how liberals celebrate 4th of july

[red states rule]

Interesting, and very insightful.

My understanding is the tax cuts were across the board, if the democrats repealed them, people who are not rich would be hurt wouldnt they?

My understanding is that the wealthy do pay the most taxes, maineman, what percentage of their income do you want them to pay, and based on what criteria?

My question to you rsr is: yes, the uninsured can get emergency care, but wouldnt they be better off with preventitive care, if we could afford it, keep word if lol. I am simply saying, if we could actually trust the government to do what it says, if they raised taxes, By the way, does anyone know about health savings accounts, could those help people?

rsr, at the current status in iraq, how long are you willing to stay if nothing changes?. At some point, if things do not improve enough, to what level, i do not know, what do we do?. Do we even consider a change in strategy?

Here is the facts about the Dems tax increase.

The Senate Budget: A $2,641 Per Household Tax Increase and No Entitlement Reforms
by Brian M. Riedl
WebMemo #1405
The Senate Democrats, writing their first budget resolution since winning control in Congress last fall, have produced a budget blueprint that:

Raises taxes by $900 billion over five years and a projected $3.3 trillion over ten years;
Translates into a tax increase of $2,641 per household annually over the next decade;
Includes 22 reserve funds that could be used to raise taxes by hundreds of billions more;
Increases discretionary spending by nearly 9 percent in FY 2008 and does not terminate a single program;
Completely ignores the impending tsunami of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs;
Creates rules that bias the budget toward tax increases; and
Employs the same gimmicks that Congress criticized the President for using in his budget proposal.
The House budget resolution projects nearly the same 2008-2012 tax revenue as the Senate and would increase discretionary spending by an additional $69 billion. This paper focuses on the Senate's irresponsible budget blueprint.

$2,641 Per Household Tax Increase

The Senate budget projects 2008-2012 tax revenues of $15,007 billion—$899 billion higher than the $14,108 that would be collected under today's tax rates. The Senate Budget Committee does not specify the source of these higher revenues. However, the total almost exactly matches the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate of 2008-2012 tax revenues if the Bush tax cuts expire, all other temporary tax cuts expire, and the alternative minimum tax (AMT) is not fixed ($15,002 billion).[1]

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) has stated that his budget would allow some of the current tax cuts to be extended as long as they are offset (specifically, fixing the AMT through 2008). However, increasing some tax rates as the price of keeping other tax policies unchanged is still a tax increase. And while Senator Conrad has also asserted that large amounts of revenue could be found by closing the tax gap, anything more than a few billion dollars annually seems overly optimistic considering the harsh methods needed to increase compliance. Either way, the Senate budget would seize $899 billion more from Americans than is taken under today's tax rates.

for the complete article

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1405.cfm

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Thank You for answering the question.

Here is the facts about the Dems tax increase.

The Senate Budget: A $2,641 Per Household Tax Increase and No Entitlement Reforms
by Brian M. Riedl
WebMemo #1405
The Senate Democrats, writing their first budget resolution since winning control in Congress last fall, have produced a budget blueprint that:

Raises taxes by $900 billion over five years and a projected $3.3 trillion over ten years;
Translates into a tax increase of $2,641 per household annually over the next decade;
Includes 22 reserve funds that could be used to raise taxes by hundreds of billions more;
Increases discretionary spending by nearly 9 percent in FY 2008 and does not terminate a single program;
Completely ignores the impending tsunami of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs;
Creates rules that bias the budget toward tax increases; and
Employs the same gimmicks that Congress criticized the President for using in his budget proposal.
The House budget resolution projects nearly the same 2008-2012 tax revenue as the Senate and would increase discretionary spending by an additional $69 billion. This paper focuses on the Senate's irresponsible budget blueprint.

$2,641 Per Household Tax Increase

The Senate budget projects 2008-2012 tax revenues of $15,007 billion—$899 billion higher than the $14,108 that would be collected under today's tax rates. The Senate Budget Committee does not specify the source of these higher revenues. However, the total almost exactly matches the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate of 2008-2012 tax revenues if the Bush tax cuts expire, all other temporary tax cuts expire, and the alternative minimum tax (AMT) is not fixed ($15,002 billion).[1]

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) has stated that his budget would allow some of the current tax cuts to be extended as long as they are offset (specifically, fixing the AMT through 2008). However, increasing some tax rates as the price of keeping other tax policies unchanged is still a tax increase. And while Senator Conrad has also asserted that large amounts of revenue could be found by closing the tax gap, anything more than a few billion dollars annually seems overly optimistic considering the harsh methods needed to increase compliance. Either way, the Senate budget would seize $899 billion more from Americans than is taken under today's tax rates.

for the complete article

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1405.cfm

 

[red states rule]

Thank You for answering the question.

I am looking forward to MM's lame attempt at trying to spin it

 

[maineman]

Thank You for answering the question.

ANM: You are aware, are you not, that the Heritage foundation is a renowned conservative think tank and the use of "per household" figures is intentionally deceiving? If I give you a two thousand dollar tax cut and I give the rich guy next door a four thousand dollar tax increase, in Heritagespeak, that is a two thousand dollar per household increase. You did understand that, didn't you?

 

[red states rule]

ANM: You are aware, are you not, that the Heritage foundation is a renowned conservative think tank and the use of "per household" figures is intentionally deceiving? If I give you a two thousand dollar tax cut and I give the rich guy next door a four thousand dollar tax increase, in Heritagespeak, that is a two thousand dollar per household increase. You did understand that, didn't you?

As I said, lame attempt to spin (and lie) for the Dems. Even retired folks will see their taxes increase MM

Is this the compassion libs always say they have for people?

 

[Care4all]

I think the religious right, needs to calm down a bit. If the choice is between hillary and rudy, they better get off their arrogant ass, and vote for rudy. Since when does a candidate have to agree with everything you stand for.

That sounds more like intellectual elitism, and its not just the right, so please dont start /

No. It has to do with a choice of choosing, "The Lesser of Two EVILS", and I think that they may choose.... to not support either EVIL.

And yes, the Religious Right has ALWAYS been an "issue" voting block. President Bush got elected and reelected with this voting block going to the polls to cast their vote.

It would be extremely hypocritical of them to cast away their values and ethics, just to support a political party.

If they do this, I will be very surprised...because they will be choosing their political party OVER their Christian Values.... I just don't see the majority of them doing this, though I agree that some will.

I am uncertain if they would want this on their shoulders Martin, voting for the lesser of two EVILS.

Care

 

[red states rule]

No. It has to do with a choice of choosing, "The Lesser of Two EVILS", and I think that they may choose.... to not support either EVIL.

And yes, the Religious Right has ALWAYS been an "issue" voting block. President Bush got elected and reelected with this voting block going to the polls to cast their vote.

It would be extremely hypocritical of them to cast away their values and ethics, just to support a political party.

If they do this, I will be very surprised...because they will be choosing their political party OVER their Christian Values.... I just don't see the majority of them doing this, though I agree that some will.

I am uncertain if they would want this on their shoulders Martin, voting for the lesser of two EVILS.

Care

The thought of Pres Hillary with a Dem Congress is enough to scare anyone who believes in the US Constitution and make the terrorists giddy