In a huge deficit environment, this is all borrowed money we're getting back. My personal problem with it is that I get back $110, which will fill my gas tank twice, and my good pal Bill Gates gets $41,977 back. But my kids will be paying the interest on this for the rest of their lives... to the Saudis and the Chinese.

Breakdown of WHO gets WHAT:

Income = Average tax saving
---------------------------------
$10,000-20,000 = $2
$20,000-30,000 = 9
$30,000-40,000 = 16
$40,000-50,000 = 46
$50,000-75,000 = 110
$75,000-100,000 = 403
$100,000-200,000 = 1,388
$200,000-500,000 = 4,499
$500,000-1 million = 5,562
More than $1 million = 41,977

Tax cuts in a time of war? Very UNpatriotic. And again, with our huge deficit, this is all BORROWED money, with interest payable to oil sheiks and commie industrial cronies who fund the Red Army.

Sorry, the People's Liberation Army...

Congressive, my elderly parents are a good example of what's wrong with your class warfare argument. Between SS and investment income, their total income last year (I know because I did their taxes) was around $26,000. They paid NO Federal or state income tax and actually got an $80 refund from the state of Indiana, something the state calls a "unified credit for the elderly". Now exactly how do you give someone like them a tax cut?

BTW, Bill Gates donates more to charity every year than you are likely to make in your entire lifetime, unlike Al Gore whose charitable donations totaled $350.00 the year before the 2000 election. If you made tax cuts reverse progressive, giving low income people back 100 times more than they got and people like Bill Gates 1/100 of what he actually got, you still wouldn't be happy because Bill Gates would still get over $4,000 and the people at the bottom of the ladder would get $200.

Sorry, that should have been $400 for Bill Gates, not $4,000. I never was good at math.

congressive, you forgot to post the money that these income levels are PAYING in taxes. here's a breakdown for you. but you can go to the "pill-popper's" website every day for the latest updates. and while you're at it, change your name to socialist.

The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%)

The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%).

The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%).

The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%).

The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%).

The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%).

The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%!

And who earns what?

The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%).

The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%);

the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) , and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.

Who BENEFITS most from a stable government? Who benefits most from an effective SEC? Who benefits most from a well-equipped police force? Who benefits most from a fast and effective fire department? Who benefits most from the court systems? Who has the greatest access to government eyes and ears, and hence favors? The haves. Certainly not the have-nots. Whoever receives the greater financial benefit from a powerful, stable government SHOULD pay more.

You WANT your elderly parents to take on a greater proportion of the national debt? Funny, 'cause your KID'S will be actually paying the larger amount...

Falgore,

you are correct about the respective share of "federal" "income" taxes. Too bad you left out things like:

SS+medicare = nearly the same as individual income receipts. Very regressive, mostly paid by the average joe wage earner. You could say that doesn't count but it's in the budget now being spent.

How about sales tax, real estate, school, alcohol, cigarette, excise, gas, state, local, unemployment on and on, all very regressive.

When you do the actual math, summing all forms of tax, you find something very interesting; The effective rates start at about 20-30% for poverty level, peak at about the 100k level and gradually reduce for the very wealthy. For example, my effective rate is 43%. That's almost half of all my income!

Now, if I was wealthy enough to have only dividends or capital gains, my rate would be below 20%. If I only invested in tax free muni's I could get that down to about 3%. Now that's fair!

You're also missing the massive redistribution of wealth that has occurred since Reagan.

So keep on imagining you're on the side that looks out for you. That's why your wife now HAS to work. They aren't looking out for you, they're looking AT you from behind the gated community fence in their vacation homes. Run along now before someone calls the cops.

So 3moreyears, tell us exactly how your side is looking for us? By wanting to raise our taxe?

So 3moreyears, tell us exactly how your side is looking for us? By wanting to raise our taxes?

A-10,

I sorry, how much of that $70b will you get? I know what I won't get, the deduction for college tuition. They scrapped that so they could give the oil companies 5.1b in much needed relief.

BTW, I vote both ways, just not R these days. It's not that the dems don't raise taxes, it's more that the reps cut them for the benefit of the wealthy. When running a deficit, that means we ALL get to pay it back with interest. At least if you're going to cut taxes, cut for all and, oh, just a thought, be able to PAY FOR IT.

