Tax Burden Shifts to Middle Class

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Again, Bush's economic policies benefit the wealthy, not middle America.
He spends more than any other president in history while cutting revenues.
He proposes programs but doesn't fund them or explain how they'll be funded, *No Child Left Behind* as one example.
Record deficit, National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.73 billion per day since September 30, 2003!
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
He just stripped overtime pay from 6 million Americans and is proposing "comp" time for millions more in place of overtime.

He's bankrupting America's children before they even enter the workforce.

--------------------------------

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites)'s tax cuts since 2001 have shifted more of the tax burden from the nation's rich to middle-class families, according to a study released Friday by the Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites).

The tax rate declined across all income levels — but more so in the top brackets, the report said.

People in the top 20 percent of incomes, averaging $182,700 a year, saw their share of federal taxes decline from 65.3 percent of total payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year, according to the study by congressional budget analysts.

In contrast, middle-class taxpayers — with incomes ranging from $51,500 to $75,600 — bear a greater tax burden. Those making an average of $75,600 had the biggest jump in their share of taxes, from 18.5 percent of all payments in 2001 to 19.5 percent this year.

The study, requested by congressional Democrats in May, is expected to provide fodder for the presidential campaign over the fairness of more than $1 trillion in tax cuts Bush has pushed through Congress since taking office.

"George W. Bush keeps trying to mislead Americans into thinking we're turning the corner, but truth is that he is turning his back on middle-class families," Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said. "The Bush policies are exacerbating the squeeze that working families have been feeling for the last four years."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=8&u=/ap/20040813/ap_on_go_co/tax_cuts_study

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush Tax Cuts Heavily Favor Rich, Latest CBO Report Says

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040813/pl_nm/campaign_taxes_cbo_dc&e=3&ncid=

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Bush's tax cuts have transferred the federal tax burden from the richest Americans to middle-class families, with one-third of them benefiting people with the top 1 percent of income, according to a government report cited in newspapers on Friday.

The Congressional Budget Office report, to be released Friday, is likely to fuel the debate over the cuts between Bush and his Democratic challenger in November, John Kerry.

The report said the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million per year, will receive an average $78,460 tax cut this year, and have seen their share of the total tax burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1 percent, according to The New York Times.

In contrast, households in the middle 20 percent, with incomes averaging $57,000 per year, will receive an average cut of only $1,090, the newspaper said, citing the CBO report.

Taxpayers whose incomes range from $51,500 to around $75,600, saw their share of federal tax payments increase, according to CBO figures cited by The Washington Post.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_massdeception.jpg

[Raider Bill]

Again, Bush's economic policies benefit the wealthy, not middle America.
He spends more than any other president in history while cutting revenues.
He proposes programs but doesn't fund them or explain how they'll be funded, *No Child Left Behind* as one example.
Record deficit, National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.73 billion per day since September 30, 2003!
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
He just stripped overtime pay from 6 million Americans and is proposing "comp" time for millions more in place of overtime.

He's bankrupting America's children before they even enter the workforce.

Huh? The national debt was there long before W.

http://www.sdi.gov/old_grap/fig_4-03.gif

The total debt as a raw number is meaningless. Your ability to carry the debt is more important. The USA's debt load is far lower than other industrialized countries.
--------------------------------

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites)'s tax cuts since 2001 have shifted more of the tax burden from the nation's rich to middle-class families, according to a study released Friday by the Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites).

The tax rate declined across all income levels — but more so in the top brackets, the report said.

So what they are saying is that everyone paid less taxes. The rest of this article is kind of moot. But I digress.

People in the top 20 percent of incomes, averaging $182,700 a year, saw their share of federal taxes decline from 65.3 percent of total payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year, according to the study by congressional budget analysts.

Could it be there is less of them then there was at the height of the tech boom? Or could have there been less capital gains tax collected this year which historicaly is pretty volatle and difficult to forcast.

In contrast, middle-class taxpayers — with incomes ranging from $51,500 to $75,600 — bear a greater tax burden. Those making an average of $75,600 had the biggest jump in their share of taxes, from 18.5 percent of all payments in 2001 to 19.5 percent this year.

Their "share" as a group is irrevelant. They paid less taxes individually then prior to the tax cuts. I wouldnt think that these income classes would stay the same over 5 years. I would think that they are always in a state of flux with people moving into and out of the top 20%.

The study, requested by congressional Democrats in May, AHHH now I get it is expected to provide fodder for the presidential campaign over the fairness of more than $1 trillion in tax cuts Bush has pushed through Congress since taking office.

"George W. Bush keeps trying to mislead Americans into thinking we're turning the corner, but truth is that he is turning his back on middle-class families," Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said. "The Bush policies are exacerbating the squeeze that working families have been feeling for the last four years."


But it said that EVERYONE paid less taxes. No one was squeezed. Nothing to see here but more liberal bias in the press.

[Crushaholic]

He spends more than any other president in history while cutting revenues.
He proposes programs but doesn't fund them or explain how they'll be funded, *No Child Left Behind* as one example.

Isn't No Child Left Behind a Clinton program? ???

[Cito Pelon]

You, me, and most other people will do just fine without bending over backwards to accomodate milliionaires. Or bending over frontwards, as in this case (haha).

The USA is not going to collapse, you know, if someone that makes 4 million a year is forced to pay 1.5 million in taxes. They'll still be doing just fine, and those poor old people you see picking aluminum cans out of dumpsters so they can have a pork chop now and then can relax a litle bit. You damn well know that a 4 million a year person won't share 1.5 million unless they're forced to.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Isn't No Child Left Behind a Clinton program? ???
I bet Bush wishes it was.

[patteeu]

Again, Bush's economic policies benefit the wealthy, not middle America.
He spends more than any other president in history while cutting revenues.
He proposes programs but doesn't fund them or explain how they'll be funded, *No Child Left Behind* as one example.

Isn't it ironic that you complain on the one hand that Bush "spends more than any other president in history" and then turn right around and complain that he "proposes programs but doesn't fund them?" Seriously, which part bothers you more because they are kind of inconsistent complaints don't you think?

Not to mention the fact that Congress has a major role in all this.

[patteeu]

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites)'s tax cuts since 2001 have shifted more of the tax burden from the nation's rich to middle-class families, according to a study released Friday by the Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites).

The tax rate declined across all income levels — but more so in the top brackets, the report said.

People in the top 20 percent of incomes, averaging $182,700 a year, saw their share of federal taxes decline from 65.3 percent of total payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year, according to the study by congressional budget analysts.

In contrast, middle-class taxpayers — with incomes ranging from $51,500 to $75,600 — bear a greater tax burden. Those making an average of $75,600 had the biggest jump in their share of taxes, from 18.5 percent of all payments in 2001 to 19.5 percent this year.

The study, requested by congressional Democrats in May, is expected to provide fodder for the presidential campaign over the fairness of more than $1 trillion in tax cuts Bush has pushed through Congress since taking office.

"George W. Bush keeps trying to mislead Americans into thinking we're turning the corner, but truth is that he is turning his back on middle-class families," Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said. "The Bush policies are exacerbating the squeeze that working families have been feeling for the last four years."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=8&u=/ap/20040813/ap_on_go_co/tax_cuts_study

More inconsistency. Tax rates on the middle class drop during the Bush administration but democrats want you to think that his tax policy is putting the "squeeze" on working families. Doh!

Which would the typical middle class taxpayer prefer:

a) pay less in taxes (but realize that the middle class as a group is accountable for a larger share of total tax revenues), or

b) pay more taxes (but realize that the middle class as a group is accountable for the same share of total tax revenues as under the Clinton administration).

I'm betting that most people would pick option (a). I know I do.

As njbil said, this is nothing but liberal propaganda. The bottom line in this article is that taxes were reduced for everyone. The rest is just misleading spin intended to stoke class warfare emotions.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Isn't it ironic that you complain on the one hand that Bush "spends more than any other president in history" and then turn right around and complain that he "proposes programs but doesn't fund them?" Seriously, which part bothers you more because they are kind of inconsistent complaints don't you think?

Not to mention the fact that Congress has a major role in all this.

