G-Dubya? Why are you hiding the TRUTH about your "tax cut"??

[Gimpy]

Republican "politics" at their best!

Check THIS out.

****************************

White House shelved deficit report

Study commissioned by O?Neill sees $44 trillion in red ink

By Peronet Despeignes
FINANCIAL TIMES

WASHINGTON, May 29 ? The Bush administration has shelved a report commissioned by the Treasury that shows the U.S. currently faces a future of chronic federal budget deficits totaling at least $44 trillion in current U.S. dollars.
THE STUDY, the most comprehensive assessment of how the U.S. government is at risk of being overwhelmed by the ?baby boom? generation?s future healthcare and retirement costs, was commissioned by then-Treasury secretary Paul O?Neill.
But the Bush administration chose to keep the findings out of the annual budget report for fiscal year 2004, published in February, as the White House campaigned for a tax-cut package that critics claim will expand future deficits.
The study asserts that sharp tax increases, massive spending cuts or a painful mix of both are unavoidable if the U.S. is to meet benefit promises to future generations. It estimates that closing the gap would require the equivalent of an immediate and permanent 66 percent across-the-board income tax increase.
The study was being circulated as an independent working paper among Washington think-tanks as President George W. Bush on Wednesday signed into law a 10-year, $350 billion tax-cut package he welcomed as a victory for hard-working Americans and the economy.
The analysis was spearheaded by Kent Smetters, then-Treasury deputy assistant secretary for economic policy, and Jagdessh Gokhale, then a consultant to the Treasury. Mr. Gokhale, now an economist for the Cleveland Federal Reserve, said: ?When we were conducting the study, my impression was that it was slated to appear [in the Budget]. At some point, the momentum builds and you think everything is a go, and then the decision came down that we weren?t part of the prospective budget.?
Mr. O?Neill, who was fired last December, refused to comment.

The study?s analysis of future deficits dwarfs previous estimates of the financial challenge facing Washington. It is roughly equivalent to 10 times the publicly held national debt, four years of U.S. economic output or more than 94 percent of all U.S. household assets. Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve chairman, last week bemoaned what he called Washington?s ?deafening? silence about the future crunch.
President Bush signed into law a $350 billion tax-cut package on Wednesday saying:? ?We can say loud and clear to the American people: You got more of your own money to spend so that this economy can get a good wind behind it.?
Laurence Kotlikoff, an expert on long-term budget accounting, alleged in a recent Boston Globe editorial that the Bush administration suppressed the research to ease passage of the tax-cut plan.

*********************************

[ABNCIB]

How is he hiding anything, Gimpy? First of all the Financial Times is the Al-jazeera of the business world and rabidly anti-Bush. If Bush planted roses and passed out bags of money to homeless people, FT would claim the bags were dirty and the roses were full of aphids.

The truth about the tax cut is that working Americans will get substantial tax relief - me included. What needs to be cut is uncontrolled spending in Congress. And if the tax cut was so bad, why didn't Daschle, et al, filibuster the bill? They're quick to filibuster non-white judicial nominees, why not bad legislation? because the truth is that this tax cut is good for Americans and the Dems don't want to be seen taking money from the pockets of working Americans.

[blues clues]

Gimpy this one time I will have to agree with the rupblicans, they say that only the working people will get a tax cut and get anything back from the government,seeing how sence the rupblicans have been in control of the government over 1.5million jobs have been lost so there isn't that many people working three hims for dubby him, him,f--k him.


razz

[Gimpy]

But you've been brainwashed again by G-Dubyas propaganda machine. You must mean ONLY those working americans making MORE than $27,000 per year---cause the proverbial "cat" is out of the bag so to speak! Seems the "deal" that was cut by the Republican congressional leadership and his whitehouse cronies decided that THOSE folks making less than that will NOT get that wonderful tax break! Soooooooooooooo, it appears that its the "same old, same old" with the republicans--the folks who REALLY need a "break" won't be getting one after all---what a surprise!! Yea RIGHT!

[1IDVET]

Gimpy,
Those folks that are below $27,000, aren't paying a lot of taxes. Your agument doesn't wash.

"Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

Top 5% - 56.47% of all income taxes; Top 10% - 67.33% of all income taxes; Top 25% - 84.01% of all income taxes. Top 50% - 96.09% of all income taxes. The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.91% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 20.81% of all income. The top 5% earns 35.30% of the pie. The top 10% earns 46.01%; the top 25% earns 67.15%, and the top 50% earns 87.01% of all the income."

Here's a pretty picture:

[Gimpy]

But YOUR arguement doesn't "wash"!

If you don't think that a "tax" break would help someone who makes less than $27,000 (barely above the poverty level for a family of three or four) a lot more than someone making $100,000 a year then you must be one of the folks that met with G-dubya and the republican congressional leadership when arriving at their "closed door" comprimise! Try and "explain" that "paltry" sum of taxes these folks are paying and see if THEY will accept that kind of "reasoning" or "logic" when it comes to what they are NOT going to receive compared to those who will get a tax break!

