BUSH TAX CUTS NEED TO BE PERMANENT!

[I'm Gone 60]

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...

I say either freeze spending levels at current levels or only increase by the rate of inflation for 2008. Those aren't cuts, but media would frame it as a cut as they do all the time when it's normally only a cut in the rate of growth.

[dalegg 143]

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.

Under Reagan, we can argue that a Democratic Congress kept the President from making spending cuts, but Bush had a Republican House and a Republican Senate. What is his excuse for not cutting spending outside of the war?

Bush signed the most expensive farm bill ever -- some $190 bilion over 10 years.

Under him, federal education spending -- including No Child Left Behind -- has more than doubled, from almost $36 billion in 2001, to over $72 billion in 2005.

Bush signed the prescription benefit bill for seniors -- estimated to cost $1.2 trillion dollars or more over the next decade -- definitely the largest expansion of a social program since Medicare was established by the Social Security Act Amendments of 1965.

[I'm Gone 60]

Under Reagan, we can argue that a Democratic Congress kept the President from making spending cuts, but Bush had a Republican House and a Republican Senate. What is his excuse for not cutting spending outside of the war?

Bush signed the most expensive farm bill ever -- some $190 bilion over 10 years.

Under him, federal education spending -- including No Child Left Behind -- has more than doubled, from almost $36 billion in 2001, to over $72 billion in 2005.

Bush signed the prescription benefit bill for seniors -- estimated to cost $1.2 trillion dollars or more over the next decade -- definitely the largest expansion of a social program since Medicare was established by the Social Security Act Amendments of 1965.

Yeah, Bush is what Reagan would call a drunken sailor. That's one of the things that frightens me when he said he can would with the Democrats. The Bureau of Printing and Engraving will be working over time.

[Carol&Marc 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...

I say either freeze spending levels at current levels or only increase by the rate of inflation for 2008. Those aren't cuts, but media would frame it as a cut as they do all the time when it's normally only a cut in the rate of growth.

I agree MD, Dems. I'm afraid will offer more entitlement programs (that keep poor people poor, no incentive to work) this will also be a chance for them to demonize repubs. I also find it ironic that the dems. here on VJ or anywhere else don't donate the extra they get from evil Mr.Bush tax cuts to the really poor. So compassionate in word, but not in action!

[Texanadian 10]

Tax cuts? What about the tax increases since Bush came into power. Look at what payroll taxes are now compared to 2000.

[Dean iWait 0]

Here is a little more information that blows up your fuzzy left wing math Steven. Bye now.

From Wikipedia:

The top 10% had an average income of $260,000 with 37.6% of all income, paid 50.2% of all federal taxes, with an average federal tax rate of 26.8% and after tax income of $190,400.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence

[I'm Gone 60]

Tax cuts? What about the tax increases since Bush came into power. Look at what payroll taxes are now compared to 2000.

I assume you are talking about Social Security and Medicare taxes. The percentage hasn't increased, but the level at which you stop paying the Social Security portion is increased each year. Plus the dirty secret about Social Security is that the benefit formula is tilted to give a greater return to lower wage workers.

Contribution and Benefit Base

2000 76,200

2001 80,400

2002 84,900

2003 87,000

2004 87,900

2005 90,000

2006 94,200

2007 97,500

[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.

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.)

This is an age old debate - what is each and every American's fair share of the tax burden?

If, starting January 1, you had to pay the government every penny you earn, until all your federal income tax was paid for that year, guess what day that would be.

CTJ shows that the answer depends on your income. If you earn less than $13,600, you're in the lowest fifth of income earners, and you're free on January 1. You pay no income tax. You do owe Social Security, Medicare, cigarette, gasoline, and other federal taxes, which you will pay off (on average $756, 8.8 percent of your income) by February 1.

If you're in the next fifth up (income $13,600 to $24,400), your income tax freedom day is January 4. Your total federal taxes are paid by February 24. On average you are dunned $2,854, 15 percent of your income. Nearly all of that is for Social Security and Medicare.

If you're in the literal middle class, the middle fifth of taxpayers, you earn between $24,400 and $39,300 per year. Your income tax freedom day is January 21; your total federal tax freedom day is March 13. You pay on average $6,195 in federal taxes, about 20 percent of your pre-tax income. Just over half of it goes for Social Security and Medicare.