Wow, I can't wait for my extra $20! Boy, am I placated. This is indeed a huge victory for American taxpayers like me. I mean, 20 whole dollars...the mind boggles what awesome financial power that brings.

The Air America crowd still believes that we are collecting far less in tax revenues now than we did before the tax cuts. Sure, they could go to the IRS web site to look up the revenue increases, but that would be a violation of the belief system/religion of liberalism.

No one "gets anything back" from the government through tax cuts. The only way to believe that is to believe that we work FOR the government, and that the money we are paid really belongs to the government, which then "lets" us have some of it "back". WRONG. It is OUR money, and we simply hand over less of it.

Every tax-related group has done a study on tax cuts, and every one has learned the exact same thing---that tax cuts which do not include the higher brackets are simply not effective in stimulating the economy. One term for this is "The Wealth Factor". To make it very very simple, a need for dealing with congressive and 3more, here is an example:

If you save $80 on your taxes, you will probably use that to make a payment on a credit card, to pay for something you already bought anyway. You might use it to go out to dinner, thereby getting it back into the economy that way, but it is still a minor amount.

Save $5,000 and you may invest it, or put it down on a new car.

Save $45,000 and that is money to hire a new employee, or put into R&D, as well as to invest or spend.

It's not hard to see which will have the most impact on the economy, both now and long-range.

Tax savings do not go into coffee cans buried in the back yard. They go back into the economy, in one way or another, and that stimulates the economy.

Destroying incentive to increase productivity and income, and penalizing success, is not the way to grow an economy. And focusing on what benefits some other guy is getting, and stewing because his benefits might be greater than yours, is no way to live. It is effective from a political perspective, as incitement of class conflict is the backbone of the Democratic Party, but it's a cheap trick that only hurts those who fall for it. It's like getting a free ice cream cone and letting it melt instead of enjoying it because you are so obsessed with whether or not your neighbor got a bigger scoop than you did.

It's like getting a free ice cream cone and letting it melt instead of enjoying it because you are so obsessed with whether or not your neighbor got a bigger scoop than you did.

Almiranta, that is just so right on the money (no pun intended), and simple enough that I think even Barney and TMY can understand it (can but won't).

All incomes over $100,000 should be taxed at 100%. All income under $36,000 should not be taxed. Peace

Al and Spook,

It ain't FREE! What part of deficit borrowing do you not quite understand? I think the taxes are too damn high for all but I personally resent having to chip in to pay for welfare for the weathly. If you don't, I'll send you my address so you can forward yours to me.

P.S.

You people are fucking idiots! Matt, it's time to ban me now. Dickheads!

I'll pick up where 3moreyears left off.

"Tax cuts" that we can't pay for are not tax cuts they are tax DEFERRALS. The borrowed money will be paid for, with interest, at some point by our children. I don't know about you, but I don't relish the idea of leaving my future children to pay for my debts. That's just me, though, I was raised to take responsibility.

But wait, you say, these tax cuts grow the economy so much that they do pay for themselves! The answer is, quite simply, no they don't. Our current budget situation should convince you of that, but all studies not financed by right wing groups like Heritage will also tell you the same thing.

Finally, the idea of trickle-down economics, while always suspect, has become increasingly so in a global marketplace. Almiranta posited that a $45k tax cut would pay for a new employee in the US, but it would also pay for 2 equivalent employees in India. Guess who gets hired? (And no, this is not a rant about globalization).

The realities of the global economy mean that the competitive advantages gained by lowering taxes in the US are spent in other countries where goods and labor are much cheaper. Instead, the US economy should be trying to create competitive advantage for US companies by creating better educated workers (e.g., improving education) or even subsidizing companies' healthcare costs (by providing universal healthcare).

I kinda agree with seerightthroughit...geez I gotta whole 300 or so dollars decrease. Yikes, I'm sure grateful. You know if I woulda got that big ole' hunnert dollars that Frist wanted to give out, I woulda been set.

I'm also grateful that the program and job cutbacks are now going to have to be picked up by my state taxes. Let's see, I just shifted the burden.

In the meantime the federal credit card paying for the war to "liberate the Iraqi people" (is that today's justification title?) is maxed out. The increase in the cost of fuel has not YET hit the pocketbook, very soon it has too. Inflation is starting to take off because of this.

Hold on to your hats fellas, if you think we're in a quagmire now, just wait...

Maroons.

