Who's getting all the tax breaks under Bush? NOT the middle class!

[Budarow]

I am so fed up with hearing about Bush and his supposed tax cuts for the middle class when in reality...we the middle class get nothing but soring deficits and a bare bone (i.e., a couple hundred bucks/year, if we're lucky), and the richest people and BIG corporations get tens of thousands of dollars (personal tax breaks) to millions of dollars in tax breaks per year.

When is the middle class going to wake up? The repubs and their rich supporters are doing nothing more than ROBBING the country blind and passing the tax burden onto the middle class and future generations of middle class (i.e., our children).

Yeah I know, I've heard the argument many times: "rich people and BIG corporations take all that $$$ they save in taxes and give the little people (i.e., the middle class) a job. I'm sure the guy/gal making $700K/year takes that "extra" $50k in tax savings and spends it (which creates a retail job at Lord and Taylor) or better yet, opens up a high-class lemonade stand in a middle class neighborhood (which employees 4 11-years from a middle class family). Never going to happen and the deficit grows on and the economy sinks!

And the big corporations...they take the tax break $$$ and always hire more workers even if they can't sell the products they make with their current work force? Never going to happen and the deficit grows on and the economy sinks!

Fortune Magazine:

"The latest corporate tax bill?passed by Congress in early October and stuffed with $137 billion in tax breaks?will bring the business community's share of the national tax burden to its lowest level in decades. Economists Alan Auerbach and James Poterba have shown that most of the drop between 1960 and 1985 came from declining corporate profits rather than a falling tax rate. But over the past 15 years the effective federal tax rate for big corporations has dropped sharply, from 26.5% in 1988 to 17.2% in 2003, according to think tank Citizens for Tax Justice. Thanks to loopholes and avoidance schemes, an amazing 61% of U.S. corporations paid no taxes from 1996 to 2000, according to the Government Accountability Office. So who in the business world is paying? Berkshire Hathaway's $3.3 billion tax bill last year represented about 3% of the total income tax paid by all corporations. And next year, Warren Buffett says, he hopes to pay even more. He, for one, sees higher taxes as the byproduct of a worthy goal: higher profits."

I really wish all you middle class republicans and "independents" would get a clue and stop making life tougher for the rest of us middle class people.

http://www.fortune.com/fortune...0,15114,725684,00.html

 

[Mill]

Care to explain how a tax cut makes your life harder? I can't quite follow the logic there. Are you saying that you should get back thousands instead? You realize that percentage wise their cut is probably lower -- although I could be mistaken if that is 100% true. So, you are for taxing those that can "afford" it, and wish to impose an abitrary limit on who can "afford" it. That seems incredibly fair...

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Some facts:
1) The tax cuts to the rich account for 2/3 of todays national debt.
2) Dividends are taxed at 15% accross the board. Meaning wealthy people that make money by doing nothing, pay the LOWEST taxes in the country. They could get $1M in dividends and pay $150K in taxes.

Bush basically does trickle down economics. The rich people theoretically buy a bigger boat, which requires more parts and employs more people.

My 2 cents. Bushes tax cut simply widens the gap between the rich and the poor. That's all it really does.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: Mill
Care to explain how a tax cut makes your life harder? I can't quite follow the logic there. Are you saying that you should get back thousands instead? You realize that percentage wise their cut is probably lower -- although I could be mistaken if that is 100% true. So, you are for taxing those that can "afford" it, and wish to impose an abitrary limit on who can "afford" it. That seems incredibly fair...

In CT:
1) My kids might not have school when they get older since they are all being shut down.
2) The interstate highways can not handle capacity.
3) tax cuts drive housing prices up since people can afford more.

That was easy. I'm sure I can think of more.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004

Originally posted by: Mill
Care to explain how a tax cut makes your life harder? I can't quite follow the logic there. Are you saying that you should get back thousands instead? You realize that percentage wise their cut is probably lower -- although I could be mistaken if that is 100% true. So, you are for taxing those that can "afford" it, and wish to impose an abitrary limit on who can "afford" it. That seems incredibly fair...

In CT:
1) My kids might not have school when they get older since they are all being shut down.
2) The interstate highways can not handle capacity.
3) tax cuts drive housing prices up since people can afford more.

That was easy. I'm sure I can think of more.

