Bush vs. Gore... how much will YOU save/pay in taxes?

[etech]

Trpleshot, and the democrats do not have an exclusive on charity either and it is degrading to yourself to suggest otherwise.

Yes, I consider medicare a charity. I also consider welfare and any other government program that you either have not paid into or contracted with the government for a charity. Charity is good and necessary to help those who do not or through no fault of their own cannot help themselves.
Charity
Provision of help or relief to the poor;
Something given to help the needy;
An institution, an organization, or a fund established to help the needy.

 

[BoberFett]

<< a money grubbing meanie that wants grannie left in the gutter >>

Way to use emotion rather than facts. Liberal twit. Seems to me like you're the money-grubber, as you want to take it from those who earned it and give it to those who didn't.

 

[Tripleshot]

etech

I was illuminating the fact that &quot;charity &quot; is not an exclusive premise of conservitism. It certainly has not been expressed in this forum by the rught wing. WTF do you mean by degrading? Where is that coming from?

>>Yes, I consider medicare a charity. I also consider welfare and any other government program that you either have not paid into or contracted with the government for a charity. Charity is good and necessary to help those who do not or through no fault of their own cannot help themselves.

Grandma paid her taxes all her life. She was a republican and a very proud woman from East Texas. She was totally demorralized when told she had to give up her home before the government she paid her taxes to would pay for her surgery. She didn't ever look at it as charity. She paid into that program all her life!She was told it was an insurance policy for her in her old age. She wants to know what went wrong. She is quite hurt by this turn of events and no one can give her an answer.

Can you? Can you tell her GW is going to take care of her with his health plan?


She can't go get a job. No one will hire her. She has a pre condition health problem and she is 72. Now she rents an apartment but she must decide on rent or food or the $800 for her prescriptions. 2 months ago the prescriptions where only $200. The pharmacutical companies jacked the prices up over 500%, and that is generic!

What I am saying Etech,when you paint with such a broad brush,you miss some spots. No dis respect. Its a fact. People will fall through the crack and what I just described is a travesty of fairness to her and every other senior faced with the same delima. This is real. I do not find compassion for these people in these posts that seem to be yuppy me,me,me bull crap.

Show me what Bush is going to do for grandma.

 

[MrChicken]

The points to tax cust is this.
1. the fed pulled in more money than it needed.
2. rather than increasing spending, the fed should give back the extra money
3. this lets the taxpayers use the money as they see fit, rather than the Fed spending it for them. If you want to help out the poor, donate it, or buy better health insurance for yourself, or eat better, whatever.

Why number 2? Because we are in a booming economy NOW! What about later, say after the middle east goes to war with each other and oil stops flowing and the world economy simply stops without oil. So here we are committed to these new spending plans on top of the previous cost of running the country and the economy sucks, the money isnt flowing into the fed. But the Fed is still committed to all those new and expensive social programs, and off we go into deficit spending again and the economy keeps spraling down.

If we lower the tax rates to match current spending plus a small margin for new programs and cost of living adjustments we will be in much better shape when the economic boom slows down or stops.

I compare this to making alot of overtime money and then buying a new car because the OT money can make the payment. Then the boss says no OT, sorry guy. Next here comes the banker after that car of yours and maybe your other stuff too.

 

[littlelilith]

Another apparently biased source, only coming from a different angle:



<< Let's compare three real-life scenarios:

Scenario #1, Yearly Income = $22,000:
A single mother with two children, ages 2 and 6, who spends $30 a week in work-related child care.
Tax under current law: $1,800 credit
Savings under Gore's plan: $878
Savings under Bush's plan: $0

Scenario #2, Yearly Income = $59,800:
A married couple with two children, ages 15 and 19, saving $1,200 a year for retirement and paying $9,000 per year for college tuition for the oldest child.
Tax under current law: $2,800
Savings under Gore's plan: $1,950
Savings under Bush's plan: $1,400

Scenario #3, Yearly Income = $250,000:
A married couple with three children.
Tax under current law: $57,800
Savings under Gore's plan: $0
Savings under Bush's plan: $7,140

Source: Time Magazine, September 4, 2000
-----
According to Time Magazine, 60% of Bush's tax cut will go to the wealthiest 10% of Americans. I have no idea how Bush intends to pay for all his promises, while giving away over $1 trillion, 60% of which is going to the wealthiest 10%. Can you believe that a single working mother with two young children doesn't benefit at all under Bush's plan, while a family making $250,000 a year gets over a $7,000 tax cut? >>

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

You would save approximately $0.00 under the Gore proposal.