He doesn't fund them because HE cut revenues by cutting taxes for the wealthy. Nothing inconsistent at all of what I speak and "both" parts bother me equally.

[patteeu]

He doesn't fund them because HE cut revenues by cutting taxes for the wealthy. Nothing inconsistent at all of what I speak and "both" parts bother me equally.

Leaving aside the roll that Congress plays in all of this, that still doesn't make any sense at all. You are like the wife who cheers for her husband's favorite team but doesn't really understand the rules of the game.

[Rock Chalk]

Correct me if I am wrong, my understanding of the federal budget is miniscule at best here.

Isnt the middle class the largest portion of our society? Isnt it then conceivable that the middle class will, as a group, pay the largest share of the tax revenue?

The middle class has always ALWAYS paid the largest share because they have ALWAYS been the largest portion of society. When Bush has cut taxes across the board for ALL groups, then the middle class will STILL pay the largest share of revenues right?

Now, let's get to his spending.

War. Well we have to go to war. We were attacked and summarily must retaliate. Argue semantics about Iraq all you want but he funded terrorists - maybe not al Qaeda - but definately funded terrorists. Bush said (and even Democrats agreed with him) that ANY STATE THAT SPONSORS, FUNDS, OR OTHERWISE AIDS TERRORISTS IS CONSIDERED AN ENEMY OF THE STATE. THis includes Iraq. Not to mention we are STILL kicking ass in Afghanistan.

We had to rebuild New York city. Pay for the damage to property and the loss of life. You think that tab is a small bill? Think again.

We've had to fix the economy that had begun to fail a year before Clinton left office.

There is an old addage: "You cant make money without spending money".

We've had to spend resources going after the white collar criminals who set up shop during Clinton's term.

The ironic thing is, had Clinton managed to get his dick out of Monica's mouth for a second and got tough with terrorists and big business crooks, we wouldn't be in this f*cking mess in the first place.

But let's just place it all on Bush like ignorant little children.

[Tom G]

Here are some facts for consideration:

Tax revenues are UP, not down, since the income tax cuts went into effect. The larger deficit is due to increased spending (mostly war), not decreased revenues.

The Democrats cleverly asked the GAO to evaluate the shift of tax burden based on ALL taxes not just on income tax. Based on just income tax,the only tax effected by the tax cuts, "the rich" ended up paying MORE of the income tax burden (percentage wise) than the "middle class".

At any rate, either way you evaluate the shift in burden, percentage wise, the increase/decrease is less than 2 percent which is roundoff error in these kinds of analyses.

In other words, there is no significant change in "tax burden". The top 1 percent of wage earners still pay 35 percent of the income tax revenue, the top 50 percent pay 96 percent, and the bottom 30 percent of the wage earners pay no income tax at all. You could argue that that's not exactly fair, unless you're a Democrat.("To each according to need, from each according to ability": Karl Marx).

Despite the Democrats mantra, everybody is paying less income tax, the economy has been stimulated, there are more people employed, therefore more people are paying taxes and revenues are up, the rich are still getting screwed and way too many people are getting a free ride.

And it's not a "tax cut for the rich", it's a "tax cut for people who pay taxes". "The rich" get a bigger tax break than the rest of us because they pay way more tax to begin with than the rest of us. And guess what? People who don't pay income taxes don't benefit from income tax cuts at all!

Duh.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

In other words, there is no significant change in "tax burden"....And it's not a "tax cut for the rich"...

That's not what the CBO says:

Bush Tax Cuts Heavily Favor Rich, Latest CBO Report Says

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...bo_dc&e=3&ncid=

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Bush's tax cuts have transferred the federal tax burden from the richest Americans to middle-class families, with one-third of them benefiting people with the top 1 percent of income, according to a government report cited in newspapers on Friday.

The Congressional Budget Office report, to be released Friday, is likely to fuel the debate over the cuts between Bush and his Democratic challenger in November, John Kerry.

The report said the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million per year, will receive an average $78,460 tax cut this year, and have seen their share of the total tax burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1 percent, according to The New York Times.

In contrast, households in the middle 20 percent, with incomes averaging $57,000 per year, will receive an average cut of only $1,090, the newspaper said, citing the CBO report.

Taxpayers whose incomes range from $51,500 to around $75,600, saw their share of federal tax payments increase, according to CBO figures cited by The Washington Post.

[watermock]

[/quote]In contrast, households in the middle 20 percent, with incomes averaging $57,000 per year, will receive an average cut of only $1,090, the newspaper said, citing the CBO report.

Taxpayers whose incomes range from $51,500 to around $75,600, saw their share of federal tax payments increase, according to CBO figures cited by The Washington Post.[/quote]

Isn't it that a rather odd comment? Making 57,000 you payed 1,600 less, then they bring it to 75,000 and don't even give a figure. LABF, it doesn't take a genius to see the cutoff points are 51,000 and 75,000. Go look at it again dimwit. They are using breakout points to make a very weak argument. What do you bet someone making 49,900 to 74,900 had SIGNIFICANT tax savings.

And as was pointed out, the lowest 30% don't even pay taxes. Many got 300 dollars if you filed even a year after they didn't. In effect, they filed a year later and still got 300 bucks. :boxing: thwack

Now hit the spam button.

[alkemical]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6684.htm

The Broken Promises of George W. Bush:

Rhetoric vs. Reality

08/09/04 "American Progress" -- President Bush made a lot of promises during his 2000 presidential campaign. The record shows it was all talk.

HEALTH CARE RHETORIC


HEALTH CARE REALITY

"There are 43 million uninsured Americans – 4 million more than when the current administration took office. George W. Bush will reverse this trend by making health insurance affordable for hard-working, low-income families." [Source: Bush-Cheney 2000 website]


In the first two years Bush was in office, the number of uninsured American increased by nearly four million. Since Bush took office, health insurance premiums have risen by an average rate of 12.5 percent per year. According to a major study, "widespread adoption [of Bush's major health care plan] could drive up the annual deductible paid by workers." [Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 7/8/04; Kaiser Family Foundation, 4/04; USA Today, 4/25/04]

"George W. Bush will establish the 'Healthy Communities Innovation Fund' to provide $500 million in grants over five years to fund innovative projects addressing targeted health risks, such as childhood diabetes."

[Source: Bush-Cheney 2000 website]


Bush never established this fund. [Source: The Philadelphia Inquirer, 1/20/04]

ENVIRONMENTAL RHETORIC


ENVIRONMENTAL REALITY

George W. Bush "will also ensure that the federal government, which is the country's largest polluter, complies with all environmental laws."

[Source: Bush-Cheney 2000 website]


For the past three years, the Department of Defense has requested that Congress exempt it from environmental laws and regulations like the Clean Air Act of 1970. The exemptions were requested despite the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency has thus far declined to apply the policies to the military training facilities in question.

[Source: Government Executive Magazine, 4/6/04]

HIGHER ED RHETORIC


HIGHER ED REALITY

George W. Bush will "fully fund the Pell grant program for first-year students by increasing the maximum grant amount by more than 50 percent, to $5,100."

[Source: Bush-Cheney 2000 – Education website]


President Bush has frozen the maximum Pell Grant at $4,050 in his FY 2005 education budget. This is the third year in a row that Bush has frozen or cut the maximum Pell Grant. [Source: House Committee on Education and the Work Force 2/2/04]



there's more listed -

[Blueflame]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6684.htm

The Broken Promises of George W. Bush:

Rhetoric vs. Reality

08/09/04 "American Progress" -- President Bush made a lot of promises during his 2000 presidential campaign. The record shows it was all talk.

HEALTH CARE RHETORIC


HEALTH CARE REALITY

"There are 43 million uninsured Americans – 4 million more than when the current administration took office. George W. Bush will reverse this trend by making health insurance affordable for hard-working, low-income families." [Source: Bush-Cheney 2000 website]


In the first two years Bush was in office, the number of uninsured American increased by nearly four million. Since Bush took office, health insurance premiums have risen by an average rate of 12.5 percent per year. According to a major study, "widespread adoption [of Bush's major health care plan] could drive up the annual deductible paid by workers." [Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 7/8/04; Kaiser Family Foundation, 4/04; USA Today, 4/25/04]

"George W. Bush will establish the 'Healthy Communities Innovation Fund' to provide $500 million in grants over five years to fund innovative projects addressing targeted health risks, such as childhood diabetes."

[Source: Bush-Cheney 2000 website]


Bush never established this fund. [Source: The Philadelphia Inquirer, 1/20/04]

ENVIRONMENTAL RHETORIC


ENVIRONMENTAL REALITY

George W. Bush "will also ensure that the federal government, which is the country's largest polluter, complies with all environmental laws."

[Source: Bush-Cheney 2000 website]


For the past three years, the Department of Defense has requested that Congress exempt it from environmental laws and regulations like the Clean Air Act of 1970. The exemptions were requested despite the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency has thus far declined to apply the policies to the military training facilities in question.

[Source: Government Executive Magazine, 4/6/04]

HIGHER ED RHETORIC


HIGHER ED REALITY

George W. Bush will "fully fund the Pell grant program for first-year students by increasing the maximum grant amount by more than 50 percent, to $5,100."

[Source: Bush-Cheney 2000 – Education website]


President Bush has frozen the maximum Pell Grant at $4,050 in his FY 2005 education budget. This is the third year in a row that Bush has frozen or cut the maximum Pell Grant. [Source: House Committee on Education and the Work Force 2/2/04]



there's more listed -


Gee, I wonder if those could be more accurately characterized as "flip-flops"... or as "lies"....

A politician lying... who'd have thunk it? rofl

[broncogary]

People who don't pay income taxes don't benefit from income tax cuts at all!Duh.

Not fair! :vermeil:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Gee, I wonder if those could be more accurately characterized as "flip-flops"... or as "lies"....

It depends on who the press is talking about.

If it's Kerry, then it's "flip flops."

If it's AWOL Boy, then it's "steady leadership."

[patteeu]

Gee, I wonder if those could be more accurately characterized as "flip-flops"... or as "lies"....

It depends on who the press is talking about.

If it's Kerry, then it's "flip flops."

If it's AWOL Boy, then it's "steady leadership."

LOL, it's too late to fight that fight, your side's already lost. Here are some results from the latest Pew poll of undecided voters:

Willing to Take A Stand - Bush 68%, Kerry 15%
A Strong Leader - Bush 62%, Kerry 14%
Good Judgement In A Crisis - Bush 50%, Kerry 20%
Honest and Truthful - Bush 34%, Kerry 19%
Down to Earth - Bush 46%, Kerry 34%
Personally Likeable - Bush 39%, Kerry 32%
Changes Mind Too Much - Bush 21%, Kerry 48%
Favorablility - Bush 75%, Kerry 66%

Kerry "wins" the "Changes Mind Too Much" by more than 2:1. ROFL

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/221.pdf

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Here are some results from the latest Pew poll...

Pew poll? LOL

Looks like another right-wing think tank can't calculate electoral votes.

Kerry 327

Bush 211

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Zogby: Kerry 50 Bush 43 - Likely Voters.

"The presidential ticket of Massachusetts Senator John Kerry and North Carolina Senator John Edwards gained two points since the Democratic National convention over President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney and now leads by seven points (50%-43%)."

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=851

[Hercules Rockefeller]

He proposes programs but doesn't fund them or explain how they'll be funded, *No Child Left Behind* as one example.



Bull****. Federal education spending has gone up 80% since Bush took office and there's $16 billion in unclaimed federal education money that is just sitting there for the states to claim. The numbers Democrats point to are spending caps, not funding levels. Using the Democrat's standard, even their proposed budget for FY' 05 didn't fully fund NCLB.

[Blueflame]

Bull****. Federal education spending has gone up 80% since Bush took office and there's $16 billion in unclaimed federal education money that is just sitting there for the states to claim. The numbers Democrats point to are spending caps, not funding levels. Using the Democrat's standard, even their proposed budget for FY' 05 didn't fully fund NCLB.

Is that why there's a new M&O (maintenance and operations) school levy brought to the ballot almost every year?

And if your stats are true, how can you explain this:

LAT: Teachers Lose (fed. and Cali st.) Tax Breaks for Class Supplies

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-supplies15aug15...

(requires registration)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Federal education spending has gone up 80% since Bush took office

Link?

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Federal education spending has gone up 80% since Bush took office

Link?

Take your pick on which one you want to believe.

80%
From the massive increases in agricultural subsidies in the farm bill of 2002, to the new Medicare prescription drug entitlement of 2003; from the 47% increase in the defense budget, to the 80% increase in education spending,

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31

65%
In some cases, Bush pushed for spending increases. For example, federal spending on education, a top presidential priority, has increased 65 percent under Bush

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1204-03.htm

49%
Overall federal K-12 education spending has increased by 49 percent since President Bush took office.

http://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/108th/education/nclb/dc072704.htm

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You have to take into account the difference between mandatory and discretionary spending.

Smirk can't even fund his own "no child left behind" initiative.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/www.democrats.org/images/banners/nclb.jpg

Every Child Left Behind: Three Years of Unfunded Mandates

The President Has Repeatedly Broken His Promise to Provide Federal Support for Education. In the two years since the President signed the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, none of his budgets have come close to meeting the level of funding authorized in the Act. The FY 2004 budget submitted by President Bush fell $9 billion short of the amount authorized for 2004 and his FY 2003 budget fell $7.2 billion short of approved funding. [Office of Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, 6/9/03; Associated Press, 2/24/03]

Federal Education Reform Taxes State and Local Governments With Unfunded Mandates. In February 2003, the bipartisan National Governors Association voted unanimously to label Bush's No Child Left Behind Act an unfunded mandate, along with special education, homeland security and Medicaid. A November 2003 survey of nearly 2,000 superintendents and principals found that 9 in 10 viewed No Child Left Behind as an unfunded mandate. States and localities have struggled to keep up with the new requirements. Between fiscal years 2002 and 2004, education spending in 35 states was unable to keep pace with increases in inflation and enrollment. [The Wallace Foundation, www.wallacefoundation.org; Education Week, 1/7/04]

Bush Failed to Provide Purchasing Power For His No Child Left Behind Act. The FY 2004 funding failure is $1.4 billion below what would be required to maintain 2003 purchasing power next year. Bush's FY 2003 budget proposal was little better, falling $7.2 billion short of funding approved for FY 2003 in the original legislation. [Office of Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, 6/9/03; National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), 2/03; CongressDaily, 2/3/03; National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), 2/5/03; New York Times, 2/5/03; Washington Post, 4/1/03]

Bush Fails To Support Children From Low-Income Families, the Centerpiece of No Child Left Behind. The President's budgets since the enactment of No Child Left Behind have repeatedly failed to fund Title I funding, the key federal mechanism for educating poor children and encouraging reform at the state and local level. The President's FY 2003 budget was $ 4.6 billion short of that authorized by his own No Child Left Behind Act. Bush's FY 2004 budget called for $6 billion less in Title I funding. The President has already admitted that his new FY2005 budget set to be released shortly will fall $7 billion short of the amount authorized, meaning that 4.6 million children nationwide will not receive the education the President promised them. [Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 12/13/02; House Appropriations Committee Minority Staff "President Bush's FY 2004 Budget, Department of Education, A Preliminary Analysis, 2/3/03; Office of Democratic Senate Leader Tom Daschle, 1/7/04; Associated Press, 1/8/04]

Bush Administration Inaccurately Claimed Budget Increases In Title I Funding. The Washington Post reported that the Education Department distributed a fact sheet that claimed "if President Bush's 2004 proposed education budget is enacted, Title I funding will have increased 41 percent since No Child Left Behind was signed into law." In fact, "when the 'No Child Left Behind' legislation was signed in January 2002, spending on the Title I education program was $10.35 billion (Bush had requested $9.06 billion). The president's proposal for 2004 is $12.35 billion, a 19 percent increase." Even this falls fall short of what Bush's program promised [Washington Post, 4/8/03; www.nclb.gov]

Bush Administration Spends Fifty Times More on Tax Cuts Than Increased Education Spending. Federal tax cuts over the past two fiscal years totaled $478 billion, while Department of Education spending increased $9.4 billion -- a ratio of more than 50 to 1. Overall spending by the Department of Education increased from $56.2 billion in FY 2002 to $60.4 billion in FY 2003 to $61.4 billion in FY 2004 (projected) leaving a total of $9.4 billion in additional spending over the past two fiscal years. During that same period the federal government handed out $186 billion in tax cuts in FY 2003 and $292 billion in FY 2004 for a total of $478 billion in lost tax revenue. [www.ctj.org; www.ed.gov]
Funding Shortfalls Undermine the Goals of No Child Left Behind

Despite A Mandate In "No Child Left Behind" To Qualify All Teachers, Bush's Budget Cut Teacher Quality Programs. Bush's FY 2004 budget proposed $3.1 billion for teacher quality programs, 7.9% ($268 million) below 2003 enacted levels. A year earlier, Bush proposed freezing teacher quality initiatives for the 2003 budget. Yet Bush's own No Child Left Behind Act called for every teacher to be have obtained a state certificate or license to teach by 2005. [House Budget Committee Minority Staff, 3/9/03; House Appropriations Committee Minority Staff "President Bush's FY 2004 Budget, Department of Education, A Preliminary Analysis, 2/3/03; House Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2/5/02]

Important "No Child Left Behind" Programs Were Eliminated In Bush's FY 2004 Budget. Important programs for comprehensive school reform, rural education, dropout prevention, school counseling, training teachers to use technology and a program to provide resources to reduce class size were all eliminated from Bush's FY 2004 budget. Each program was part of Bush's own No Child Left Behind Act. [www.ed.gov; Office of Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, 6/9/03]

Bush Refuses to Fund Vital School Modernization Projects. In 2002, President Bush fought for the repeal of a new federal initiative to modernize America's schools and provide safe, modern places to learn for all children. His budget plan fails to include any dedicated resources to address the $127 billion backlog in school repairs. America's schools are, on average, 42 years old; nearly 25,000 public schools, almost one-third of all public school buildings, are in a serious state of disrepair. As a result, more than 15 million students learn in facilities that have substandard heating, ventilation, plumbing, and roofing systems. [National Center for Education Statistics, How Old Are America's Public Schools?, 1/99, www.nces.ed.gov; GAO Report, School Facilities, 3/00; American Institute of Architects, Good Enough for Congress?; www.e-architect.com; House Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2/5/02]

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

If elected, Bush plans to slash funding for programs he's touting on campaign trail

Washington, D.C. - Today's Washington Post reveals that if elected in 2004, George W. Bush intends to cut funding for a slew of domestic programs that he is currently touting on the campaign trail, including education, homeland security, Head Start, job training, a nutrition program for women, infants and children, medical research and on and on.

Here is a document detailing exactly when and where on the campaign trail Bush has touted a program or Department that he has either cut or intends to cut should he win in November:

http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/www.democrats.org/pdfs/bush_touts_cuts_programs.pdf

[Raider Bill]

It's all a semantical argument. If congress proposes 2 billion (just making numbers up) for education after spending 1 billion the previous year for a program, and the president's budget only approves 1.5 billion then, using Washington logic, the president cut the program .5 billion dollars. Neither party is above using this rhetoric.

[Cito Pelon]

Unemployment at record highs, and replacement jobs at lower wages, yet miilionaires and biilionaires at record highs.

I smell a rat, and I'm gonna eliminate it as best I can.

[watermock]

WTF are you talking about.

For all the careful examinations and explainations and excuses, the facts are this.

We have 5.5 unemployment. We have 4 percent inflation, (fuel driven), and 4 percent growth of GNP. There is all kinds of pressure on the economy.

You gotta love LABF, who cried like a stuck pig about Homeland Security, or Educaton.

I couldn't help but laugh when they talked about Bob Kerrys record at Democratic Headquarters. It's John Kerry you dimwits.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

70% of companies surveyed outsourcing offshore

"...We expect that to climb to 90 percent in 2005"

A vote for Bush is a vote for outsourcing jobs overseas.

Betcha the FreeTards must be doing pretzel-like convolutions to justify supporting outsourcing their own jobs overseas in order to support Bush, huh?

But then again...how can you outsource the guy who puts those "Lose 20 pounds in 2 weeks" fliers under your windshield wipers?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=75&ncid=75&e=8&u=/nf/20040816/tc_nf/26332

[watermock]

70% of companies surveyed outsourcing offshore

"...We expect that to climb to 90 percent in 2005"

Your still not making an argument. This has been happening for decades.

A vote for Bush is a vote for outsourcing jobs overseas.

Assertion without foundation whatsoever.

Betcha the FreeTards must be doing pretzel-like convolutions to justify supporting outsourcing their own jobs overseas in order to support Bush, huh?

Assertion, no foundation.

But then again...how can you outsource the guy who puts those "Lose 20 pounds in 2 weeks" fliers under your windshield wipers?

I call it someone who is putting flyers under your window. They had those 30 Years ago.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=75&ncid=75&e=8&u=/nf/20040816/tc_nf/26332

The rest he doesn't even post but I will.

[watermock]

Is There a Fix?
"Really, there's very little the government can do to slow the offshore-outsourcing trend down," Lance Travis, vice president of research at AMR Research, told NewsFactor's CIO Today. "The financial benefits for companies are just too great to resist, and any company that fails to compete in the global market will lose out big."

But don't let reality change the propoganda.

[Rohirrim]

Simple. You dump the globalist economy and create a nationalist economy that better serves your people. In other words, you don't sell out your people to greed. Malaysia did it. So did New Zealand. They saw the globalism BS for what it is: A way to make the already rich, richer.

[patteeu]

Unemployment at record highs

Surely you didn't mean to say this.

[patteeu]

...
I couldn't help but laugh when they talked about Bob Kerrys record at Democratic Headquarters. It's John Kerry you dimwits.

That IS pretty funny. ROFL

Here is an exchange from Fox News (sorry I don't have a link):

Major Garrett: In its haste to respond to the Bush/Cheney ad, Kerry's team said the senator once served as the vice-chairman of the intelligence committee. A Kerry did serve in that position, but it wasn't John. It was Bob. Bob Kerrey, a Nebraska Democrat. And as the Bush campaign gleefully pointed out, Bob Kerrey attended more than three times as many intelligence committee hearings as John Kerry and opposed John Kerry's proposals to cut intelligence spending.

Tad Devine, Senior Kerry Advisor: I'll have to check with the issues people. It was my understanding it was, but if that's, you know, if that's not a factual case I'm sure we'll be happy to correct the record.

Doh! That would have been embarrassing, but Devine handled it about as well as could be expected. With all the flip flops and corrections by the Kerry campaign, it must cost a fortune to keep their website current.

[Needa Pass Rush]

Bush Tax Cuts Heavily Favor Rich, Latest CBO Report Says

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040813/pl_nm/campaign_taxes_cbo_dc&e=3&ncid=

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Bush's tax cuts have transferred the federal tax burden from the richest Americans to middle-class families, with one-third of them benefiting people with the top 1 percent of income, according to a government report cited in newspapers on Friday.

The Congressional Budget Office report, to be released Friday, is likely to fuel the debate over the cuts between Bush and his Democratic challenger in November, John Kerry.

The report said the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million per year, will receive an average $78,460 tax cut this year, and have seen their share of the total tax burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1 percent, according to The New York Times.

In contrast, households in the middle 20 percent, with incomes averaging $57,000 per year, will receive an average cut of $1,090,e newspaper said, citing the CBO report.

Taxpayers whose incomes range from $51,500 to around $75,600, saw their share of federal tax payments increase, according to CBO figures cited by The Washington Post.

This is great. Everyone gets to keep more of THEIR money.

