“Economic theory or not, that seems wrong. ”

I would much rather our economic system be based on logic and not feelings. When you focus too much on ‘feelings’ you get idiotic legislation that completely saps the economy and it just serves to make everyone equally miserable. This is not the way to run a country.

And these tax cuts are rolled into the exact same bill where they’re cutting food for poor people. Economic theory or not, that seems wrong.

Have you ever taken an economics class? Somehow I don’t think so…

“All the tax cuts did is to boost Bush’s polling numbers and destroy the surplus we had for the first time since before Reagan spent Russia into the ground.”

Surplus??? Oh, yeah, I remember, you mean the ‘theft of our Social Security’ money that is supposedly being put aside for us…. yeah, right. I’m sure you think that the government isn’t really participating in a ponzi scheme that they would arrest you for starting, and that they have really invested all of that Social Security money instead of spending it on their pork projects to buy their votes with…

What do you think happens to the ‘tax cut’ money? Do you not think that since it goes back into the community, that it provides revenue and opportunities for new jobs? Even if you just put it in the bank it still works because the banks then lend that money out. If you invest it in stocks, you have put the money into that business to grow and create more opportunities, if you spent it at the local mall you have provided money to the stores, which then pay the manufacturers, which then pay their employees, etc, etc, etc.

“Our taxes are the lowest in the industrialized world. The rich in this country are getting huge benefits out of this system, it’s only fair that they pay their fair share. It’s ludicrous that we expect the poorest 20% of the country to take the hit every time Bush & the Republicans screw up the economy again. ”

If France is your utopia government system, then move there, we don’t want you messing ours up… like we really want to emulate the 10% unemployment rate, -% birth rate, stagnent economy, etc…. Oh, yeah… that’s what we should aspire to???

The poorest 20% don’t PAY ANY FEDERAL INCOME TAXES, AS A MATTER OF FACT, THEY RECEIVE MORE MONEY BACK THAN THEY PAY IN…. the only thing that they contribute to is FICA which is their SS.

The bottom 50% of tax payers only pay less than 4% of the Federal Taxes… If you want to make sure that the ‘rich’ pay their fair share then take away the income tax and make it a ’sales tax’, that way there is no way to ‘hide your money offshore’ or in trusts, etc. Everytime you spend money, you pay your taxes. The rich wouldn’t suddenly want to live like middle class America so they would naturally pay more in taxes, and all of the CPA’s in the world couldn’t hide your money in all of the ‘tax loopholes’.

Consumer spending drives 70% of our economy. If you take money out of their pockets by raising taxes, what do you think happens? Yes, our taxes are among the lowest. But just look at what happens in welfare states like Franec and Germany. Stagnant economies, massive unemployment for well over a decade.

That being said, there’s all sort of pork in other programs (like what ended up in the highway bill) we can cut before we get to programs for the poor, which should only be cut if it means we avoid national bankruptcy.

Our taxes are the lowest in the industrialized world. The rich in this country are getting huge benefits out of this system, it’s only fair that they pay their fair share. It’s ludicrous that we expect the poorest 20% of the country to take the hit every time Bush & the Republicans screw up the economy again.

This would only slow down the conomy and create more people that need assistance…. Take a look at the economic numbers, our economy is very strong, and that is ‘because’ of the tax cuts.

I don’t know if this is the case here or not, but lots of times when the news reports cuts they have a tendency to over dramatize the event. It could be money that hasn’t even been ‘earmarked’ for spending but is a cut in the yearly increase to the program, they then take this number and divide it by the amount the recipient would receive and claim that ‘we are kicking this many families off of assistance’. I’ve seen this done countless times, screams about cuts to a program only to find out that they are cutting the ‘rate’ of increase to the program.

I’m failing to see how drilling in ANWR, rightly or wrongly, is “pork.� As for ag subsidies and hurricane relief, this paragraph, at least, doesn’t indicate which way the GOP lawmakers are pushing on those matters; they might as well be trying to cut spending there. As I recall, Bush in his most recent budget tried to whack down ag subsidies (a justified cut) but Congress restored them.

That was an overall comment, but it is confusing so I’ll change it.

As for hurricane relief, based on the tone you’ve set, there’s no right answer: if you spend more you’re driving up the deficit; if you cut it, your hurting the poor.

No, they could repeal some of the tax cuts instead of cutting programs for the poor. Remember what the title of the post is Cal.

The Senate action will feature a showdown over a bid to open Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, as well as confrontations over limits to agriculture subsidies, Medicaid payments and Hurricane Katrina relief.

To which you comment:

Yes, so instead of cutting pork barrel projects, the lawmakers cut food for poor children.

I’m failing to see how drilling in ANWR, rightly or wrongly, is “pork.” As for ag subsidies and hurricane relief, this paragraph, at least, doesn’t indicate which way the GOP lawmakers are pushing on those matters; they might as well be trying to cut spending there. As I recall, Bush in his most recent budget tried to whack down ag subsidies (a justified cut) but Congress restored them.

As for hurricane relief, based on the tone you’ve set, there’s no right answer: if you spend more you’re driving up the deficit; if you cut it, your hurting the poor.