On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:57:46 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:49:03 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:14:46 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:02:54 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 01:24:24 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:14:21 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

or they could restore the bush tax cuts...taht would elminate AOT of
the deficit since those cuts are the single largest component of the
deficit


I agree they should have let ALL of the tax cuts expire but don't
expect that to do much for the deficit.
It was only supposed to be $700 Billion over 10 years for the $250K
and above people.
If you let all of the cuts expire it was $3.7 Trillion over 10 years.
That is still only about a third of the deficit.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/15/news...faqs/index.htm

They should not "all" expire. That hurts the middle and lower class
much more for no great benefit.


... if you think $1.6 Trillion over 10 years is "no great benefit".

(but $700 billion will save the world)

The fact still remains close to half of the households pay no income
tax at all.

You keep saying that as though it has some great weight in your
argument. There's a significant portion of the population that doesn't
pay income tax because they ARE POOR.

Only in America can we call someone making $45,000 a year "poor".

What do you think the tax burden is on someone making that kind of
money in one of the socialist countries?

Those "socialist" countries give a lot to people who pay those higher
percentage taxes. Thus the income side of the equation isn't as
important. Of course, you don't want social services for anyone who
"can't afford it". You're contradicting yourself.