[pgmatg]

Any informed person with a brain and a heart will vote for Kerry, or at least against Bush.
John Kerry has a Plan to Give Tax Breaks to Corporations who Keep their Companies in the U.S, not tax companys that don’t. Kerry is a thinking man, that knows that most political issues are complicated (nuanced). Also he realizes that rich can live without tax cuts, but the rest of us might actually need it. And health care should be a right not a luxury.
____________
Support the Change (http://www.geocities.com/rusatg/BuyForKerry.htm)

[patteeu]

Any informed person with a brain and a heart will vote for Kerry, or at least against Bush.
John Kerry has a Plan to Give Tax Breaks to Corporations who Keep their Companies in the U.S, not tax companys that don’t. Kerry is a thinking man, that knows that most political issues are complicated (nuanced). Also he realizes that rich can live without tax cuts, but the rest of us might actually need it. And health care should be a right not a luxury.
____________
Support the Change (http://www.geocities.com/rusatg/BuyForKerry.htm)

You never get a second chance to make a first impression. Sadly, you wasted yours. tsk tsk

Kerry wants to raise taxes on corporations with international profits that have not been repatriated.

I'm sure Kerry is an intelligent man (just as I believe George Bush and Ralph Nader are). But the left doesn't have a monopoly on nuanced thinking. Actually, Kerry is counting on having a big advantage among less intelligent voters. If he doesn't harvest most of this vote, I don't think he will have a chance to win the election. But then that's all just my opinion.

The non-rich will not only survive paying taxes, they will become better citizens when they start paying their fair share of the tax burden. This is particularly true of those who pay no tax or who receive a negative tax (EITC) today.

Do you know anyone who has been denied basic healthcare under our current system?

Did LABF send you here from one of his left wing propaganda sites?

[bendog]

Simple. You dump the globalist economy and create a nationalist economy that better serves your people. In other words, you don't sell out your people to greed. Malaysia did it. So did New Zealand. They saw the globalism BS for what it is: A way to make the already rich, richer.
I slightly disagree. The US econ depends on consumption, yet to limit globalism would inflate prices. I'm pretty much anti-union, but I have to agree with an alf-cio economist guy who said the problem with nafta and china is that we loosened the restrictions on capital ... so capital oculd flow back and forth without taxes and ideological barriers ... but we didn't break down the same restrictions on individual workers rights to organize and have free speech. The new markets for our workers goods will not develop unless their workers make more than slave wages.

[alkemical]

WTF are you talking about.

For all the careful examinations and explainations and excuses, the facts are this.

We have 5.5 unemployment. We have 4 percent inflation, (fuel driven), and 4 percent growth of GNP. There is all kinds of pressure on the economy.

You gotta love LABF, who cried like a stuck pig about Homeland Security, or Educaton.

I couldn't help but laugh when they talked about Bob Kerrys record at Democratic Headquarters. It's John Kerry you dimwits.



and you tried to tell me there was no inflation....

mock you are full of ****. when the revolution comes, i'm sorry to be the one to tell you - you won't make it

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Kerry wants to raise taxes on corporations with international profits that have not been repatriated.

Talk about your silly right-wing spin/gibberish.

Fact: Kerry wants to close the tax loopholes that allow American corporations to move offshore and avoid paying taxes.

The non-rich will not only survive paying taxes, they will become better citizens when they start paying their fair share of the tax burden.

Um, the "non-rich" are already paying more than their fair share of taxes while the wealthiest Americans are paying fewer taxes under the Idiot in Chief, according the the latest CBO report (which I just posted.)

Did LABF send you here from one of his left wing propaganda sites?

Yes.

As I matter of fact, I sent everyone at the OM who opposes Forrest Bush here.

It's all a big conspiracy against wingnut America, and I'm the official Emmanuel Goldstien.

Do you know anyone who has been denied basic healthcare under our current system?

This is not the issue. The issue is that millions of Americans have lost their health insurance under the Smirking Sociopath and are unable to pay for health care out-of-pocket.

You never get a second chance to make a first impression. Sadly, you wasted yours.

Oh, the irony.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush Tax Cuts Heavily Favor Rich, CBO Says

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Bush's tax cuts have transferred the federal tax burden from the richest Americans to middle-class families, with one-third of them benefiting people with the top 1 percent of income, according to a government report cited in newspapers on Friday.

The Congressional Budget Office report, to be released Friday, is likely to fuel the debate over the cuts between Bush and his Democratic challenger in November, John Kerry.

The report said the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million per year, will receive an average $78,460 tax cut this year, and have seen their share of the total tax burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1 percent, according to The New York Times.

In contrast, households in the middle 20 percent, with incomes averaging $57,000 per year, will receive an average cut of only $1,090, the newspaper said, citing the CBO report.

Taxpayers whose incomes range from $51,500 to around $75,600, saw their share of federal tax payments increase, according to CBO figures cited by The Washington Post.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...bo_dc&e=3&ncid=

[enjolras]

Kerry wants to raise taxes on corporations with international profits that have not been repatriated.

Talk about your silly right-wing spin/gibberish.

Fact: Kerry wants to close the tax loopholes that allow American corporations to move offshore and avoid paying taxes.

Yay.. protectionism.

By making our companies pay more to do business, we put them at a competitive disadvantage versus companies in the rest of the world who CAN use those comptetitive advantages. I bet THAT's good for our economy.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

By making our companies pay more to do business, we put them at a competitive disadvantage versus companies in the rest of the world who CAN use those comptetitive advantages. I bet THAT's good for our economy.

But the thugs currently in power have gone to the opposite extreme.

That is, corporations are allowed to move offshore, take all their jobs with them, and not pay any taxes. The biggest corporations have doubled and, in some cases, tripled their earnings over the past three years while laying off workers and creating virtually no new jobs at home. This amounts to little more than corporate welfare.

And there is no evidence that these corporations suffered from a "competitive disadvantage" before Smirk's tax cuts were enacted.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

If Smirk's tax cuts for the super-wealthy have alleviated some perceived "competitive disadvantage" for corporations, then why is our trade deficit spiralling out of control?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush Is Squeezing Middle Class

President Bush is now barnstorming the country claiming his record shows that he cares
about America's middle class. On everything from taxes to health care to workers wages, the President says he has fought for average Americans. But a new comprehensive report shows that in almost every key economic area, he has actually gone to bat for his wealthiest contributors, at everyone else's expense.

http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df08172004.html

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/wrenchboy.jpg

[enjolras]

But the thugs currently in power have gone to the opposite extreme.

That is, corporations are allowed to move offshore, take all their jobs with them, and not pay any taxes. The biggest corporations have doubled and, in some cases, tripled their earnings over the past three years while laying off workers and creating virtually no new jobs at home. This amounts to little more than corporate welfare.

And there is no evidence that these corporations suffered from a "competitive disadvantage" before Smirk's tax cuts were enacted.

They pay taxes on the commerce conducted inside of the United States... just like Toyota, Sony, and any other foreign company. They're leaving because by leaving they greatly decrease the costs of doing business.. yet your arguing we should actually INCREASE those costs?

if Smirk's tax cuts for the super-wealthy have alleviated some perceived "competitive disadvantage" for corporations, then why is our trade deficit spiralling out of control?

1) I never said anything remotely close to that.
2) I know I didn't say that because I don't beleive in trade defecits at all. I beleive trade for cheaper goods from overseas helps to grow our economy here at home. Offshoring of jobs, while painful for some, actually helps to improve our economy and create both local and global wealth. You only have to look at the sudden surge in auto-manufacturing jobs in the United States to see the cycle in action. Modern political economy at almost any University goes into great detail on how this works.

What your suggesting is that we regulate business even more, further increasing the costs of doing business in the United States with the idea of 'keeping jobs at home', when in fact your making it basically impossible for these companies to compete. The way to create meaningful jobs is to make the United States and attractive place to employ people... making it more expensive and difficult to run a business in the United States (by regulating offshoring of jobs) only serves to drive business AWAY from the US and actually deflates the job market.

Oh ya, and right now there are something like 6 US companies that have inverted (moved their HQ's onto foreign soil)... My wife has a fellow PhD student researching inversion, it's fascinating stuff really. Your plan would aim to increase that number exponentially.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Oh ya, and right now there are something like 6 US companies that have inverted (moved their HQ's onto foreign soil)... .

Makes sense since the majority of a lot of companies employees are working in China and, Indonesia, India etc...

[alkemical]

"there aren't countries anymore, just corporations"

[patteeu]

Kerry wants to raise taxes on corporations with international profits that have not been repatriated.

Talk about your silly right-wing spin/gibberish.

Fact: Kerry wants to close the tax loopholes that allow American corporations to move offshore and avoid paying taxes.