Hahahaha thanks alot Gore!

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

Excellent post Tripleshot!

 

[LAUST]

I guess I just plain disagree with all of the Tax we do now. I think I could only agree with a flat tax. Start a Federal Sales Tax to support the lost money that was origionally taken from a person like me, WILLPOWER DRIVEN TO MONEY... Not from Mommy and Daddy not from anything but myself with no College degree no time for it as I was struggling as it was but hey I made it to a great amount of income,BEFORE taxes. When I was struggling I got no help from the Taxes the rich people pay. Nope, me on my own.. so why should I ever pay more for making more income...

Now a flat Tax that everyone pay's the same amount would be wonderful... and yes I know it will have to be at a lower rate so how do you make it up... Well if there was a Federal sales tax I think it would be great.. Atleast it's not taxed on what a person makes... AND GET THIS the Rich people who like to spend the money they have, well the more expensive the item the more they are gonna pay in sales tax hmmmm sounds like a deal to me atleast when I do pay the other taxes it's not a resistace is futile type of taking the money from me.

I know all that will never happen cause there will always be people who have no will to make money but they can sure make it to vote so they can keep the welfare coming in.. but hey Why can't this ever exist if a person at 30K a year pays 25% taxes why do I pay 34% at my wages... could this ever atleast be a flat amount?? I pay 9% more because I do my best.... That is not fair, And I agree with boberfett I think I earned my money.. sorry I used think didn't I.. I KNOW I earned it

 

[MrChicken]

<Grandma paid her taxes all her life. She was a republican and a very proud woman from East Texas. She was totally demorralized when told she had to give up her home before the government she paid her taxes to would pay for her surgery. She didn't ever look at it as charity. She paid into that program all her life!She was told it was an insurance policy for her in her old age. She wants to know what went wrong. She is quite hurt by this turn of events and no one can give her an answer.>

Ahhh, here is the problem, by a liberals definition, she is rich because she owns a house. No assistance for the evil rich dont you know.

To paraphrase what has been said before many times here on the AT boards. &quot;Hell she has more money than I do, lets take it from her.&quot; Now that the money is gone and she is now &quot;poor&quot; she can get assistance. Great thanks for all those years she paid her taxes to help the &quot;poor&quot;.


<Show me what Bush is going to do for grandma>

Well, TS, she is your grandma, what are you going to do? Some of that tax money that went to the government would really help about now wouldnt it?
You dont get the irony of this do you? If Grandma had never worked and lived of the public charity we call social programs, she would have never had this problem would she? Instead she worked hard, paid taxes that went to others getting benefits from those social programs, and because she was able through hard work to to own a home, she is not eligible for the assistance that so much of her money went to fund over her life.
Be a liberal, be proud of what you have wrought upon grandma.

 

[pidge]

A family making $250,000 will pay about $125,000 in taxes. That leaves them with about $125,000. With three children, that $7,000 would come in handy. Especially since their tax return would only be about a %.5 percent return.

Now consider this. What Al Gore is proposing costs more than what the government collected this year in taxes. How do you expect him to pay for this?

I did the tax calculator for my dad in a scenario we were in about 4 years ago when I was in college and my sister was in elementary school. He was making $68,000 a year working 12 hours a day 6 days a week ($40,000 plus the extra $28,000 in overtime). Under Gore's plan, he would save nothing. Under Bush's plan, he would save $1600. That could help him take it a little easier and not have to work so much.

 

[Tripleshot]

I thought I might give you all a link to the canditates postition on all the issues. I believe it is an unbiased website.

 

[etech]

Tripleshot, many times on this board the liberals have tried and failed to portray the Conservatives as lacking in compassion. That is such a patently false accusation that it is degrading to the people making it. Your earlier posts are a perfect example of that type of duplicity.

Just a few of the reforms and improvements that Gov. Bush has suggested to save Medicare.
Gov. Bush's plan for Medicare

Governor Bush's Medicare plan will provide every senior with access to an affordable health plan that covers prescription drugs and other important benefits. Medicare will cover the entire cost of a health plan, including prescription drug expenses, for low-income seniors. Governor Bush's plan will guarantee seniors the benefits they are entitled to today, and will allow seniors the option, if they wish, to stay in their existing Medicare plan without any changes.

