citizen numbers are pretty bullshit. :D

'Someone remind me why we are fighting this 3,000,000,000,000 dollar war again...'

- The whole 'WoMD' thingy.

Hey, if it helps, British Iraqi war expenses went up three fold this year, despite cutting troop numbers. Ok so we're only paying 3.5billion pounds (7 billion dollars) a year, but still.

Laughably incorrect. The middle class has been losing for years -- wages are down since 1999, and the middle class just gets smaller. On the other hand, the very rich have successfully gotten richer, but even they've been losing out to the super-extremely rich.

And Furtivus, as usual, is just bloviating.And that's all non-sequitor.

If wages are down, I would think we should keep the tax cuts in place even more so. And how many of those middle class have moved up into the top? I have :)

Anyway, this graph (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWIgrowth.html) with AWI (adjusted for inflation) says differently.

I'm pulling in three times household median income and still would have to be in debt my whole life to buy anything important.Only 3 times? Geez man, stop competing with Spitzer for your entertainment expense.

What is $3,000 / person compared to inflation? I'm guessing it is only sounding so big because our dollar is becoming worthless. Anyone have a good read on that?
It's a mistake to assume that wages are increasing as quickly as inflation (hint: they haven't been).

Well 3k increase in taxes affects everyone who makes more than 31k a year. It doeasnt affect the rich, they ll pass on the increase to everyone one else. 5 dollar gas doesnt affect the rich.
It hurts the middle class and whats left of it in america. The worse part about the tax increases is no one is un affected. Even those on SSN get taxed now. Tell someone who is struggling on a fixed ssn check to suck it up.

Sure lets pull our 140k troops out Iraq Afganastan. Cut the military down to nothing. Let them find jobs in the private sector oh wait a million people loose without jobs in America. Wonder if they will do drugs and be disgruntle maybe steal and love america bieng a war veteran and all.
Ever see an old person in the store they always ask for a bag even if they are buying 2 items there is a reason to it old habits die hard.

I know we can follow LBJ and put them all in the job core building roads and bridges and dams. SO they can work for there welfare and free health care.

Its not just the 3k tax thats hitting you its the increase in costs for everything as well. So 3k might get covered by a raise this year. What abotu the 12 + % increase in food. 20% increase in fuel costs. Look at your electric bill most of the country is seeing 7-20% increases coming just from the increase in fuel and coal transportation costs which is just the tip. Build nuclear but not in my backyard.

Hurry up and pass more anti gun laws before the people riot in the streets. Because they cant afford bread or milk. let alone find a job. We can build more prisons hire more police officers.

hurry up and sell your starbucks and tech stocks invest in food. energy and walmart. Cause this big great change isnt going to be as wonderful as it sounds when it comes to past and what you have now isnt paying the bills.

hell Im a pessamist but a realist.

A few things:

First, that $3000 per person is a bullshit number.

Second, if the troops are pulled back stateside from their deployment they are not going to be put into the private sector; they are enlisted to serve set amounts of time, and will be deployed elsewhere.

This whole tax package deal is typical political spin to scare folks into making calls to their elected officials begging to vote against it, without providing real facts about what it entails. The Porter news release provides no actual facts, just tosses out numbers based on skewed averages.

Bush/Cheney have been cutting taxes on the richest folks in the country, but just like with Reagan's trickle down theory of economics, there have not been more jobs created as a result, but rather those folks getting cuts have simply grown richer and invested their money for even more profits. If the idea of tax cuts to create jobs worked, we would not have such high unemployment.

Bush has been taking his cues from Nero, and is simply fiddling around as Rome burns. He is a clueless, bumbling fool, who was unable to succeed at any business venture he attempted, so he went into politics, where there are always plenty of folks who will take care of you and cover your tracks as long as you favor them with your policies.

it raises everyone to a 39% tax rate. Ill pull other sources for the average 3k per person over 31k.

as for jobs loss, theres a great deal happening now,.and great deal more to show in the coming months since it takes about 3-4 months for the unemployment numbers to post ( alot just in the bearns stern fiasco ). For the loss of jobs after the military pulls out, Most will recieve and accept early outs. I did after the first sand box forray and drastic cuts in the military. Im sure many serving will do the same. The affect also spreads to suppliers of the military and contractors. Just wander what they will do after they get out ?