And reducing government spending on crackpot expenditures wouldn't solve those problems? Ending illegal immigration wouldn't help stop that? So, you say that reducing government spending and pork is completely untenable, thus we have to raise taxes. The beast cannot be tamed, so we just have to give it more and more food. That's quite terrible logic. Perhaps fiscal restraint would be better, no? For the record, I'm not saying Bush has been fiscally conservative, because it is obvious that isn't the case. However, how can you say Kerry will balance the budget by cutting taxes again? Didn't you just presuppose that we have to have a tax increase to keep the beast healthy? You can't just have one. If you are going to help this country then we have to cut waste, and we have to let people decide what they want to do with THEIR money.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
Some facts:
1) The tax cuts to the rich account for 2/3 of todays national debt.
2) Dividends are taxed at 15% accross the board. Meaning wealthy people that make money by doing nothing, pay the LOWEST taxes in the country. They could get $1M in dividends and pay $150K in taxes.

Bush basically does trickle down economics. The rich people theoretically buy a bigger boat, which requires more parts and employs more people.

My 2 cents. Bushes tax cut simply widens the gap between the rich and the poor. That's all it really does.

1. So it wasn't their money to begin with? :roll: We created this thing called "government" and decided it could arbitrarily take money whenever it got hungry. Fsck that!
2. That's interesting, did they not pay taxes on the money already? Why sure they did, and they certainly worked to get that money to have it to invest. So really what you are saying is that we should tax money three times. Tax it when the corporations earn it. Tax it when they return it to shareholders, and then tax the money the shareholder used to buy their shares with(their income). Gee, that seems REALLY fair. I personally don't think Dividends should be taxed at all. Not only did the corporation already pay taxes on the money, but the shareholder paid tax on the seed money used!

I don't see how it is trickle down economics at all. It is farcical that people act as if bondholders, stock-holders, etc haven't worked for their money, or that they are rich in the first place. Hello, it doesn't take much money to invest in stocks or bonds. Just because a lot of the wealthy use their money to make more money doesn't mean that every individual doing the same is WEALTHY. It is terrible logic, and is just another emotional argument that people use because they feel entitled to other people's money. Instead of voting for candidates to raise taxes why don't you just take what you want from the rich? Just walk into their house and take what you deserve. Just because you vote on it and the government enforces it doesn't make it right. It just gives those who feel entitled to other's property a sense of legitimacy. Please, call it what it is -- out and out thievery. A flat tax is the only fair tax.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Mediorce America has bough a 'Chump Change' payout of $ 500 to pacify them
and they tink they got a good deal - it's a sellout.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Who's getting all the tax breaks under Bush? NOT the middle class!

No one has ever said that the middle class was getting "All the tax breaks". And if you care to look at the facts... ALL CLASS LEVELS got a cut...

I had to make changes to the format of this table and added only bold font. I double checked to make sure I didn't lose/add content. Please let me know if I left any content out.
Bush Tax Cuts:
The Burden Decreased for All Groups
(More for some than others)

Total Effective Federal Tax Rate


2004 Rates
Change Due to Bush Cuts

Lowest 20% 5.2% -1.5%
Second 20% 11.1% -2.1%
Middle 20% 14.6% -1.9%
Fourth 20% 18.5% -2.1%
Top 20% 23.8% -3.9%
Top 5% 25.6% -5.2%
Top 1% 26.7% -6.8%

Share of Federal Tax Burden

Lowest 20% 1.1% -0.1%
Second 20% 5.2% -0.2%
Middle 20% 10.5% +0.2%
Fourth 20% 19.5% +0.7%
Top 20% 63.5% -0.6%
Top 5% 35.9% -1.5%
Top 1% 20.1% -1.8%


Source: Congressional Budget Office, "Effective Federal Tax Rates Under Current Law , 2001 to 2014," Tables 2, 4.

Funny thing is that I got the clue and I am glad that my lower-middle class self got a cut and that I know how to manage my money so that I don't have to rely on those cuts to raise a family of 5 with one salary.

 

[assemblage]

My taxes got better because the standard deduction for married filing jointly decreased to equal singlex2. This elimated the marriage penalty.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: Mill
Care to explain how a tax cut makes your life harder? I can't quite follow the logic there. Are you saying that you should get back thousands instead? You realize that percentage wise their cut is probably lower -- although I could be mistaken if that is 100% true. So, you are for taxing those that can "afford" it, and wish to impose an abitrary limit on who can "afford" it. That seems incredibly fair...