Governor Bush's plan will also modernize Medicare to better serve seniors and to ensure the systems continued financial health. Despite Medicare's success in providing health care to seniors, the Medicare system has not kept pace with 21st century medicine, is burdened by bureaucratic complexity, and faces insolvency.

Give seniors the opportunity to select a plan that best fits their health care needs. Medicare recipients will have a choice of health plans offering expanded benefits, including prescription drug coverage. Seniors will be able to change their health plan annually if they are dissatisfied with their coverage.

Cover the full cost of health coverage including prescription drug coverage for seniors with incomes at or below 135% of poverty (currently $11,300 for individual seniors and $15,200 for couples).


Since Grandma worked all those years and saved and invested for the future, I am sure that she has enough money that she will not need charity such as this. Grandpa of course was thoughtful enough to provide for her before he passed and left her with the proceeds of a good insurance policy. Sadly though, the Democrats have taxed her into the poorhouse. The conservatives will see that Medicare is there for her.

 

[MrChicken]

LAUST:
I like the flat tax idea also, but it has problems.

The poor are unfairly taxed by a flat tax. The burden can be lessened by not taxing essential items. The rich will still benefit from not paying taxes on those items, and for some people that is a problem.

The poor frequently have have &quot;unreported&quot; income that helps them get by, a flat tax eats some of that up. Whether this should be stopped is a another argument.

Once the payroll tax is stopped, other taxes will probably take it's place. Probably in the form of &quot;fees&quot; for everything the fed does. We have these fees now on some items and services, expect that number to exponentially grow after a flat tax is instituted.

 

[whateverdude]

well, first off, you have to quit taking these spending proposals and tax cuts as verbatim. they are PROJECTIONS, nothing more than an idea of what they would like to do with an economy as it is now.

Im tired of hearing about how bush's tax cuts would benefit everyone because the money saved by the wealthy would be put back into the system. blah, thats a joke, it will go straight into their pockets. trickle down economics doesnt work, I thought everyone learned that lesson in the 80's?

both Gore and Bush propose continuing to pay down the debt. we can only take them at their word, which with polititians, doesnt mean squat usually.

im not a pure socialist, but I do think it has some merits, just as I think there is good and bad in the capitalist idea. I am not a selfish person. I believe the goal of everyone should be to work towards the betterment of society as a whole while not punishing those who have success in life. I think our current system reflects that ideal.

some of you seem to think we should go back to the 1800's where there was little gov and little taxes and people could carry a gun wherever. you want to ride wagons too? get real, the only reason the U.S. is what it is today is because of socialist programs. otherwise, we would still be a nation with about 1% wealthy and 99% poor, just like it was during the industrial revolution and before.

 

[Tripleshot]

MrChicken

What the fvck are you talking about? I gave you a real life story of a real life event happening to a real life grandmother(not mine,)and all you can do is come up with:
>>Be a liberal, be proud of what you have wrought upon grandma. <<

That is about typical of what all you desparate,without a clue, right wing wankers can come up with. You didn't read or comrehend the post. You saw Tripleshot,and go for the &quot;Liberal&quot; attack. You wouldn't have a mother or grandmother, would you? do you care about them?

You really don't care about anyone but yourself,isn't that right Mr. Chicken?

I am wrong. You do care. Thanks for the email.

 

[Tripleshot]

Etech

Here is thier plans.MEDICARE REFORM
BUSH:
Allow seniors to stay in the current program or choose from a variety of private insurance plans, all of which would be required to include prescription drug coverage.

Allow Medicare recipients to change programs every year.

Proposes a $6,000 limit for seniors' annual out-of-pocket medical costs; Medicare would pay all costs above the cap

GORE:

Foster competition from private insurance programs, limited to managed-care programs

Medicare recipients would one have chance, at age 64 and a half, to choose a program.

Proposes a $4,000 limit for seniors' annual out-of-pocket prescription drug costs; Medicare would pay all costs above the cap.

I don't see either one of these idiots saving the house that grandma and grandpa paid thirty years for. She still has to sell her house to qualify for that surgery under medicare.