Unemployement has been sky rocketing from all those in the mortgage and construction industries riding this Tsumia. Now its just affecting alot more people in varied industries. Yeah the people who are rich have just gotten richer, alot of the tax cuts were for small business not just the billionaires of the world who make multi million billion donations for worthy causes and create jobs. The tax doesnt hurt them.

blaming the president for all the worlds woes is a great reason they cant serve more than 8 years. Otherwise we would have Castro and Chavez. Its amazing how many supported and aggreed with Bush even 4 years ago. But he is on the way out so lets have party. Lets embrace a blind change to everything without solving whats broke now. I just wonder everyones tune will be in a year let alone 4 years from now.

Halliburton = East British Trading company of the time and many others.

My ankles are getting sore from all the shaking.

I am glad to just have a job. I re-upped for another 3 years in the service, so now its time to sit back, have a nice cold pint, and wait for all of this to blow over. How's that for a slice of fried gold?

alot of the tax cuts were for small business

That is an extremely incorrect statement.

the loss of jobs after the military pulls out

Drunken rant Incoming my apoligizes aforehand!

Hmmm... you wanna bitch about loss of military jobs? how many fucking jobs have been lost to the privitation of war time operations?
Oh thats right, it's a national security interests that prevent us from knowing or auditing how much money companies like Halliburton, KRB, and blackwater have actually soaked this nation! Shhh be a good little American and shut up while we jack your paycheck! would'nt wanna help the terrorists now would we?
Wanna keep Military jobs? how about this for a novel idea? lets get the fuck out of Iraq and but a few divisions. enough to cover the spotty assed nature of GW's opps I'm sorry President Cheneys laughable and extremily weak fence idea the sembelence of... ohhhh i dunno SOME BALLS!!!!!!!! along the southern border. even fucking better. how about we actually let them put some bullets in thier weapons. oh sound good? even better let them actually fucking shoot anyone they see crossing the border.
gah i have so much more but as a wise man once told me.

"Drunk and stupid is no way to go through life son"

'Halliburton = East British Trading company of the time and many others.'

- Lol I like the comparison. Though it's the English East India Company, but, and most people find this bit ironic, it was simply called the 'Honourable Company' by many.

Hey, if it helps, British Iraqi war expenses went up three fold this year, despite cutting troop numbers. Ok so we're only paying 3.5billion pounds (7 billion dollars) a year, but still.

And we are spending 12 billion a month :(

If they decide to pull out of Iraq tomorrow, if anyone at all is listening to the joint chiefs, I am sure a large portion of those troops in Iraq will move northward and continue the battles with the Taliban and OBL supporters in Afghanistan.

If for no other solid reason than to be a presence in the area in the event of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal being compromised.

The National Guard and Reserve troops will be allowed to return to a semblance of normalcy but the regular army volunteers still have work to do.

Damn, we can't even agree on facts...

The 2001 tax cuts:

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwb0602c1.pdf

Unless you are totally dee-dee-dee, it's obvious the top 1% got, by far, the most benefit. Strangely enough the next 4% got stiffed...but the next 15% got had a large cut. The lowest 40% got shafted, the middle class 40% got moderate tax cuts in the first 5 years, then shafted in the second 5 as the rich shot up astronomically.

The 2003 tax cuts:

http://www.ctj.org/stim03.pdf

Again the top 1% and those from 5%-20% get the most benefit. The Middle 40% get shafted once again.

So let's stop arguing about who the cuts benefited...it's fact the top 1%, the Bush friends, family and the supporters of the GOP (in general, of course), make out the best on the tax cuts.

...and let's not forget:

"The capital gains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gain) tax on qualified gains of property or stock held for five years was reduced from 10% to 8%." Who does that benefit the most? Middle Class?

