Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!

oh god. so we aren't really in a recession? im just dreaming that gas prices, food prices, and every other thing under the sun prices are rising? and first down, i love your look on politics. if its someone you like, or have voted for, in your eyes things that go south is never their fault. it always congress, or Bill Clinton's fault. and if something good comes out of someone you don't like, you do everything you can to deflect the praise. your loyalty is commendable
Ok, please find when I have blamed Bill for todays problems. Maybe you can go back and find one but thats about it. Are times tough sure, is the media all over it because its an election year HELL YEA!!!!!!!!! I could sit at home and dwell on whats wrong or I can MOVE ON WITH LIFE AND MAKE THE BEST OF WHATS IN FRONT OF ME. I perfer a low tax pres. but if someone gets elected that wants to raise my taxes I'll just keep on doing what I have to do to provide.

Ok, please find when I have blamed Bill for todays problems. Maybe you can go back and find one but thats about it. Are times tough sure, is the media all over it because its an election year HELL YEA!!!!!!!!! I could sit at home and dwell on whats wrong or I can MOVE ON WITH LIFE AND MAKE THE BEST OF WHATS IN FRONT OF ME. I perfer a low tax pres. but if someone gets elected that wants to raise my taxes I'll just keep on doing what I have to do to provide.

Obama is not going to raise taxes on small businesses and he's not going to raise taxes on people with income over 250K. McCain on the other had will exacerbate the deficit by continuing the war and at the same time cutting taxes. Sure some will get a lower tax bill today but future generations will be the one who get screwed at the end.

I'm not sure if you are aware but we currently pay 260 billion dollars in national debt interest annually and just the other day congress had to increase the debt cieling by 800 billion to 10.6 trillion. What does that mean? It means if you can't pay, increase your credit limit.

This isn't complicated folks, it's common sense 101.

Obama is not going to raise taxes on small businesses and he's not going to raise taxes on people with income over 250K. McCain on the other had will exacerbate the deficit by continuing the war and at the same time cutting taxes. Sure some will get a lower tax bill today but future generations will be the one who get screwed at the end.

I'm not sure if you are aware but we currently pay 260 billion dollars in national debt interest annually and just the other day congress had to increase the debt cieling by 800 billion to 10.6 trillion. What does that mean? It means if you can't pay, increase your credit limit.

This isn't complicated folks, it's common sense 101.
Well if the article is correct which started this thread that the Rich are paying even more taxes sense the Bush tax cuts isn't Obama going to reverse this trend my reversing those tax cuts? Then he says he is going to cut taxes for the working Joe cutting even more taxes so how will he pay for all these goverment programs that he wants to expand and create?

What's-Your-Share-of-the-Nation's-Tax-Bill: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/105468/What's-Your-Share-of-the-Nation's-Tax-Bill?)

Heres another artical stating some of the same things, lets you know wher you fit in, and has less of a bias tone to it. Also the chart at the bottom is pretty nice.

Single filing tax payers need to be extra weary when listening to politicians say who is going to be affected by their proposed tax changes, as they rarely drop filing statuses when siting numbers. If Obama says he only wants to raise taxes for the top quartile of all income earners, and then backs it up with just a number, for married filing jointly, of 131k, that sounds like Robin Hood talk to someone like my mom. She’s a single teacher in Fairfax Co. which makes it tough for her. But more importantly she’s a single filer with limited deductions and shell likely fall into the category of top quartile.

Isn't that the democratic motto? ;)
what about John McCain first saying he doesn't know anything about economics, and then saying he never said it? or McCain saying he is all about the veterans, and then voting against funding for them? both sides play that political game. but nice try, though

what about John McCain first saying he doesn't know anything about economics, and then saying he never said it? or McCain saying he is all about the veterans, and then voting against funding for them? both sides play that political game. but nice try, though
Could you please provide a link wher McCain said he did not know anything about economics. If he did say that I'm sure every comercial for Obama would have him saying that as a reason not to vote for him.

Well I see you fell for the Dems plan to add additional stuff to the Vets spending bill and thats why it was voted against. The President wanted the Vets bill as a stand alone bill and not to be tied to other spending which I believe the Dems added another 23 mill for other spending.

Here is the link to MSNBC about the Bill and the adding of 23million for other stuff.Bush to Congress: OK veterans bill - Politics - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21723880/)

that happens to every bill. so we don't take care of our vets, because there is too much pork attached? these guys don't get anywhere close to the respect that they have earned. the whole political system is turning into a joke. and as far as McCain saying that, i saw it in an interview on CNN

On a broader range of economic issues, though, Mr. McCain readily departs from Reaganomics. His philosophy is best described as a work in progress. He is refreshingly blunt when he tell me: "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." OK, so who does he turn to for advice? His answer is reassuring. His foremost economic guru is former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm (who would almost certainly be Treasury secretary in a McCain administration). He's also friendly with the godfather of supply-side economics, Arthur Laffer.

(From 2005-http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007600)

Apparently he said something similar recently at some board meeting.

that happens to every bill. so we don't take care of our vets, because there is too much pork attached? these guys don't get anywhere close to the respect that they have earned. the whole political system is turning into a joke. and as far as McCain saying that, i saw it in an interview on CNN
To clarify firstdown's numbers that was $ 23 Billion in unecessary pork. Over 2% of the total spending bill of $ 933 Billion. Where do you draw the line, 3%, 5%? How about none or under 1%, sounds good to me. It isn't the government's job to provide pet subsidies to localities, individuals, or corporations that keep them in office with the money we as taxpayers earned. If I want to keep a politician in office, I'll contribute to the campaign.

But the record deficits are all Bush's fault :doh:

that happens to every bill. so we don't take care of our vets, because there is too much pork attached? these guys don't get anywhere close to the respect that they have earned. the whole political system is turning into a joke. and as far as McCain saying that, i saw it in an interview on CNN
Ok, yesterday you where bashing Bush for spending too much money and today your upset with McCain because he did not support a bill which had 23 million additional spending attached. So which way do you want it? All the president said was he will sign a clean bill without all the other spending attached. So the Dems could just remove the additional spendING and it would be done. Whats so hard about that?