If one runs a deficit in order to provide tax relief, whilst simultaneously flattening the tax structure, you are in effect increasing future taxes for any group that doesn't benefit from the tax cut. Thus, you are burdening the middle class with future taxes which would have been lower had you not cut taxes to the rich. This assumes government expenditure is determined extraneously. . . a pretty safe assumption considering the way your congress can tack on the pork. Even if you were to deny that, the middle class is the primary beneficiary of government programs (not those welfare bums), and so if the tax cuts are paid for with cuts to expenditures, the middle class still pays for it with the money they would have to spend on replacing those programs (like sending kids to private schools).

2) Dividends are taxed at 15% accross the board. Meaning wealthy people that make money by doing nothing, pay the LOWEST taxes in the country. They could get $1M in dividends and pay $150K in taxes.

Dividends are already taxed as a part of corporate earnings, the dividend tax cut fixed a distortion in the tax structure which arbitrarily favoured investments which are not taxed twice. This is a major reason that income trusts boomed after the tech bubble, since they are considered a debt to the company, they are accounted for as an expense, and are therefore deductible at the corporate level. This means that they are taxed only at the income level, which "unnatuturally" favours them as an investment. This is bad (according to one business writer I read, I don't understand this myself) because income trusts are most appropriate for companies with high marginal costs (read labour, so restaurants and hotels) which distorts the investment market away from industries which invest heavily in productive capital, thus lowering future productivity growth. Of course, this distortion could have been eliminated in a revenue-neutral way.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: Mill
Care to explain how a tax cut makes your life harder? I can't quite follow the logic there. Are you saying that you should get back thousands instead? You realize that percentage wise their cut is probably lower -- although I could be mistaken if that is 100% true. So, you are for taxing those that can "afford" it, and wish to impose an abitrary limit on who can "afford" it. That seems incredibly fair...

If one runs a deficit in order to provide tax relief, whilst simultaneously flattening the tax structure, you are in effect increasing future taxes for any group that doesn't benefit from the tax cut. Thus, you are burdening the middle class with future taxes which would have been lower had you not cut taxes to the rich. This assumes government expenditure is determined extraneously. . . a pretty safe assumption considering the way your congress can tack on the pork. Even if you were to deny that, the middle class is the primary beneficiary of government programs (not those welfare bums), and so if the tax cuts are paid for with cuts to expenditures, the middle class still pays for it with the money they would have to spend on replacing those programs (like sending kids to private schools).

Again, you are presupposing that taxes have to be increased at all. If spending is cut then there is no issue. Be that the middle class is the primary benefactor, there is little to suggest that schools will be shutting down anytime soon. They are not unequally yoked to taxes and can take advantage of stand social programs. Cutting pork barrel spending and extraneous expenditures -- would result in a tax cut at all levels, IF of course it gave the government back its surplus. There is little doubt in my mind that we could cut discretionary and pork spending without harming any school program or essential social program. I firmly believe that in fact, and I think that anyone wanting a tax increase -- on any class -- does not believe that being fiscally conservative is achievable, or does not WANT fiscal conservatism.

I have a very simply solution. If someone is against the government being fiscally conservative, then they should send a few extra bucks from each paycheck to Washington. They can continue to believe the system is unfixable, and they can help support all the excess lard and waste I don't want to support.

 

[tallest1]

You actually think spending is going to be cut (with Republican-controled govt especially)? Talk about naive

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: tallest1
You actually think spending is going to be cut (with Republican-controled govt especially)? Talk about naive

To whom are you phrasing this statement?

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: tallest1
You actually think spending is going to be cut (with Republican-controled govt especially)? Talk about naive

To whom are you phrasing this statement?

In reply to your post above mine but it can directed towards anyone really.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: Mill
Care to explain how a tax cut makes your life harder? I can't quite follow the logic there. Are you saying that you should get back thousands instead? You realize that percentage wise their cut is probably lower -- although I could be mistaken if that is 100% true. So, you are for taxing those that can "afford" it, and wish to impose an abitrary limit on who can "afford" it. That seems incredibly fair...

If one runs a deficit in order to provide tax relief, whilst simultaneously flattening the tax structure, you are in effect increasing future taxes for any group that doesn't benefit from the tax cut. Thus, you are burdening the middle class with future taxes which would have been lower had you not cut taxes to the rich. This assumes government expenditure is determined extraneously. . . a pretty safe assumption considering the way your congress can tack on the pork. Even if you were to deny that, the middle class is the primary beneficiary of government programs (not those welfare bums), and so if the tax cuts are paid for with cuts to expenditures, the middle class still pays for it with the money they would have to spend on replacing those programs (like sending kids to private schools).

