BUSH TAX CUTS NEED TO BE PERMANENT!

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Yet because of the tax cuts, the budget deficit is the highest its been in years.

If you guys want to stay the course in Iraq (which I'm not saying is a bad idea) you gotta figure out a way to pay for it, you can't have war without sacrifices

[workin4somethin 0]

The election is over? Republicans lost? Gee thanks for that info., I would have never known if it wasn't for you. Any other headlines you can help me out with would be appreciated!

New headline: "Economics for Dumb-Asses" - currently being written by George W. Bush.

It's 8 chapters (years) long, with 2 remaining.

[yogib37 3]

The election is over. Republicans lost. However, here is a little economic news from the U.S. Government.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the unemployment rate for October 2006 was 4.4%, which is one of the lowest since Bush took office. The lowest monthly unemployment rate in Bush’s tenure was his first month in office when it was 4.2%.

The average unemployment rate for the first 10 months of 2006 is 4.7%.

The average unemployment rate was 4% for the Year 2000, Clinton’s final year in office. It was actually 3.9 percent for each of the final four months of 2000.

The election is over? Republicans lost? Gee thanks for that info., I would have never known if it wasn't for you. Any other headlines you can help me out with would be appreciated!

I stand corrected on the numbers though. I thought I read somewhere on briefing.com that it was a historical low. Still great news considering the recession the tax cuts pulled us out of. Bush cut taxes and tax revenues have increased. I know that number is hard for all you libs to grasp but that's a fact. Actually would be nice to see the Dems raise taxes since it would lead to their defeat in future elections.

Give you it to you. Bush Tax cuts does not help the middle class or the lower class. It just helps his rich corperate buddies

oh I send out checks for all the people of America, married I send $600 each.. his rich buddies get $50k..

He wants to make them perm. cause he wants his rich buddys to get richer

[I'm Gone 60]

Yet because of the tax cuts, the budget deficit is the highest its been in years.

I know this is a strange concept to Democrats/Liberals, but how about some spending cuts.

[workin4somethin 0]

I know this is a strange concept to Democrats/Liberals, but how about some spending cuts.

Go ahead: What would you propose in spending cuts that hasn't been included in increased spending under the current Republican leadership?

Maybe we have some common ground...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The tax cuts are about the only thing Bush has done right. If he lets those get rolled back , his presidency will be a total loss as far as I'm concerned.

I agree he has to veto any attempt to roll them back. I can't imagine the Dems would be stupid enough to try and get them rolled back. But who knows.

Dean, are you in the upper 1% percent of the highest incomes? If not, which I seriously doubt you are, Bush's tax cuts did very little to your personal income.

[Dean iWait 0]

The tax cuts are about the only thing Bush has done right. If he lets those get rolled back , his presidency will be a total loss as far as I'm concerned.

I agree he has to veto any attempt to roll them back. I can't imagine the Dems would be stupid enough to try and get them rolled back. But who knows.

Dean, are you in the upper 1% percent of the highest incomes? If not, which I seriously doubt you are, Bush's tax cuts did very little to your personal income.

So your telling me a family of 4 with 50k yearly income is the upper 1% of incomes? Before the tax cuts this famly's tax burden was $3,500. After the tax cuts they pay $2,000. Nice try my socialist friend.

[mawilson 2,133]

Dean, are you in the upper 1% percent of the highest incomes? If not, which I seriously doubt you are, Bush's tax cuts did very little to your personal income.

What is the upper 1%, by the way? 100,000? 200,000? 500,000?

[Dean iWait 0]

The tax cuts are about the only thing Bush has done right. If he lets those get rolled back , his presidency will be a total loss as far as I'm concerned.

I agree he has to veto any attempt to roll them back. I can't imagine the Dems would be stupid enough to try and get them rolled back. But who knows.

Dean, are you in the upper 1% percent of the highest incomes? If not, which I seriously doubt you are, Bush's tax cuts did very little to your personal income.

So your telling me a family of 4 with 50k yearly income is the upper 1% of incomes? Before the tax cuts this famly's tax burden was $3,500. After the tax cuts they pay $2,000. Nice try my socialist friend.

Oops I was wrong. The acutual number they pay now is $1,500 not $2,000.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Millions of temp and other junk jobs have been created over the past few years. Light up already, will ya'?

I'm certainly not going to say temp jobs are as good as full-time regular employee positions, but calling them junk goes too far, IMO. Plenty of people I know are in temp positions that pay well over $20/hour. That's not junk money (well maybe except in New Jersey lol).