The 2003 one bothered me the most. We are embroiled in an unnecessary trillion dollar war with record deficits...and we cut taxes, again, dumbasses.

Couple things, pulling out of the war does save us money. We arent spending as much money on ammunition, supplies, gas, intel the works. The soldiers in peace time dont get let loose on the streets they still perform the jobs. SO its not like soldiers will suddenly become homeless

I have to totally agree about accountability for government spending. They should have a P&L for public viewing :P ALl the oversight committees are run by people benefiting from oversights.

AS far as why we are in the war, i have no clue. you cannot I repeat cannot have a war against an ideal. I want to see Bush get on stage and say "we won the war on terror" and watch as 15 min late there is 50 car bombs that go off. Its an unwinnable war. We tightened sercurity we enhanced intelligence techniques (even is a couple are grossly wrong and should be changed). These things were changed without a war. So i disagree that pulling out would be bad.

Your first chart assumes sunset of the AMT relief which throws off the entire liability for the middle income earners. AMT relief did not sunset (I believe it was extended for 2007 filers). A rough adjustment of your chart should show that the fourth 20% and next 15% got the most benefit individually with that incorrect assumption removed.

The tax cuts really benefitted the government the most. It brought the economy out of a recession and tax receipts for the period of the tax cuts have been much larger than predicted. In fact, the tax cuts have more than paid for themselves.

It's a mistake to assume that wages are increasing as quickly as inflation (hint: they haven't been).

They haven't for my employees :(

Sorry, Furt even with that assumption out, the top 1% make out the best. here's some info from 2004:

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/fsl2004.pdf

Again, take into account the Capitals gains cuts and the gap widens.

And that's all non-sequitor.No, a non-sequitur would be something like, "Look at me, I'm doing well! Everybody else must be doing pretty well, too!"

You tried to pass off the current tax code as being "about the most progressive it's ever been," but this is quite untrue. Hell, the estate tax is about as progressive as it gets, and it's been phased out. Taxes have been cut to significantly favor the already wealthy while income inequality continues to grow. Maybe that's your definition of "progressive."
If wages are down, I would think we should keep the tax cuts in place even more so. And how many of those middle class have moved up into the top? I have :)Or, we could just increase taxes on those for whom income has skyrocketed. I don't have a number on how many middle class have moved to the top, but this comprehensive study (http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP%20American%20Dream%20Report.pdf) reports that economic mobility in the US is increasingly poor as income inequality continues to widen. Productivity has increased dramatically while sharing in the resultant increase in national prosperity has diminished. But at least Bush will help people resolve their mortgage problems with his $600 tax rebate.
Anyway, this graph (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWIgrowth.html) with AWI (adjusted for inflation) says differently.I don't see where the graph states wages are adjusted for inflation. Clicking on the graph takes you here (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/awidevelop.html), where it only speaks of "raw average wage data." The "net compensation" link also says nothing about using inflation adjusted numbers, only "compensation...subject to Federal income taxes..." Consider instead this Census Bureau report (http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf) and the Real Median Household Income chart on page 4 of that report. In 1999 a peak of $49,244 was reached. This fell off in subsequent years and as of 2006 had reached $48,201. I haven't found data available for 2007.

Ailwon, your chart includes state and local taxes (perhaps even property taxes). How in the world can your chart include a statement that Bush lowered taxes at the state and local level? Are the numbers made up too?

The chart looks at all taxes payed by those income groups and shows the effect of the Bush cuts on all taxes paid. It clearly shows the groups benefiting the most under Bush's regime.

"The chart looks at all taxes payed by those income groups and shows the effect of the Bush cuts on all taxes paid."

That's the problem. You can't look at all taxes paid (state, local, property, sales, etc.) and then claim it shows the effect of the Bush tax cuts. Bush and the federal government do not dictate your state or local taxes. All of those "effects" on the chart could be due to changes passed by state and local governments.

"The chart looks at all taxes payed by those income groups and shows the effect of the Bush cuts on all taxes paid."

That's the problem. You can't look at all taxes paid (state, local, property, sales, etc.) and then claim it shows the effect of the Bush tax cuts. Bush and the federal government do not dictate your state or local taxes. All of those "effects" on the chart could be due to changes passed by state and local governments.

