Even if your facts are true, and I'm not in the slightest assuming they are, you are being obtuse about it. As has been said, the average person in the bottom 20% didn't pay any federal taxes at all. For the next 20%, you are completely out of touch to downplay almost $500 tax relief.

Why? Have you ever tried to make sure you have an extra $500 laying around in April, when you only make about $30k? I have. Usually, that $500 might as well have been $5000.

Second, you pretend that $4000+ saved by the top 1% amounts to a damned thing. You constantly refer to the smallest slice of wealthiest people, never realizing that they are a REALLY SMALL SLICE. The total amount of government revenue lost by the government because of that $500 or so saved by the bottom 40% DWARFS the amount the government makes off that 4k from the 1% fatcats.

So, the Dems you so love are coming in with no intention of cutting anything, and with a lot of pork lined up for the pals back home. Who do they want to screw, do you think, 1% of the population? Hell no, there's no money in that. They'll want my $500, and they'll get it.

BakerStreet

I did not say the tax cuts for the low to average income taxpayer were not important to them. They have helped keep spending by these groups up. The issue is that the VAST majority of the Tax Cuts will go to the top 20% who average over $200,000 per year. That is the group that DOES NOT NEED the added money from tax cuts and where that vast majority of the lost tax revenue goes. That is also the group that will not alter their spending to any significant extent by resending their tax cuts.

That is why the Democrats should make the Tax Cuts for the 80% Permanent and END the tax cuts for the top 20% and apply the tax revenue from ending the tax cuts to the top 20% to balance the budget!
The data is as accurate as the Congressional Budget Office.

The data is as accurate as the Congressional Budget Office.

Which, if memory serves me correctly, I believe you have used them as a source before, and stated they were credible.

"That is the group that DOES NOT NEED the added money from tax cuts and where that vast majority of the lost tax revenue goes."

No, but you need it, and I need it. I need their wealth to be in the bank when I need a loan. I need their wealth invested in industries that offer employment for people like me. I need them buying lots of expensive property that generates local tax income to pay for the services I use.

You pretend they put it in a mattress and sleep on it. It's an ignorant and inexcusable perspective. You take that money, and dump it in the government who uses it to further penalize ME, not the wealthy. Beware Democrats Bearing Gifts

This sounds very familiar.  I believe I have heard this somewhere here before.

Col, you really need to stop telling everyone who needs what in this country.  All you talk about is they "don't need" a tax cut without anything to back it up. I see it didn't take long for the raise taxes crowd to swing into gear.

I need their wealth invested in industries that offer employment for people like me.

That's something I've wondered.

We get things going so that companies have more money, to expand and creat jobs...so we think. What is to ensure that they will do that, and not line their pockets?

"We get things going so that companies have more money, to expand and creat jobs...so we think. What is to ensure that they will do that, and not line their pockets?"

Again, you assume they keep the money in their "pockets". They don't. Greed is universal. No one is satisfied with what they have.

So, they invest the money. They expand their businesses. They put it in the bank to draw interest. They buy things made by me and you. Regardless that money is in the economy working for me and you.

The Col prefers to rob the economy of capital.

Again, you assume they keep the money in their "pockets". They don't. Greed is universal. No one is satisfied with what they have. So, they invest the money. They expand their businesses. They put it in the bank to draw interest. They buy things made by me and you. Regardless that money is in the economy working for me and you.

Sorry, I should've noted that it was a figure of speech.

Okay, gotcha.

As to the wealthy using the money from the Bush Tax Cuts to create new business and thus Jobs, first, companies are moving good paying jobs to other countries and creating jobs that pay far less in the U.S. If you believe by allowing the wealthy to keep their Bush tax cuts that will some how help the majority in America you are in dream land. Much of that tax cut to the top 20-% will just make the top 20% wealthier with NO benefit to anyone but themselves. The tax rates after rescinding the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy will be the same rates that existed in the 1990’s which for the most part was the BEST economic period in a long time. Thus the OLD tax rates on the wealthy were NOT TOO HIGH!

The most important reason to rescind the tax cuts to the top 20% is to use that tax revenue to lower the deficit. That will do more then anything to help the economy of this country. The debt is a disaster that will take the money from the federal budget needed for Social Security and Medicare. If we do not reduce the interest by lowering the national debt, we will see some major tax increases to pay the Baby Boomer Social Security and Medicare benefits.

I believe the data used in this study to be accurate and trust the data from CBO.

"Jobs, first, companies are moving good paying jobs to other countries and creating jobs that pay far less in the U.S.

So we'd better raise wages and taxes here so they'll be less tempted to move to places with lower wages and less punitive taxes. Hrm, yep, that's a perspective.