At this point we've covered 60 percent of tax payers, and income tax freedom day hasn't yet extended into February. It does so for the earners in the fourth fifth ($39,300-$64,900). They would pay their total income tax by February 3, their total federal tax by March 27. They pay on average $12,047, about one dollar out of every four they earn.

So for 80 percent of us, income tax freedom day comes no later than early February. Most of our federal tax goes to Social Security and Medicare, a category the virulent cutters never talk about cutting. Of course the bottom 80 percent is not the group they worry about. They are focused on, they themselves are part of, and they are funded by those who are in the top 20 percent.

CTJ splits this top one-fifth apart, because it covers such a wide range of incomes. For the next 15 percent up the ladder (incomes between $64,900 and $130,000) income tax freedom day comes on February 16; total fed freedom day on April 8.

It's only the top one percent (income over $319,000) that have an income tax freedom day as late as March 30; a total freedom day that reaches into May. These privileged households, average income $915,000, pay on average $339,000 in federal taxes. This top one percent earns 18 percent of all the income in the country, and pays 25 percent of all federal taxes.

What we have, in short, is slightly progressive taxation, somewhat higher for the rich than for the poor. It is based on the classic economic principle of diminishing marginal utility. You spend the first dollars you earn on items of highest utility -- necessities. Being rational, as you earn more, you spend down your priority list, most important things first, least important last. It makes sense and it maximizes national utility to finance public goods more from the low-utility dollars of the rich than from the high-utility dollars of the poor.

http://www.ctj.org/

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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.

Yeah, like you said that the Republicans will register a sweeping victory on November 7, 2006. Your predictions haven't been all that great recently, buddy.

I'm still torn between someone trying to spend my money and someone going on a spree spending my baby's money and that of her future children and grandchildren. I mean Bush's been spending like there's no tomorrow. Well, there ain't that many tomorrows for him...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

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.

You make it sound like people are entitled to all that. They are not. Fact is, there are good jobs out there which we can not fill because there are so few qualified people out there who are not already satisfactorily employed. I see it where I work every day.

If one wants all those benefits, one should develop the appropriate skillset.

[kaydee457 13]

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.

Yeah, like you said that the Republicans will register a sweeping victory on November 7, 2006. Your predictions haven't been all that great recently, buddy.

I'm still torn between someone trying to spend my money and someone going on a spree spending my baby's money and that of her future children and grandchildren. I mean Bush's been spending like there's no tomorrow. Well, there ain't that many tomorrows for him...

I remember you whistling a very different tune when Bush took the WH in term two. You weren't preaching to the rest of us the adage that "America speaks, and we should listen", or whatever it is that you've been espousing as of late.

I recall some rabid comments concerning his reelection and how dumb the majority of americans were for bringing him back to power...

Now the shoes on the other foot, NO?

The simple fact is that the dem’s ran on an anti-Bush platform and America "spoke"; but not in support of the dem’s but rather against Bush.

The dem’s didn't run on any published platform nor do they have any plan.

Mostly this Republican loss is a result of a very liberal media that's been focused on all that's wrong with this administration and pretty much nothing that's right.

The fact is that this administration has high marks in terms of the economy and the general standard of living in this country; even higher than Clinton's presidency.

The reporting of casualties in Iraq have been particularly shameful with bylines such as "US deaths in Iraq soars to 10 this week ignoring past experiences and having no perspective.

The deficit isn't the problem you seem to make it. It will be reduced to zero, as it always has been, when we achieve ours goals abroad.

It's naive to believe that America is an island and we therefore can ignore what happens abroad. We cannot and history will back up my contention.

Many of the liberals in this forum, replete with all their lofty, snooty, pompous indignation’s about war would be the first to whine incessantly if their SUV's went suddenly dry and they couldn't take little Johnny to soccer practice three time a week....

There's a certain level of ignorance, and naiveté in this forum as most are young in age; frequently posting here in this forum and don't have much real life experience and perspective in such wordly matters.

They simply have tunnel vision and only want to view their own little world ignoring the fact that their comforts and conveniences, and their right to espouse their drivel, was and is guaranteed by those that from time to time go to war to assure delivery.

I remember in 1972 waiting in lines to buy gasoline. Few here can relate to that. The squeeze put on us at time threatened our very way of life.

There are many of these same people in these forums that have the audacity to call our troops murders in some of these threads that would very much condone going to war over oil if their job, travel conveniences, and comfort due to a lack of heat suddenly were revoked.

Deficit? It's a non-issue.

[I'm Gone 60]

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.

Yeah, like you said that the Republicans will register a sweeping victory on November 7, 2006. Your predictions haven't been all that great recently, buddy.

I'm still torn between someone trying to spend my money and someone going on a spree spending my baby's money and that of her future children and grandchildren. I mean Bush's been spending like there's no tomorrow. Well, there ain't that many tomorrows for him...

I'm afraid Bush has done serious damage to the Republican Party. Here in Maryland we have a Republican governor that is pretty middle of the road on social issues and conservative on money matters. I think he did a pretty good job and he was blown out by the mayor of a city that has close to 300 murders a year and probably the worse schools in the state because of Bush and Iraq.

So far Bush has been 2nd to none at spending money and he thinks he can work with the Democrats, so they might fight over what to spend money on, but they will be spending money. Reagan is probably spinning in his grave over what Bush has done to the Republican Party.

However, one thing to keep in mind this was an Anti-Bush election, not Pro Democrat.

Edited November 10, 2006 by mdyoung

[Carol&Marc 0]

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.

Yeah, like you said that the Republicans will register a sweeping victory on November 7, 2006. Your predictions haven't been all that great recently, buddy.

I'm still torn between someone trying to spend my money and someone going on a spree spending my baby's money and that of her future children and grandchildren. I mean Bush's been spending like there's no tomorrow. Well, there ain't that many tomorrows for him...

I remember you whistling a very different tune when Bush took the WH in term two. You weren't preaching to the rest of us the adage that "America speaks, and we should listen", or whatever it is that you've been espousing as of late.

I recall some rabid comments concerning his reelection and how dumb the majority of americans were for bringing him back to power...

Now the shoes on the other foot, NO?

The simple fact is that the dem’s ran on an anti-Bush platform and America "spoke"; but not in support of the dem’s but rather against Bush.

The dem’s didn't run on any published platform nor do they have any plan.

Mostly this Republican loss is a result of a very liberal media that's been focused on all that's wrong with this administration and pretty much nothing that's right.

The fact is that this administration has high marks in terms of the economy and the general standard of living in this country; even higher than Clinton's presidency.

The reporting of casualties in Iraq have been particularly shameful with bylines such as "US deaths in Iraq soars to 10 this week ignoring past experiences and having no perspective.

The deficit isn't the problem you seem to make it. It will be reduced to zero, as it always has been, when we achieve ours goals abroad.

It's naive to believe that America is an island and we therefore can ignore what happens abroad. We cannot and history will back up my contention.

Many of the liberals in this forum, replete with all their lofty, snooty, pompous indignation’s about war would be the first to whine incessantly if their SUV's went suddenly dry and they couldn't take little Johnny to soccer practice three time a week....

There's a certain level of ignorance, and naiveté in this forum as most are young in age; frequently posting here in this forum and don't have much real life experience and perspective in such wordly matters.

They simply have tunnel vision and only want to view their own little world ignoring the fact that their comforts and conveniences, and their right to espouse their drivel, was and is guaranteed by those that from time to time go to war to assure delivery.

I remember in 1972 waiting in lines to buy gasoline. Few here can relate to that. The squeeze put on us at time threatened our very way of life.

There are many of these same people in these forums that have the audacity to call our troops murders in some of these threads that would very much condone going to war over oil if their job, travel conveniences, and comfort due to a lack of heat suddenly were revoked.

Deficit? It's a non-issue.

Nice liberal talk, lets bring in the babies. Dog food eating seniors? Old hat bud! Nice Emotion Kaydee!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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.

Yeah, like you said that the Republicans will register a sweeping victory on November 7, 2006. Your predictions haven't been all that great recently, buddy.

