Of course we are all assuming a Democrat wins. But this quote :

"And a majority now says, in a reversal from a year ago, that their federal income taxes are too high, according to an April Gallup poll."

Now, I know Bush has been bad for the deficit, spending, etc. But I'm sure the vast majority of people think that Repubicans are better for tax rates than Democrats. Most of us know that taxes are going up if the Democrats control both houses of Congress and the White House. So that quote gives me hope that the people will choose to keep the powers separated.

Here's the article, btw :

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0416/p01s04-usec.html

__________________
Don't Give Me a Defensive Player Who Can't Tackle . . . What Am I Going to Do With Him ? --- Bill Belichick

Ouch. The welfare state is truly going to destroy this country.

The Congressional Budget Office, in a long-range forecast prepared in 2005, outlined a baseline scenario in which entitlement programs push federal spending to 25.3 percent of GDP by mid-century, up from about 18.4 percent today. That number could go higher still if medical inflation doesn't edge downward.

Similarly, Shilling predicts that the number of "government beneficiaries," as he defines them, will grow to 60 percent of the US population by 2040 Against this backdrop, many Americans are understandably uneasy about the fiscal path of their politicians.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"A theory that explains everything, explains nothing"

Yeah, it's not a very positive article overall. But with the two bigges, social security and medicare, being very popular it's difficult to see things changing.

__________________
Don't Give Me a Defensive Player Who Can't Tackle . . . What Am I Going to Do With Him ? --- Bill Belichick

What's of note is how ncome taxes may have dropped slightly, fees have risen dramitically. A government associated fee is a tax. If government doesn't slow it's reach, and spending, we're doomed.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"A theory that explains everything, explains nothing"

I expect the Democrats will push for a more progressive income tax, but with cuts for the middle class and increases for the wealthy. I've seen a couple of articles where leading Democrats defined middle class as families earning under $200k. The Republicans have lost a lot of fiscal credibility over the years, and the Democreats, by virtue of not being in power, are probably more trusted on economic issues than they have been in years.

The rich pay virtually the entire income tax already. Short of having the bottom 50% pay zero, this has already been done.

Fiscal responsibility yes, but not tax cut responsibility. That's the point I made in the original post. Remember :

But if Americans, rightly, think they're overtaxes that it CLEARLY a Republican issue still.

__________________
Don't Give Me a Defensive Player Who Can't Tackle . . . What Am I Going to Do With Him ? --- Bill Belichick

You're using the measure the rich want to use. If we use percentages of income, the rich don't pay more. After all, much of the their income is taxed at the capital gains rate. Perhaps we could increase the capital gains tax for any income over, e.g., $200k.

Those who worry about the sacrifices the very wealthy are being asked to make will buy your point of view. But, those who believe that we should continue to help the needy will most likely support continued investment in social services programs, tax cuts for the middle class, and tax hikes for the wealthy. Of course, the issue of efficiency is important, too, and right now the Dems may have an advantage there, primarily because Clinton did a good job with the budget and the Republicans have been reckless not only with spending, but with oversight.

Depends how it's framed. The Republicans really lack credibility right now. That said, the Democrats have a knack at losing elections, especially Presidential contetsts!

I need to bookmark this, or a similar site :

http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...harts_T/t4.cfm

The bottom 50% pay 3% of the income tax. The bottom 75% pay 15%. Not much cutting to be done there.

__________________
Don't Give Me a Defensive Player Who Can't Tackle . . . What Am I Going to Do With Him ? --- Bill Belichick

That's a Neo-Con way of looking at things.

For example. Last winter was relatively mild, so Bill Kristol goes on Fox and says "Hey, Global Warming is a good thing - who can argue with the nice mild winter we just had?"

Of course, Mr. Kristol is only talking about RIGHT NOW. He conveniently brushes under the rug the contention that the warming will be taking place over many years, and while it is cute and cuddly now, it won't be as it progresses.

Kind of like saying "I know Bush has been bad for the deficit (our offspring's tax burden) but he's giving me that interest only mortgage today, baby!"

__________________
"They (Patriots) may be the greatest team ever" - Chris Mortenson, January 18, 2005 on espn.com

Not really. It is what it is. If people think they're overtaxed and think that the Republicans are better for lower taxes then that has a good chance to get votes for Republicans depending how high taxes are on the voter's prioirty list.

I made no comment on whether this is good or bad thinking based on other factors . . . simply a statement of fact that people think they're overtaxed and my assumption that the tax issue favors Republicans.

__________________
Don't Give Me a Defensive Player Who Can't Tackle . . . What Am I Going to Do With Him ? --- Bill Belichick