So whether your realize it or not, you've exposed YOURSELF as a damn fool. I would feel inadequate if you believed I was anything otherwise.  I don't want someone like you to agree with me.  That would be like say Forrest Gump is on my side.

Democrats have defined the rich as anyone making over $35,000 per year. When?  50 years ago? More like 4 or 5. Prove it. You won't, of course.  You like to write blatant lies and run away whenever challenged.

Ray Fischer The loss of surplus is almost COMPLETELY the result of the Clinton recession. You're lying again.  It's because of Bush's tax cut for the rich. ... What tax cuts for the rich? Playing stupid just makes people think that you're an idiot with no regard for the truth.

... Ray can you explain how a tax cut is increasing spending? I really don't get that. ... People like Ray think that the GOVERNMENT is en_title_d to EVERYTHING we earn, People like Bill think that the US should be a oligarchic dictatorship where all the rules are made by people with money and ordinary workers are slaves.

Craig Chilton    And WHY, do you suppose, more unwed teens are having babies?     Not enough of the sexually-active teens are preacticing Safe Sex.    I'm sure that telling them they can have safe sex has NOTHING to do with it.     Obviously not, in the case of those who don't listen. ... Here's an interesting story from Africa where AIDS is decimating populations, despite the efforts of the purveyors of safe sex : Simply because people like you refuse to allow information about sex or contraception.  You think that sex should be punished.

The rich pay the most in taxes again, you are ignoring the evidence that was provide.  I think the source was very reliable as well...can't get much better than the IRS as a source. Hon, that's only looking at taxes on income, which is salary and wages for the vast majority of us.  Wealthy people don't earn their money.  The tax system is structured to ensure that most of it isn't counted as income , so that they don't have to pay any tax on it at all. Thank you.  Which is why it is so silly for average working people to want tax cuts so badly.  Tax cuts help the non-working and business, only.  If income taxes were cut tomorrow by 25%, working America would have the IDENTICAL spending power they had before the cut within two years.  (The market would adjust.)  However, the non-working rich and business would see a huge increase in spending power.  However, this would be at the expense of the taxpayer over time.  We would be required to borrow the working capital for government.  (Which is exactly what irrepsonsible Republicans do - borrow and spend.) What I don't understand is the concept that giving a $3000 tax cut to the rich is allegedly so much better during a *recession* than giving a $300 tax cut to the poor. During a recession, interest rates in the U.S.A. are falling.  This means that investing in America is a *bad investment*.  Hand someone who is well-off an additional $3000 and where will they put it? In an overseas investment account which has a higher rate of return than anything they can get in America.  The money leaves America and doesn't look back. Now, just $300 to a poor person.  The $300 they receive probably won't get invested.  It won't even end up in a bank account.   Where it will go is into the *local economy*, and that is where the real benefit is needed in any recession. The additional money influx into the local economy means that local businesses continue to thrive during the recession, local jobs continue to exist, and local people continue to live in the same areas without leaving and reducing the local economy even more. I call it the trickle-up effect, and I think it works better than trickle-down .  Trickle-down is _base_d on handing more money to the rich and begging them to invest in unwise American investment with low interest rates.  It would be roughly equivalent to handing a poor person a degree in computer programming and then begging him to take a cashier job at the local supermarket.  The rich make their money from investment, and they naturally gravitate to investments which make more money for them, while avoiding investments which do not make money for them.  Trickle-down doesn't seem to succeed in anything other than making the rich richer while allowing them to pay less as a percentage of their total income than the middle-class or lower-class worker earns from a job. Trickle-up, on the other hand, keeps at least a percentage of money given to the poor person right here in America, invested directly into the businesses that make up the majority of American businesses: small businesses.  These in turn purchase services and supplies from larger businesses, and so on up the chain of business.  Yes, occasionally items which are not made in America are purchased by the poor person, but unlike the rich person putting the entire tax cut into a foreign investment, the poor person is required to put a portion of the money spent on foreign products into the pockets of the store owner and the employees of the store.  So the money circulates in America longer than the $3000 aforementioned rich guy tax cut. I have a 15% payroll tax on my income.  I make just enough that I don't get any of it back after April 15th, and last year a raise made me owe more.  So don't tell me 4% .  You can't _base_ taxes on a percentage of the population, since the income disparity is so wide.  As a percentage of income earned, I don't think a single wealthy person pays as much *actual* income tax (including all my payroll taxes) as I do.  And don't tell me that I'm going to get *any* FICA back.  I'm only in my early 30s.  The AARP will make certain that current senior citizen benefits don't get cut just so I can have Social Security when I reach 59-1/2 years old.  The money is just as gone as if it was ALL income taxes! There's a Bible verse which sums up neatly my opinion of Republicans claiming that 4% is less taxes than the rich pay.  I'm not Christian but sometimes even a work of fiction has a point to make which extends to the real world: Mark 12:42-44 And there came a certain poor widow, and she   threw in two mites, which make a farthing. And he called   unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say   unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all   they which have cast into the treasury: For all they did   cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast   in all that she had, even all her living. Makes you wonder about all those fiscal conservative *Christian* Republicans, claiming that the rich are suffering hardship because they have to pay a lesser percentage of their total income than do the poor.