The point I was trying to make here is these candidates offer crap for solutions. It doesn't matter if Gore is elected or Bush. Grandma gets screwed either way. Thats what I meant about a broad brush etech. This isn't la liberal; or conservative issue. This is honoring the commitment that was made to her 45 years ago when she entered the labor market assembling weapons in a factory for the soldiers in WWII.

It was Bush who said he would honor promises made,promises kept.


What happened to the promise made to her 45 years ago? Did it mean when she got old and frail,she had to sell her home to get the hospital to accept medicare payments for her care?


Bush doesn't have the answer and nether does Gore. This is a real life problem that needs real solutions. Nothing you have shown from the conservitive camp shows even remotely that they would take care of this issue. The liberal camp at least doesn't turn away from it.

 

[MrChicken]

<MrChicken

What the fvck are you talking about? I gave you a real life story of a real life event happening to a real life grandmother(not mine,)and all you can do is come up with:
>>Be a liberal, be proud of what you have wrought upon grandma. <<

That is about typical of what all you desparate,without a clue, right wing wankers can come up with. You didn't read or comrehend the post. You saw Tripleshot,and go for the &quot;Liberal&quot; attack. You wouldn't have a mother or grandmother, would you? do you care about them?

You really don't care about anyone but yourself,isn't that right Mr. Chicken? >

Listen up bucko, it was your story with a political purpose. I countered with effective reasoning and sarcasm. Look under the sarcasm, put there to counter political purpose of hurting Bush (while you fail to mention that Gore did nothing for her either, as well as every politician).

It is you that have a problem. Point out what is wrong with my commentary and satire
and I may reconsider.

For you to state I go for the Liberal attack is absurd. Read your own posts, and judge yourself first. I have read dozens of them and you are the attack dog for the liberal party, just re-read this thread for instance.

as an example :
<It just doesn't resonate well amonge the radical right wing &quot;conservatives&quot;. They seem to think it's OK to kick grandma out of her home because she doesn't have enough to pay the rent and pay those prescriptions or that catastrohic surgery she must pay for on her desintegrating hip desease and diabetes and her failing kidneys.>

In fact, I care for many people, you just are not one of them.

BTW, ******* my grandmother and mother are dead. Thanks for the reminder. I hope yours are still alive and you cherish them, so you wont feel the pain I do when I face the fact that they are gone.

Note: I have edited the slur represented by the &quot;*******&quot; because the use of that slur was wrong and i regret it, my apologies to Tripleshot and the rest of the anandtech forum members. It was done in a moment of hurt anger I felt when remimded of my mothers passing. Again I apologize deeply for all of you that may have been offended, especially Trip.

&quot;Be a liberal, be proud of what you have wrought upon grandma. &quot;
I also want to clarify that I didnt mean to specifically call Trip a liberal, who is a Libertarian by his own definition. I meant the remark as general comment for all to consider, it was not pointed specifically at Trip.

 

[Anyone2u]

<< Americans b*tching about taxes makes me want to boot their sorry a$$es over to some 3rd world country so they can see just how BAD they really have it. or better yet, why dont you go to someone in a less privedged neighborhood in your own city and tell them that you dont give a rats a$$ about them and that your taxes are being wasted on trying to help them out of a life of poverty and that you would rather have the money so you can go buy another SUV. and thus further elevate our dependence on OIL.

greedy f*cks. >>



Someday when you start making a decent living, maybe buy a house, and start paying about a third (I'm being very kind here) of your income in taxes, you may start to understand what we are talking about. How much did you give to charity last year? I gave right around 8% of my earnings (only 3% went to my church). I also voluntered time with a couple of organizations. I think I do more than my fair share to help my fellow man.

Please don't even try and insinuate that Democrats are more charitable than anyone else! I live in Massachusetts, the most liberal state in the union. Guess what, we were 50th in charitable donations as a percent of our income and have always been at the bottom of the list. (Boston Globe September 19,2000)

Still not convinced how charitable Democrats are with their OWN money? Here's a couple of facts.