Why is it that the liberals won't accept the proven fact that tax cuts stimulate the economy and result in increased tax revenues? It worked when JFK cut taxes. It worked when Reagan cut taxes. It's working now. The GDP is growing at a healthy rate and so are tax revenues. Only a maroon would believe otherwise.

I welcome any additional tax relief sent my way. In my tax bracket, I didn't qualify for a child tax credit, education credit, college loan interest deduction, or IRA deduction. The only "tax cut for the rich" I got was a decrease in the tax rate.

Its obvious that our socialist, class envy friends on the left want the "rich" to pay an even greater share of the tax burden. As "Falgore" pointed out, the top 25% of wage earners paid almost 84% of the tax burden.

If you want socialism, MOVE. The United States is not a socialist country. Our economy is based on capitalism. It is the most dynamic and productive economy the world has ever known. Why screw it up with confiscatory tax rates?

The way we "pay" for the tax cuts (which, as time will tell, will increase revenues, but why bother with facts), is to cut the growth of spending. The elimination of a vast majority of the pork in the federal budget will save the $70 billion in the latest tax cuts.

3moreyears i agree. This is the same group that thinks Bush is an "everyman" and that Cheney has no connection to Haliburton. Interesting how the VP made 2 million dollars last year isn't it? Guess not. But in the end, whether it be on their insane dependence on the bible or their fear or otherwise, we cannot sit down at the same table. World views can not be altered, and I think we have finally gotten to a point where reconciliation isn't feasable. When our minds can't come to grips with the fact people are either this self centered and mean or are just that stupid, I think it is time to hang up the boots.

FakeKeefer shows his IQ envy by implying that there is something wrong with being good at your job and successful. Typical to try to set up a scenario where only the losers are virtuous. Have you noticed that the only ones who subscribe to that scenario are-----losers?

Hang up those boots, or fuzzy bunny slippers, FakeKeefer, because you will never understand anything. You will always be faced with the huge dichotomy between the insanity Ranty Rhodes, et Al, keep feeding you, and reality. Your pointy little heads will always spin around and you will always be quoting what sounded so SMART, and so RIGHT, when Ranty said it, but sounds so totally stupid when it gets exposed to fact and intelligence and wit.

Hell, FK, you can't even come up with your own name to post under---how can you be expected to actually go to the IRS web site and look at those big numbers and understand what they mean?

A-10, the US military is the largest socialist organization on earth. Peace

"A-10, the US military is the largest socialist organization on earth."

Posted by: steve at May 18, 2006 07:34 PM

Excuse me? I spent 27 years in the military and it didn't seem socialistic to me.

Keefer,

If you're going to slam the Vice President over his 2005 earnings, at least get it right. His total income was $8,819,006. He donated $6,869,655 to charity. He paid $529,636 on a taxable income of $1,961,157. He probably paid more in 2005 in taxes than you have made in your entire life. But to you, it probably wasn't enough.

By the way, did you donate nearly 78% of your income to charity? Did any of your heroes? Hillary? Kerry? Dean? Kennedy? Pelosi?

and that Cheney has no connection to Haliburton. Interesting how the VP made 2 million dollars last year isn't it? Guess not.

Fake Keefer, does it make you feel powerful to just spout off without knowing what the hell you're talking about? The facts surrounding both the President's and the Vice President's incomes were just published a few weeks ago. Guess you missed it.

The Cheneys reported adjusted gross income of nearly $8.82 million, which was largely the result of exercising stock options that had been set aside in 2001 for charity.

The Cheneys donated just under $6.87 million to charity from the stock options and royalties from Mrs. Cheney's books. That left about $1.9 million in income on which the Cheneys owed $529,636 in taxes.

Over the year, the Cheneys paid $2,468,566 in taxes through withholding and estimated tax payments. As a result, the Cheneys are entitled to a refund of $1,938,930. (emphasis - mine)

So, FK, want to tell use how much you paid in taxes and how much you donated to charity. Didn't think so. What's the operative word? Oh, yeah -- MAROON!!

Great minds think alike, A-10 (and at the same time, too)

P.S.

You people are fucking idiots! Matt, it's time to ban me now. Dickheads!

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, TMY.

"Whoever receives the greater financial benefit from a powerful, stable government SHOULD pay more."
-Congressive

Guess what...they already DO!

Retired Spook,

Bingo!!!