They don't avoid paying taxes. They pay the same taxes that the foreign companies located in the same tax jurisdiction pay. To close the loophole is the add a second layer of taxation on only the US companies. This is what puts them at a competitive disadvantage with respect to those foreign competitors.

The non-rich will not only survive paying taxes, they will become better citizens when they start paying their fair share of the tax burden.

Um, the "non-rich" are already paying more than their fair share of taxes while the wealthiest Americans are paying fewer taxes under the Idiot in Chief, according the the latest CBO report (which I just posted.)

No matter how many times you post that short article about the report, it will never prove what you want it to prove. The degree of fairness in the system is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, the non-rich (and especially the poor) do not currently pay their fair share of taxes. You are welcome to disagree. I base my view on the principle that I want EVERYONE who earns an income to be subject to an income tax so that we won't have a class of net tax payers and another class of net tax beneficiaries for the politicians to play off against each other.


Did LABF send you here from one of his left wing propaganda sites?

Yes.

As I matter of fact, I sent everyone at the OM who opposes Forrest Bush here.

It's all a big conspiracy against wingnut America, and I'm the official Emmanuel Goldstien.

That was the dude's first post here at OrangeMane. Although it's not impossible for someone to visit a football forum and make their first post on the political subforum, it's unusual enough to make one wonder whether they are just a political hack that's been recruited as reinforcement by one of the board regulars. Based on the propaganda-quality of his/her post, I naturally thought of you first.


Do you know anyone who has been denied basic healthcare under our current system?

This is not the issue. The issue is that millions of Americans have lost their health insurance under the Smirking Sociopath and are unable to pay for health care out-of-pocket.

Of course it's the issue. If you complain that healthcare is a right not a privilege, presumably you are suggesting that someone is having what you consider to be their "rights" denied. I asked him if he had any concrete examples.

You never get a second chance to make a first impression. Sadly, you wasted yours.

Oh, the irony.

I'll take that as a compliment.

[broncogary]

Geez, I agree with patteeu on everything but football.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

They don't avoid paying taxes.

They avoid paying American taxes.

Sorry--I guess I should have been more specific.

This is what puts them at a competitive disadvantage with respect to those foreign competitors.

But there is no evidence that such a 'disadvantage' is created when these corporations are asked to carry their fair share of the tax burden. Moreover, most big corporations have doubled and tripled their profits since Smirk was appointed, and have created no new jobs (one of the many indicators that trickle-down and voodoo economics don't work any better for Junior than they did for Poppy.) And, just for the sake of arguments, if Smirk's tax cuts and tax loopholes are the best way to alleviate "competitive disadvantage" then why has our trade deficit been spiraling out of control since AWOL Boy's tax cuts were enacted?

No matter how many times you post that short article about the report, it will never prove what you want it to prove.

Wrong.

The article proves exactly what critics of BushCo's economic "policies" have always claimed, i.e., that these policies favor the rich at the expense of the middle class. Read the headline again, and note also that the report comes from the CBO--not some Herritage Foundation-like source.

Of course it's the issue. If you complain that healthcare is a right not a privilege, presumably you are suggesting that someone is having what you consider to be their "rights" denied.

Change this sentence to read "affordable healthcare" instead of merely "healthcare" (which is really the issue) and your argument implodes.

[patteeu]

Geez, I agree with patteeu on everything but football.

You're like the guy who acts all macho but is really confused about his sexuality. Deep down, I know you want to be a Chiefs fan, don't you? ;D

[patteeu]

They don't avoid paying taxes.

They avoid paying American taxes.

Sorry--I guess I should have been more specific.

No need to be specific, I knew what you meant. It's just that you conveniently left out the fact that they were already paying foreign taxes on their income.

This is what puts them at a competitive disadvantage with respect to those foreign competitors.

But there is no evidence that such a 'disadvantage' is created when these corporations are asked to carry their fair share of the tax burden. Moreover, most big corporations have doubled and tripled their profits since Smirk was appointed, and have created no new jobs (one of the many indicators that trickle-down and voodoo economics don't work any better for Junior than they did for Poppy.) And, just for the sake of arguments, if Smirk's tax cuts and tax loopholes are the best way to alleviate "competitive disadvantage" then why has our trade deficit been spiraling out of control since AWOL Boy's tax cuts were enacted?

Any additional cost that is imposed on one competitor but not on another is a competitive disadvantage. I don't think that is debateable. How that disadvantage affects the US corporation I can't say. In some cases, the US corp may be competitive enough that they can absorb the extra costs. In others, the US corp may not be competitive even with the tax break. It is the third group that lies somewhere in between where it makes a difference. I don't know how to measure how large each of the three groups are, I'm just explaining the rationale for the so-called loophole that Kerry wants to eliminate.

As for your trade balance question, I have no idea. Maybe the tax cuts and loopholes aren't big enough. ???

No matter how many times you post that short article about the report, it will never prove what you want it to prove.

Wrong.

The article proves exactly what critics of BushCo's economic "policies" have always claimed, i.e., that these policies favor the rich at the expense of the middle class. Read the headline again, and note also that the report comes from the CBO--not some Herritage Foundation-like source.

You used it as evidence of two things: (1) that the "non-rich" are already paying their fair share of taxes, and (2) that the wealthiest Americans are paying fewer taxes.

I've already discussed number 1 and we will have to agree to disagree. IMO the "non-rich" continue to pay less than their fair share of taxes. I know you think otherwise. The CBO report doesn't help us resolve this difference of opinion.

I agree with number 2. Since non-rich and wealthy alike are paying lower marginal rates (which is what I presume you are talking about), I agree that the CBO report supports this assertion.


Of course it's the issue. If you complain that healthcare is a right not a privilege, presumably you are suggesting that someone is having what you consider to be their "rights" denied.

Change this sentence to read "affordable healthcare" instead of merely "healthcare" (which is really the issue) and your argument implodes.

No it doesn't. How much cheaper can healthcare get than free? No one goes without necessary, basic healthcare in this country even if they don't have a dime to their name.

[Needa Pass Rush]

LABF isn't going to like this! More wingnut conspiracy! DON'T READ THIS LABF!!! ;D

IT'S WHAT THEY DON'T TELL YOU

The Congressional Budget Office has produced a new set of statistics showing who pays what taxes in America. The lyin' left has seized on these statistics to say that the CBO figures show that the George Bush tax cuts shifted a good bit of the tax burden from the rich to the middle class.

Not so fast. Just in case you run across some of these news stories, and in case you actually believe that the federal income tax burden has been shifted from the rich to the middle class, there's something you need to know.

The media wanted to take these CBO numbers and report them in a way that would make the Bush tax cuts look bad. It's all part of the template. If you can spin a story so that it looks favorable to Kerry, and bad for Bush ... do it. How do you monkey with the CBO figures to accomplish this? Simple ... you include Social Security and Medicare taxes in your equation. The Bush tax cuts cut income tax rates, not Social Security or Medicare rates. The only fair way to report on how these tax cuts affected the various income levels would be to cite income tax rates only. Guess what? If you only include numbers from who is paying what federal income taxes you will find that the rich are paying a higher percentage of income taxes collected by the federal government now than they were before the tax cuts!!! Now those of you educated in government schools may think that it's impossible to cut tax rates on the rich and then have them pay an even higher percentage of the taxes. Try to think outside the government school box. It has been proven time and time again that when you lower tax rates on the rich ... when you allow the rich to keep a higher percentage of the money that they work for and earn ... they will work even harder to earn even more! As they work harder they end up paying more income taxes than before, even though their actual tax rate is lower.

It's simple. Reward the rich for their efforts, and they'll work even harder. The harder they work, the more taxes they pay. Now, after the tax cuts, they're shouldering an even higher percentage of the burden then before. This is a message the media doesn't want to convey, because it's a message that supports Bush's tax cuts. That's why they're playing with the numbers.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The media wanted to take these CBO numbers and report them in a way that would make the Bush tax cuts look bad.

LMFAO.

It doesn't take any spin to make the pretzel-dent's tax cuts for millionaires look bad.

All it takes is an ability to comprehend English and to do simple arithmetic.