I'm still torn between someone trying to spend my money and someone going on a spree spending my baby's money and that of her future children and grandchildren. I mean Bush's been spending like there's no tomorrow. Well, there ain't that many tomorrows for him...

I remember you whistling a very different tune when Bush took the WH in term two. You weren't preaching to the rest of us the adage that "America speaks, and we should listen", or whatever it is that you've been espousing as of late.

I recall some rabid comments concerning his reelection and how dumb the majority of americans were for bringing him back to power...

Actually, I don't recall saying that "America spoke and we should listen". I said that the President may be well advised to take the message that America has sent this past Tuesday seriously. America did send a message.

Now, you can say and think anything you like about why America voted the way it did. That's up to you. As it was up to me to voice my discontent when too many Americans fell for Bush's fear and smear in 2004.

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.

Yeah, like you said that the Republicans will register a sweeping victory on November 7, 2006. Your predictions haven't been all that great recently, buddy.

I'm still torn between someone trying to spend my money and someone going on a spree spending my baby's money and that of her future children and grandchildren. I mean Bush's been spending like there's no tomorrow. Well, there ain't that many tomorrows for him...

I'm afraid Bush has done serious damage to the Republican Party. Here in Maryland we have a Republican governor that is pretty middle of the road on social issues and conservative on money matters. I think he did a pretty good job and he was blown out by the mayor of a city that has close to 300 murders a year and probably the worse schools in the state because of Bush and Iraq.

So far Bush has been 2nd to none at spending money and he thinks he can work with the Democrats, so they might fight over what to spend money on, but they will be spending money. Reagan is probably spinning in his grave over what Bush has done to the Republican Party.

However, one thing to keep in mind this was an Anti-Bush election, not Pro Democrat.

I agree with that.

Mostly this Republican loss is a result of a very liberal media that's been focused on all that's wrong with this administration and pretty much nothing that's right.

May that be because there isn't anything in that latter category to report about?

Edited November 10, 2006 by ET-US2004

[kaydee457 13]

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.

Yeah, like you said that the Republicans will register a sweeping victory on November 7, 2006. Your predictions haven't been all that great recently, buddy.

I'm still torn between someone trying to spend my money and someone going on a spree spending my baby's money and that of her future children and grandchildren. I mean Bush's been spending like there's no tomorrow. Well, there ain't that many tomorrows for him...

I remember you whistling a very different tune when Bush took the WH in term two. You weren't preaching to the rest of us the adage that "America speaks, and we should listen", or whatever it is that you've been espousing as of late.

I recall some rabid comments concerning his reelection and how dumb the majority of americans were for bringing him back to power...

Actually, I don't recall saying that "America spoke and we should listen". I said that the President may be well advised to take the message that America has sent this past Tuesday seriously. America did send a message.

Now, you can say and think anything you like about why America voted the way it did. That's up to you. As it was up to me to voice my discontent when too many Americans fell for Bush's fear and smear in 2004.

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.

Yeah, like you said that the Republicans will register a sweeping victory on November 7, 2006. Your predictions haven't been all that great recently, buddy.

I'm still torn between someone trying to spend my money and someone going on a spree spending my baby's money and that of her future children and grandchildren. I mean Bush's been spending like there's no tomorrow. Well, there ain't that many tomorrows for him...

I'm afraid Bush has done serious damage to the Republican Party. Here in Maryland we have a Republican governor that is pretty middle of the road on social issues and conservative on money matters. I think he did a pretty good job and he was blown out by the mayor of a city that has close to 300 murders a year and probably the worse schools in the state because of Bush and Iraq.

So far Bush has been 2nd to none at spending money and he thinks he can work with the Democrats, so they might fight over what to spend money on, but they will be spending money. Reagan is probably spinning in his grave over what Bush has done to the Republican Party.

However, one thing to keep in mind this was an Anti-Bush election, not Pro Democrat.

I agree with that.

Mostly this Republican loss is a result of a very liberal media that's been focused on all that's wrong with this administration and pretty much nothing that's right.

May that be because there isn't anything in that latter category to report about?

This pretty much sums it up....

Actually, kaydee, America has sent a strong message to Bush and the Bushies in Congress that exactly this kind of paranoid bullshite is no longer working. America has spoken and America is tired of Bush's fear and smear.