Typical republican nonsense!

[blues clues]

Good morning guys, Hi, gimpy did some math last night on this so called tax cut my wife will get 2.40 a month or about 31.20 a year. kind of makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. right now we're trying to decide weather to spend it or put it in a CD,or in the stocksor bonds what do you think I really need your help on this one.
razz

[MORTARDUDE]

are a fact now..the checks will got out in July..and the tax tables will be cut accordingly...spending is the problem...always has been..Jimmy Carter got this one right... zero based budgeting.. but with "pork"..will never happen...the tax revenues will continue to roll in.... find a new topic to to talk about....please !!

Larry

P.S : Those making less than $ 26,000 with children already have the Earned Income Tax Credit....a portion of which is suspected to be fraudulent...

[ABNCIB]

Gimpy -
What "cat"?
People who make under $27k and have children get the Earned Income Credit. My step daughter (a single mother) had $1200 witheld from her pay last year for Federal Income tax and got over $5000 back. Why would she need another $400 check?

The truth is that people who make <$27k pay little or no tax as it is. They're in the NEW (thank you, GWB ) 10% tax bracket and with the expanded standard deduction for married couples (thank you, GWB ), their tax bill is ZILCH .

C'mon, Gimpster, you know me better than that. How long has been since we've had a good knock-down drag out?

[MORTARDUDE]

for those who have an OPEN MIND !!!!!!!!

VERITAS, oh sweet VERITAS !!!!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Rosen: Why Dems hate tax cuts
May 30, 2003

No, opposition to the Bush tax cuts by partisan Democrats and media liberals isn't really because they're too large. In fact, they're relatively small.

>>>> At $350 billion over 10 years, the cut is only about 1 percent of the federal budget and one-quarter of 1 percent of gross domestic product.
>>>>>> And the tax cuts don't inordinately favor the rich, per se. They simply favor income tax payers (who happen to be inordinately rich).

>>>>>>>>>>

Nonetheless, under the new law, a family of four earning $40,000 will be virtually eliminated from the income tax rolls, with its tax bill slashed by 96 percent, from $1,178 all the way down to $45.

>>>>>>>>>>

A family earning $200,000 will save $3,000, a cut of only 9 percent, while still paying $32,000 in income taxes. Yes, a $3,000 cut is greater than a $1,000 cut, which is why we use percentages to objectively compare dissimilar amounts. People who don't pay income taxes - about half the population - will get no income tax relief. How could they?

Other elements of the tax cut of little interest to the rich but with a big impact on lower- and middle-income taxpayers are the increase in the per-child tax credit of $400 a year and the elimination of the marriage penalty for couples taking the standard deduction. All stockholders will benefit from the cut in tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

In order to understand the real nature of liberal grousing over the scaled-down version of the president's tax plan, one must fathom the mentality of the Democratic Party and its political coalition.

Democrats are opposed to tax cuts for the rich when the economy is booming. They're also opposed to tax cuts for the rich when the economy is sagging. They're opposed when there's a federal budget surplus and when there's a deficit. In other words, Democrats are ideologically opposed to tax cuts for the rich, period.

>>>>>>>

To Democrats, the income tax exists as a tool to perpetually redistribute income from people who have more to people who have less. Some call this socialism.


>>>>>>

If you divide the population into two classes: net tax payers and net tax users, the breakpoint is somewhere around $55,000 in annual income for a family of four (the top 25 percent of taxpayers who pay 84 percent of total income taxes). Below that, the value of government services you receive, directly and indirectly, exceeds what you pay in taxes. Above that, you're a net tax payer. The voter base of the Democratic Party is made up largely of tax users.

>>>>>>

In fact, there are relatively few rich people in this country. Only 2 percent of taxpayers earn more than $200,000 a year. While this group accounts for 27 percent of individual income, it already bears 46 percent of the nation's total income tax burden. How much more can you soak them?

So Democrats have to dig deeper. To fund their vision of the welfare state, they're forced to expand their working (but unstated) definition of "rich" to include millions of two-income families with combined incomes between $75,000-$100,000. Some of those families with three kids in college might not think of themselves as rich. And some who make less than that aspire to make more someday, and would like to keep it when they do. Now you understand why Democrats who play the politics of envy are careful to avoid defining "rich" in specific dollar terms.

>>>>>>>>>

Democrats don't have a viable economic growth program. Their time-dishonored snake oil is to create the illusion of short-term consumer demand by redistributing income or debt from one economic sphere to another.

>>>>>>>>>

In our $10 trillion economy, a few hundred billion of government largess is not the answer. The Bush tax cuts aren't a panacea, but they're a step in the right direction. Their contribution, in the short run, will be to provide immediate incentives for work, savings, investment and job creation that will pay huge dividends in the longer run. That's the path to real economic growth and prosperity.

Mike Rosen's radio show airs daily from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA.