'Today': Terrorists Attempting To Influence US Elections With Current Violence Wave

[garya505 2]

OH wow so if you vote democrat you must be a terrorist...

Wonder if that could fall under the "terrorist supporter " category or could possibly classify one as an "enemy combatant"?

Not a terrorist supporter or an enemy combatant. I don't think any American really wants the terrorist to hurt us again. It's just when the terrorists watch our news and see the dems beating up on Bush over Iraq and the dems saying they want to cut and run who else would the terrorists want to win? It's not hard for them to figure out that they would have an easier time with dems controlling things. It's been stated very clearly that if the dems get back in power that they would set a date for pulling out. All the terrorist would have to do is hang back and wait for that date. Then they would have free reign to do what they want and turn Iraq into their new hang-out. They also know the more violence they can inflict causes Bush to loose popularity and by association Republicans in general. So the can and are affecting our politcal process to get what they want.

You are correct sir!

when did a dem prez cut & run?

With all due respect, many Dems today are encouraging our Republican President to do just that. Cut and run. Except they call it redeployment because their pollsters told them 'cut and run' don't sound too good to the folks back in Peoria (where the fukc is that anyway and why do the pundits on MSNBC keep bringing it up?).

But doesn't "cutting" and "running" imply cowardice? Where is the cowardice in admitting a mistake, and realizing that the longer we stay, the more people die and the worse the situation becomes? If every day the situation improved, I would agree that we should stay, but it's not. It's only cutting and running when we could clearly help and we choose not to. That label is such BS.

To people in the middle east, giving up and leaving IS cowardice and they won't forget it. They only respect diligence and bravery.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I'm kind of amused by the image of your everyday iraqi insurgent opening his New York Times to see what Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha has to say over his morning coffee while tuning into CNN, and then believing, you know, that what he is doing is going to put them in power.

[Marc and Olga 0]

OH wow so if you vote democrat you must be a terrorist...

Wonder if that could fall under the "terrorist supporter " category or could possibly classify one as an "enemy combatant"?

Not a terrorist supporter or an enemy combatant. I don't think any American really wants the terrorist to hurt us again. It's just when the terrorists watch our news and see the dems beating up on Bush over Iraq and the dems saying they want to cut and run who else would the terrorists want to win? It's not hard for them to figure out that they would have an easier time with dems controlling things. It's been stated very clearly that if the dems get back in power that they would set a date for pulling out. All the terrorist would have to do is hang back and wait for that date. Then they would have free reign to do what they want and turn Iraq into their new hang-out. They also know the more violence they can inflict causes Bush to loose popularity and by association Republicans in general. So the can and are affecting our politcal process to get what they want.

You are correct sir!

when did a dem prez cut & run?

With all due respect, many Dems today are encouraging our Republican President to do just that. Cut and run. Except they call it redeployment because their pollsters told them 'cut and run' don't sound too good to the folks back in Peoria (where the fukc is that anyway and why do the pundits on MSNBC keep bringing it up?).

But doesn't "cutting" and "running" imply cowardice? Where is the cowardice in admitting a mistake, and realizing that the longer we stay, the more people die and the worse the situation becomes? If every day the situation improved, I would agree that we should stay, but it's not. It's only cutting and running when we could clearly help and we choose not to. That label is such BS.

To people in the middle east, giving up and leaving IS cowardice and they won't forget it. They only respect diligence and bravery.

Well I don't think "cut and run" nor "stay the course" are viable nor healthy options for either the US or Iraq.

Since I am certain someone will ask despite me stating it earlier, I do not have a 100% plan in mind but it would start by firing the under/unqualified Bushbots placed to reconstruct Iraq and replace them with with the qualified people, regardless of their political stance.

Remember this thread?

[cmartyn 0]

I heard just before the election, the dems are going to dress kids up as ghosts and witches!

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

Since I am certain someone will ask despite me stating it earlier, I do not have a 100% plan in mind but it would start by firing the under/unqualified Bushbots placed to reconstruct Iraq and replace them with with the qualified people, regardless of their political stance.

Remember this thread?

just what makes you think these "bushbots" are under or unqualified? their political leanings?

[Marc and Olga 0]

Since I am certain someone will ask despite me stating it earlier, I do not have a 100% plan in mind but it would start by firing the under/unqualified Bushbots placed to reconstruct Iraq and replace them with with the qualified people, regardless of their political stance.

Remember this thread?

just what makes you think these "bushbots" are under or unqualified? their political leanings?

After the fall of Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003, the opportunity to participate in the U.S.-led effort to reconstruct Iraq attracted all manner of Americans -- restless professionals, Arabic-speaking academics, development specialists and war-zone adventurers. But before they could go to Baghdad, they had to get past Jim O'Beirne's office in the Pentagon.

To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration.

O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade.

Many of those chosen by O'Beirne's office to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq's government from April 2003 to June 2004, lacked vital skills and experience. A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance -- but had applied for a White House job -- was sent to reopen Baghdad's stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage Iraq's $13 billion budget, even though they didn't have a background in accounting.

The decision to send the loyal and the willing instead of the best and the brightest is now regarded by many people involved in the 3 1/2 -year effort to stabilize and rebuild Iraq as one of the Bush administration's gravest errors. Many of those selected because of their political fidelity spent their time trying to impose a conservative agenda on the postwar occupation that sidetracked more important reconstruction efforts and squandered goodwill among the Iraqi people, according to many people who participated in the reconstruction effort.

MSNBC has appearently removed the original article which spanned atleast 4 pages and included a story of an internationally known person well qualified in healthcare in disaster areas (such as Iraq after the war), his experience included Bosnia (as I recall). He was sent packing and replaced with a man whose best experience include healthcare refom in Michigan and was recommended to the Bush administration by a republican govenor...as I recall.

I remember one of his important ideas was to run a "stop Smoking" campaign.

[Marc and Olga 0]

AH-HA, I found it posted on another message board...THANK YOU GOOGLE!

Here's the part about the healthcare:

‘Loyalist’ replaces public health expert

The hiring of Bremer's most senior advisers was settled upon at the highest levels of the White House and the Pentagon. Some, like Foley, were personally recruited by Bush. Others got their jobs because an influential Republican made a call on behalf of a friend or trusted colleague.

That's what happened with James K. Haveman Jr., who was selected to oversee the rehabilitation of Iraq's health care system.

Haveman, a 60-year-old social worker, was largely unknown among international health experts, but he had connections. He had been the community health director for the former Republican governor of Michigan, John Engler, who recommended him to Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense.

Haveman was well-traveled, but most of his overseas trips were in his capacity as a director of International Aid, a faith-based relief organization that provided health care while promoting Christianity in the developing world. Before his stint in government, Haveman ran a large Christian adoption agency in Michigan that urged pregnant women not to have abortions.

Haveman replaced Frederick M. Burkle Jr., a physician with a master's degree in public health and postgraduate degrees from Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth and the University of California at Berkeley. Burkle taught at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, where he specialized in disaster-response issues, and he was a deputy assistant administrator at the U.S. Agency for International Development, which sent him to Baghdad immediately after the war.

He had worked in Kosovo and Somalia and in northern Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. A USAID colleague called him the "single most talented and experienced post-conflict health specialist working for the United States government."

But a week after Baghdad's liberation, Burkle was informed he was being replaced. A senior official at USAID sent Burkle an e-mail saying the White House wanted a "loyalist" in the job. Burkle had a wall of degrees, but he didn't have a picture with the president.

Haveman arrived in Iraq with his own priorities. He liked to talk about the number of hospitals that had reopened since the war and the pay raises that had been given to doctors instead of the still-decrepit conditions inside the hospitals or the fact that many physicians were leaving for safer, better paying jobs outside Iraq. He approached problems the way a health care administrator in America would: He focused on preventive measures to reduce the need for hospital treatment.

He urged the Health Ministry to mount an anti-smoking campaign, and he assigned an American from the CPA team -- who turned out to be a closet smoker himself -- to lead the public education effort. Several members of Haveman's staff noted wryly that Iraqis faced far greater dangers in their daily lives than tobacco. The CPA's limited resources, they argued, would be better used raising awareness about how to prevent childhood diarrhea and other fatal maladies.

Haveman didn't like the idea that medical care in Iraq was free. He figured Iraqis should pay a small fee every time they saw a doctor. He also decided to allocate almost all of the Health Ministry's $793 million share of U.S. reconstruction funds to renovating maternity hospitals and building new community medical clinics. His intention, he said, was "to shift the mind-set of the Iraqis that you don't get health care unless you go to a hospital."

But his decision meant there were no reconstruction funds set aside to rehabilitate the emergency rooms and operating theaters at Iraqi hospitals, even though injuries from insurgent attacks were the country's single largest public health challenge.

Haveman also wanted to apply American medicine to other parts of the Health Ministry. Instead of trying to restructure the dysfunctional state-owned firm that imported and distributed drugs and medical supplies to hospitals, he decided to try to sell it to a private company.

To prepare it for a sale, he wanted to attempt something he had done in Michigan. When he was the state's director of community health, he sought to slash the huge amount of money Michigan spent on prescription drugs for the poor by limiting the medications doctors could prescribe for Medicaid patients. Unless they received an exemption, physicians could only prescribe drugs that were on an approved list, known as a formulary.

Haveman figured the same strategy could bring down the cost of medicine in Iraq. The country had 4,500 items on its drug formulary. Haveman deemed it too large. If private firms were going to bid for the job of supplying drugs to government hospitals, they needed a smaller, more manageable list. A new formulary would also outline new requirements about where approved drugs could be manufactured, forcing Iraq to stop buying medicines from Syria, Iran and Russia, and start buying from the United States.

He asked the people who had drawn up the formulary in Michigan whether they wanted to come to Baghdad. They declined. So he beseeched the Pentagon for help. His request made its way to the Defense Department's Pharmacoeconomic Center in San Antonio.

A few weeks later, three formulary experts were on their way to Iraq.

The group was led by Theodore Briski, a balding, middle-aged pharmacist who held the rank of lieutenant commander in the U.S. Navy. Haveman's order, as Briski remembered it, was: "Build us a formulary in two weeks and then go home." By his second day in Iraq, Briski came to three conclusions. First, the existing formulary "really wasn't that bad." Second, his mission was really about "redesigning the entire Iraqi pharmaceutical procurement and delivery system, and that was a complete change of scope -- on a grand scale." Third, Haveman and his advisers "really didn't know what they were doing."

Haveman "viewed Iraq as Michigan after a huge attack," said George Guszcza, an Army captain who worked on the CPA's health team. "Somehow if you went into the ghettos and projects of Michigan and just extended it out for the entire state -- that's what he was coming to save."

Haveman's critics, including more than a dozen people who worked for him in Baghdad, contend that rewriting the formulary was a distraction. Instead, they said, the CPA should have focused on restructuring, but not privatizing, the drug-delivery system and on ordering more emergency shipments of medicine to address shortages of essential medicines. The first emergency procurement did not occur until early 2004, after the Americans had been in Iraq for more than eight months.

Haveman insisted that revising the formulary was a crucial first step in improving the distribution of medicines. "It was unwieldy to order 4,500 different drugs, and to test and distribute them," he said.

When Haveman left Iraq, Baghdad's hospitals were as decrepit as the day the Americans arrived. At Yarmouk Hospital, the city's largest, rooms lacked the most basic equipment to monitor a patient's blood pressure and heart rate, operating theaters were without modern surgical tools and sterile implements, and the pharmacy's shelves were bare.

Nationwide, the Health Ministry reported that 40 percent of the 900 drugs it deemed essential were out of stock in hospitals. Of the 32 medicines used in public clinics for the management of chronic diseases, 26 were unavailable.

The new health minister, Aladin Alwan, beseeched the United Nations for help, and he asked neighboring nations to share what they could. He sought to increase production at a state-run manufacturing plant in the city of Samarra. And he put the creation of a new formulary on hold. To him, it was a fool's errand.

"We didn't need a new formulary. We needed drugs," he said. "But the Americans did not understand that."

Emphasis added. Full story located in the first post in this thread.

EDIT: forgot to close the quote

Edited October 20, 2006 by Marc and Olga

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I heard just before the election, the dems are going to dress kids up as ghosts and witches!

John Stewart rocks!

[Alex+R 0]

I'm kind of amused by the image of your everyday iraqi insurgent opening his New York Times to see what Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha has to say over his morning coffee while tuning into CNN, and then believing, you know, that what he is doing is going to put them in power.

I'm a little late here but That's what I've been thinking too....

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

They also know the more violence they can inflict causes Bush to loose popularity and by association Republicans in general. So the can and are affecting our politcal process to get what they want.

Hasn't Bush already lost popularity due to the perceived duplicity of his administration over the Iraq war policy?

I always thought trust was a thing earned, not unconditionally expected. I've no doubt that the terrorists want to influence the elections, as the only way they will win conclusively is if the US gives up adn pulls out.

Many people think the Iraq war was a grotesque mistake, but people have to recognise that they can't reset the stage and that the political landscape has moved on since 2003. Saddam is gone, the "liberated Iraq" faces a very real threat of civil war - so what's the solution? Pulling out would be a greater failure - but that doesn't mean that I should clap George on the back for a job well done. His policy was ill-conceived, badly planned and ineptly executed.

[GaryC 7]

They also know the more violence they can inflict causes Bush to loose popularity and by association Republicans in general. So the can and are affecting our politcal process to get what they want.

Hasn't Bush already lost popularity due to the perceived duplicity of his administration over the Iraq war policy?

I always thought trust was a thing earned, not unconditionally expected. I've no doubt that the terrorists want to influence the elections, as the only way they will win conclusively is if the US gives up adn pulls out.

Many people think the Iraq war was a grotesque mistake, but people have to recognise that they can't reset the stage and that the political landscape has moved on since 2003. Saddam is gone, the "liberated Iraq" faces a very real threat of civil war - so what's the solution? Pulling out would be a greater failure - but that doesn't mean that I should clap George on the back for a job well done. His policy was ill-conceived, badly planned and ineptly executed.

So to follow your logic here, The war in Iraq was the wrong thing to do and was carried out poorly. Ok, thats how you see it. But you also state that pulling out would be a greater failure. I agree with that. So lets take that to the next level. If the dems win control of the house what will happen? Well, first Charlie Rangel will be made the chair of the House Ways And Means Commitee. What will Charlie do? His stated actions if made chair will be to cut off funding for the war and forcing Bush to bring the troups home.

"[W]hen Pressed On How He Could Stop The War Even If Democrats Control The House During The Last Years Of President Bush's Second Term, Rangel Paused Before Saying, 'You've Got To Be Able To Pay For The War, Don't You?'" (Bob Cusack, "Anxious Dems Eye Power Of The Purse On Iraq," The Hill, 9/26/06)

So that is exactly what will happen if the dems get the house back. Bush will be forced to pull the troups out and utter mahem will ensue.

What else will happen if the dems get control of the house? Lets look at what else Rangel said he would do.

He would raise our taxes for one.

In 1993, Rep. Rangel Voted For Almost $241 Billion In Additional Taxes, The Largest Tax Hike In American History. (H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #406: Adopted 218-216: R 0-175; D 217-41; I 1-0, 8/5/93, Rangel Voted Yea)

"Asked Whether Tax Increases Across The Income Spectrum Would Be Considered, He Replied, 'No Question About It'." (Martin Vaughan, "Rangel: 'Everything On The Table' To Blunt Impact Of AMT," CongressDaily PM, 9/26/06)

He would roll back all the tax cuts that Bush gave us that has made the booming economy we have today:

"[Rep. Charlie] Rangel's [D-NY] Accession To The Chairmanship Of The [Ways And Means] Committee Would Likely End Six Years Of Tax Cuts By The Republican- Controlled Congress." (Ryan J. Donmoyer, "Rangel Vows Bipartisanship, Action On Trade As House Panel Head, Bloomberg, 9/20/06)

You say the tax cuts didn't improve the economy? You say the tax cuts only helped the rich?

