How much do the poor actualy pay in taxes anyhow? seriously. the rich by far benefited the most from the Bush tax cuts and with the lack of government funding for the the poor and the programs that benefit them they paid the price. Ok so they got a buck or two more in their meager paychecks but lost out on food stamps, collage aid, day care etc etc. Heck the middle class took it on the chin as well highway funds were cut, roads and bridges fell into disrepair etc etc. In every statistic available the rich got richer and the poor got poorer and somehow the elites have managed to convince a great many people that this is a good thing.

problem is not the tax cut

the problem is every special interest group applies for their own exemption (yes moveon and George Soros included) so that there are so many loopholes that it doesnt really matter what the tax rate on the rich is. They dont pay it anyway. Tax law and accounting is a trillion dollar industry based soley on using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law and the blame for that falls squarely on Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike. They are the same, just sold out to different special interests

and demonizing one over the other is dishonest and just a indication of which group a person has sold out to

I think you need an economics/finance lesson because that is so far from how it happened that the post is laughable. I/ve tried explaining it before but your ignorance, lack of comprehension, or bias always get in the way.

This topic sure is sidesteppin'!

The topic started out about a countries disregard for human rights. It got changed real quick when other countries who abuse human rights.
How come?

If one country, who our leaders are down on their knees to, is above reproach, I see no valid reason to condemn other countries.

It's hypocritical.

Only in your indoctrinated brainwashed mind Andrew

I didnt hear you complain when Bush Jr kissed the Sauidi King on the lips

We only have two games in town right now. I dont think I am a hardcore democrat but being no viable alternative I tend to go along with the party that isnt in denial about global warming is pro worker and human rights and is all for pro choice and didnt start a war based on lies. I am sure without a doubt I could eaisily vote or support any viable party that would stand up to the economic elites that own and control congress.

1- You weren't listening.
2- I didn't know you then.

So, do you believe it's ok for Hussein and Hillerbeans to be kissin' Commie a$$, knowing full well, their history, both past and present, of human rights abuses?

Being that you think that 2001 was the best economy we've ever seen, yeah, you have no idea. Throwing good money after bad does not fix things. You obviously have no clue so I'll just stop here. I've argued it time and time again and being that you cannot even argue the opposing arguments based on fact, this argument would be wasted on you. again.

I think Andrew that y our best argument should start with an apology to the entire country and world for enabling war criminals and possibly humbly excuseing yourself from all future debates since for 8 years we tried it your way and a great economy was turned to rubble. A once thriving middle class made homeless etc etc. I think twenty years from now most people will lie and say they never supported the republican party.

Dont know, it seems the economic winner must be communism since they own our butts. If capitalism were the best we would own them correct? I personaly would rather see a social democracy here in the states rather than a comunistic dictatorship but who knowes what the future will bring. I know we are in deep crap right now and the Chinese basicly call the shots economicly. they could probably break us if they called in the debt but that would break their export based economy. It will probably be a soft landing but we wont land on top.

huh? did i miss something here? We have never had it my way. but once again, here you go skirting an argument by attacking me.

How about backing up your claim that 2001 was a great economic time? You said it but have offered no justification for it.

Or even better, tell me how it was predictable that this would all happen over a few tax cuts. If it was so predictable to you, then surely you can cite a few major points along the way where this was becoming more and more evident to yourself. I know what they were, but they were hardly partisan.

Or even better still, tell me how we weren't broke in the first place, long before W, Clinton, Bush Sr. Reagan, or any of them took office. I really need a laugh.

Maybe provide backup for your claim that "bridges and roads fell into despair" and that the poor lost out on all these social programs because of the tax cuts. I mean, you must have a source for this.

And the source of much hilarity, how are the Dems actually standing up to big business? You know, AIG, for example. How about a few examples here?

The thing is, you cannot. You never have, and you never will. So if you're not going to respond with an answer, please, just don't hit "reply."

President Clinton announces another record budget surplus
From CNN White House Correspondent Kelly Wallace

September 27, 2000
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.

"Eight years ago, our future was at risk," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Economic growth was low, unemployment was high, interest rates were high, the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion."


President Clinton announces that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 is the largest in U.S. history

Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone.

This represents, Clinton said, "the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States."
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

Borrowing billions upon billions from yourself (aka, printing money) to make ends meet is not a surplus. The debt has not fallen since Jackson was president.

The economic situation was extremely favorable in perspective with our history... much like post WWII America. THAT is what lowered the deficit but it never completely eliminated it. By raising taxes in times of great economic growth, you make large quantities of cash. However, when that growth abruptly stopped in 2000, the money did too. Cutting the taxes back at that point yielded under $150B a year loss of income to the feds. Even the additional costs associated with the wars didn't make the two equivalent of the deficit in those years. There was more afoot and it was nothing but the usual bullsh*t politics in washington FROM BOTH SIDES

Thanks for playing. Care to try again?

I am sort of wondering were it said the debt was reduced by printing money? The reductions were real and a historical fact beyond disupute.

Today, the Office of Management Budget projected a $296 billion federal deficit for fiscal year 2006. Bush held a press conference arguing that this is a vindication of his economic policies.

Actually, it would be the fourth largest deficit of all time. Here’s the top five:

1. 2004 (George W. Bush) $413 billion
2. 2003 (George W. Bush) $378 billion
3. 2005 (George W. Bush) $318 billion
4. 2006 (George W. Bush) $296 billion (projected)
5. 1992 (George H. W. Bush) $290 billion

When President Bush came into office, he inherited a surplus of $284 Billion. At that time, the Bush administration predicted a $516 billion surplus for 2006.

The fact that Bush now considers a $296 billion deficit an occasion to celebrate shows
how far we’ve fallen.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/11/fourth-largest-deficit/

printed or borrowed, it's all the same mess. by writing IOUs to the social security and medicare trusts, all you do is postpone debt. if you are constantly spending more than you are taking in, where does that repayment come from? You either have to borrow more or print money when the IOU comes due. borrowing on a temporary basis would work but that would require fiscal dicipline in good times and as you can tell, the lobbyists and politicians will have none of that.

This is not about who's deficit was worse. i admit that the Bush Administration's deficit was one of the worst in history. There is no dispute there. It was, however, not directly the cause of where we are now. Either way, this is about your argument. Try to focus here.

I'll take you back to kindergarden for a second and remind you that two wrongs still don't make a right. You can kick and scream all you want, the fact is, ANY politician you support is killing our nation.

I already know what your answer will be, but if you were so pissed about the tax cuts, how come you never bitched about any of the bailouts? IIRC, you actually argued for them...

Speaking of kindergarden....This is hilarious.

All I seem to see around here is a whole bunch of " He started it "...." Nuh uh...HE started it ".

Guess what...it doesn't matter WHO started it.

The fact is that we, as a country, are in deep shite and there doesn't seem to be any real plan of action to get us out of it.

Printing money to give to everyone in an attempt to " stimulate " the economy is doing nothing but creating more and more debt that our kids and grand kids and THEIR grand kids are gonna be stuck trying to pay off.

another one who gets it.