Edward Kennedy (our senior senator, icon for the Democratic party), lost his mother Rose a couple of years ago. As you may or may not know, Rose lived in Hyannisport,MA on Cape Cod. Rose had pretty much lived her entire life in Massachusetts and had not been out of the state for the last NINE years of her life. Mr. Kennedy is always reminding the voters that the WEALTHY are not paying their fair share (btw can someone please define the word WEALTHY for me?) and he has never seen a tax that he didn't embrace with open arms. However when it came time for the Kennedys to pay their fair share of taxes to HIS state, her residency was moved to FLORIDA where there are not any inheritance taxes. Massachusetts, the state that Kennedy represents in the Senate got nothing! Say it ain't so, but this a fact! While we're at it, the other Kennedys are just as charitable. Michael Kennedy (son of Robert), who died a couple of years ago, was head of a &quot;non profit&quot; corporation (an oxymoron) called Citizens Energy, which provides oil to the poor people that you had mentioned. Set up by Michael's brother Joe (a former US Representative), Michael drove the SUV you talked about and earned $500,000 and also received various bonus'. Now his brother Joe is the head of Citizens Energy (he retired from the House of Reps.). At least he doesn't drive one of those SUVs, he drives a Jaguar convertible and pulls down a hefty salary plus bonus'. He is also on various corporate boards that are being questioned as a possible &quot;conflict of interest&quot;. Again, this is not fiction, this information is factual. Oh , by the way Ted drives (actually is driven around in) a Suburban which gets about 10 miles to the gallon.

OK how about our junior senator, John Kerry? Mr Kerry married Theresa Heinz (Heinz Ketchup) and is one of the richest senators in Washington. Again, he is constantly questioning the &quot;wealthy&quot; paying their fair share, but when his taxes were made public in ~1997(?), it was discovered that he contributed less than 1/2 of 1% of his income to charities. His defense? He said he &quot;donated&quot; his time which was worth more than money. His nickname here in MA is &quot;liveshot&quot; because he usually shows up when the cameras are rolling at charitable functions and is gone when the camera lights go down. His vehicle? Another one of those pesky, environmentally unfriendly gas guzzling SUVs, the Jeep.

It has also been reported that Al Gore donated $353 to charity in 1997 on an income of $197,729. Oh yeah, charity begins at home!(Washington Post April 17, 1998).

And finally here's some of that responsible tax spending you are advocating. In the course of my job, I meet many different people. About two weeks ago I met with a family who had a daughter with Down Syndrome. Due to her disability, she receives both federal (social security) and state aid. Obviously I, as I would assume most of the people reading this thread, do not have a problem with that. However in discussing their finances the subject of a computer somehow came up (I have the tendency to go off on tangents). In the discussion the mother mentioned that the state HAD CALLED HER and asked her if she had any need for additional money in the way of aid for their daughter. They went on to explain that they had a surplus of money and that if they didn't use it for that year, then they would lose the money the next year. As you may have figured out, they received a computer that was valued at approx. $850, even though their daughter cannot use it. This is the government mentality that drives me crazy!

You may chose to ignore this, chalk it up to &quot;right wing&quot; political propaganda on my part (I'm registered as an &quot;independent&quot; as I believe you should vote the person and not the party), and/or believe that I have chosen &quot;exceptions to the rules&quot;. They are not. As you put it, these are the facts.

By the way, which 3rd world countries have you lived in? I'm not trying to be confrontational (if it appears that way, I sincerely apologize), but just curious.

 

[etech]

Tripleshot
What were the promises made 40 years ago? Has the plan changed in its fundamental tenets?

&quot;The liberal camp at least doesn't turn away from it. &quot;

I do not see Gore's plan as being any improvement at all. How do you make the claim that the liberal camp does not turn away from it and the conservatives do?

I can help you with the last question, same tired liberal crap you are always spouting.

 

[DirkBelig]

Add littlelilith to the Idiot Brigade. Why? For this bullshiz:

>Scenario #1, Yearly Income = $22,000:
>A single mother with two children, ages 2 and 6, who spends $30 a week in work-related child care.
>Tax under current law: $1,800 credit
>Savings under Gore's plan: $878
>Savings under Bush's plan: $0

For starters, are you so BLIND that you can't read the third line: $1,800 CREDIT?!? She doesn't get a tax CUT because SHE'S NOT PAYING ANY TAXES TO START WITH!!!!! You can &quot;CUT&quot; the taxes of someone who doesn't pay any!

Secondly, according to the Tax Calculator at Bush's site, she'd get a ONE HUNDRED FREAKING PERCENT TAX CUT!!!!