Again, you are presupposing that taxes have to be increased at all. If spending is cut then there is no issue. Be that the middle class is the primary benefactor, there is little to suggest that schools will be shutting down anytime soon. They are not unequally yoked to taxes and can take advantage of stand social programs. Cutting pork barrel spending and extraneous expenditures -- would result in a tax cut at all levels, IF of course it gave the government back its surplus. There is little doubt in my mind that we could cut discretionary and pork spending without harming any school program or essential social program. I firmly believe that in fact, and I think that anyone wanting a tax increase -- on any class -- does not believe that being fiscally conservative is achievable, or does not WANT fiscal conservatism.

I have a very simply solution. If someone is against the government being fiscally conservative, then they should send a few extra bucks from each paycheck to Washington. They can continue to believe the system is unfixable, and they can help support all the excess lard and waste I don't want to support.

What Bush has done cannot in any way be construed as fiscally conservative. He's increased the size of government, increased government spending, increased the national debt, incerased the deficit, and deferred payment for all of this to future generations.

No true conservative can agree with the Bush economic agenda. It's basically a give away to the people he has admitted are his base, the haves and the have mores, and corporate interests.

Wake up. Bush isn't a conservative. He's a predatory capitalist.

Link

Link

Link

Link

All while the Republicans are in control of BOTH houses of Congress. The Bush agenda is an economic disaster for America. For anyone to suggest otherwise is completely counter to the facts. Bush is in a fantasy world of his own design both on the economy and Iraq. Don't join him there.

 

[CaptnKirk]

San Diego's 'Enron by the Sea' fate awaits other comunities

Playing with the tax base shifts the burden, and the middleclass gets the shaft.

Your community will get to this point as well, it might already be there.
Take a closer look at your 'Infastructure' - is it in decay ?

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: Mill


Again, you are presupposing that taxes have to be increased at all. If spending is cut then there is no issue. Be that the middle class is the primary benefactor, there is little to suggest that schools will be shutting down anytime soon. They are not unequally yoked to taxes and can take advantage of stand social programs. Cutting pork barrel spending and extraneous expenditures -- would result in a tax cut at all levels, IF of course it gave the government back its surplus. There is little doubt in my mind that we could cut discretionary and pork spending without harming any school program or essential social program. I firmly believe that in fact, and I think that anyone wanting a tax increase -- on any class -- does not believe that being fiscally conservative is achievable, or does not WANT fiscal conservatism.

I have a very simply solution. If someone is against the government being fiscally conservative, then they should send a few extra bucks from each paycheck to Washington. They can continue to believe the system is unfixable, and they can help support all the excess lard and waste I don't want to support.

Right, the deficit can be brought under control by cutting gov't waste. I've heard that one before. First of all, a huge amount of that waste is inevitable. Think about the inefficiency at your own workplace. All the stupid stuff that goes on. Theoretically, you can't get any more efficient than the private sector. Kind of a scary thought. Second of all, your (and every democratic one I know of) political system is built to avoid accountability for the pork. It is a fundamental part of how the wheels of democracy are greased. How compromise is reached. It is what allows for bi-partisan compromise to work. It kinda sucks, but it's reality. Yes, a motivated politician, with a strong electoral mandate might be able to go in there and trim some of it. But that madate will wane, as the next political target comes into view. And let's face it, the media really hates reporting about issues of management.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: tallest1

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: tallest1
You actually think spending is going to be cut (with Republican-controled govt especially)? Talk about naive

To whom are you phrasing this statement?

In reply to your post above mine but it can directed towards anyone really.

Ok, now please point out where I said Bush was going to cut waste, or said that the Republican controlled government was going to cut waste. Please, point it out, because I did not such a thing. I'd rather you ask then accuse.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: Mill
Care to explain how a tax cut makes your life harder? I can't quite follow the logic there. Are you saying that you should get back thousands instead? You realize that percentage wise their cut is probably lower -- although I could be mistaken if that is 100% true. So, you are for taxing those that can "afford" it, and wish to impose an abitrary limit on who can "afford" it. That seems incredibly fair...

If one runs a deficit in order to provide tax relief, whilst simultaneously flattening the tax structure, you are in effect increasing future taxes for any group that doesn't benefit from the tax cut. Thus, you are burdening the middle class with future taxes which would have been lower had you not cut taxes to the rich. This assumes government expenditure is determined extraneously. . . a pretty safe assumption considering the way your congress can tack on the pork. Even if you were to deny that, the middle class is the primary beneficiary of government programs (not those welfare bums), and so if the tax cuts are paid for with cuts to expenditures, the middle class still pays for it with the money they would have to spend on replacing those programs (like sending kids to private schools).