What a funny little man.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No it doesn't. How much cheaper can healthcare get than free? No one goes without necessary, basic healthcare in this country even if they don't have a dime to their name.

You are suggesting that health care is free to all Americans?

How does this work?

[watermock]

Moreover, most big corporations have doubled and tripled their profits since Smirk was appointed,

First I doubt that, it's a total assertion. Second, wouldn't that be good? Don't more profits mean they pay more taxes?

They avoid paying American taxes.

So what do you propose? Protectionism? Lowering corporate taxes has produced and increas in revenue. Do you suppose we raise taxes so the last companies will leave?

You think we can somehow "prevent" corporations from moving operations? How do you suppose you do that? Wouldn't it be logical to create a more level playing field?

You don't get it. There isn't anything to keep any company from changing it's manufacturing headquarters almost anywhere!

What are you going to do if Toyota pulls out of North American Operations? Hmm? Complain? Why not listen to the reasons these corporations list for leaving!

Commonly heard is "We can't compete" another is "Overregulation" another is "High Labor Costs".

But you seem to think it is what? The USA can't legislate what other countries do! WTF. You have to step up to the table and compete mano mano.

[patteeu]

No it doesn't. How much cheaper can healthcare get than free? No one goes without necessary, basic healthcare in this country even if they don't have a dime to their name.

You are suggesting that health care is free to all Americans?

How does this work?

Nope. I'm suggeting exactly what I posted. Ask someone to help interpret if you are having difficulty with it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Nope. I'm suggeting exactly what I posted. Ask someone to help interpret if you are having difficulty with it.

So now you're claiming you didn't say that health care was free?

Let's check your statement again:

"How much cheaper can healthcare get than free? No one goes without necessary, basic healthcare in this country even if they don't have a dime to their name."

You said "no one" goes w/o necessary, basic health care in the country--even if they have no money.

This is the same thing as saying health care is free to all Americans.

What's to "interpret?"

[watermock]

Emergency medical services are given regardless, even to illegal aliens.

I love the turning of the shrew. All of a sudden it's a mantra. Clinton, Kennedy or Carter didn't bring universal health care. The biggest reform has come in the past 18 months.

Sit down.

[patteeu]

Nope. I'm suggeting exactly what I posted. Ask someone to help interpret if you are having difficulty with it.

So now you're claiming you didn't say that health care was free?

Let's check your statement again:

"How much cheaper can healthcare get than free? No one goes without necessary, basic healthcare in this country even if they don't have a dime to their name."

You said "no one" goes w/o necessary, basic health care in the country--even if they have no money.

This is the same thing as saying health care is free to all Americans.

What's to "interpret?"

"No one goes without necessary, basic healthcare" means that if you need it you will get it. If you have no money, then it is effectively free. If you do have money then you have to pay for it. See how that works? It's free if it needs to be but it doesn't have to be free in all cases to be available. What's so hard to understand? If you still have questions, you can review my existing posts because I'm not going to explain it again.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

"No one goes without necessary, basic healthcare" means that if you need it you will get it. If you have no money, then it is effectively free. If you do have money then you have to pay for it. See how that works? It's free if it needs to be but it doesn't have to be free in all cases to be available. What's so hard to understand? If you still have questions, you can review my existing posts because I'm not going to explain it again.
Millions go without basic healthcare in this country because they CAN'tT afford it, even if they need it! For those who are treated that don't have money and don't lie about their name and address, they are billed and expected to pay their bill.

[bendog]

"there aren't countries anymore, just corporations"

Josh, you do have a way of cutting through the bs,
;)

[enjolras]

Makes sense since the majority of a lot of companies employees are working in China and, Indonesia, India etc...

But those companies are still paying a large amount in taxes here at home.. that was the whole point.

[patteeu]

Millions go without basic healthcare in this country because they CAN'tT afford it, even if they need it! For those who are treated that don't have money and don't lie about their name and address, they are billed and expected to pay their bill.

Cry me a river.

They may go without it, but they don't have to. To get it, all they have to do is be willing to stiff the hospital and live with the non-medical consequences of that action.

Why don't you give me some examples of people who have been denied necessary and basic healthcare since there are "millions" of them?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

But those companies are still paying a large amount in taxes here at home.. that was the whole point.
Some do, some don't.

[alkemical]

Josh, you do have a way of cutting through the bs,
;)


lol dog!


really though, look at some of what companies do or did until the general public became aware...

corvair... meat (did you know that pet food is made from 4d meat... which is made from downed/diseased animals) -

or how coke manipulates workers in south america by hiring gangs to keep them in line...

i mean really we deserve it if this country goes to ****.

look at this thread. divide & conquer works well.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Cry me a river.
What does that mean, are you telling people how compassionate you are?

They may go without it, but they don't have to. To get it, all they have to do is be willing to stiff the hospital and live with the non-medical consequences of that action.

Why don't you give me some examples of people who have been denied necessary and basic healthcare since there are "millions" of them?
Yes they do have to go without it unless they show up at an emergency room with some kind of serious injury or disease. The burden of payment is then passed on to everyone who can pay through higher insurance premiums. Basic health-care is not available to everyone as most people in the U.S. already know except you and who else?

[orinjkrush]

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

So, if the "middle class taxpayer" earns $51k to $75k does that mean double for household income? So the middle class is from 102 to 150k a year?

Everybody knows the Reflubs protect the rich and the Demoniacs, the odd. When can we have a REAL middle class party not headed by some egomaniac like Ross Poirot or Ralph Unsafeatanyspeed? If we really had a middle class party, watch out top and bottom of the socio economic strata: your free riding days are over!

[patteeu]

Yes they do have to go without it unless they show up at an emergency room with some kind of serious injury or disease. The burden of payment is then passed on to everyone who can pay through higher insurance premiums. Basic health-care is not available to everyone as most people in the U.S. already know except you and who else?

That's my point. We don't turn people away from hospitals to die in the gutter in the good ole USA, even if they have no ability to pay. But you are wrong about having to have a serious injury or disease to get treatment. Hospital emergency rooms are filled with people who have sore throats and the flu. Those people get treated just like car accident victims do. You are right about how the burden of payment is shifted, but that's not the point that's being discussed.

No one in the US (including citizens, legal immigrants, and even illegal immigrants) is denied necessary, basic healthcare here. That's a fact. If you want to start another debate about the best method of paying for this universal care, that's fine. But don't confuse the two issues.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You used it as evidence of two things: (1) that the "non-rich" are already paying their fair share of taxes, and (2) that the wealthiest Americans are paying fewer taxes.

This is what the Congressional Budget Office indicates in its report.

The headline "Bush tax cuts favor the wealthy" is pretty unequivocal.

I, for one, will take the word of the CBO over some right-wing foundation pimping voodoo economics/smoke and mirrors anytime.

[kappys]

What people don't get in an ER is preventative care.

So for example, they won't get meds for high cholesterol, blood pressure, etc.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/mw081804.gif

[patteeu]

What people don't get in an ER is preventative care.

So for example, they won't get meds for high cholesterol, blood pressure, etc.

You also can't get organ transplants, cavity fillings, sex change operations, or cosmetic surgery at the emergency room. But these aren't what I'm talking about when I say necessary, basic healthcare.

If you are poor or disabled enough, you are eligible for Medicaid which does cover reasonable amounts of preventative care in addition to the necessary, basic care. If you aren't that poor or disabled, then you get to choose whether you want to devote resources to that kind of care or whether you'd rather go without it.

No one is forced to go without necessary, basic healthcare in this country. To the extent that people can't afford prudent preventative care, that is largely (perhaps completely) a result of the choices that they make in their own lives.

Healthcare isn't a right, IMO. Especially top-notch healthcare.

For those who disagree and think it should be a right, I'm interested to see just how much healthcare we are entitled to. Are we entitled to prescription birth control? Are we entitled to organ transplants? Are we entitled to anti-depressant meds? Are we entitled to have periodic MRI's to screen for cancer and other health issues? Are we entitled to top-of-the-line prosthetic devices? Are we entitled to allergy treatments?

I still haven't heard any examples of people who have been denied necessary basic healthcare.