"If you believe by allowing the wealthy to keep their Bush tax cuts that will some how help the majority in America you are in dream land. Much of that tax cut to the top 20-% will just make the top 20% wealthier with NO benefit to anyone but themselves. "

Ah, so they light their cigars with it? Could you try to make your catchphrases a little more empty? I bet you can't.

"The tax rates after rescinding the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy will be the same rates that existed in the 1990’s which for the most part was the BEST economic period in a long time."

And the decline and fall of the 90's boom shows just how sustainable such an economy is when leeches are standing by to drain off the excess. The moment we have any sort of prosperity the greedy "fairness" cretins decide to throw on the brakes.

Can't have people getting too wealthy and creating all these jobs. No, can't have that. Better continually raise interest rates and start talking about 'responsibility' so people will be too frightened to venture their capital. Don't laud the boom and then vilify the people who created it.

"The most important reason to rescind the tax cuts to the top 20% is to use that tax revenue to lower the deficit. "

Yes, the way to deal with your spending out pacing your income is to demand that your neighbors pay for your malfeasance. Heck, while you're at it why not expand all those failed socialist programs at the same time so you can make matters worse.

To balance the budget will require BOTH more tax revenue and spending cuts. You will not balance the budget with JUST spending cuts given the demands for security and national defense. The imbalance to too big to resolve without BOTH spending Cuts and added tax revenue!

Many of The Bolger’s on JoeUser are just like Bush, you want to fight a war and provide for homeland defense and cut taxes. NEVER in our history have we fought a major war without increasing taxes to pay the added cost of the war prior to GWB. As Bush 41 said - Voodoo economics. I wonder where Bush learned his fiscal and economic management. I doubt that is what Harvard Grad School taught!

Oct. Budget Deficit Higher Than Last Yr.
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER (AP Economics Writer)
From Associated Press
November 13, 2006 2:52 PM EST
WASHINGTON - The federal government started out its new budget year with a slightly higher deficit than last year as revenues and spending for October both set records.

The Treasury Department reported that the deficit for October totaled $49.3 billion, up 4.3 percent from the $47.3 billion imbalance recorded a year ago.

The budget deficit for the 2006 budget year, which ended on Sept. 30, dropped to a four-year low of $248.2 billion. However, the deficit for the current 2007 budget year is expected to resume rising.

For October, the $49.3 billion deficit was below the all-time October high of $70 billion set in 2003. The government has run a deficit every year in October going back to 1954.

Revenues for October were up 12.2 percent from last year to a record $167.7 billion, surpassing the old October record of $157 billion set in 2001.

Spending for October was up 10.3 percent from a year ago to a record for October of $217 billion.

Congress returned for a lame-duck session Monday faced with the need to pass a stopgap funding measure since lawmakers adjourned for the campaign having passed only two of the 13 appropriations bills needed to fund the government in the new budget year.

Democrats, who will control the House and Senate next year based on last week's election results, would like to complete the rest of the spending bills this year, rather than having them on their early agenda in 2007.

President Bush said his first-term tax cuts, by helping to get the country out of the 2001 recession, had played a major role in the 2006 improvement of the deficit.

But critics contend that the added economic stimulus made up only a small part of the revenues lost by the tax cuts. The new Congress will face the question of whether to extend Bush's tax cuts, which currently are scheduled to end in 2010.

The Bush administration is estimating that the deficit for the current budget year will total $339.2 billion, a sharp 36.7 percent increase from 2006. However, the Congressional Budget Office is projecting a smaller increase which will push this year's deficit to $286 billion.

Bush has presided over the three largest deficits in U.S. history in dollar terms including the all-time high of $413 billion in 2004.

---

"President Bush said his first-term tax cuts, by helping to get the country out of the 2001 recession, had played a major role in the 2006 improvement of the deficit."

It's interesting that almost everyone admits that the Clinton era ended in a recession but you, Col. Yet you spend all your time touting how much better the world was under your ideal. In reality, your ideal gutted one of the most prosperous periods in recent economic history.

This guy shows his stupidity in the first 11 line:

Oct. Budget Deficit Higher Than Last Yr. By MARTIN CRUTSINGER (AP Economics Writer) From Associated Press November 13, 2006 2:52 PM EST WASHINGTON - The federal government started out its new budget year with a slightly higher deficit than last year as revenues and spending for October both set records. The Treasury Department reported that the deficit for October totaled $49.3 billion, up 4.3 percent from the $47.3 billion imbalance recorded a year ago. The budget deficit for the 2006 budget year, which ended on Sept. 30, dropped to a four-year low of $248.2 billion. However, the deficit for the current 2007 budget year is expected to resume rising.

How can you start out with a higher deficit and turn around and say it's "expected" to rise? If it hasn't risen yet then how can you start out with a higher one? In other words, they "don't" know whether it's going to go up or not.