Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Great article. I am 34 and have been paying income tax for over 15 years. I have never owed money at the end of the year. This year my wife and I owe a pretty large amount. We are not making great money, we are both teachers and we both took a beating on taxes. It is pretty clear to me that people lijke myself and my wife are bearing the burden of the lost revenues of both the wealthiest Americans and ther corporations they own.

Posted by: Danuiel Mahan at February 6, 2006 04:52 PM

This shifting of the tax burden comes at the same time that the annual household income calculated in current dollars is declining at an unprecedented rate. How long has this been going on? Since 2000.

It’s clear that this Republican party, that is, the one in power, is interested primarily in cheap labor and reducing taxes for the wealthy. That’s the sum total of their domestic policy. Foreign policy, well, just don’t mess with the Bush family.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at February 6, 2006 05:03 PM

The Poor and Middle-Class are losing ground as there are no checks and balances. The Rich get Richer and the rest of us get SCREWED! That’s the New Government by King George. We should have all the Rich send there children to War since they can afford to have the best that they Parent’s can offer. But no, we only have one Congressman that has a Child in the Military. I guess that says it all. God Help Us!!!

Posted by: Maryann Baer at February 6, 2006 05:05 PM

Doesn’t anyone believe in Darwin Economics anymore? Poor people (which I used to be) need to get off their collective butts and do it for themselves. How many of you have bought a car for a child who doesn’t change the oil because it was handed to them? Same principle. Life sucks, that is undoubtably true, but you don’t see me asking anyong to fix what is wrong with my life! I wasn’t born into a good situation, but it isn’t your fault, nor the governments! Screw the poor, (let’s remember, I was one) they can work and gain like everyone else!

Posted by: phlegm at February 6, 2006 05:06 PM

Do yall forget how much of the national taxes the rich pay? I believe last time I saw it was over 90%!! 10% pay 90% and poor pay nothing, but get all sorts of hand-outs. Why? What did they do to deserve them. Let me guess, you people must also be in favor of affirmative action too huh?

Posted by: phlegm at February 6, 2006 05:11 PM

I am a young man who is just getting started in Real Estate. As an independent contractor I have to pay estimated quarterly taxes, social security and medicare. I have not yet sold a house and am making about $17,000 a year doing odd jobs for my broker. I am by no means a wealthy person, at least not yet.

I find it rediculous that Bush talks about lowering the tax burden so people can start a business, when in reality the greatest tax cuts are going to the welathy. People like me who are struggling to start a business are oftentimes in the lowest tax brackets; starting a new business involves a lot of risk afterall.

I can tell you that the greatest financial burden I am facing right now are my quarterly taxes. Furthermore, living off credit cards means that once I sell my first home my commission will more than likely go straight to my credit cards and the tax man.

Now I certainly wouldn’t mind paying in a higher tax bracket if and when I start doing better in Real Estate. But I can’t get there and may even have to quit real estate entirely if I, as one of the professional working poor (college educated) who can’t afford his taxes.

If Bush really cared about reviving the economy, he should repeal the tax cut on the rich and give the working poor a tax cut, something I think only the Democrats are willing to do.

Posted by: Andrew at February 6, 2006 05:19 PM

It will nevr happen under a Republican administration, but This is how a liberal might look at taxation.

1. Set a no tax at the poverty level, i.e., if the government establishes that someone lives at or below poverty level at $25,000 per year, no one who earns less would pay any tax, period.

2. No matter how much income a person makes, they would not pay tax on the first $25,000. It makes no difference if earnings are $26,000 or $400,000 the first $25,000 would not be taxed.

3. Earnings from $25,001 to $35,000 would be taxed at 10% of the top $10,000.

4. $35,001 to $45,000 at 10% of the first $10,000 and 20% of the top $10,000.

5. $45.001 to $55,000 at 10% of the first $10.000, 20% of the next $10,000 and 30% of the top $10,000.

6. $55,001 to 65,000 at 10% of the first $10,000, 20% of the next, 30% of the next, and 35% of the top $10,000.

7. Continuing to increase at 5% increments for each income increase of $10,000 to a maximum of 50%, and continuing at 50% from that point up.

8. Allow no fudges or loopholes, no exemptions or deductions. Everyone pays the same at each level.

9. A person having an income of one million dollars ($1,000,000), would pay zero taxes on the first $25,000, 10% on the first $10,000 above that, 20% on the next $10,000, etc., until the 50% maximum was reached and would pay that 50% on the rest of his/her income.

10. No differences would be allowed for types of income, i.e., dividends, interest, realty investment income, inheritance, wages would all be taxed at the same rates.

Example: at $65,000 per year�€�

1. You would not pay any tax on the first $25,000

2. You would pay 10% on the first ten above 25,000, or $1,000. Remember that would be $1,000 on actually the first $35,000 because you did not pay any on the first $25,000.

3. Then you�€™d pay 20% on the next $10,000. That�€™s $2,000 added to the other $1,000 for a total of $3,000 on $45,000 of income.

4. Your 30% of the next $10,000 would be $3.000. Now you�€™ve paid in $6.000 on $55,000 income.

5. At this point it changes to increases of 5% per $10,000. 35% of $10,000 is $3,500. Add that to the $6,000 for a total of $9,500 on $55,000 income.

6. Add another 40% of the last $10,000. Your bill is $13,500 on an income of $65,000. Leaving you $51,500 spendable income.

7. For those making more than $65,000�€�they would pay 45% on the next $10,000 taking them to $18,000 out of 75,000 ( $57,000).

8. Max tax is 50% of all income above $85,000.

Remember, no matter how smart someone is, no matter how ambitious they are, no matter how hard they work, they are in the position they attain as a matter of luck. Luck at being born. Luck at being born in a given location. Luck at being born to certain parents. Luck at being instilled with certain talents. Luck to be born into a select group, etc. So, if they somehow end up earning more, they should pay more.

That�€™s one liberal view�€�

We all need the things taxation brings, i.e., highways, defense, and yes, even welfare, but to demand the tax burden be placed on the poor and near poor is not very practical. They just don�€™t meet the supply side of the requirement. Only the wealthy meets that, and only they can cough it up. That does not mean the rest of us can just sit back and reap the benefits, it just means that the lower middle class has been trying to carry it too long and now with a shrinking middle class, someone else has to pick it up or the nation goes into a tail spin.
Dropping the poverty poor from the tax paying poles harms no one. Progressively higher demands on the more well to do harms no one. But, if exemptions and deductions are allowed to stay in the mix, the beneficiaries of that are only those who seek loopholes. So, any plan, no matter who proposes it MUST restrict exemptions and deduction to nil.

A by-product of that might be�€�wealthier tax payers would keep a better eye on pork barreling and foolish spending, and they would have the clout to rein it in.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 6, 2006 05:19 PM

“10% pay 90% and poor pay nothing, but get all sorts of hand-outs. Why? What did they do to deserve them”

Uh, nothing. Thats why they live off hand outs, no need to work for something if its going to be given to you.

Andre see’s cuts to socialist programs and starts panicking. He thinks you should have to work twice as hard and be taxed a ton so that YOU can support what HE thinks is right.

Posted by: kctim at February 6, 2006 05:21 PM

Where is a good assasin when you need them?

Posted by: Beverly at February 6, 2006 05:32 PM

Yeah, that’s right, the wealthy don’t benefit disproportionately from a solid public education system, a social safety net, or government expenditures on infrastructure and defense. It’s not like they get back $4 for every 1$ they pay in taxes. Why, they (or their ancestors) could have been born in some backwards country without any taxes and still made their fortunes without the infrastructure and educated work force paid for by our tax structure. Yeah, right. I’d like to see them try.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at February 6, 2006 05:32 PM

phlegm wrote:

“Poor people (which I used to be) need to get off their collective butts and do it for themselves.”

kctim wrote:

“Andre see�€™s cuts to socialist programs and starts panicking. He thinks you should have to work twice as hard and be taxed a ton so that YOU can support what HE thinks is right.”

How ironic. Many of today’s working poor are already working twice as hard after Bush’s tax cuts. Many typicall work two jobs for minimum wage and still can’t afford a decent living. The working poor are not lazy people by any means. They are overworked and underpaid.

Any support of the working poor by the government would be an INVESTMENT in the economy.

Posted by: Andrew at February 6, 2006 05:32 PM

KCTim & Phlegm,

Imagine the US population represented by the length of the football field, in order of income:

Median US family income (the family at the 50 yard line) is ~$40,000 (a stack of $100 bills 1.6 inches high.)

—The family on the 95 yard line earns about $100,000 per year, a stack of $100 bills about 4 inches high.

—At the 99 yard line the income is about $300,000, a stack of $100 bills about a foot high.

—The curve reaches $1 million (a 40 inch high stack of $100 bills) one foot from the goal line.

—From there it keeps going up…it goes up 50 km (~30 miles) on this scale!

From www.lcurve.org

Remember, that example is for income. For wealth the curve is even more skewed. Currently, the best estimate is that 1% of the US population owns 50% of the wealth.

The problem is not with individuals. The problem is systemic.

EVERYONE DOES BETTER
WHEN EVERYHONE DOES BETTER

see www.lcurve.org

Posted by: phx8 at February 6, 2006 05:48 PM

I like this story. I do not know where it came from, but it really makes sense.

Let’s put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every
day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they
paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

* The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
* The fifth would pay $1.
* The sixth would pay $3.
* The seventh $7.
* The eighth $12.
* The ninth $18.
* The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the
restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one
day, the owner threw them a curve.

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the
cost of your daily meal by $20.”

So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay
their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But
what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the
$20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share’?

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth
man would each end up being ‘PAID’ to eat their meal.

So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each
man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the
amounts each should pay.

And so:

* The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
* The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
* The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
* The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
* The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
* The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to
eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare
their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to
the tenth man “but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too.
It’s unfair that he got ten times more than me!”

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I
got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat
down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all
of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our
tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit
from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and
they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good
restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.

Posted by: Cliff at February 6, 2006 05:53 PM

So let me get this straight Cliff, you say because the rich has so much money we’d better not make them pay because they might not play the game? Sounds like a good plan! Heck, if I have to pay more so the top 1% is happy I’m willing to take that sacrifice! How come no one’s ever put it to me this way before?

Posted by: chantico at February 6, 2006 06:00 PM

Uh, Cliff, perhaps you could tell us where the “tenth man” got his income from to begin with? I’m pretty sure he doesn’t haul his own trash, manufacture his own clothing, farm his own food, or build his own house. Oh, that’s right, laborers and other lower to middle income persons do the ACTUAL work of America while those who do the managing (an admittedly important job as well) sit around and pretend they are doing all the work. I don’t begrudge a CEO patting himself on the back for managing the company well, but that CEO has to remember that the system requires him to have employees who do the actual lifting.

Posted by: ant at February 6, 2006 06:03 PM

Cliff,

Perhaps one of the most tortured and inappropriate analogies I’ve ever read. And I’ve seen a lot of really bad ones. In the story, they all ate the same thing (roughly). I submit that the wealthy “eat” a little bit more heartily from society’s “plate”. Yes, they may be a little bit smarter and a little bit harder working than some at the bottom, but mostly they have taken advantage of the society we have all worked to create. And in so doing, they ower a little bit more on the tab. In fact, for every dollar they spend on taxes, they get back multiples, whereas the rest of us get back less than one. When one talks about the means of production, one cannot ignore the roads, the schools, the communications infrastructure that couldn’t happen without easements, the security of our country, the healthcare system, the air and rail transportation systems, the maintenance of cultural and other amenities that keep the natives from becoming restless. To pretend that the wealthy somehow obtained and keep their wealth separate from the existence of this vast network supported by tax revenues is ridiculous.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at February 6, 2006 06:22 PM

Andre M. Hernandez,
Good article.

Andre M. Hernandez wrote: The soldiers who risk their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq do so with heroism and grit. The soldiers and their families are making brave and sometimes horrific sacrifices. Why should the same socioeconomic group that makes up the bulk of the fighting force also sacrifice the most financially?

Very good question.
While our troops are risking life and limb, the actions of bought-and-paid-for incumbents is disgraceful!

And, we can’t easily get rid of them, because they have rigged the system.

Many newcomers to Congress would like to pass many badly-needed, common-sense reforms.
Incumbents won’t allow it.
Incumbents have the leverage.
Incumbents threaten newcomers that rock the boat.
Incumbents pressure and tempt newcomers to accept the status quo.
Incumbents already have pre-existing big-money-donors, and allowances paid for by tax-payers.
Incumbents believe voters get what they deserve for allowing it, and empowering it (which is sort of true, unfortunately, but that doesn’t justify it).

The President�€™s 2007 budget proposes $2.7 trillion in spending neccessary to increase defense and homeland security

And, that is probably a lowball estimate designed to avoid outrage. Watch it grow by another half a trillion to $3.3 trillion.

After all, the debt is costing over $1 billion per day. Think about the irresponsibility of spending $1 billion per day for interest alone (over $365 billion per year), $4 billion per month for Iraq, much less for Kartrina, a measely 4 billion for energy research, etc.

And anything spent for homeland security seems ridiculous with wide-open borders. Some states have declare emergencies, but the federal government ignores the problem, and refuses to enforce the law. And why, after 4 years, haven’t the 911 commission recommendations been implemented?

You would think we could get a lot better for $2.7 trillion per year. But, instead, we get incompetence. Agencies that can’t connect the dots, no matter how obvious they are.

Nothing can get better until our bought-and-paid-for elected officials are forced to address the growing list of pressing problems.

The tax system is a joke. But, you have to ask yourself, if it is so messed up, why hasn’t it been fixed. Well, the answer is not the difficult to understand. Who do you think the tax code benefits most? It ain’t the low-income to middle-income classes, because median incomes have been falling for the last four years. Some will say, “but home ownership is up”, but they fail to point out that those homes are not owned free and clear, and nation-wide personal debt is now $32 trillion.

CURRENT TAXPAYERS TO FUTURE GENERATIONS �€” record deficits that shift the tax burden to our children and grandchildren

It’s worse. It’s more like your children’s childrens’ childrens’ childrens’ childrens’ children. It would now take 139 years to pay down the $8.2 trillion of debt, which has doubled from 33% of GDP in 1980 to 66% of GDP in 2005 (and growing rapidly).

Newcomers to congress badly need our help to pass badly-needed, common-sense reforms.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 6, 2006 06:29 PM

Conservative see wealth as the result of hard work, which in turn is due to one’s moral virtue. By extention, it is the fault of the working American who does not succeed financially, who they perceive as lazy.

Therefore, how can conservatives support shifting the tax burden on the lower class, many of whom wotk their collective butts off, many at least 2 jobs, to feed their families, pay their rising health insurance costs, pay their mortgages/rent, etc. when it is they who are fighting every day to protect their families?

Furthermore, how can conservatives support shifting the tax burden on our troops (many of whom joined because they were poor and with no career prospects, or money for college) when they are in fact doing work that conservatives consider so moral?

A contradiction?

Posted by: Andrew at February 6, 2006 06:39 PM

I’m ready to side with the Conservatives on this one. They PAY way too much money. Here’s what we’ll do:
a. cut all government expenditures.
b. cut all government income revenues.

There problem solved.

Why SHOULD the poor subsidize the mega-millionaires in the defense industry when they have no property to defend? Don’t tell me they benefit - because the biggest beneficiaries are the defense industrial-complex who make BILLIONS off our tax dollars.

Why SHOULD the poor subsidize the roads, highways, trains, bridges, and other infrastructure? They don’t really need them. Certainly not as much as the wealthy and middle class. Bread and water can generally be had locally. Let the sellers and buyers of goods pay for their own transporation systems. PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, and all that.

Why SHOULD the poor pay for education? They don’t need to know anything to beg, right? It is THEIR responsibility to learn what they need to survive. Frankly, I’m tired of subsidizing the cost of educating doctors, lawyers, and engineers who just go out with their government subsidized skills and moan and groan about how they got where they are on their own - let’s let them actually get there own their own.

Why SHOULD the poor pay for police, fire, and emergency services? Let us all own guns and handle our own security and property protection. Again, let’s rely on PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.

Why SHOULD the poor pay for farm subsidies? Why should any of us? PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.

You see, if you look at the annual expenditures and WHO the payments go to (especially, ultimately) you’ll find that the great bulk of the national budget goes to the wealthy and the well-off.

Cliff and his ilk are uninformed morons who should get just what they are asking for.

Every man for himself! Cut ALL government expenidtures and eliminate ALL taxes! Let the chips fall where they may.

BTW, the guy who paid for the bulk of the meal - guy number ten - was the restaurant owner and he was paying himself!

Posted by: LibRick at February 6, 2006 06:54 PM

“while 141 programs that primarily help the poor, children, the elderly, veterans and the handicapped will see their money drastically cut or eliminated.”

Can you show me one program that was cut and show their budget for this year and proposed budget for this next year?

A reduction in the amount of expected increase is not a cut.

Posted by: tomd at February 6, 2006 07:00 PM

A team, group, or society is only as strong as its weakest member. Successful members of our society will have less source of revenue if they don’t invest in our society.

I’ll use a classroom analogy. Each year I teach 100 students chemistry. At the end of year, they take a state exam. My goal is to have everyone reach some level of competency. What kind of teacher would I be if I bragged because 2 of my 100 got perfect scores on the exam, but the rest got below 65?

Posted by: Loren at February 6, 2006 07:40 PM

I’m not sure about this, but wasn’t part of President Clinton’s welfare reform package that you couldn’t collect welfare for longer than 5 years? Does anybody know?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 6, 2006 07:41 PM

I have always been poor, and I am by no means lazy. I go to work every day like millions of other people. Unlike the ultra wealthy of this country. They sit on their butts and collect money. I have never been on welfare, have never used drugs, I don’t smoke either. I don’t mind paying my fair share of taxes, but I think the republicans are wrong in wanting to cut the programs for the poor. I am a veteran, but I am against this war. It has cost too much in lives and money. If Bush wants to continue this war he should suit up and take his wife, and daughters and mother and father with him, along with all of the other people who are all for the war. I hope the senators and congressmen vote against these cuts.