Filing Status: Single
Number of Children: 2
Income: $22,000

Current Tax Code: $110
Bush Tax Plan: $0
Tax Cut: $110
Percent Cut in Taxes: 100.0%
* Assumes Standard Deductions

OK, now that we've taken care of that lie, here's the next thing she gets wrong:

&quot;According to Time Magazine, 60% of Bush's tax cut will go to the wealthiest 10% of Americans. I have no idea how Bush intends to pay for all his promises, while giving away over $1 trillion, 60% of which is going to the wealthiest 10%. Can you believe that a single working mother with two young children doesn't benefit at all under Bush's plan, while a family making $250,000 a year gets over a $7,000 tax cut? &quot;

Last things first: I've proven that the single mom gets relief, but can you explain how the $250K family still paying $50,000(!) in Federal Income Tax (not counting SS, state, etc.) is just rolling in money?

Next, the Big Lie propaganda about how much goes to the &quot;rich&quot; has got to stop. Here's some stuff to chew on: (Source)

Upper-income taxpayers pay about a third of tax revenues, any across-the-board cut will give them about a third of the relief ? this isn't favoring them, it's just even-handed. History shows that when wealthy taxpayers get lower rates, they pay an even greater share of tax revenues; before the Reagan tax cuts, the top 1 percent paid about 18 percent of revenues, by 1988 it was 28 percent, and after the 1997 cap-gains tax cut, their share moved up to 33 percent. (Note: The top 1 percent are not all &quot;millionaires&quot; as suggested by Gore ? the category includes people making about $250,000).

6 million lower-to-middle-income taxpayers get a 100 percent cut in their income-tax bill. In contrast, wealthy taxpayers get about a 10 percent reduction in their bill. Also, the tax cut isn't for the wealthy 1 percent, but the working 100 percent.

The way the Envy Merchants spin it, a low-income person having a 100% reduction in the Fed taxes doesn't matter because the &quot;rich&quot; person gets more dollars back, BECAUSE THEY PAY MORE IN THE FIRST PLACE! In your examples, the &quot;tax cut that benefits the wealthy&quot; will leave the &quot;rich&quot; family paying more than DOUBLE what the single mom GROSSES. What do you want? For them to be taxed down to $20K NET?!?

&quot;Al Gore likes jobs, but dislikes the businesses that create jobs. He likes productivity, but dislikes capital investors who are crucial to productivity. He likes prosperity, but doesn't want anyone to get rich. Bush should hammer away at this. Gore's new Great Society will reduce future growth and prosperity, harming everyone. Because a rising tide lifts all boats, Bush's tax-cut plan will raise living standards and help everyone ? there's that word again.&quot; (Source)

 

[DirkBelig]

BOOYAH, Anyone2u!!!! KILLER POST!!!!

 

[LAUST]

Both you DIRK and ANNYONE2U very nice posts

 

[Moonbeam]

My My My, I see the I me me mine bunch are at it again. In New Guinnie wealth is measured not in how much you accumulate, but by how much you give away. People who have and don't give it away are seen as sick.

 

[JellyBaby]

Just a reality check for those of you drooling over Bush's Tax Plan: In order for his plan to actually materialize, the following must be true:

1. Bush wins the election.
2. Republicans secure a majority in congress for next session.
3. The economy must not tank (and every week it gets worse...it's been 10 years since the last recession and recessions happen about every 10 years like clockwork...Israeli thing also making it worse...DOW dipping to 10K...eek!).
4. Alan Greenspan must bless the plan (see #3, not actually required but Bush should seek his blessing).

&quot;Things that make ya go hmmmm.&quot;

 

[DirkBelig]

JellyBaby: True. Which is why Gore and the Democrats defeat is MANDATORY!!!

Under Gore, the economy WILL tank (notice the market slipping whne he was up inthe polls), we will NOT get a tax cut, targeted or otherwise and we will all end up slaving for the Great Society 2000.

Remember, waaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in 1992 when Clinton/Gore promised a middle-class tax cut and then after about 10 minutes on the job, Clinton bit his lip and said, &quot;I've worked harder than I ever have to give the people a tax cut and I just can't find a way to.&quot; and then proceeded to try and take over 1/7th of the economy and sent his Flying Monkey, Algore, to vote in the largest tax INCREASE in history, including raising taxes on SENIOR CITIZENS BENEFITS. The GOP didn't do that.

Economics is hardly taught anymore and that's just the way the Envy Merchants and Class Warriors like it. People are too ignorant to know the facts and discrepencies in the propaganda so they come here and whine and cry about how greedy people are. Bollocks!:|