Because Of The 2001, 2003, And 2004 Tax Cuts, This Year:

111 Million American Taxpayers Will Save An Average Of $1,877;

A Family Of Four Making $40,000 Will Save $2,010;

More Than 5 Million Individuals And Families Will Have Their Income Tax Liabilities Totally Eliminated;

44 Million Families With Children Will Save An Average Of $2,493;

14 Million Elderly Individuals Will Save An Average Of $2,043;

25 Million Small Business Owners Will Save An Average Of $3,641. (U.S. Department Of The Treasury Website, www.treasury.gov, Accessed 4/12/06)

And that is just talking about ONE DEMOCRAT. Nancy Pelocie (sp?) will be the Speaker. She is SO left it makes your skin crawl. We would be in so much trouble as a country if the dems get back the house it is scarry.

All quotes taken from the right wing site http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6607

Yes I know its a republican site but the quotes and facts are still real.

Edited October 21, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You say the tax cuts didn't improve the economy? You say the tax cuts only helped the rich?

Because Of The 2001, 2003, And 2004 Tax Cuts, This Year:

111 Million American Taxpayers Will Save An Average Of $1,877;

A Family Of Four Making $40,000 Will Save $2,010;

More Than 5 Million Individuals And Families Will Have Their Income Tax Liabilities Totally Eliminated;

44 Million Families With Children Will Save An Average Of $2,493;

14 Million Elderly Individuals Will Save An Average Of $2,043;

25 Million Small Business Owners Will Save An Average Of $3,641. (U.S. Department Of The Treasury Website, www.treasury.gov, Accessed 4/12/06)

All quotes taken from the right wing site http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6607

Yes I know its a republican site but the quotes and facts are still real.

As are these:

Evenhanded?

CTJ’s new study conclusively exposes the chicanery of the Bush administration and its supporters in arguing that the tax cuts were even-handed. “After all,” they claimed, “the rich pay most of the taxes, so it’s only fair that they get the lion’s share of the tax cuts.” But in fact, in 2010 before the Bush tax cuts, the top one percent was expected to pay just over a quarter of all federal taxes (don’t feel too bad for these people; they’ll take in 19 percent of all the income). So a tax cut that gives the richest Americans more than half of its benefits is obviously anything but even-handed.

Compared to the federal taxes that would have been paid in 2010 before the tax cuts, Bush’s program reduces taxes on the wealthiest by 15 percent. For the remaining 99 percent of us, the tax cuts average only 5 percent. More tellingly, by 2010, the very rich will see their taxes fall by 5.7 percent of their income. For the remaining 99 percent, the average tax cut is only 1.2 percent of income.

Citizens for Tax Justice

Distribution of Tax-Cut Benefits

The benefits that the tax cuts provide to different groups vary dramatically. New data from the Tax Policy Center show the effects in 2004 of the tax cuts that have already been enacted, including the corporate and estate tax cuts, as well as the individual income tax cuts. The Tax Policy Center data show that the combined effect of the tax cuts in 2004 is as follows:

The one-fifth of households in the middle of the income spectrum will receive an average tax cut of $647.

The top one percent of households will receive tax cuts averaging almost $35,000 — or 54 times as much as that received on average by those in the middle of the income spectrum.

Households with incomes above $1 million will receive tax cuts averaging about $123,600. The tax cuts for millionaires will cause their after-tax income to jump by 6.4 percent, nearly three times the percentage increase received by the middle fifth.