Again, you are presupposing that taxes have to be increased at all. If spending is cut then there is no issue. Be that the middle class is the primary benefactor, there is little to suggest that schools will be shutting down anytime soon. They are not unequally yoked to taxes and can take advantage of stand social programs. Cutting pork barrel spending and extraneous expenditures -- would result in a tax cut at all levels, IF of course it gave the government back its surplus. There is little doubt in my mind that we could cut discretionary and pork spending without harming any school program or essential social program. I firmly believe that in fact, and I think that anyone wanting a tax increase -- on any class -- does not believe that being fiscally conservative is achievable, or does not WANT fiscal conservatism.

I have a very simply solution. If someone is against the government being fiscally conservative, then they should send a few extra bucks from each paycheck to Washington. They can continue to believe the system is unfixable, and they can help support all the excess lard and waste I don't want to support.

What Bush has done cannot in any way be construed as fiscally conservative. He's increased the size of government, increased government spending, increased the national debt, incerased the deficit, and deferred payment for all of this to future generations.

No true conservative can agree with the Bush economic agenda. It's basically a give away to the people he has admitted are his base, the haves and the have mores, and corporate interests.

Wake up. Bush isn't a conservative. He's a predatory capitalist.

Link

Link

Link

Link

All while the Republicans are in control of BOTH houses of Congress. The Bush agenda is an economic disaster for America. For anyone to suggest otherwise is completely counter to the facts. Bush is in a fantasy world of his own design both on the economy and Iraq. Don't join him there.

Ok, like I just told tallest1, please show me where I said that Bush was fiscally conservatve. Go back and re-read all my posts. You might have missed that nugget where I said he was not fiscally conservative. If you aren't going to bother to read my post, then I'd rather you didn't clutter the thread with a reply to something I didn't say. Not only is that an inaccurate assumption because I'm anti new-tax, but that is also an aggressive strategy that allows for simply too much error. I did not, ever, in this thread say that George W. Bush was a fiscal conservative. I did not, ever, in this thread say anything about the Republicans controlling congress and it being a positive.

All of these were issues I didn't raise, as we were discussing cutitng waste and balancing the budget. If you want to talk about that then please reply to a post that is discussing those issues; mine was not. I hate to be crass, but the amount of presupposition here is astounding. I'm well aware that Bush has spent a virtual assload on military spending, the war on terror, and Iraq. I'm well aware that both the Democrats, and the Republicans love their pork barrel spending. However, I am not handing out or assigning blame here; I'm saying that if waste is cut that essential social services won't have to be cut, and that taxes won't have to be raised.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: Mill


Again, you are presupposing that taxes have to be increased at all. If spending is cut then there is no issue. Be that the middle class is the primary benefactor, there is little to suggest that schools will be shutting down anytime soon. They are not unequally yoked to taxes and can take advantage of stand social programs. Cutting pork barrel spending and extraneous expenditures -- would result in a tax cut at all levels, IF of course it gave the government back its surplus. There is little doubt in my mind that we could cut discretionary and pork spending without harming any school program or essential social program. I firmly believe that in fact, and I think that anyone wanting a tax increase -- on any class -- does not believe that being fiscally conservative is achievable, or does not WANT fiscal conservatism.

I have a very simply solution. If someone is against the government being fiscally conservative, then they should send a few extra bucks from each paycheck to Washington. They can continue to believe the system is unfixable, and they can help support all the excess lard and waste I don't want to support.

Right, the deficit can be brought under control by cutting gov't waste. I've heard that one before. First of all, a huge amount of that waste is inevitable. Think about the inefficiency at your own workplace.

Fallacy number one. Just because something happens does not mean it is inevitable. That's simply not true. There will be some waste, that part is not disputable, however, to say that the inefficiency has to be compounded to the level of the government or some businesses is laughable. I'm certainly not that inefficient with my own money, and I've known of many companies that had much less inefficiency than their competitors. There is a whole sector of experts that trim your company down, fire the idiots, and then gets it working on a tight budget. Not every company runs a tight ship or has to, but IT CAN BE DONE.

All the stupid stuff that goes on. Theoretically, you can't get any more efficient than the private sector.

Yeah, but if you want to go theoretical then we have to start talking about how Communism could work. It can't, so who cares about the theory of it. Let's be factual and talk about what is in practice and what actually happens. The private sector can be just as wasteful, ignorant, and downright foolish as the government can. In theory, why sure, it is supposed to be better. But only in theory...

