$400 Billion Tax Hike

[melman]

I'm taking this from today's column by Robert Novack. Over the next 5 years the Democratic majority is proposing an increase in spending of 2.4% over the next three years.
The breakdown of the bill on the House floor today (resembling the Senate version) raises taxes an average of $1,795 on 115 million taxpayers in 2011. Some 26 million small business owners would average $3,960 more in taxes. The decreased number of Americans actually subject to income taxes will all be paying higher taxes, and 5 million low income Americans will be returned to the rolls.
One of the things I do not like about the Bush and Republican time in office has been the wild spending, however I do not think this is the way to correct that problem. If you agree call your representive and call your senator. We as a people both Democrats and Republicans HAVE to do better.

[melman]

BTW there is another proposal out there. Rep Paul Ryan R-Wisconsin has a alternative resolution. It retains Bush tax cuts but also proposes deep reductions in spending, protects Social Security payments and runs down the national debt. I will have to surf the net to get details of both proposal's. My basic message to BOTH parties>>>>>>Cut spending.

[Tom]

Dems do two things well:

Tax
Comfort the enemy

[eclecticapper]

...which is two more than you do well.

[Secretariat]

Melman,

I hope you're right and they do raise taxes on the rich. Somebody's got to pay for this debt amassed over the last seven years GW accumulated in Iraq.

Especially in lieu of this article, it looks like the wealthy have made more than thier fair share back to coff up a litle to reduce the free ride GW's gave them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Income Gap Is Widening, Data Shows

By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: March 29, 2007

Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 — receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.

The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.

While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.

The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.

The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. (emphasis added...My God, think about that.) Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.

....

Yea, they can afford to help pay for the Iraq War especially since so few of their children are over in Iraq actually risking their lives.

[Tom]

...which is two more than you do well.
Ouch!

[melman]

Sec

The tax increase will effect 115 million Americans. Your not trying to say that there are that many rich people are you?

[melman]

Sec

BTW included in that group of very rich peope are such names as Soros, Kennedy, Gore, and Edwards just to mention a few. Not every rich person is a conservative Republican as I am sure you well know. Also a tax increase on SMALL business does not bother you?? If the intent is to just place more taxes on large business and the rich then why not write a bill that does just that?

[Secretariat]

Sec

BTW included in that group of very rich peope are such names as Soros, Kennedy, Gore, and Edwards just to mention a few.

Yet all three of these very rich people have no problem with raising taxes on themselves. Interesting.

btw.. did you read the Times article.

[melman]

I'm glad to hear that they support increased taxes on themselves. Maybe they will put pressure on the Democratic controlled House to revise there own tax bill so that the top 1% are the ones getting a tax increase. The article states that under that bill 5 MILLION LOW INCOME Americans will be returned to the tax rolls. Surely you can not support such a bill.

[Tom]

Yet all three of these very rich people have no problem with raising taxes on themselves. Interesting.

btw.. did you read the Times article.

Nor do they have issue swith contributing to GW by using carbon trade offs. Meanwhile, Bush sets the standard for enviro-friendly homes. Bush is doing more to really, physically, help the world while Gore....talks about it, Kennedy refuses to allow GW to get in thw way of his view ( no windmills in YM yard!).
:lol::lol::lol:

[Racer98]

We're broke. We NEED to raise taxes or else the country will go bankrupt.

[Secretariat]

I'm glad to hear that they support increased taxes on themselves. Maybe they will put pressure on the Democratic controlled House to revise there own tax bill so that the top 1% are the ones getting a tax increase. The article states that under that bill 5 MILLION LOW INCOME Americans will be returned to the tax rolls. Surely you can not support such a bill.

Well, there are two problems before commenting..

1. You said the article is by Bob "Traitor" Novak.

2. You posed no link for us to read the article to peruse even his argument.

3. As the times article and statisitcs clearly demonstrated the people who have benefitted the most over the Bush years have been the super-rich.

Democrats have gone on record stating the beleive the rich should pay mroe taxes for awhile. No big surprise there. The issue of taxing lower class citizens I have never heard stated from anyone. So excuse me if I take your non-linked reference to a Novak article as proof. GW's provided a free ride for the rich over the last seven years. Of course someone is going to have to pay the credit card. with accumulated interest for the non-fiscally responsible conservative administration we are currently experiencing.

[melman]

This new tax bill proposed by the Democratic controlled House does not "go after the rich" which I have heard over and over is what they want to do. If you really do want to tax the top 1 or 2% then by all means write a tax bill that does just that. There are not 115 million Americans in that group of 1 or 2%. And why the increase on SMALL business and why not just tax the multi-national corp's? Adding 5 million low income Ameicans to the tax rolls hardly seems like the Democrats are "going after the rich". I really doubt that Novack could just make this up to many people read his column.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/RobertDNovak/2007/03/29/tax_and_spend

[JustRalph]

melman! Right on! you took the words right out of my mouth.......... :ThmbUp:

[Tom]

Democrats have gone on record stating the beleive the rich should pay mroe taxes for awhile.

They ALREADY shoulder the majority of the tax burden in this country. And tax cuts equal more revenue. The dems have math issues.

[Secretariat]

I really doubt that Novack could just make this up to many people read his column.


Of course he could just make it up! He's done it before. Type "Novak lie" in google and search. There are countless examples of the traitor lying.

When you have something reputable post it, none of Novak's nonsense.

Why not post Conrad's remarks? I generally post Republicans to refute claims such as this. When you post a Democrat claiming the same as Novak get back to me. He has zero credilbility.

And Tom, read the link from the NY Times I posted. Are you one of the super rich?

...

"The Republican Congress is spending at twice the rate as under Bill Clinton, and President Bush has yet to issue a single veto. I complained about profligate spending during the Clinton years but never thought I'd have to do so with a Republican in the White House and Republicans controlling the Congress." - Paul M. Weyrich, national chairman of Coalitions for America

"The costs for the Medicare drug bill are now estimated to be $1.2 trillion, three times the estimates made by Bush's team at the time it was passed.
Bush's new budget does not include costs for the Iraq War, the necessary fix in the Alternative Minimum Tax supported by both parties or his proposed Social Security reforms. Basically, it's a joke. Also, the Bush administration ended the practice of 10-year projections and now only gives 5-year projections. Bush's tax cuts kick in after the fifth year, so that the temporary decrease in the deficit claimed by Bush evaporates after the fifth year when the deficit explodes. So, his five-year projections are bogus because of the costs he leaves out, and even if they were accurate, they're misleading because the deficit will explode again after five years as a result of his tax cuts. If any CEO signed of on financials like this, they would be joining the Enron crooks in prison. What a mess."

- Senator Kent Conrad