Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
like I said...prognoticate all you want about '08... I am guessing that, before the '06 elections, you were not predicting that the republicans would lose the house AND the senate.
So you support raising taxes on the "working class"?
and here I thought libs cared about them? If this is your price stop caring about them, please
I do not know of any legislation that raised taxes on the working class. I do not support such a tax increase.
not a working link.
That was the link I used on the thread
I found the stats here
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11239
an op-ed piece from the grand daddy of conservative rags.
why am I not surprised???
It lays out the tax INCREASES on the middle class very well
It is compassionate of Dems to want to raise the tax rate on the lowest wage earners by 33%
why not post a link to the legislation rather than an oped piece from the american spectator...R.Emmet Tyrell's rag?
I did on the original thread (which you probably saw) but like some government threads it expired
Of courre you ignore the real intent of Dems - to fuck over all workers and take more of their money
So you approve of a 33% rate increase on the working class?
as the article said.................
But the House Democrats' plan is straight out of Walter Mondale's across-the-board tax increase handbook. The bottom income tax rate would jump from 10 percent to 15 percent. More than five million families and individuals with no income tax liability would be added back to the tax rolls.
Come 2011, many families will be hit by a renewed marriage penalty. Consequently, 23 million Americans will then be hit with an average tax increase of $466. That same year, the child tax credit will be cut in half, costing 31 million Americans an average of $859 in more taxes.
When the damage is tallied, 115 million working Americans would watch their taxes climb an average of $1,795, with 26 million small business owners being hit more than twice as hard at $3,960. The fact that these are average figures, incidentally, does not change the reality that taxes paid by middle-class families, not just the richest 1 percent, would be scheduled to go up under the Democratic plan.
Taxpayers won't fare any better under the Senate's budget blueprint. The Heritage Foundation's Brian Riedl estimates that the plan championed by Democratic Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad would raise taxes by $2,641 per household over the next ten years. All of the Bush tax cuts would either expire in 2011 or have to be offset by tax increases elsewhere, in order to extract nearly $900 billion more from the private economy than under current tax rates.
Conrad's proposal would also bias the budget rules in favor of higher taxes. "Any Senator offering legislation to extend current tax rates," Riedl writes, "would be 'violating' four different Senate budget rules, each of which would require 60 votes to overcome before the Senate would even be allowed to vote on the legislation itself."
Entitlement spending, by contrast, would continue to grow on auto pilot. So much for budgetary restraint.
Many Democrats deny that they are actually raising taxes. The Bush tax cuts are already scheduled to expire in 2011 under current law. And the alternative minimum tax is already scheduled to gobble up another 19 million taxpayers this year without Democratic intervention.
Yet anything that forces taxpayers to pay more than under the rates already in place is, in effect, a tax increase. This is doubly the case when there are competing budget proposals on the table that would keep taxes from rising. Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the House Budget Committee's top Republican, would preserve the Bush tax cuts while cutting spending.
if you got something other than an oped piece...now would be a good time to post it
Considering you must have read the actual bill - you posted on the thread
http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=47906
what are you talking about?
in none of my posts from that thread, do I post a link to any bill
Look numbnuts, I posted the actual bill on the first post of my thread
Either you blindly posted without reading the bill or now you are suffering from selective memory loss
and you do admit that YOU posted the link and not me...Look numbnuts, I posted the actual bill on the first post of my thread
Either you blindly posted without reading the bill or now you are suffering from selective memory loss
do you know how to use Thomas?
yes or no?
Did you read the link before you posted?
Or are you trying not to admit the Dems are out to fuck all taxpayers once again?
I didn't post the link...you did....