The overall shares of the tax cuts that are going to different households also are illuminating. The Tax Policy Center data show that:

In 2004, the middle 20 percent of households will receive 8.9 percent of the tax cuts.

By contrast, millionaires — totaling just 0.2 percent of U.S. households — will receive 15.3 percent of the tax cuts.[3] In other words, the small handful of millionaires will receive total tax cuts far larger than those received by the entire middle 20 percent of households.

The tax cuts will confer more than $30 billion on the nation’s 257,000 millionaires in 2004 alone.

CBPP

Working poor suffer under Bush tax cuts

Cash crunch: loss of services outweighs tax gains for millions.

By Melvin Claxton, and Ronald J. Hansen / The Detroit News

DETROIT — The Bush administration and Congress have scaled back programs that aid the poor to help pay for $600 billion in tax breaks that went primarily to those who earn more than $288,800 a year.

To offset the loss of the tax revenue, the administration has amassed record federal deficits and trimmed social spending.

The affected programs — job training, housing, higher education and an array of social services — provide safety nets for the poor. Many programs are critical elements in welfare-to-work initiatives and were already badly underfunded.

Detroit News

It helps to look at sources other than the GOP from time to time.

[GaryC 7]

You say the tax cuts didn't improve the economy? You say the tax cuts only helped the rich?

Because Of The 2001, 2003, And 2004 Tax Cuts, This Year:

111 Million American Taxpayers Will Save An Average Of $1,877;

A Family Of Four Making $40,000 Will Save $2,010;

More Than 5 Million Individuals And Families Will Have Their Income Tax Liabilities Totally Eliminated;

44 Million Families With Children Will Save An Average Of $2,493;

14 Million Elderly Individuals Will Save An Average Of $2,043;

25 Million Small Business Owners Will Save An Average Of $3,641. (U.S. Department Of The Treasury Website, www.treasury.gov, Accessed 4/12/06)

All quotes taken from the right wing site http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6607

Yes I know its a republican site but the quotes and facts are still real.

As are these:

Evenhanded?

CTJ’s new study conclusively exposes the chicanery of the Bush administration and its supporters in arguing that the tax cuts were even-handed. “After all,” they claimed, “the rich pay most of the taxes, so it’s only fair that they get the lion’s share of the tax cuts.” But in fact, in 2010 before the Bush tax cuts, the top one percent was expected to pay just over a quarter of all federal taxes (don’t feel too bad for these people; they’ll take in 19 percent of all the income). So a tax cut that gives the richest Americans more than half of its benefits is obviously anything but even-handed.

Compared to the federal taxes that would have been paid in 2010 before the tax cuts, Bush’s program reduces taxes on the wealthiest by 15 percent. For the remaining 99 percent of us, the tax cuts average only 5 percent. More tellingly, by 2010, the very rich will see their taxes fall by 5.7 percent of their income. For the remaining 99 percent, the average tax cut is only 1.2 percent of income.

Citizens for Tax Justice

Distribution of Tax-Cut Benefits

The benefits that the tax cuts provide to different groups vary dramatically. New data from the Tax Policy Center show the effects in 2004 of the tax cuts that have already been enacted, including the corporate and estate tax cuts, as well as the individual income tax cuts. The Tax Policy Center data show that the combined effect of the tax cuts in 2004 is as follows:

The one-fifth of households in the middle of the income spectrum will receive an average tax cut of $647.

The top one percent of households will receive tax cuts averaging almost $35,000 — or 54 times as much as that received on average by those in the middle of the income spectrum.

Households with incomes above $1 million will receive tax cuts averaging about $123,600. The tax cuts for millionaires will cause their after-tax income to jump by 6.4 percent, nearly three times the percentage increase received by the middle fifth.

The overall shares of the tax cuts that are going to different households also are illuminating. The Tax Policy Center data show that:

In 2004, the middle 20 percent of households will receive 8.9 percent of the tax cuts.

