Maybe I should start voting democrat?
Perhaps you should, or at least admit you do. You sound like Pelosi, Reid and Obama. Schumer, Turbin and Kerry. I highly doubt you vote Republican.
It is the ubercons like yourself who borrow from future taxpayers so you can have a nice life today.
The class warfare card hauled out again, and look who is right there at your side... CC and Glinda. Two unapologetic Lefties... My, the company you keep.
Let's see who pays what:
The top 1% pay 39% of the tax burden.
The Top 25% pay 86%.
Source: IRS
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html
Every Democrat running for President wants to raise taxes on "the rich," but they will have to do something miraculous to outtax President Bush.
Based on the latest available tax data, no Administration in modern history has done more to pry tax revenue from the wealthy.
Last week the Congressional Budget Office joined the IRS in releasing tax numbers for 2005, and part of the news is that
the richest 1% paid about 39% of all income taxes that year. The richest 5% paid a tad less than 60%, and the richest 10% paid 70%.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html?_r=1
By contrast,
families in the bottom 40 percent of income earners, those with incomes below $36,300, typically paid no federal income tax and received money back from the government. That so-called negative income tax stemmed mainly from the earned-income tax credit, a program that benefits low-income parents who are employed.
Yes DEMS tax and spend, but for really heavy duty impact on deficts and national debt, it takes a republican to sacrifice our children on the altar of nation building. Both Bush presidencies spent money on wars for no discernible gain.
Folks, what we have here is Neville Chamberlain UtahBill.
Gulf War I stopped Saddam from cornering and disrupting the ME oil supply. And it was Libs who complained Bush 41 didn't go in and finish the job. His UN Mandate was to remove Saddam from Kuwait. Saddam failed to disarm as agreed.
Enter Clinton.
He let the Inspecteurs de la UN get kicked out, and left that for the next president to handle. He handed over Saddam's case to the UN. As those who may have forgotten, Clinton had a spine of linguini... constantly obsessed with polls and his "legacy" instead of doing what was right and may have been tough.
And no other than Hans Blix stated Saddam had WMD, and weaponized WMD; Anthrax and VX. Saddam was in violation of UN 687 and 1441... repeatedly. 12-years and 911 changed things, and every despot was looking to the US.
JANUARY 27, 2003
Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix delivered his inspections report to the United Nations in New York on Monday morning. This is an edited transcript of his remarks.
The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.
Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tons, and that the quality was poor and the product unstable.
Consequently,
it was said that the agent was never weaponized.
Iraq said that the small quantity of [the] agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.
UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account.
http://articles.cnn.com/2003-01-27/...chief-un-weapons-inspector-unmovic/7?_s=PM:US
Strange that Senate Dems asked for a second vote to go to war, got it and voted in the positive... TWICE.
Strange how the Dems had sung about Saddam's threats for years and Clinton was preparing the nation for war... sending Def Sec Cohen to TV to educate the public about the huge threats a small amount of Anthrax could cause.
What was that about Bush 43 again?
David Kay stated before the USASC in the Senate, that we were lucky to dodge a bullet, if we did.
Now, your Neville Chamberlain world view could have resulted in tens, hundreds or millions of Americans or western Europeans dead. The Germans feared a biological attack that they estimated could kill 25 million.
So what did Bush 43 achieve (we know what 41 did):
1. Saddam isn't a threat any longer.
2. Reconstituting his WMD programs are dead.
3. We broke up a Nuke Black Market.
4. Libya handed over its WMD materials.
5. There is a democracy in the ME.
6. We centralized the fight against the terrorists and did major damage to them.
And as far as your trying to score political points with your disgusting drivel about the troops being sacrificed on the alter, it's just that... disgusting drivel.
Bush said he wouldn't nation build, but 911 changed that. He changed along the same lines Einstein renounced pacifism. It's called using your brain.
How you gonna pay for that ? Cut taxes? yeah, that's the tickekt...
I've posted JFK's NY Economic speech in 1962 many times, but will do it again for you and other class warfare Libs seem to be economic illiterates.
1. Government is too big.
2. Higher taxation hurts job growth... and today like no other time, people, their money and businesses can pack up and leave. Just look at NY for what has resulted from their prognostications of higher revenue from higher taxes. And Nucor was planning to set up plants in Louisiana but waited a year because they were looking to overseas possibilities due to hostile US taxation. I'm sure many have made the calculation and decided to invest outside the US.
Now to JFK
We shall, therefore, neither postpone our tax cut plans nor cut into essential national security programs. This administration is determined to protect America's security and survival and we are also determined to step up its economic growth. I think we must do both.
Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions, and any new recession would break all deficit records.
In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.
I repeat: our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and a budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy; or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve--and I believe this can be done--a budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness; the second reflects an investment in the future.
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset+Tree/Asset+Viewers/Audio+Video+Asset+Viewer.htm?guid={A138FFB8-5B6A-4C6A-A8CC-70C6E4FF39DA}&type=Audio
We need reduce rates on corporations, and go back to the Reagan era tax rates, and this time cut and gut government, for as Reagan so eloquently stated...
GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM.
But you and CC and Glinda love it so... (Love story music plays in the background.)
.