Quite frankly all of these guys on the left should be banned. I get tired of coming over here now. I would be banned in one day on Daily Kos or DummyUnderground if I even politely said I disagreed with their Stalinist ways.

Why do you allow all of this crap on here? This is a Blog for Bush, not a Blog Against Bush.

Warriornation,

Although it gets old after a while, you have to admit its fun doing a serious smack-down on one of the loony left posters.

It used to be fun, but I think these guys are so unbelievably warped and brain dead...seriously...I don't think they even understand when they've been bitchslapped.

I really don't. The just keep regergitating the same stuff every day all the while having a full blown Viagra moment every time Clinton is mentioned.

You're right. We need some new blood.

I'm not sure if they are brain dead or trolls. It's hard to believe that they could ignore well known facts. But, I guess if you take enough drugs, and fry enough brain cells, your ability to reason is warped.

Facts A-10? YOu want facts?

$10,000-20,000 = $2
$20,000-30,000 = 9
$30,000-40,000 = 16
$40,000-50,000 = 46
$50,000-75,000 = 110
$75,000-100,000 = 403
$100,000-200,000 = 1,388
$200,000-500,000 = 4,499
$500,000-1 million = 5,562
More than $1 million = 41,977

Ash

How much do those people PAY in taxes. If you PAY the most, you're entitled to the most back.

Or are you suggesting that the wealthy in this country should support your butt because you weren't very smart in school and didn't make it?

Matt,

how will you be spending your $9-12 is savings? Mcdonalds and a movie? The fat cats will be able to buy a nifty new sports car or a fill up for their 150' yachts

The Rich pay the lions share of taxes collected not because they pay a higher rate of tax (percentage), but because of the inproportionate amounts of income earned.

The problem develops when these fat cats make obscene amounts every year and want to pay no tax or virtually none. If you are making $1 million + a year, then they should be paying a good third of it in taxes, including federal and state.

I can tell you that the rich have it easy in the U.S. Here you are nailed for about 50.5% if making 100 000+ including state and federal.

I think a big problem is that these cuts are not resulting in anything to the middle class. The rich are hoarding their wealth or expatriating money overseas.

Why not skip the cuts and put the money into a fund to pay for universal health care for everyone or to offer free college educations

"How much do those people PAY in taxes. If you PAY the most, you're entitled to the most back"

But not the highest percentage. Do the math. And keep your eyes off my butt.

I first gotta say i appreciate the debate, especially when you throw in a few reasons why.

BUT... Cheney donated that dough because he HAD to by law. He signed off to avoid conflict of interest problems, but retained control of halliburton stock in 2001 to guide what he then knew would be a huge windfall to his favorite charities, mostly his alma mater who threw him and Bush Sr, a HUGE political party just last year. No quid pro quo there... and he got to deduct the entire amount even thoug it was above percentage norms because he took a KATRINA exemption that has since expired, while donating virtually NONE of it to Katrina related charities.

Oh, and those Reagan tax cuts worked so well that Bush Sr. had to raise taxes to keep the Treasury from going bankrupt. Personally, I give a LOT of credit for Clinton's balanced budget to Bush Sr.'s balls for standing up to the Repubs back then and doing what was fiscally responsible: pay the bills. The other thing I give Bush Sr high praise for was the brains to NOT remove Saddam, while praiseing Joe Wilson for his heroic stance against Saddam's inhumane demands. I am a bit baffled that the Repubs don't talk about Bush Sr. much. They never shut up about Reagan, but daddy Bush actually oversaw the final fall of Russia, and negotiated a huge multinational coalition for Gulf War I, getting Saudi Arabia to foot MOST of the bill to boot.

Some question his covert days, but i don't know much about that. What I saw him do seemed like the right thing at the right time.

Speaking of Cheney, isn't it amazingly concidential that his stock options have increased in value over 3000% since 2001. Amazing what no bid contracts will do huh?

Amazing how he has still many more millions in options that he will be cashing in after he leaves office.

I just read in the news that Bush has a net worth of 20 million and Cheney is pushing 96-$100 million , quite a bit since 2000

3MoreYears said: "When you do the actual math, summing all forms of tax, you find something very interesting; The effective rates start at about 20-30% for poverty level, peak at about the 100k level and gradually reduce for the very wealthy."

Do you have a reference for these numbers? I'd really love to see them.

Spook said: "The Cheneys reported adjusted gross income of nearly $8.82 million, which was largely the result of exercising stock options that had been set aside in 2001 for charity."