By contrast, millionaires — totaling just 0.2 percent of U.S. households — will receive 15.3 percent of the tax cuts.[3] In other words, the small handful of millionaires will receive total tax cuts far larger than those received by the entire middle 20 percent of households.

The tax cuts will confer more than $30 billion on the nation’s 257,000 millionaires in 2004 alone.

CBPP

Working poor suffer under Bush tax cuts

Cash crunch: loss of services outweighs tax gains for millions.

By Melvin Claxton, and Ronald J. Hansen / The Detroit News

DETROIT — The Bush administration and Congress have scaled back programs that aid the poor to help pay for $600 billion in tax breaks that went primarily to those who earn more than $288,800 a year.

To offset the loss of the tax revenue, the administration has amassed record federal deficits and trimmed social spending.

The affected programs — job training, housing, higher education and an array of social services — provide safety nets for the poor. Many programs are critical elements in welfare-to-work initiatives and were already badly underfunded.

Detroit News

It helps to look at sources other than the GOP from time to time.

I don't dispute the numbers. But the The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes and The Top 1% Pay More Than a Third: 34.27%. So they are the ones that SHOULD get the biggest tax break. It's only fair. The middle class is getting a tax break that is in line with the amount of taxes they pay and the lower class is exempt all together from taxes. In fact with the earned income credit some people are getting back MORE than they paid in. In other words a gift from the IRS.

Your falling victim to the class envy trap.

Who benefits from the President's tax relief package enacted last summer?

When the major individual income tax provisions are fully phased in:

104 million individuals and families will receive an average tax cut of $1,040.

Nearly 43 million married couples will receive an average income tax cut of about $1,720.

Over 38 million filers with children will receive an average income tax cut of $1,460.

Over 10 million single mothers with children will be able to keep, on average, $770 more of their income.

About 13 million seniors will see their taxes reduced, on average, by $915.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How would small businesses benefit from the tax relief passed last summer?

The tax cut will help small business: the 33 million business owners who are taxed on their business income at individual rates stand to benefit from the Bush tax cut.

These business owners will receive over 80 percent of the tax relief associated with the reductions in the top two rates, providing incentives for expanding their businesses and creating new jobs.

Small businesses (including small businesses taxed as corporations):

Provide about 75 percent of the net new jobs

Represent more than 99 percent of all employers

Generate more than 50 percent of America's private sector output

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What will happen if we don't make the tax relief passed last summer permanent?

If we don't make the tax relief permanent, taxes will be raised on millions of hardworking Americans and their families. In the 2003 budget, President Bush proposed making the tax relief plan permanent. If we don't repeal the sunset, among the many tax increases that will occur in 2011 are the following:

The tax rate on low income families will jump 50% (from 10% to 15%)

The child credit will fall by 50%

Marriage penalties will be restored

Formerly tax-free withdrawals for certain education savings plans will become taxable

IRA contribution limits will shrink by more than 60%

The death tax will be restored

http://www.treas.gov/education/faq/taxes/tax-relief.shtml

This is straight from the horses mouth. I trust their numbers a lot more than the drivel that your site says.

Edited October 21, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Veiled Princess 1]

In fact with the earned income credit some people are getting back MORE than they paid in. In other words a gift from the IRS.

I am most grateful for my gift

[GaryC 7]

In fact with the earned income credit some people are getting back MORE than they paid in. In other words a gift from the IRS.

I am most grateful for my gift

Your welcome. It came out of the taxes I paid in.

FROM THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

April 1, 2004

js-1287

Fact Sheet:

Who Pays The Most Individual Income Taxes?

The individual income tax is highly progressive – a small group of higher-income taxpayers pay most of the individual income taxes each year.

In 2001, the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.3 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (32.0 percent) of income.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.9 percent of all individual income taxes in 2001. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 90 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000 and 2001, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.

The President’s tax cuts have shifted a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2004, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.

The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.

The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 30.5 percent to 32.3 percent.

The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 16 percent as compared to a 12 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.

http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm

Straight from the treasury department. Tell me again about "even handed".

Edited October 21, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever