In article XOfyb.255500$mZ5.1890893@attbi_s54,
says...
.... snip


You can always liven up an economy with defecit
pending. Democrats have played that game also,
Question is how much "livening" you get for how much
defecit spending. How much debt can the USA pile
on? Someone's got to pay, eventually. With shrub's
rules, it's the poor and the middle that pay, and the
rich that make off with the proceeds.


Unfortunately for you, the numbers belie your rant. Who pays the
taxes in the US? According to IRS 2001 statistics, the top 50% of wage
earners pay over 96% of all income taxes. The top 10% pay almost 65%
(64.89% to be precise). The top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes. Top
50% earn 86.2% of all income, top 10% earn 43.11% of all earnings, top
5% earns 31.99% of all income. Again, the source here is the IRS
statistics for 2001.

Now, given that the top 50% are paying 96% of all taxes, and the top
5% are paying 53.25%, who has any chance of benefiting from tax breaks
but the people who are paying the taxes.

You know, lies, damned lies, and statistics...


Real numbers, real data from the IRS -- no spin, nothing but the facts
in the above.

Income taxes, not payroll taxes. Payroll taxes (you know, fica, ss, etc) are
the majority of federal taxes for many if not the majority of people. As the
income tax goes down, the payroll tax stays the same.


Totally separate animal. Also, payroll taxes for everyone are 7.8%
who make above the social security minimum, 15% if you are self-
employed.


Thus, the rich's taxes go down while the poor's taxes stay the same. Taxes
on unearned income, and estate taxes were also cut by bush. Again, to
benefit the rich.


Wow, people can spin anything to benefit their point of view I
suppose. Especially when you couple it with the comments below

Now, since the federal government is back to its old, pre-Clinton

More precisely pre-1994 Republican congressional control days.
Clinton was doing nothing to reduce deficit spending and in fact had
projected deficits for 10 years into the future before the 1994
elections.

ways of
deficit spending, and there is that big old pile of money in the social
security trust fund,

Still a beleever in the SS "trust fund" or "lock box"? What do you
think that trust fund is, a pile of cash somewhere, or investments? The
reality is that the "trust fund" you are talking about is simply US
treasury bonds i.e. federal debt bonds.

I guess bush can use that to pay for essential
services, right? That trust fund was built up using an additional 1% payroll
tax that was imposed in the 80s.

So, you would not advocate reducing SS taxes then?

You've been adding to it with your paycheck
every year since it was created so social security wouldn't fold in 2010.

Unfortunately, giving the budget surplus to the rich will bankrupt social
security (which before the tax cut would have lasted another 50 years) in 10
years. Medicare will follow. Won't Grover Norquist be a happy camper when
that happens?


Social Security is supposed to be a separate entity from the federal
budget funded by income taxes. The tax cut should have no effect upon
social security unless you are going to admit that the general fund is
being used to fund Social Security.


That tax cut doesn't seem like such a good idea now, does it? How about in
10 years, when you retire?


Given that the tax cut is funding investment and economic growth, I
think the tax cut is a *very* good idea. You have not provided any real
data to prove otherwise.