🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2007-06-10 08:03:29 -0400, Mike Smith <mws@wt.net> said:

> On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 22:30:50 -0400, Slim <slim@pickins.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2007-06-09 16:20:02 -0400, Mike Smith <mws@wt.net> said:
>> 
>>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 14:34:57 GMT, Sanders Kaufman <bucky@kaufman.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Mike Smith wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> We are WAY past due for another Contract with America!
>>>> 
>>>> If y'all had not defaulted on the last one, you would likely have 
>>>> gotten another.
>>>> 
>>>> You got what you wanted, and in return you gave us Bush, Cheney, Rice 
>>>> and Rumsfeld.
>>> 
>>> Newt & the Republicans did what they said they would do.
>> 
>> Thats right...everything they said in the backroom deals which widened 
>> the gap between the rich and poor. They did a hatchet job on the middle 
>> class like America had never seen before.
>> 
>> 
>> --------------
>> 
>> Step Away From The Constitution, Mr. Gingrich, And Put Your Hands Where 
>> We Can See Them
>> 
> <snipped the mindless delusion of... of.... well, who knows who wrote
> this piece of shit.>
> 
> Slim is referring to his liberal/socialist buddies in our Congress.
> They do not want "the middle class" to keep our tax cuts from 2003.
> They want our money {tax dollars} so they can "properly " use it to
> further their "cause".

Mike, you ignornant fool. The BuSHITe Tax "Cut" of 2003 did not benefit 
the middle class.

Under Slick Willie, everyone prospered, and you RepupLICKans just hated that!


http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm


TAX RETURNS
A Comprehensive Assessment of the 
Bush Administration’s 
Record on Cutting Taxes
By Isaac Shapiro and Joel Friedman
Executive Summary
The Bush Administration has stood in favor of tax cuts through thick 
and thin.  In the midst of a booming economy and large projected budget 
surpluses, President Bush’s top economic policy initiative — both as a 
candidate in 2000 and upon taking office — was to cut taxes.  When the 
economy slowed, the Bush Administration’s response also was dominated 
by tax cuts.  Now, in the face of yawning deficits and its own pledge 
to reduce them, the Administration has again put forward large, 
permanent tax cuts as part of its most recent budget.
This analysis offers a comprehensive review of the Bush 
Administration’s tax cuts.  It assesses their costs, benefits to 
different income groups, and economic effects to date, as well as down 
the road.  It both synthesizes previous findings about the individual 
tax measures and includes new findings about their combined effects, 
using new distributional analyses by the Urban Institute-Brookings 
Institution Tax Policy Center and fresh cost estimates by the Center on 
Budget and Policy Priorities.
The early returns on the effects of the tax cuts have not been good.
	•	The Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to 
the lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950, and have been a 
major contributor to the dramatic shift from large projected budget 
surpluses to projected deficits as far as the eye can see.
	•	The tax cuts have conferred the most benefits, by far, on the 
highest-income households — those least in need of additional resources 
— at a time when income already is exceptionally concentrated at the 
top of the income spectrum.
	•	The design of these tax cuts was ill-conceived, resulting in 
significantly less economic stimulus than could have been accomplished 
for the same budgetary cost.  In part because the tax cuts were not as 
effective as alternative measures would have been, job creation during 
this recovery has been notably worse than in any other recovery since 
the end of World War II.
	•	
If the Administration’s latest tax proposals — which would make 
permanent most of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 and establish 
new tax cuts on top of that — are enacted, the long-term results are 
likely to be even more troubling.  Over the next 10 years, total 
tax-cut costs will equal $3.9 trillion, reaching nearly $600 billion or 
3.3 percent of the economy in 2014 alone.  (These calculations include 
the effects of the higher interest payments caused by the tax cuts.)  
The resulting higher deficits will slow future economic growth, saddle 
future generations with sizable interest payments, and leave the nation 
ill-prepared not only for the retirement of baby boomers but also for 
responding to potential future crises — from security matters to 
natural or environmental disasters — the particulars of which are 
unknown today.
Pressure to reduce these deficits will mount.  Because the tax cuts are 
so tilted toward the highest-income households — and become even more 
so over time, as some of the upper-income tax cuts phase-in — the 
burden of financing these lopsided tax cuts ultimately is likely to be 
borne disproportionately by households who gain only modestly from the 
tax cuts.  This will be the case unless offsetting spending cuts or tax 
increases are enacted that reduce benefits or raise taxes primarily on 
high-income households.  As a result, over the long term most Americans 
may well be net losers from the tax cuts. 
 

-- 
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in 
England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after 
all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it 
is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a 
democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist 
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to 
the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL 
THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of 
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY 
COUNTRY."
 
--Goering at the Nuremberg Trials