Doesn't that make you just a wee bit curious? I'd love to hear the whole story on that one. Exercising stock options postponed since 2001? I wonder where they came from? You have to love that though. That's one of the beauties of being able to afford being philanthropic... you can't income average from year to year anymore, but you can postpone declaring your donations for years. Pretty sweet.

Almiranta said: "The Air America crowd still believes that we are collecting far less in tax revenues now than we did before the tax cuts. Sure, they could go to the IRS web site to look up the revenue increases, but that would be a violation of the belief system/religion of liberalism."

I couldn't find the numbers on the IRS web site. Perhaps you could assist me on that. But I did find them on the Tax Policy Center web site, and this is what I found (note that the "Real Revenues" are adjusted for inflation and expressed in 1998 dollars, which I did myself on the basis of reported changes in the CPI inflation rates which I obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics web site): Numbers are expressed in millions, by the way.

Year Total Revenues Real Revenues
1998 1721798.00 1721798.00
1999 1827454.00 1779409.93
2000 2025218.00 1907132.19
2001 1991030.00 1845411.04
2002 1853173.00 1677379.45
2003 1782342.00 1583186.98
2004 1880071.00 1616646.62
2005 2052845.00 1707168.81

So depending upon how you define “before the tax cuts”, you’re either very wrong or slightly right, Almiranta. Either way, as of 2005 we’re still 200 billion in real dollars shy of the 2000 figure. Now, considering that the national debt has increased about 2 trillion in real (inflation adjusted) dollars since the end of 2000, I’d say we have a ways to go. Likewise, the debt as a percentage of GDP has increased from about 58% in 2000 to 64% in 2005, and is expected to be at an all time percentage high by the end of this year. Something to tell your kids about -- or at least warn them. It seems to me that any right-thinking individual has that obligation.

The debt has gone up a LOT more than 2 Trillion since 2000. Bush has added more than 40% to the total debt, which was about 5.3 trillion when he took office and it is now well over 8 trillion

axis,

So you're a hard-core socialist/communist who is so jealous of the rich you can't stand it? Why else you make these statements:

"how will you be spending your $9-12 is savings? Mcdonalds and a movie? The fat cats will be able to buy a nifty new sports car or a fill up for their 150' yachts"

Let's see, that "nifty new sports car" would be putting $50,000 - $100,000 back into the economy. Paying for the wages of the people who made the "nifty new sports car". And when they bought their "150' yacht", they were putting their hard-earned money back into the economy.

"The Rich pay the lions share of taxes collected not because they pay a higher rate of tax (percentage), but because of the inproportionate amounts of income earned."

So when someone works hard, maybe starts a business and hires a couple of dozen workers, they are earning an "inproportionate amounts of income". Classic socialist/communist drivvle. Are they not due the just rewards of their hard work? I guess not in your socialist/communist vision. Everyone should be paid the same amount, right?

"The problem develops when these fat cats make obscene amounts every year and want to pay no tax or virtually none. If you are making $1 million + a year, then they should be paying a good third of it in taxes, including federal and state."

Of course they would like to pay no tax or virtually none. Who wouldn't. But the facts are that they are paying a lion's share of the tax burden, while the lower income wage earners are paying little or no taxes, and sometimes getting a refund after paying no taxes.

Try looking up the tax rates, moron. If your taxable income is over $326,450, your tax rate is 35%. Add to that a typical state tax of 4-6% and they are paying about 40% of their income.

Did you know, based on the 2003 tax numbers (the latest available), that the "rich" (the top 1% of those filing a return) paid an average of $199,316 in federal income tax. On the other hand, those in the the bottom 50% (earning less that $29,019) paid an average of $403. And you have the gall to complain that the "rich" aren't paying their fair share. It is rich subsidizing the poor, not the other way around.

Now you're going to say that they take all kinds of tax deductions, like the Cheney's huge charitable contribution. But since they contributed it to charity, they didn't keep it. If it wasn't for the Cheney's, the Gates', and others, there would be no moneys in the charities coffers. 1

Then I read your next stupid comment:

"I can tell you that the rich have it easy in the U.S. Here you are nailed for about 50.5% if making 100 000+ including state and federal."

So you don't live in the US. You're a foreigner, commenting on this site, insulting our President, criticizing our military, economic system, and political parties. Why don't you tell me where you live so I can make disparaging remarks abouot your country, your political leaders, and your economic system.

Finally you comment:

"Why not skip the cuts and put the money into a fund to pay for universal health care for everyone or to offer free college educations"

So you want the "rich" to pay for everything for everyone? Free health care, free college educations, maybe a free car? How about making the rich pay for a free house for everyone? All you have to do is raise their taxes to 70% or so. Of course, if you do that, the rich will lose all incentive to earn more and the tax revenues will plummet, driving up the deficit and the national debt. But who cares, we'll be socking it to the rich. They deserve it for making so much money.

axis, the socialist/communist,

This is OT, but back on the Hayden Confirmation thread, you commented: "like they have done to over 3000 americans in prison in Cuba". Do you mean Castro has 3000 Americans imprisoned? Or are you claiming that we have interned 3000 Americans at GITMO?

If you mean the latter, you are not only a socialist/communist, but a nutcase as well. For your information, there are less than 500 terrorists interned at GITMO and none of them are American. Or are they being kept at a secret prison that only you know about?

Dude, you have to lay off the drugs and return to reality.

You guys are the most retarded group of morons on the entire planet. I love you all, thank you for being there to make fools out of yourself and make normal people go "oh my god, I'm not voting for them." PLEASE keep pushing things like trickel down economics and christian family values, they really really help. Thanks again.

and those "things" keep you in the minority, Fake Keefer.

Bonus!

Hmmmm... Bush politics is very fine..
Find terrrorists... now tax cut extensions..
I think that getting hugher Bush popularity =)

i'm not like Bush and his politics. As many people on earth.

And now, after Iraq war, i can say that Bush politics is money.. But tax cut extensions.. Will see..

I'll tell ya fella's, You can sit there all day long and do arithmetic,about who get's what and why, and trying to conive a "GREED SCREED" but at the end of the day who comes out the "WINNER".
"NOBODY"
until you see what is truly happening...

Plain and simple.......

You ask who benefits the most from government?

Answer.

Who are they?

People who do not work.YES.
Recipients of government funding.part of(soon to be dealt with in welfare reform),
and should be dealt with swiftly.

Foreign promotion,yes,to the highest degree.
should be "STOPPED" at all cost.Should be made "ILLEGAL"

people who WORK .NO.Rightly deserving tax cuts,such as working poor families.

People who have worked.NO. SSI declining gradually.
Old reform needing restored!!

So to sum it all up, WHO'S TO BLAME?
LIBERAL ACTIVIST'S,LIBERAL DEMOCRAT'S.
NEED TO BE PUT IN THEIR PLACE RIGHT NOW!!!

I'll tell ya fella's, You can sit there all day long and do arithmetic,about who get's what and why, and trying to conive a "GREED SCREED" but at the end of the day who comes out the "WINNER".
"NOBODY"
until you see what is truly happening...

Plain and simple.......

You ask who benefits the most from government?

Answer.

Who are they?

People who do not work.YES.
Recipients of government funding.part of(soon to be dealt with in welfare reform),
and should be dealt with swiftly.

Foreign promotion,yes,to the highest degree.
should be "STOPPED" at all cost.Should be made "ILLEGAL"

people who WORK .NO.Rightly deserving tax cuts,such as working poor families.

People who have worked.NO. SSI declining gradually.
Old reform needing restored!!

So to sum it all up, WHO'S TO BLAME?
LIBERAL ACTIVIST'S,LIBERAL DEMOCRAT'S.
NEED TO BE PUT IN THEIR PLACE RIGHT NOW!!!

Mr. Bush pledged in 1999 to veto any bill that raised taxes. In response to a question about the tax increase on teenagers in the new legislation, the White House issued a statement Friday that made no reference to the tax increase, but recounted the tax cuts the administration has sponsored and stated that President Bush had "reduced taxes on all people who pay income taxes."

Challenged on that point, the White House modified its statement 21 minutes later to say that Mr. Bush had "reduced taxes on virtually all people who pay income taxes."

The deputy White House press secretary, Kenneth A. Lisaius, declined to discuss the reasons Mr. Bush broke his pledge or anything else beyond the modified statement, which emphasized the $880 billion in tax reductions from tax laws Mr. Bush signed in 2001 and 2003.

Good example for this theme is Russia.
Look and see, what made Russia with tax cut extrensions.