Kind of a scary thought. Second of all, your (and every democratic one I know of) political system is built to avoid accountability for the pork. It is a fundamental part of how the wheels of democracy are greased. How compromise is reached. It is what allows for bi-partisan compromise to work. It kinda sucks, but it's reality. Yes, a motivated politician, with a strong electoral mandate might be able to go in there and trim some of it. But that madate will wane, as the next political target comes into view. And let's face it, the media really hates reporting about issues of management.

I don't disagree that what you said is how the system works. That's exactly what goes on. The wheel does have to be greased, and you have to promise that new four lane road in Woodstock, ON to get someone to sign onto your pet, or to get their vote. I totally agree with you that those kind of pork-barrel politics go on. However, I do not agree that is in necessary for bi-partisan compromise. Compromises are essentially that; you give something up that you are supposed to already have, and then your opponent gives something up that they had. See, pork-barrel politics have changed the definition of that. Now we've got motherfsckers creating things to give to each other. There is simply no reason for that. Pork-Barrel is an integral part of the system because it helps the idiots in Congress get reelected. There is no feasible value other than that. So, what is more important? Balanced budget and reducing deficits, or a brand new bridge over a pond in Smut Eye, Alabama(yes such a place does exist)? To me the answer is clear. Just because something is part of the system doesn't mean we have to accept it. Just because politicians use it to get reelected doesn't mean we can't send them packing anyway. Cut the waste, balance the budge, reduce taxes. Three easy steps. All the rest is bullsh!t side-shows that doesn't help me in the slightest.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
2) Dividends are taxed at 15% accross the board. Meaning wealthy people that make money by doing nothing, pay the LOWEST taxes in the country. They could get $1M in dividends and pay $150K in taxes.

you are ignoring the AMT, the alternative minimum tax, which is 25 or 27% or so. You HAVE to pay that amount if your regular return comes up less. 15% on dividens is good for everyone, you dont have to be rich to have a 401k, or to work at a publicly held company

 

[BBond]

Cut the waste, balance the budge, reduce taxes.

You fail to say Bush and this Republican controlled Congress are the most egregious examples of waste and deficit spending in U.S. history.

That's why I posted my reply above. You didn't say Bush is a conservative but you implied Bush's tax cuts, or any tax cuts for that matter, no matter how harmful, are good for the nation. You fail to place blame where it belongs and by that ommission you help perpetuate the worst economic disaster of an administration this nation has ever seen.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: BBond

Cut the waste, balance the budge, reduce taxes.

You fail to say Bush and this Republican controlled Congress are the most egregious examples of waste and deficit spending in U.S. history.

That's why I posted my reply above. You didn't say Bush is a conservative but you implied Bush's tax cuts, or any tax cuts for that matter, no matter how harmful, are good for the nation. You fail to place blame where it belongs and by that ommission you help perpetuate the worst economic disaster of an administration this nation has ever seen.

Do me a favor and don't reply to any of my posts with talking points. I reply and discuss with rational, open-minded individuals. If I want talking points I'll type in JohnKerry.com or DNC.org. I didn't ask for talking points. I'm discussing an issue about waste. You are trying to strawman the entire thing. There is simply no reason for that. I didn't imply Bush's tax cuts, not matter how harmful, are good for the nation. That's the sh!t that pisses me off. You are putting words right into my mouth. I do NOT think Bush's tax cuts were harmful to the nation, but you just have to ad "no matter how harmful" because without fallacies where would you be? You are posting opinion... I want to talk F-A-C-T-S. The fact is, my friend, waste can be cut. I don't give a damn in Mary Poppins is in office. It is inconsequential to me. However, I will not, under any circumstances -- vote for a candidate that has pledged to specifically raise my taxes, or who is trying to put the nation's debt unequally on a group. Flat tax would be great. Until then don't raise the taxes. Period. It isn't necessary. I'm not going to get into a blame game or let your strawman go any further. If you want to talk Bush reply to the OP and not me. Otherwise you can debate with facts, or let the rhetoric drop. Either way is fine.

 

[Ferocious]

Nearly every expert agrees that the best way to stimulate the economy was to give a big tax break to the middle class.

This is not what Bush did. He gave the biggest tax breaks to the people who paid the most.

Different issues.

 

[ciba]

The tax break was great for Washington (state). It significantly helps the middle class here. Not only do we get the tax break everyone else does, but now we can deduct our sales tax on our federal returns.