Posted by: jimmy at February 6, 2006 07:50 PM

Andre,

This liberal argument that cutting federal programs makes the poor poorer simply makes no sense. Blaming it on Iraq is even more illogical.

Is the cause of poverty a lack of government spending?

I know, I know… the cause of every societal ill is a lack of government spending in the liberal lexicon.

Posted by: esimonson at February 6, 2006 08:15 PM

Jay Jay
Yes Clinton did put a limit on government help for the poor. He also started the work first program , where you could get SOME money, food stamps and medicaid for your children if they were working and at least trying to help themselves and family instead of just letting the states take care of them.

Posted by: gypsyirishgirl at February 6, 2006 08:49 PM

Wow. Where have all the compassionate conservatives gone?!?

Posted by: tony at February 6, 2006 08:57 PM

I know, I know�€� the cause of every societal ill is a lack of government spending in the liberal lexicon.

Eric,

Actually the cause of every socital ill is that the government must spend money on social programs. Communities and individuals should take care of their neighbors, but because our society has become so selfish and greedy, the government must do it for us. By no means is it a perfect system.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 6, 2006 09:22 PM

Danuiel

You may try a new tax software or a new preparer. If you didn’t owe money last year, and you situation hasn’t changed, you don’t owe money this year.

Others

The tax burden isn’t shifting at all. In fact the trend has been for the richest quintile to pay a greater share of the taxes. Most people in the lowest income groups pay no Federal taxes at all. What you guys are talking about is a change in the spending, not the taxing.

The military is broadly representative of the U.S. population. It tends to have fewer of the very rich and fewer of the very poor. Blacks and whites are overrepresented; other minority groups are underrepresented. I wrote a whole post on that a while back. You can find the information and citations in the archives on the red side.

Andrew

If you are making $17,000 a year you paid no more than $2000 in Federal taxes and probably less. You probably got hit hard on Social Security if you are self employed. That is why we need to reform Social Security, but we lost that battle last year. Your Federal taxes have gone down since Bush was elected. If they have not, take the same advice I gave to Danuiel above.

Marysdude

Luck is a big part of life, but making sure you are in the right place, working to get the right skill and just working hard also make a difference. Incentives make a difference, especially to people with skills and ability to invest. I have the choice to invest or take a vacation to Florida. If the investment does not yield much I piss it away on vacation. There is always that temptation. People who are poor tend to be more easily tempted.

Mental

All people benefit from public goods. The poor tend to benefit more since they have fewer options outside the public goods.

Re the poor working hard

The number of hours worked by all income groups have declined in this generation. The hours worked the less educated and poorer have declined even more. It not to say we should do nothing to help the poor, but the idea that the poor are more oppressed and overworked is not supported by the data.

There is an interesting article that explains this.

Loren

If two of your students got 100% and the rest got below 65% maybe they are not qualified to take your course. School choice and vouchers might help.

JayJay

President Clinton and the Republican Congress passed a very good welfare reform bill. The liberal elite predicted people would starve in the streets. It didn�€™t happen.

Posted by: Jack at February 6, 2006 09:31 PM

President Clinton and the Republican Congress passed a very good welfare reform bill.

So, what’s the problem again?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 6, 2006 09:39 PM

Something I don’t understand; if the unemployment rate is so low, 4.something, then why are the welfare rolls so high? If there are so many jobs available that we must import people accross the border to do them, then why do we have anyone on welfare? If these are jobs that Americans don’t want to do, too bad, either you do them or you’re on your own. Please don’t get me wrong, I am not against temporary public assistance by any means, it is a neccessary part of a compassionate society. I just don’t understand why it is such a problem.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 6, 2006 09:47 PM

The problem is that government monies, instead of charities, are taken by force, with a gun.

We should be taking nothing by force from our citizens. We should be working to take care of our less fortunate through charity and helping people in our communities because it is the right thing to do and because it also helps the community.

But by taking the money and redistributing it by force you squeeze every last bit of good will out of it and make it an ‘entitlement’ and ‘forced charity’ that just makes everyone angry. Except the politicians who then use that power of proving votes for said charities and keep the classes at each other’s throats in order to keep their power up.

And you all fall for it, continuing to bicker of the scraps of how much you are paying when you should be able to not have your government steal money from you.

How sad is that.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 6, 2006 10:24 PM

Jack wrote:

“If you are making $17,000 a year you paid no more than $2000 in Federal taxes and probably less. You probably got hit hard on Social Security if you are self employed. That is why we need to reform Social Security, but we lost that battle last year. Your Federal taxes have gone down since Bush was elected.”

Self-employment taxes are indeed the largest part of my quarterly taxes. But Gutting Social Security it no solution (which was Bush’s solution). Shifting the tax burden is. A little investment in our country’s economic engine will help stimulate the economy but *how* that is done is what makes the difference between what you believe and what I believe. I find it highly immoral and economically unsound to give the well-off an enormous tax refund in the name of economic stimulus and to give the lower to middle class a token $300 per year tax cut from Bush. That does not help the economy. They called this the Trickle-down Theory and guess what? It doesn’t work. Didn’t work in the 80’s. Bush Sr. called it Voodoo Economics. If only Dubya would’ve remembered the recession and enormous national debt Reaganomics left us…

It is a matter of equity and fairness. The government made a choice to invest the surplus into the economy but it could have been done a variety of ways. Imagine if you will that the tax surplus was given to the poorest Americans, let’s say there are 40 million of them. Many of them could have paid off debt, fixed up their homes, bought something discretionary like a new TV, etc. That money feeds the economy and the benefits are distributed to the most in need, as well as the business owners, corporations, etc. who benefit from consumer spending.

Giving that surplus to the rich as Bush did benefited a few hundred-thousand or a few ten-thousand people.

If you had a billion dollars to spend who/what would you spend it on? Would you care to possitively effect the lives of millions in dire straights, or would you give it thousands who are already well off?

Posted by: Andrew at February 6, 2006 10:31 PM

Rhinehold wrote:

“The problem is that government monies, instead of charities, are taken by force, with a gun.”

Rhinehold, this old Libertarian “taxes are taken by force” diatribe ignores the most important political reality: we gave our consent to be taxed through our representatives. If you have a problem with it, you can call your Congressman or live in a fantasy land where even democracy can’t convey the will of the people.

Remember, our Founding Fathers protested “No taxation without representation,” not simply “No Taxation.”

Posted by: Andrew at February 6, 2006 10:39 PM

JayJay

There is no problem. Most people are working. Many people have too much money but nobody has enough.

We have some mismatch between skills and jobs. That is natural and inevitable. A unemployement rate of 4.7% is about as low as it can go. The U.S. does very well. German unemployement is more than 11% and it has been stuck around there for decades.

Most people feel they have to struggle in life and life is tough all over. But when you look at what people have, it is really not that hard. Most of the poor in the U.S. own cars and VCR or DVC players. I know this insouciance infuriates some people, but I have lived overseas and seen real poverty. We don’t have anything like that in the U.S.

The definition of poverty always changes. That is why we will never eliminate it. A middle class family from 1950 would be amazed at the buying power of a person in poverty today.

And some people are always in trouble. Sometimes it is not their fault.

Posted by: Jack at February 6, 2006 10:41 PM

Rhinehold,

You are right ofcourse.
It is sad.

At the very least, local administration of such things would be a big improvement.

Regarding welfare, I don’t mind paying taxes to help the truly needy. Most people don’t.

As for all the other stuff, the federal government shouldn’t even be meddling in the vast number of things it does (and usually does badly too).

The problem is that the government takes much, wastes much, steals much, and the people know it. They see the pork-barrel, corporate welfare, graft, and cu$hy benefits and retirement plans of congress persons. Congress votes themselves raises, write hot checks, break the laws, and then get a pardon.

If government were not so corrupt, I don’t think we’d be having this discussion.

It is folly to believe government can operate without any funding, but that is not even remotely the case. The federal government took in $2.2 trillion last year and has $2.7 budgeted for next year. The National Debt has jumped from 33% in 1980 to 66% in 2005. Taxes per capita has increase 177% since 1980. Median incomes have fallen for the last 4 years. Interest on the debt is over $1 billion per day. The national debt is growing by $2.14 billion per day. The federal government is fiscally and morally bankrupt.

It’s not hard to see where this is headed.

Voters can and must change it soon, or we will all regret learning the hard way (again).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 6, 2006 10:44 PM

Andrew

The Reagan cuts didn’t cause a recession. On th contrary, the economy has been very good since 1982. They stopped calling it Reaganomics after that. The brief recessions of 1991 and 2001 were nothing by historical standards. A child born in 1980 does not remember any bad times at all.

Presumably you will make more money soon. We don’t guarantee life will be easy, but you can pursue happiness.

I believe in targeted cuts. The first round of Bush cuts went to general cuts and didn’t do so much good. The better targeted cuts of 2003 have done a great job. Trickle down is not a valid strategy, but favoring investment is.

Our tax system already redistributes income. You get a lot more in government services than you pay in taxes. So do I and so do most Americans. But if you could redistribute too much and make everyone poor. I was poor for a long time too. If you had just given me an extra $5000, it would have done no particular good. As a society, we only become richer through greater productivity and that requires investment.

Posted by: Jack at February 6, 2006 10:54 PM

Rhinehold,

I don’t disagree with you, as I stated local communities and neighbors should take care of the needy. Unfortunatly, that doesn’t happen. Sure the community rallies behind the poor and needy at Christmas or in the midst of a disaster, but what happens the rest of the year? Some democrats have introduced a bill that would train the unemployed to work in healthcare, an industry that suffers a worker shortage. Sounds good to me- teach a man to fish. There are probably many other industries that have worker shortages as well. With 4.7% unemployment you sure would think so. Wouldn’t you? This wonderfully low unemployment rate sure isn’t like Clinton’s wonderfully low unemployment rate. In the ’90s companies couldn’t find workers and were forced to raise wages to retain workers and attract new ones. Where I work, they were paying their exsisting employees to go to school, so they could do jobs that were going unfilled. You could go practically anywhere and get a job. I don’t recall layoffs and corporate bankruptcies being so rampent then either. Why is it so different this time? For some reason the numbers don’t match up to reality.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 6, 2006 11:09 PM

Don’t you think that the wasteful nature of our government, with it’s rampent corruption and carelessness in accounting for taxpayer dollars should be a much bigger concern for us than entitlement programs?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 6, 2006 11:21 PM

It’s those 10, 50, and 100 million dollar salaries for the CEOs.
And, they need big-money for their bought-and-paid-for incumbents too.
Also, the National Debt is crushing us, growing by $2.14 billion per day, and $1 billion per day in interest alone. With the Chinese and Japanese not wanting to buy much more, they’ll have to start printing more money. Inflation is already on the rise. So are interest rates.

What is funny is watching some people try so hard to paint a rosy picture. And, short term, they can do it maybe. But, it’s just an illusion, as we borrow and spend our way deeper and deeper into debt.

So, something has to give.
It’s your income (decreasing).
Inflation (increasing).
Printing money (increasing).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 6, 2006 11:41 PM

Oh, Mr. Hernandez! And none of the 18 billion towards the Gulf Coast is going to help a single poor person with their home … or finding a job … or nothing, right? Yeah, nice research!!!

I DON’T KNOW WHAT WORLD YOU ALL ARE LIVING IN BUT THE GUY WHO JUST PAINTED MY HOUSE MAKES $80,000 A YEAR … PAINTING!!! THE HARDEST THING HE DOES IS TRIM CROWN MOLDING!! HE WORKS 5 DAYS A WEEK AND TAKES 3 WEEKS OFF A YEAR. HE COULDN’T STOP BRAGGING ABOUT IT. ADMITTEDLY, HIS 5 DAYS A WEEK ARE 10 TO 11 HOUR DAYS. SUCH IS LIFE.

YOU WANNA MAKE MONEY IN AMERICA:
STEP 1: STOP WHINING ABOUT AND BLAMING OTHER PEOPLE. YOU WASTE TIME AND ANNOY PEOPLE.
STEP 2: GET TO WORK!!!!!!

I came from a middle class background and am making very decent, not great, but pretty good money now. But libs think it happened all by luck …and because I’m making good money it’s my fault some 5 other people aren’t.

Taxes are enormously slated to the rich . . unquestionably. And, much to my dismay, George Bush is a bigger social spender than Bill Clinton, also an undeniable mathematical fact. So! I’ll expect some “Clinton is Hitler” posters out of you libs by the end of the week.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 6, 2006 11:47 PM

JayJaySnowman,

Yes, the irresponsible and unaccountable government should be the primary concern.

No reforms will be possible until the government is forced to be responsible and accountable.

Voters can do that. But, they won’t until the pain level gets high enough, or they become educated about the simple, responsible solution to peacefully force government to become responsible too.

Then there may be a chance for some common-sense
Social Security has been plundered for so long (i.e. annual surpluses), it is facing shortages in the near future. Medicare is a mess, and the new prescription plan already has shortages for quite some time.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 6, 2006 11:50 PM

Dan:

If social security has been plundered by the government, the government should put it back. Then see if there are shortages.

Only seems right.

Posted by: womanmarine at February 7, 2006 02:35 AM

Uh, I kind of fast forwarded thru things, but I don’t think anyone mentioned H.R.25.

I’m pretty sure at least the “thought” is still alive, as Rep. Moran from Kansas was loud and proud about it here in Marion County Kansas not more than 4 weeks ago.

This is consumption tax: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR00025:@@@L&summ2=m&#summary

“Imposes a national sales tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services. Sets the sales tax rate at 23 percent in 2007, with adjustments to the rate in subsequent years. Allows exemptions from the tax for property or services purchased for business, export, or investment purposes and for State government functions.”

Wake up people!
KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 7, 2006 02:42 AM

When will Americans wake up and realize that “Taxes” is just money we refuse to invest in our collective best interest as Consumers. Want to make the poorest worker in America rich? There exist only one proven way. Invest in the one thing that creates that money that Individuals and Society needs and wants. Besides if the poorest American becomes economically viable and finiaclly independent the government and special interest groups wouldn’t have a need for Entitlements of our taxes. Work smart, not hard, spend taxes wisely not throwing it into the Outhouse than “We the People” might get somewhere other than our Parents World.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 7, 2006 03:46 AM

womanmarine,

This is exactly what President Clinton proposed doing with the budget surplus that Bush turned into a nightmare of a deficit. Now all of a sudden 4 years later Bush starts crying about a SS problem? Duh!

KansasDem,

Another interesting tax reform bill was introduced by Pennsylvania Democrat Chaka Fattah, that would abolish the income tax for individuals and corporations. Revenue would instead be raised through a transaction fee. You would be charged a fee each time you used a check, debit card, credit card, or made transfers of stocks or bonds. Cash transactions under $500 and transactions on savings accounts would be exempt of the fee. All non-cash transactions under $500 would be charged a 1% fee, and a progressive schedule of rates for transactions over $500.

Comprehensive Transform America Transaction Fee Act of 2005

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 7, 2006 03:48 AM

For many years the middle class (a wide definition)have had the burdenhad the burden of paying the lion share of taxes to keep our country running efficiently. For the most part I believe we should pay and do not mind paying taxes. The republicans are always screaming about lowering the taxes. When they finally get control they do just that and they are heroes in many of an ignorant eye. At the same time they are spending trillions of dollars adding to larger deficit. They screw everything so bad; it is just a matter of time before the Democrats are in control. They raise taxes and everyone bitches (especially the upper middle class).
The money must come from some where despite what the present president proclaims: It is just money, we can print it.�€ I don�€™t believe Americans (at least patriotic Americans) mind paying taxes. What we despise is how the money is being spent. Less government is the republican�€™s mantra, but in reality they mean big business using government money. This is a typical welfare program for the rich.
I hear people all the time bitching about the poor on welfare. �€œBy God I�€™m not paying for them to set at home.�€ �€œLook at that family with six kids and a Cadillac, drawing a monthly check, food stamp, and free medical.�€ �€œI won�€™t stand for it, I work for a living so can those people who live in federal housing.�€ YES it amazes me these ignorant people will bitch all day about the poor family drawing welfare, but not say a word about the government paying corporations billions of dollars so the CEO can make is 20 million a year, and the board members have their annual yacht race. This is counting bailouts to companies so they can stay afloat. The workers of these bailout corporations still loose out but the CEOs clean house.
Billions of dollars go out on subsides to the same people who are complaining about welfare babies. Airlines, Transportation, Railroads, Corporate Farming all take up a big chunk of our tax dollars, but we don�€™t fight back. All the money given away in bailouts, corporate welfare, subsidies, and lets throw in the irresponsible war in Iraq. All this money could be given to every child born in the U.S. Keep in an account until 18 or after collage, or maybe use it for school and housing. The interest would set everyone up to be able to have a descent chance in this life without the worries of Social Security, Health Care, Drug and Prisons would be almost eliminated, and in general society would have a thriving economic system.

Posted by: Randall Kessinger at February 7, 2006 04:10 AM

If you look at the various economic indicators since the dust settled after World War II, it�€™s pretty clear. The economy generally does better when a Democrat is in the White House.

So far I�€™ve looked at job creation, unemployment, GDP growth, expanding v contracting economy and recessions since Truman took office in 1949 and in all these areas the Democratic presidents as a group have had better results than the Republicans.

Posted by: Arm Hayseed at February 7, 2006 04:40 AM

Arm Hayseed -

I think facts have a liberal bias.

Posted by: tony at February 7, 2006 07:24 AM

tony:

LOL!!!! How true!!!

Posted by: Aldous at February 7, 2006 07:38 AM

Well, here is one program that is slated to be cut - the Commodity Food Supplement Program. It’s a compete waste - bulk food for people at poverty level who are over 60, pregnant and nursing women and children under the age of 6. Poverty level is 25k a year for a family of 4.

Yes, this is unnecesary.

If someone has proof this program is not working, please post it here. Otherwise, someone please explain to me why the program should be cut.

Everytime we get into a discussion about the poor on this site, angry posters from the right talk about someone they know who is blue collar making high five figures, low six figures (I am guessing in one of the big meto areas from the coasts).

Who are these slacker, lazy, cable TV watching, food stamp stealing poor that should get off their lazy butts and start working harder?

The majority of the poor are

elderly

disabled, mentally and physically

single mothers

children under the age of 18

of children under 18, the majority who live in poverty are

children under the age of 6.

Yes my friends from the right, these people need to get off their collective asses and start contributing something to this democracy. We should go back to the good old days -

-seven day work weeks for the poor except for an hour for church on Sunday - oops, forgot, we brought this one back already
-child labor
-orphanages
-tin cups and pencils for the blind - are not those old photos of street corners with blind people charming?
-the elderly eating dog food - this one was so good that the Bush administration is bringing it back by elminating the program I mentioned above!

Our judicial system is founded on the concept that one hundred guilty should go free if it insures that one innocent will not be incarcerated unjustly.

Conservatives are of the mindset that 100 truly needy should go hungry if it insures that one welfare cheat will be stopped.

Go get em guys.

Posted by: CPAdams at February 7, 2006 07:43 AM

And everytime we’ve had a Republican president we’ve had recession followed by huge inflation scewed to big business. It’s greed bred by greed and all you get is more greed. It’s not about social programs it’s about I got mine try and get yours sucka! We’re all fools in the first place for allowing reprensentatives and senators to stay in office for an unlimited time until they get voted out or die. Can you say TERM LIMITS on all local, state and federal officials. They only get a set amount of time to do what the people demand so they expect better work hard andact fast because then they would actually have to go work for a living and contribute to the better good. Yeah I know not a novel idea but it sounds like the only viable option to me gets rid of the pork, makes politicians accountable and may also breed a higher moral standard of respect for mankind.

Posted by: Vic at February 7, 2006 08:12 AM

Rhinehold, this old Libertarian �€œtaxes are taken by force�€ diatribe ignores the most important political reality: we gave our consent to be taxed through our representatives. If you have a problem with it, you can call your Congressman or live in a fantasy land where even democracy can�€™t convey the will of the people.

Funny, I don’t remember ok’ing it once. Oh, you mean the ‘majority’ do. Well, at one point the ‘majority’ felt that keeping black people as slaves was ok. The majority felt that outlawing alcohol was ok, that moving Native Americans off of their land was ‘ok’.

I just wonder when do you think you might want to stand up for what is right and not what is popular. You do remember the quote by Alexander Taylor in the 18th century …

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship

don’t you? You would think that when someone says something that has been proven to be true time and time again and is playing itself out again IN FRONT OF OUR EYES that eventually people would listen…

But, when the government does what it can to keep the citizens stupid while making them think they are being ‘given’ free education, how else do you expect people to behave?

*sigh*

And to the person who says that the local communities don’t take care of their poor, they no longer HAVE to, the government is there to do it for them!

And we *STILL* in this country, even with the overbearing taxes we pay, give a huge percentage to charities.

But it’s not the money that’s the important thing, it’s the warmth of the human interaction, the knowledge that ‘someone cares’. The government is not a ‘someone’ and the impersonal check that comes to your mailbox once a month does nothing to convince you that there might be a better way and educate you on how to achieve it.

No, we are helping no one. We create a new class of people who aren’t educated in how to take care of themselves who then don’t teach that to their children, who don’t teach that to their children, etc.

And while all of this is going on, eroding our way of life, YOU PEOPLE squabble about how someone else is paying less than you think they should before you have to pay any when you should be banding together and telling the government to sod off and leave your salaries alone until they can figure out how to balance a budget. Just ONCE PLEASE!

And the fun part is that ‘we’ want it this way. It’s been this way for decades, Democrat and Republican, they all do it because it’s about power, not about anything else. When someone says ‘those darn so and sos’ just remember that they would vote in their guy who said and did the same thing in a heartbeat, just because of the initials at the end of their name on the ballot box. It’s like a freaking religion now and you know how irrational religous people are…

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 7, 2006 08:22 AM

Eric,

“This liberal argument that cutting federal programs makes the poor poorer simply makes no sense.”(Explain)
“Blaming it on Iraq is even more illogical.” Really,the deficit and debt incurred under this administration is conveniently blamed on the “global war on terrorism”,now they have hurricane relief and rebuilding as a scape-goat for program cuts?
I know, I know�€� the cause of every societal ill is a lack of government spending in the liberal lexicon.”
Call me liberal and you don’t have to hear to what I’m saying. Sad

Ken Cooper,

“YOU WANNA MAKE MONEY IN AMERICA:
STEP 1: STOP WHINING ABOUT AND BLAMING OTHER PEOPLE. YOU WASTE TIME AND ANNOY PEOPLE.
STEP 2: GET TO WORK!!!!!!”

1) I make a decent living but there are those who do not.
2) Learn to debate issues without sounding like a blow-hard.
3) Do you have any job openings for small children? What about a barely mobile elderly person? I know a guy in a wheelchair who’d love one of those painting jobs you mentioned.
4) I’m glad I annoy people like you!

kctim,

“Andre see�€™s cuts to socialist programs and starts panicking. He thinks you should have to work twice as hard and be taxed a ton so that YOU can support what HE thinks is right.

Do you even read the articles before you post comments? Do you know the programs being cut?

You type so much, yet say so little.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at February 7, 2006 08:25 AM

“Do yall forget how much of the national taxes the rich pay? I believe last time I saw it was over 90%!!”

If the last time you looked at income tax brackets was the early days of WWII, perhaps you could become better informed before posting? The top income tax bracket is, I believe, 37%.

Posted by: Arr-squared at February 7, 2006 08:37 AM

someone explain to me why my federal tax bill for earned income is 23% but my parents bill with unearned (investment) income is only 15%. I do our taxes and They actually pay an effective rate of 8% after deductions and I pay 19% and they make more money than I do. And the poor pay an incredibly high rate compared to the rich whan you add in state and local taxes, fees, etc. I know someone on social security disability. we saved all of her receipts for a year. Her yearly income is just over 7000 and she paid almost 12% in taxes and fees.

Posted by: synecdoche at February 7, 2006 08:43 AM

Arr:
I believe they were talking about the 90% of income tax received by the government was supplied by the rich. Not the tax bracket.

Rinehold:
Great post. Finally some sanity.

Posted by: JimmyRay at February 7, 2006 08:44 AM

FYI— What Party voted to put Soc. Sec. in General fund—-(democrats) what party voted to tax soc. sec. at the rate of 50%. What party voted to increase tax on soc. sec. to 85%—democrats. Al gore cast the deciding vote. Please explain to me how this helps the elderly. I paid tax on that money when I earned it. Seems like double taxdation to me. Like they say there isnt a tax that the democratic party dislikes.

Posted by: Thomas at February 7, 2006 08:55 AM

Mr Bush talks a good talk, lets work on getting health care for every American, then he turns around and wants to cut that and 140 other programs, for the poor, vetrans and middle class. The economy is growing and is better than ever. Yeah ok. Thats why GM, Ford and other companies have had to lay off thousands of workers most of which are in the assembly line. But lets keep the white collar workers whose salary and benifits cost more than the line workers. I’m not saying that unemployment isn’t low, but the jobs that are there wouldn’t support a single person that had to pay for a place to live let alone put food on the table and the utilities. Let alone someone who has children.

As for what Ken has to say about the person who painted his house. That person has to pay taxes, social security, workmans comp., state and local taxes and if he has people working for him he has to pay 1/2 that stuff for them, and if he so chooses health insurance(if he can afford it). Your response is for people to quit whinning and get off of their butts and get to work. In most cases we are. In my case just to make ends meet my husband and I are working 3 jobs to make that happen. My son does have a car that we bought for him but it doesn’t come free to him. If he needs gas, an oil change, registration fees, insurance etc. He works to pay for it. If he wants money to go to the movies or just to go get a soda with his friends he has to do something at home to get that money, whether its cut wood, bring it in mow grass whatever. We just don’t have it to throw around. Do you think the upper income levels children have to do that no. You are right there. My children are covered under the state where I live insurance yes, but my husband and I have none. If we get sick we are out of luck. Or if it’s bad enough we call the dr and ask him to prescribe the cheapest antibiotic that there is. Or if it’s really bad we take what the kids have left from a script of theirs. So don’t tell me to get off of my butt and get to work. How about telling some of these CEO’s to give up some of their millions in salaries. Or how about some fair distribution in the tax structure, and while their at it cutting some spending in other ways like instead of wanting to go to outer space to see if someone could live there make the US a better place to live, cause there are more poor and middle class people that could never get there than there is rich who could, and instead of spending over 100.00 for a hammer go to Lowes and get one for 10.00. Just a thought.

Posted by: Sherri at February 7, 2006 08:58 AM

Sherri please tell me were it says that the world owes you a living. Let me guess your a democratic with a highschool education. A litte forwad planning on you and hubbies part like an education perhaps would have carv ed out a better life for you. Its you democratic party that imposed an 85% tax on social security. When have you heard that a poor person created any kind of job. So I would be careful about what I wish for. by the way Al Gore was the one who cast the deciding vote to increase tax on social security to 85%—50 republicans voted no. 50 democrats voted yes. Thats a tie therefor vice president al gore broke the tie with a yes vote. Truth to you libs is like garlic to a vampire.

Posted by: Thomas at February 7, 2006 09:09 AM

Conservatives are of the mindset that 100 truly needy should go hungry if it insures that one welfare cheat will be stopped.

Go get em guys.

Posted by: CPAdams at February 7, 2006 07:43 AM

Wrong, wrong, wrong…

“Bushevik Conservatives are of the mindset that 100 truly needy should go hungry if it insures that one fat ass can buy a Hummer with his tax cut, and maybe even a new car.”

Posted by: Dave at February 7, 2006 09:13 AM

Thomas,

“Truth to you libs is like garlic to a vampire.”

Coherent thought to those who support this president is like garlic to a vampire.

I thought the statement would sound less stupid with the minor modifications I made. It doesn’t.

All,

Top 1%�€™s Share of Bush Tax Cuts by Year �€” 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 Cuts Shows Growing Tilt to the Very Rich A new study released today by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Children�€™s Defense Fund reveals for the first time who stands to benefit from the 2001-enacted Bush tax cuts in each year from 2001 through 2010.
Among the key findings:
#Over the ten-year period, the richest Americans �€”the best-off one percent�€”are slated to receive tax cuts totaling almost half a trillion dollars. The $477 billion in tax breaks the Bush administration has targeted to this elite group will average $342,000 each over the decade. #By 2010, when (and if) the Bush tax reductions are fully in place, an astonishing 52 percent of the total tax cuts will go to the richest one percent�€”whose average 2010 income will be $1.5 million. Their tax-cut windfall in that year alone will average $85,000 each. Put another way, of the estimated $234 billion in tax cuts scheduled for the year 2010, $121 billion will go just 1.4 million taxpayers.
#Although the rich have already received a hefty down payment on their Bush tax cuts�€”averaging just under $12,000 each this year�€”80 percent of their windfall is scheduled to come from tax changes that won�€™t take effect until after this year, mostly from items that phase in after 2005. #In contrast, the vast majority of taxpayers have already received most of their tax cuts from the 2001 legislation.
” For the four out of five families and individuals making less than $73,000 this year, three-quarters of the tax cuts�€”averaging about $350 this year �€”are already in place. ” Tax cuts for the 19 percent of taxpayers making between $73,000 and $356,000 this year will grow a little over the next four years as the cuts in the upper tax rates continue to kick in, but then will dwindle thereafter. By 2010, the tax cuts for this group will be no bigger as a share of income than they are now.
#As a result, freezing the Bush tax cuts at their 2002 levels would have little or no effect on 99 percent of the taxpayers, whose tax cuts are already mostly or completely �€œfrozen.�€ Only the best-off one percent of the taxpayers will receive significant additional tax cuts if the rest of the Bush tax program continues to be implemented.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at February 7, 2006 09:27 AM

Andre
Yes, I read your whole post, do you read all the responses in whole?
You are crying “the sky is falling” because you disagree with cuts to social programs and increases in the M-I-C budget. Whether you agree with the war or not, it is going on and must be funded.
Yes, I have seen some of the programs that are being given less money and it does not bother me one bit.
Social programs were designed to force people to support what others believe is the right thing to do.
These people SAY they believe in a certain cause, but yet they are unwilling to sacrifice themselves to support that cause. Instead, they believe everybody else should do it for them.
Basically, they are forcing their beliefs onto others and that is wrong.

And your right, I probably do type so much and say so “little.”
But at least the “little” that I do say are my own thoughts, based on the truth and not some hypocritical talking point that has been given to me by a party scrambling for votes.

Posted by: kctim at February 7, 2006 10:05 AM

I Know this …. the more of my money i have in my pocket the more i will spend back into the economy. Hey liberals,Bleading hearts one Question?????? Who spends you money more wisely, you and your family, or the federal Gov.

Posted by: philipz at February 7, 2006 10:47 AM

Andre,

Of course the “rich” will benefit from the tax cuts more than the “poor”. The rich pay more in dollar amounts than the poor will ever pay. A relative 1% cut on the marginal tax rate on amounts over $500,000 (purely hypothetical example) is going to be a hell of a lot more than a 5% cut on any lower tax bracket. It is a simple mathematical truth.

It is interesting that the article uses the word “windfall”. When is keeping money you made a “windfall”? Using such a term implies that the government has control over how much of our income we get to keep, thus we are only entitled to the money we are allowed to have. I don’t know about the rest of you, but i have the mindset that I make my money, and the government TAKES part of it, as opposed to the money belonging to the government to begin with, then the government can allow me to keep it as a “windfall”.

On the deficit: I tend to agree with D.A.N and his analysis of debt to GDP and all of the ramifications that come with that. IMO, the problem with government deficits is not on the income side, but on the spending side. There is too much waste hidden in this inefficient governemnt, and if operations were streamlined and financial controls were in place, we could save a lot on that end alone. I will concede, however, that the entitlement programs mentioned in the initial post may not be the right place to target for cuts right away. The problem is that NOBODY in gov. wants to put any effort into addressing this on either side.

Posted by: Greg the Underwriter at February 7, 2006 10:49 AM

Andre

If the tax cuts do not get extended then will you not agree that these poor tax payers will get a hike in thier tax. Did you read my post about who taxes social security. Please respond.

Posted by: Thomas at February 7, 2006 10:51 AM

womanmarine wrote: Dan: If social security has been plundered by the government, the government should put it back. Then see if there are shortages. Only seems right.

womanmarine,
I fear it might be too late now, because:
(01) congress has no discipline
(02) interest on the national debt is now over $1 billion per day !
(03) the national debt is now 66% of GDP, up from only 33% of GDP in 1980.
(04) median incomes have been falling for 4 years.
(05) government has promised more entitlements (i.e. the prescription drugs via Medicare) that will cost hundreds of billions more per year.
(06) printing more money will increase inflation.
(07) China and Japan are getting nervous about loaning the U.S. more money, because they think we’ll keep spending it instead of paying down the skyrocketing debt.
(08) 77 million baby boomers, retiring, earning less, paying less taxes, spending less, and drawing on already trouble Social Security and Medicare.
(09) the war is costing over $4 billion per month.
(10) Katrina and Rita will cost tax payers upto $100 billion (maybe more)
(11) energy costs are on the rise, and the growing economies of China, India, and Asia will increase demand.
(12) the debt is now growing by $2.14 billion per day !
(13) many yes-men and goofy economists wearing rose-colored glasses don’t see the debt as anything to be alarmed about.
(14) Tax on income has increased 177% since 1980.
(15) The ridiculous, abused, unfair tax system allows too many tax deductionsa and loop-holes.
(16) the debt is so large now, it would take 139 years to pay it off…and that is only if the federal government stopped borrowing $1 billion per day to pay the interest of $1 billion per day, and started also paying back $1.014 billion per day (otherwise, the debt continues to grow).
(17) 25 years of fiscal irresponsibility may be too much to recover from…especially when congress is irresponsible and continues crap like this while our troops risk life and limb.
(18) and bought-and-paid-for incumbents in congress ignore all of our pressing problems, for fear of defying their big-money-donors or risking re-election. That’s also why government won’t secure the borders. Corporations want the cheap, illegal labor.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 7, 2006 10:57 AM

kctim,

“Social programs were designed to force people to support what others believe is the right thing to do.”

Huh?

Financial Aid forces what? Healthcare for children does what? Forces what? We’re forcing the elderly to have prescription medicine? We’re forcing people to be able to afford college?

“These people SAY they believe in a certain cause, but yet they are unwilling to sacrifice themselves to support that cause. Instead, they believe everybody else should do it for them.
Basically, they are forcing their beliefs onto others and that is wrong.”

So if a child who lives in poverty wants to visit the doctor or have food, that is that childs belief, their cause? That child does not support that cause but believes others should? The child is then forcing that belief on others?
I get it!
If the elderly want affordable healthcare they need to get off their infirmed asses and work for it!
Those poor children should get jobs!(Don’t force me to hear your growling stomach)Let them have the jobs the illegals do that way we can convince Bush to stem the flow of illegal immigration at our southern border.
Handicap shmandicap, get to work you dead beats. Cripples, always looking for a handout. Lazy bastards.
How’s that? Do I get it?

kctim,
your logic and lack of compassion is disturbing, the fact that there are millions more out there like you, who lack empathy and compassion for their fellow man, is frightening and sad.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at February 7, 2006 10:59 AM

SHAME SHAME SHAME on anyone who complains about poverty in the richest country that ever stood in history. Our poorest are richer than most of the world. We spend more on the packaging of our food than the contents. I live in a household in calif with less than a 40,ooo a year income. We have 4 tvs 2 computers 3 cars. Yes wave some people who need to be helped. If we did not have so many people living off our system that could work we could better take care of those who really need it. We have become lazy. We have parents on a limited income who spend more money on cigaretts and alchohol than on food for their children. We have teens on the street because “they just cannot stand to be under the rule of parents.”.
You need to go to india where 40% of the population lives on $1000 us dolars a year. where there are three times the population of the US living in a third of the space. Go to France where the unemployment rate is almost triple that of the US. Go to Trinidad where there are daily kidnapings and the majority of the people live in severe poverty. $8.00US a day and a computer cost $1500 Go to Grenada where the large majority of the people walk because only the few can afford a car. (and its uphill both ways there)
Oh you liberals wont get it. You dont ever count your blessings. But I urger the poorest of you to write down all the things you take for granted. Carpet. Running clean water. TV. DVD. Ipod. Laptop. Desktop. Washing machine. Dishwasher. Car. Roof that maybe leaks in one place when it rains. Cell phone. Marijuana. (and yes dont tell me you arent willing to spend rent monies) Clean socks. Nic-Nacks.Air conditioning. and I could go on for hours.
Do some people make lots of money and some people make a little? Yes. Welcome to the world. Does that gap sometimres get larger? Yes does it some times get smaller? Yes. Try some foreign countryies where the gap is HUGE and where there are no raises. The poor serve the rich. and if the people want to complain they lose their life. Or maybe watch their child lose its life. Maybe try China where you only are allowed one child. Then if its a girl its considered worthless and killed. SHAME SHAME SHAME. Whe have no right to complain. Oh I know that this will fall on mostly deaf ears. You guys will amke every excuse. Change the subject. Get mad at the man who has alot because he was smart enought to create something the people wanted and made millions.
But I repeat SHAME SHAME SHAME.
Do we have some in this country who need help? Yes. Let’s help them. Do we have lazy poelpe who abuse the system? Yes! Lets be Politically Incorrect and tell them “NO, You are lazy. He who does not work. Does not eat.” And yes that is biblical.

Posted by: SCOTT at February 7, 2006 11:02 AM

Philipz,
“Who spends you money more wisely, you and your family, or the federal Gov.”

I do. Only thing is, I can’t afford my own fire department, or police department, or teachers for my kids. I can’t single-handedly build an interstate highway system, or provide for the country’s defense. Truth is, by working with my neighbors and citizens around the country, I can do much better by pooling resources. I can take advantage of economies of scale.

Posted by: phx8 at February 7, 2006 11:09 AM

live in a household in calif with less than a 40,ooo a year income. We have 4 tvs 2 computers 3 cars.
Posted by: SCOTT at February 7, 2006 11:02 AM

That’s how you measure your life? Sad.

But: What is your debt? What % of your income goes to debt? If you stop borrowing now, how long will it take to pay off that debt? What happens to you if a household wage earner becomes injured/ill/disabled and loses a job?

Q: How do the ruling plutocrats become worth multi-billions of dollars?
A: Your credit card debt.

Posted by: Dave at February 7, 2006 11:10 AM

Thomas,

“If the tax cuts do not get extended then will you not agree that these poor tax payers will get a hike in thier tax.”
No, it will only effect the very wealthy.

“Did you read my post about who taxes social security.”
Yes, I saw where you made this statement.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at February 7, 2006 11:11 AM

Well said SCOTT. Im sure you are right the libs will not respond because all they know is spin and lies. The truth effects them horribly.

Posted by: Thomas at February 7, 2006 11:13 AM

Regarding taxes…the worst type of taxes are the sales tax and property tax.

The sales tax hammers the poor.
Yet, all states have sales taxes.

The property tax is double, triple, quadruple, … , googleruple
because you have to keep paying every year
on what you already own.
It does not matter what your income is.
It punishes the family with a bigger, more expensive home, even if that family’s income is less than the couple in a house half the size, but with quadruple the income.

A fair tax system is to eliminate sales taxes, pay no tax on any income at or below the poverty level (e.g. $15,000), and only tax income at a flat rate of 17% only on income above N times the poverty level (where N is always >= 1.0).

EXAMPLE: Given:
(1) a flat income tax of 17% ,
(2) and a poverty level of $12K ,
(3) and an N factor of 1.5
(4) therefore, low-income-exemption-level is 1.5 x $12K = $18K
(5) and five persons with different gross incomes:
A earned $15,000 per year.
B earned $50,000 per year.
C earned $90,000 per year.
D earned $200,000 per year.
E earned $900,000 per year.
F earned $9,000,000 per year.

Therefore, the income tax for each person (after subtracting the $18K exemption) is:
A’s tax = $0 since $15K is less than $18K; that is 0% of $15K ;
B’s tax = $5,440=0.17 x ($50K-$18K); that�€™s 10.9% of $50K ; and 17% of $32K
C’s tax = $12,240=0.17 x ($90K-$18K); that�€™s 13.6% of $90K ; and 17% of $72K
D’s tax = $30,940=0.17 x ($200K-$18K); that�€™s 15.5% of $200K ; and 17% of $182K
E’s tax = $149,940=0.17 x ($900K-$18K); that�€™s 16.7% of $900K ; and 17% of $882K
F’s tax = $1,526,940=0.17 x ($9,000K-$18K); that�€™s 16.97% of $9,000K ; and 17% of $9,982K

The pay-out for Social Security and Medicare to recipients is the same for all persons: I times the poverty-level, where I is always >= 1.0 .

Also, corporations pay no tax, because they just pass that cost along, which overcomplicates everything. It also discourages corporations from investing in R&D since retained capital gets taxed at 30%. It also discourages corporations from retaining capital to weather hard times. Otherwise, taxpayers get stuck bailing out troubled corporations, which should not be the function of government.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 7, 2006 11:17 AM

Do we have lazy people that abuse the system? Damn right we do. They are called rich people. Do not give me that crap about hard work. Few of them even know the meaning of the word. You want to see the poor? Look on the early bus.

Posted by: Bill at February 7, 2006 11:18 AM

The Cons in this country truly amaze me, they cry about how they don’t want government intervention in the free market. Then they throw billions upon billions of dollars in corporate welfare at the “free” market. Sorry, cons but that “free” market isn’t free when it is government subsidized. Then they have the balls to complain about welfare to the poor and needy? So government welfare to the wealthy is ok, but government welfare to the poor is evil?

The Cons have had 5 years to push through any legislation they want, nothing gets out of Congress without their blessing on it. If the Cons were truly interested in the “free” market then they would have ended corporate welfare to the wealthy, instead they attack welfare to the poor. If they truly were concerned with lower taxes, they would reform government to be accountable for expenditures, instead taxpayer money just disappears, and nobody can account for who spent it or on what. Instead of eliminating government waste, corporate welfare, and actually being accountable, they instead pass the burden of paying for their tax “cuts” and incompetence onto future generations. Don’t thank President Bush for the tax cuts, thank your children, they are the ones who will pay for them. That�€™s the Cons idea of morality for you.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 7, 2006 11:20 AM

“Q: How do the ruling plutocrats become worth multi-billions of dollars?
A: Your credit card debt.”

Are you sure? Bill Gates is a software developer. Warren Buffett is an investor (not in credit card companies either). Trump owns real estate. George Soros is an investor/currency trader.

Here is a rule I live by: If I can’t pay off my credit card each month, then i don’t buy it. FYI- The savings rate in the U.S. of A is negative, and that is only consumers. Empire of Debt, anyone?

Posted by: Greg the Underwriter at February 7, 2006 11:21 AM

The gap between the definition of poor and medium income is growing not the number of poor.

Its complex as is the definition of suffering and inadequate health care.

Posted by: Reporting for Doody at February 7, 2006 11:24 AM

Thank you d.a.n

Barbara Ehrenreich wrote two New York Times Bestseller books on the subject.

“Nickeled and Dimed or On (Not) Getting By in America” that deftly portrays the plight of the working-class poor.

and

“Bait and Switch” The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream. Today’s ultra-lean corporations take pride in shedding their “surplus” employees - plunging them, for months or years at a stretch, into the twilight zone of white-collar unemployment.

Both books should be required reading for Republicans.

Posted by: Pat at February 7, 2006 11:28 AM

Thomas and Scott,

Are you listening?
We’re talking about low income(That means they work).
children(They’re not allowed to work(labor laws). The elderly(They’ve worked all their lives).
Young families(Who work).
Military personnel(They’re working their butts off).
Poor college students(Working toward a degree).
The handicapped(Physically unable to work).

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at February 7, 2006 11:29 AM

“There is $18 billion for rebuilding from the hurricanes that devestated the poor in the Gulf Coast region.”

The huricane picked on the poor?

FEMA rules should not be changed because of Katrina. Everyone declared national disaster area should use the same rules. States and locals can define their own involvement.

I.E. Amish in Pennsylvania and Coastal Resort treatment is up to locals and state.

Posted by: Reporter for Doody at February 7, 2006 11:30 AM

ok so raise taxs and watch the poor starve the camal-kisseres win the war how about this blame George Bush for the Muhammad cartoons you can also blame Mr.Bush on hump back mountain flopping because it is.its hell being out of power when thats all you crave with every little lib-dima-commie bastard you abort is one less vote at the ballot box .Dip your bullets in pigs blood alia be damned.

Posted by: watson at February 7, 2006 11:34 AM

It amazes me that conservatives, the standard bearers of the religious right, make the foul argument of social darwinism (survival of the fittest) over and over again.

A 300 year old argument against altruism and in favor of the concept that the poor are inferior human beings, social darwinism (as it came to be called) was used to justify the exploitations by the robber barons at the turn of the last century as well as for facism and racism.

We take care of our own because it is a moral responsibility (my view) or, even if we are self-serving, because we never know if we or someone we care about will be one of those in need.

As an American, it boggles my mind that conservatives, people claim to be nationalists and patriots, do not give a damn about the people who make up the nation. These same conservatives denounce democrats and liberals as unamerican.