$20.00/hour sounds fairly nice considering that manyt work for less, even far less, than that. Yet it is not all that great when considering that decent benefits (which temp jobs typically do not offer) would eat up more than half that if one had to go out on his or her own to acquire them. My health benefits alone account for more than $6.00/hour - most of which my employer pays. Add paid vacation, holidays and sick time to the mix and we're way north of $10.00 for those little things alone. 401K employer match and the pension fund round up the picture. Take these items that many a permanent position offer in addition to salary and bonus potentials and the $20.00/hour temp job is really not much at all. Even outside of NJ.

I will say, though, that it still is better than no job at all.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The tax cuts are about the only thing Bush has done right. If he lets those get rolled back , his presidency will be a total loss as far as I'm concerned.

I agree he has to veto any attempt to roll them back. I can't imagine the Dems would be stupid enough to try and get them rolled back. But who knows.

Dean, are you in the upper 1% percent of the highest incomes? If not, which I seriously doubt you are, Bush's tax cuts did very little to your personal income.

So your telling me a family of 4 with 50k yearly income is the upper 1% of incomes? Before the tax cuts this famly's tax burden was $3,500. After the tax cuts they pay $2,000. Nice try my socialist friend.

You received a 50% percent tax cut?

http://www.cbpp.org/2-5-01tax.htm

The bottom 40 percent of the population would receive just four percent of the tax cuts, about one-ninth what the richest one percent of the population would receive.

[kaydee457 13]

The tax cuts are about the only thing Bush has done right. If he lets those get rolled back , his presidency will be a total loss as far as I'm concerned.

I agree he has to veto any attempt to roll them back. I can't imagine the Dems would be stupid enough to try and get them rolled back. But who knows.

Well, then you haven't been listening to Charlie Rangel (D, NY) the new House- Ways and Means chairman.

He is stupid enough as he's plainly said so. Pelosi agrees with him......

Like I said, these yokels will be history in a couple of years when the electorate finds out what they're really about; spending my and your money.

[I'm Gone 60]

The tax cuts are about the only thing Bush has done right. If he lets those get rolled back , his presidency will be a total loss as far as I'm concerned.

I agree he has to veto any attempt to roll them back. I can't imagine the Dems would be stupid enough to try and get them rolled back. But who knows.

Dean, are you in the upper 1% percent of the highest incomes? If not, which I seriously doubt you are, Bush's tax cuts did very little to your personal income.

I probably didn't get a great deal either, but then again I don't make a lot or didn't pay a lot of tax in the first place, but maybe someday I might and don't want to be sucked dry by taxes. To me if you earn more and pay more taxes you get a bigger return of you taxes when the cut is based a percentage amount.

To me I'm against the earned income tax credit. There you giving money to people that didn't even pay any tax. At least the "rich" worked for what they are getting back. With the EITC the government is giving someone my money.

Edited November 9, 2006 by mdyoung

[Dean iWait 0]

The tax cuts are about the only thing Bush has done right. If he lets those get rolled back , his presidency will be a total loss as far as I'm concerned.

I agree he has to veto any attempt to roll them back. I can't imagine the Dems would be stupid enough to try and get them rolled back. But who knows.

Dean, are you in the upper 1% percent of the highest incomes? If not, which I seriously doubt you are, Bush's tax cuts did very little to your personal income.

So your telling me a family of 4 with 50k yearly income is the upper 1% of incomes? Before the tax cuts this famly's tax burden was $3,500. After the tax cuts they pay $2,000. Nice try my socialist friend.

You received a 50% percent tax cut?

http://www.cbpp.org/2-5-01tax.htm

The bottom 40 percent of the population would receive just four percent of the tax cuts, about one-ninth what the richest one percent of the population would receive.

Nice try again Steven. You might want to use a more reliable source. From Wikipedia:

Criticisms

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has been criticised for producing misleading and left-wing studies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_on_Bud...licy_Priorities

Here is the truth if you can handle it. Bush Tax Cuts Erased Income Tax Burden for 7.8 Million Families!

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/102.html

The 'wealthy' will receive the majority of any income tax reduction because they pay a disproportionately huge percentage of the income taxes! To structure a tax break such that those in upper income brackets are excluded would constitute nothing more than transfer of wealth from those who have it to those who don't (i.e. legal plunder.)

[garya505 2]

http://www.forbes.com/opinions/free_forbes...5/1017/042.html