[patteeu]

You used it as evidence of two things: (1) that the "non-rich" are already paying their fair share of taxes, and (2) that the wealthiest Americans are paying fewer taxes.

This is what the Congressional Budget Office indicates in its report.

The headline "Bush tax cuts favor the wealthy" is pretty unequivocal.

I, for one, will take the word of the CBO over some right-wing foundation pimping voodoo economics/smoke and mirrors anytime.

Does the term "fair share" appear anywhere in the CBO report?

[kappys]

If you are poor or disabled enough, you are eligible for Medicaid which does cover reasonable amounts of preventative care in addition to the necessary, basic care. If you aren't that poor or disabled, then you get to choose whether you want to devote resources to that kind of care or whether you'd
For those who disagree and think it should be a right, I'm interested to see just how much healthcare we are entitled to. Are we entitled to prescription birth control? Are we entitled to organ transplants? Are we entitled to anti-depressant meds? Are we entitled to have periodic MRI's to screen for cancer and other health issues? Are we entitled to top-of-the-line prosthetic devices? Are we entitled to allergy treatments?
.

Well according the European system of health care, you are entitled to the mere basics, with decent perks until the age of 65. At that point they clamp down. Huge waiting lilsts for a new knee, good luck getting an organ. Anything that could remotely be considered a quality of life service is out the door.

[kappys]

You used it as evidence of two things: (1) that the "non-rich" are already paying their fair share of taxes, and (2) that the wealthiest Americans are paying fewer taxes.

This is what the Congressional Budget Office indicates in its report.

The headline "Bush tax cuts favor the wealthy" is pretty unequivocal.

I, for one, will take the word of the CBO over some right-wing foundation pimping voodoo economics/smoke and mirrors anytime.

I'm glad you think the CBO is the end all of accoutning, when it comes to your viewpoint. I'm sure the liberal sites you visit love to pimp the mere basics from their reports. I recall at least one other report from them on malpractice insurance that you sited. I then went to the CBO site and read their report. Come to find out they used a total of TWO studies to support their arguments, one of which focused solely on acute MI(heart attack) care. The report readily admitted that it did not have the scope to give any real usefull information.

In medicine, when I see a metanalysis of studies there had better be more than 2 studies included, unless you've got something covering thousands of patients.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm glad you think the CBO is the end all of accoutning...

So does that mean you have some evidence that would disprove the report's numbers/findings, i.e., that the Chimp's tax cuts favor the wealthy?

[kappys]

I'm glad you think the CBO is the end all of accoutning...

So does that mean you have some evidence that would disprove the report's numbers/findings, i.e., that the Chimp's tax cuts favor the wealthy?

Hmmm... That seems to have been presented but blown off by you already. I feel no need to cut and paste from this thread.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

That seems to have been presented but blown off by you already.

"Blown off" because it was nothing but voodoo economics/smoke and mirrors and didn't really refute the CBO's findings.

http://www.bartcop.com/keepin_safe.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Minneapolis Star-Tribune: Tax shift-The rich did get richer

http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/4937677.html

During a campaign rally in Wisconsin on Wednesday, President Bush recognized a series of local business owners and singled them out as beneficiaries of the three big tax cuts he has pushed through Congress since 2001. "Because they are dreamers and doers, people are working," the president said. It's the same folksy sales pitch Bush has used since the 2000 presidential campaign, linking his tax proposals with Main Street prosperity and the nation's "hard-working families."

But it's hard to square that Middle America rhetoric with a new study which shows that fully one-third of this year's federal tax cut went to the richest 1 percent of taxpayers, and that the Bush tax cuts since 2001 have actually shifted the federal tax burden off the very rich and onto the middle class. The data, contained in and derived from a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), shows how three years of tax cuts have squandered national wealth that could have gone to better purposes and reveals a yawning gap between White House packaging and tax reality.

http://www.bartcop.com/crook.gif

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Presidents And The Stock Market

Does the president affect your portfolio? Candidates would certainly like you to think that the answer is yes, and that the particular candidate doing the talking is better than the other guy.

Over the years, several studies have shown that the stock market has fared markedly better under Democrats than Republicans. (see: "The Presidential Portfolio") The difference, according to Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov, both professors at the University of California Los Angeles Anderson School of Business, is much too large to be random and cannot be explained by fluctuations in the business cycle. Nor can it be explained by higher interest rates in Republican administrations.

The UCLA professors looked at data going back to 1927. Our own study of the post-World War II presidencies confirms their results. We found that the S&P 500 has averaged a total return of 14.1% per year under Democratic presidents since April 1945, and 11.8% under Republicans.

The best total returns--17.4% per year--were under Bill Clinton, whose presidency ranked first in economic results. (see: "Presidents And Prosperity") Gerald R. Ford ranks second, followed by Harry S. Truman.

http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/21/cx_da_0721presidents_print.html

[watermock]

Minneapolis Star-Tribune: Tax shift-The rich did get richer

http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/4937677.html

During a campaign rally in Wisconsin on Wednesday, President Bush recognized a series of local business owners and singled them out as beneficiaries of the three big tax cuts he has pushed through Congress since 2001. "Because they are dreamers and doers, people are working," the president said. It's the same folksy sales pitch Bush has used since the 2000 presidential campaign, linking his tax proposals with Main Street prosperity and the nation's "hard-working families."

But it's hard to square that Middle America rhetoric with a new study which shows that fully one-third of this year's federal tax cut went to the richest 1 percent of taxpayers, and that the Bush tax cuts since 2001 have actually shifted the federal tax burden off the very rich and onto the middle class. The data, contained in and derived from a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), shows how three years of tax cuts have squandered national wealth that could have gone to better purposes and reveals a yawning gap between White House packaging and tax reality.

http://www.bartcop.com/crook.gif

First it's an editorial, not a newspiece, but what's the difference these days, she doesn't bring any hard data, and as has been pointed out, the actual tax revenue from this tax bracket has increased. Of course, this doesn't take into account any other income or sales taxes from increased employment.

Now before you flip your lid, employment is still lagging, there are serious drags on the economy, but the fact is, simple tax at the top end is not the end of the mulitiplier effect, or addition for you.

[patteeu]

Well according the European system of health care, you are entitled to the mere basics, with decent perks until the age of 65. At that point they clamp down. Huge waiting lilsts for a new knee, good luck getting an organ. Anything that could remotely be considered a quality of life service is out the door.

Given the fact that we have back-door insurance now (everyone who has insurance pays for those who get pro bono care), I think something should be done. But I'm not ready to look to the Europeans or to single-payer approaches for a solution. I'm willing to look at what they are doing and learn from it or borrow from it, but I doubt that I would trade our current system for any particular European system.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Mortgage rates dip again

Rates drop when nobody is borrowing

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-08-19-mortgages_x.htm

Interest rates on 30-year mortgages fell again and stayed under 6% for a third straight week, Freddie Mac said Thursday, remaining at their lowest averages since early April.

"Mortgage rates eased even further this week in response to a setback in economic growth during June and possibly July," Frank Nothaft, Freddie Mac vice president and chief economist. "We believe the slowdown to be temporary and we expect growth to pick back up in the second half of this year."

They are lying.

In Monday's USA Today, the headline is:

Economists dial back growth forecasts


This assertion was never true. Because USA Today (and every major media outlet in America) has been screaming "Good times are coming" all year, and now that good times haven't arrived, they cover their tracks by saying "Expected good times fail to materialze," when good times were never expected.

Here is the story they tried to hide:

Economists dial back growth forecasts

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2004-08-22-econ-survey_x.htm

Economic growth will be less robust than expected through 2004, while inflation will be higher, largely due to rising energy prices, according to 61 top [Bush loving] economists surveyed by USA TODAY.

Not everyone is convinced inflation is transitory.

"Energy costs have been so high for so long that businesses aren't confident anymore that they'll fall or fall significantly," says Joel Naroff of Naroff Economic Advisors. "It's made them look toward trying to push through some smaller price increases."

Who thinks oil will be cheaper with two oilmen in the White House?

Why do you think they stole their way to power - to help inner city kids get ahead?

No, they stole power in order to 'Enron' the world the way they did California.

http://www.bartcop.com/bizzaro-w.jpg