You are the stupidest person in the world if you think local and state taxes for the top 1% are that significant compared to the rest of the population.

Thank you for making my point Kelraz. Including the numbers is significant for one group but not for the other. That skews the chart to show a greater benefit to the higher incomes that isn't there at the federal level.

Furt, I understand your stance on this...that including State and local taxes COULD skew the overall number IF those state and local taxes were lowered just for the very wealthy. Have you seen that happening? Have State and local taxes anywhere been lowered only for the ultra rich? or maybe not even lowered but just skewed to make the ultra-rich pay a lower percentage than previously?

Even taking into account your misgivings about this chart, the Ultra-rich are paying a lower tax percentage under this administration...whether directly or in-directly due to the Bush tax cuts. I think any reasonable person could see, by looking at the plans themselves and factoring in the cap gain reduction, that the rich are paying a lesser tax burden due to the Bush administration. Are you saying they are not? I'm open for evidence that is a false assertion.

Irregardless I still think, considering our horrendous debt, the astronomic cost of a the Iraq and Afghan wars, the overall increase in cost of combating terrorism and the ever spiraling health care cost situation....cutting taxes right now is unwise. Of course, I admit I come in with the bias of never believing in the "trickle-down" theory as far back as the Reagan years. The money may trickle down eventually, but I doubt, especially in this day and age, much of it ends up in our economy.

It actually skews the chart Ailwon if state and local taxes have increased across the board. State and local taxes (property and sales) are very regressive. Increasing them would cause your chart to have the lower incomes paying a higher % of their incomes as taxes than otherwise. As Kelraz pointed out, the effect of state and local tax increase likely would not significantly alter the higher incomes % of their incomes as taxes.

Great, let's assume that...do you assert that the top 1% have not gotten a lesser tax burden under the Bush tax cuts? If so let's see some evidence.

Everyone has gotten a lesser tax burden (at least to the extent they paid taxes). They were the tax cuts afterall -- not tax increases.

I am glad to just have a job. I re-upped for another 3 years in the service, so now its time to sit back, have a nice cold pint, and wait for all of this to blow over. How's that for a slice of fried gold?


I wonder when we'll get around to pondering why our current deficit-funded job program (the military and its supporting industries, those being about the only industries we have left) isn't working out as well for us long term as back when we were doing things like building dams and roads.

And yes Gass,

Only 3 times? Geez man, stop competing with Spitzer for your entertainment expense.

I'm not blowing $4000 a night on questionable pussy, if I feel like slumming I can get tail any night of the week. But when my last girlfriend was working a full time job for less than $40 thousand annually year (slightly less on her own than median household told income here) I wonder how on earth despite her freshly minted master's degree and numerous talents she's ever supposed to get on solid financial footing when I'm making so much more than that, and barely putting drops in the bucket of real wealth despite keeping more annually than most people make.


But in the spirit of the thread, I don't really mind tax increases in principle, however we've got a well established crack-addict congress when it comes to fiscal discipline, and the Republicans have been just as bad if not worse some years than the bleeding-heart-open-wallet Democrats.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1844.cfm

The House budget resolution has the potential to cost the average American taxpayer more than $2,000 in additional taxes in 2012 alone. Higher taxes, particularly on capital, cause the level of private investment to fall, thereby slowing productivity improvements and weakening the earning capacity of households. Wages and business earnings, which are closely tied to productivity, would fall as well. As a result of the tax increases implicit in the House budget resolution, Americans could also see their personal income decrease by an average of $1,767 due to a weaker economy.

Moreover, the budget resolution could damage employment growth, causing about one million fewer jobs to be created, and could lower economic output by more than $100 billion compared to what it would have been; the average cost to congressional districts could be 2,191 lost jobs and $247 million in economic output.

For example, if the median household income in a congressional district was $36,000 and the state median was $30,000, the district had a median income that was 20 percent higher than the state median income ($36,000/$30,000 = .20). Because tax burden is based on income, the state tax increase figure was allocated to each congres­sional district using this income adjuster. Using the example above, and assuming that a state's taxpayers can expect an estimated tax increase (based on average income) of $1,500, a tax­payer residing in this congressional district would have an actual tax increase that is 20 per­cent greater, or $1,800 (($1,500 x .20) + $1,500 = $1,800).

Conclusion
As it currently stands, the House budget resolution proposes to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, which could potentially cause the average taxpayer to face more than $2,000 in additional taxes. Furthermore, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would harm job creation and reduce economic output. Given the already weak state of the U.S. economy, these consequences should be the last things that House leaders aim to accomplish with their budget resolution

The House Budget Resolution: Tax Hikes Would Harm Economy, Taxpayers
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1844.cfm

Fair Tax Policy Requires a Fair Revenue Baseline

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1848.cfm

Tax Hikes Hiding in Budget Resolutions' Treatment of AMT Patch

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1846.cfm

Great, now let's see a source that isn't spun for political reasons, Nekko....scare tactics and bullshit.

Furt, the top 1% has seen the most benefit from the Bush tax cuts, plain and simple.

As it currently stands, the House budget resolution proposes to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, which could potentially cause the average taxpayer to face more than $2,000 in additional taxes. Furthermore, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would harm job creation and reduce economic output.


Okay, allowing the tax cutes to expire COULD...POTENTIALLY....cause an increase in the average taxpayers taxes of $2000.
It is nice that they can offer a hypothesis to scare folks into supporting keeping the cuts.

"Look here, son, buying that Saturn VUE suv with the six cylinder and good gas mileage instead of this Dodge Charger with a hemi-engine COULD POTENTIALLY CAUSE you to flip over in a tight turn at too high of a speed, so buy the Dodge to save you and your family's lives."

And also interesting in the quote, it states that allowing the cuts to expire would harm job creation.......how have the cuts helped job creation? Our unemployment is higher, skilled jobs are leaving the country at a record pace (3M is now moving offices to Hong Kong from Minnesota), and the only new jobs being created require the worker to hold two or three to make ends meet. Yeah, the Bush tax cuts have created a lot of jobs, just look at the folks willing to wash your windows at the stoplights in major cities.

Think tanks are paid to put out position papers that favor the people paying for them.

Well of course the 1% tax cut is going to seem like the largest benifet to them. When your talking millions of dollars a year versus 36k a year. There tax break of 30k vs 1600 is going to seem huge to the normal guy.

Raising everyones tax rate to 39% from 34 -36 is a big jump for everyone but the top 1% a million dollars today isnt as much as it used to be. multi millionaires hell tax them at 49% instead of 40 for all I care. But its still the little guy who is shouldering the brunt of the burden.

As for spin reporting of links I can find more but thought a non profit orginisation might be better than the msn links I provided earlier.

Which equates to a 3k per person tax increase if you make more than 31k a year. tie that with a 12% + increase in food costs coming over the next few months and 4 + a gallon gas.

At least all illegal aliens in this country will become citizens and we will all have access to healthcare if you can afford to get to a Dr. to be told you are malnourished and starving.


I have come to the conclusion that maybe..just maybe the US government was not out to get the middle east they were out to kill the middle class. Middle class has so much power that we were a headache to politicians. Maybe even a challenge to see if they could crush us and not ever figure out that it was our leaders not our enemies that did it? I find it hard to believe politicians are not smart enough to know what they are doing to us.

In California, "good ole" governor shwartenface apologizes to californians for cutting education but says his hands are tied. Any government official that says we can spend trillions of dollars on a war and has to cut "only" millions to our future children, our future AMERICANS is WRONG is so many ways...SO MANY. With less education we have less opportunity. With less opportunity means more opportunity to be but workers in a field picking vegtables. Any politician that speaks of education cuts needs to be told to clean out his desk and escorted to the door! *goes and takes her blood pressure med*

I agree, I have felt the world in america is just a matter of becoming the haves and have nots. You can service those who have for a living be it dinner or repairs. The middle class is a dieng breed.