Wealthy charitable giving is a LIE. As a percentage of income, the wealthiest in this country give 3% of their income to charity while the poorest give 26% of their incomes. Since 2000, the percentage that the wealthy give to charity is DOWN while what the poor contribute is UP.

Bush’s trickle down approach to the poor is actually a trick. Bill Gates and a couple of philanthropists aside, the wealthy consume without contributing.

And please stop complaining that the top 10% pays 90% of the taxes - we have 90% of the wealth. If our tax system were truly progressive, we would pay 92% of the taxes, maybe more.

HEY, kctim,

this war is elective. It does not NEED to be funded. It is funded because the president argues that it is necessary. What is incomprehensible is that, like the myopic LBJ before him, Bush wants to cut taxes and pay for a war simultaneously, at any cost (as long as the ultra wealthy are unaffected).

Posted by: CPAdams at February 7, 2006 11:34 AM

�€œQ: How do the ruling plutocrats become worth multi-billions of dollars? A: Your credit card debt.�€

Are you sure? Bill Gates is a software developer. Warren Buffett is an investor (not in credit card companies either). Trump owns real estate. George Soros is an investor/currency trader.

Here is a rule I live by: If I can�€™t pay off my credit card each month, then i don�€™t buy it. FYI- The savings rate in the U.S. of A is negative, and that is only consumers. Empire of Debt, anyone?

Posted by: Greg the Underwriter at February 7, 2006 11:21 AM

You do know you proved my point, right?

Posted by: Dave at February 7, 2006 11:35 AM

The Republican Party is a scam, folks. They run on a platform of morality to get into power, then once there they work tirelessly for themselves and the rich. Corporate welfare, no bid contract scams (ever hear of Halliburton?), tax cuts to the rich, billions in missing taxpayer dollars, the wholesale of America to the highest bidder, huge federal deficits and federal debt in the name of tax “cuts”, Medicare scams (drug benefit = pharmaceutical co. benefit) SS reform that would infuse billions into the market (just where I want my social “security”- in the hands of companies like Enron), but do nothing to make the program solvent. The Iraq war cost will increase to $10 billion a month this year, up from $6.8 billion a month last year. But why? Shouldn’t that number be coming down? Shouldn’t we be wrapping things up in Iraq, so we can start the real war on terror? But hey, at least the gays can’t marry!

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 7, 2006 11:38 AM

Dave,

No, i didn’t know i proved your point. Your point was that “ruling plutocrats” become worth billions because of credit card debt. Please point out to me which billionaire became as such due to credit cards. The individuals i mentioned have no involvement in issuing or servicing credit card debt, and if they do, please educate me. Name your billionaires who got rich on credit card debt and i will concede that i did prove your point.

Posted by: Greg the Underwriter at February 7, 2006 11:42 AM

I have a great idea for a bailout - let the airline industry ask the oil industry for help. It is a great match - the corporations who benefitted the most from high energy prices helping one of the industries hurt the most.

It is a natural conservative idea. it is people helping people, without getting the government in the way. Since the oil industry is based in Houston, there is probably an element of compassionate conservatism as well.

Posted by: CPAdams at February 7, 2006 11:43 AM

Watson,

“ok so raise taxs and watch the poor starve the camal-kisseres win the war how about this blame George Bush for the Muhammad cartoons you can also blame Mr.Bush on hump back mountain flopping because it is.its hell being out of power when thats all you crave with every little lib-dima-commie bastard you abort is one less vote at the ballot box .Dip your bullets in pigs blood alia be damned”

A teacher gave me this advice when I was a child and I always try to remember it.
“If what you say lacks intellect and will only cause embarassment to your friends and family and causes people to question the limited education you received, I ask you, as one of your teachers,to please not say it.”

Words to live by, my friend, words to live by.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at February 7, 2006 11:51 AM

Greg,

your false ignorance is transparent. The ENTIRE American economy is based on consumer spending. Consumer spending has remained stable because of increased consumer borrowing (credit card debt). We all know that most of the wealth in this country is concentrated in the hands of a small percentage of people.

None of these points above are disputed - but you want to dispute that wealth generated by consumer spending is NOT being concentrated in these people?

Are you saying that Microsoft does not sell consumer products or that Berkshire Hathaway does not sell: tshirts, fleecewear, furniture, carpets, electronics, jewelry, computers, household appliances, watches and flatware (among other things)?

Greg, who do you think buys all these things?

Posted by: CPAdams at February 7, 2006 11:57 AM

true free speach scares the living hell out of those who would suppres it. because it is that alone that will defeat and destory them.

Posted by: watson at February 7, 2006 12:03 PM

watson,

the rich have been getting richer under Bush. Can you let us know when we can expect the poor to stop getting poorer around here? Because, we are still waiting…

Posted by: CPAdams at February 7, 2006 12:10 PM

Greg the Underwriter,

Credit Card debt is at an all time high, who do you think benefits from all that credit card debt? If there were no credit cards then Microsoft will sell a hell of a lot less software. Without credit card debt companies accross the board would lose sales, lose profits which would send the market down, which would hurt the bottom line of investors, whether they had investments in credit card companies or not.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 7, 2006 12:12 PM

true free speach scares the living hell out of those who would suppres it. because it is that alone that will defeat and destory them.

Good point, and who is trying to suppress free speech? That’s right the Cons are trying to suppress the Libs by calling them un-American, un-patriotic, blah, blah, blah….

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 7, 2006 12:17 PM

CPA et. al.,
Thanks for taking the ball while I actually did some work :-). But, what makes you think the ignorance is false?

Anyone,

What’s Watson’s ‘dima’?

Posted by: Dave at February 7, 2006 12:20 PM

d.a.n.,
“Yet, all states have sales taxes.”

Correction. Oregon does not have a sales tax.

Posted by: phx8 at February 7, 2006 12:21 PM

Dave,

LOL!!

Posted by: CPAdams at February 7, 2006 12:23 PM

I recently was diagnosed with cancert in which i am taking treatments for, before this my family was living comfortable, since i am no longer working and have no savings left i turned to the welfare system for the first time in my life and if you think for one minunite that the people on welfare are living the high life off the backs of everyone else have I got news for you. you try living on $720. a month and make ends meet. I said forget it I manage somehow. The welfare in this country is a joke and to all of you that think the system is keeping everyone living high on the hog while you go to work, take a look around you,some can’t help the place or situation that they are in. What has happened to the compassion in this great country we all live in.

Posted by: lskinner at February 7, 2006 12:24 PM

I can see both sides of the coin when it comes to the economics of this country. Supply-sided thinking of Conservatives makes sense on paper——but fails miserbly becasue of that one human condition——GREED.

Democrates also need to realize that hand-outs don’t motivate anyone.

It sure would be nice to have a THIRD PARTY worth anything.

Posted by: mjbiv at February 7, 2006 12:30 PM

lskinner,

I wish I knew, I wish I knew.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 7, 2006 12:31 PM

Democrates also need to realize that hand-outs don�€™t motivate anyone.

mjbiv,

There is no question that the welfare system needs to be fixed. First, the free market needs to be free- end corporate welfare. Second, we need to ensure that those who truly need to recieve assistance get it. Those who cannot work due to health or where there is no work available, or temporary assistance for those in transition due to job loss. Third, we need to find ways to move those on the welfare rolls who are healthy and can work, do work. I have a hard time reconciling that the President claims that we need to weaken our borders so that non residents can do the jobs that Americans don’t want to do. Tough, if you refuse to do a job that is available, then you shouldn’t recieve welfare. Maybe if those who can work, had to do a job they didn’t want to do, it would motivate them to better themselves and get a job they did want to do.

I don’t think most Americans have a problem with public welfare as long as it is applied correctly. Of course it won’t be 100% of the time, but surly we can do better than we are now.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 7, 2006 12:47 PM

Good point, and who is trying to suppress free speech? That�€™s right the Cons are trying to suppress the Libs by calling them un-American, un-patriotic, blah, blah, blah�€�.

that only leaves the defeated and destoryed and that is clearly the left and those who defend them.death to islam ,democrats & liberals by the bullet or the ballot its all the same to me.

Posted by: watson at February 7, 2006 12:49 PM

Andre
“So if a child who lives in poverty wants to visit the doctor or have food, that is that childs belief, their cause? That child does not support that cause but believes others should? The child is then forcing that belief on others?
I get it!”

No, you don’t “get it.”
YOU believe these people need money thrown at them. I believe this type of aid should not come from the govt.
YOU believe everybody should be forced to support what YOU believe is the right thing to do.
I believe that IF you truly believed in helping those less fortunate, then YOU and others who share your beliefs, should personally, do something about it.

“your logic and lack of compassion is disturbing, the fact that there are millions more out there like you, who lack empathy and compassion for their fellow man, is frightening and sad”

My logic is? Lets see then:
Give somebody what they want for doing nothing and they will always expect it to be given to them.
Make somebody work for what they want, and they will.
Yeah, I’m such a nut.

Lack of compassion?
I don’t believe making somebody dependent on the govt is very compassionate. Am I trying to force you to quit helping them?
No.

Again, “frightening and sad” is YOUR belief. Personal responsibility is not “frightening and sad” to me.

Posted by: kctim at February 7, 2006 12:58 PM

It sure would be nice to have