THE DEMOCRATIC PLAN

The United States would be better off if...
Republicans maintain control of congress and presidency
Democrats had control of congress and presidency
Control of presidency and congress was split between Republicans and Democrats

With polls showing the Republican Congress could be on the way out, Democrats are starting to taste victory. Believing they'll be in control of the majority, and thus have full subpoena power to investigate the Bush Administration, the left is already planning to take over. And just what do they cite as one of their goals upon taking over next year? Let's take a look at their plans.

They are planning a "legislative blitz" (whatever that means, ) that includes raising the job-killing minimum wage, repealing some of the prescription drug plan...perhaps not a bad idea...and reinstating budget deficit controls. Make no mistake: when a Democrat talks about controlling the budget deficit, they don't mean cutting spending. Oh no, far from it. What they mean is raising taxes to cover the shortfall. So apparently we can look forward to much higher taxes if the Democrats take the gavel in January.

Then there's the investigations. Not satisfied with the endless investigations that have already been conducted, Nancy Pelosi wants to investigate the Bush administration some more. Everything from the energy task force, the intelligence used to invade Iraq and even though they won't admit it, start an impeachment inquiry against George W. Bush.

So, to review: Democrats want to destroy the economy and waste millions of dollars investigating something to death that's already been investigated. What a plan!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/06/AR2006050601336.html

What goes around, comes around. The endless investigations of the Clinton Administration by a Republican Congress, with very little to show for it, have provided a playbook on just how to do it. The difference is that the Bush Administration, in my opinion, has much more to hide.

THE DEMOCRATIC PLAN

What they mean is raising taxes to cover the shortfall. So apparently we can look forward to much higher taxes if the Democrats take the gavel in January.


Raising taxes worked pretty well during Clinton's 8 years ... don't you remember back then when he created more millionaires than any other president? OH -- you weren't one of them. Now I see what you're pissed off at. ROTFLMAO

And we'll let the world courts take care of this administration. There won't be any reason to impeach.

Here's the republican plan --tax cuts for only the rich ... no one else

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aUuyWDCDyRIk

If you want to tighten the government's belt, cutting taxes for the rich would be the best place to start. I think the top 10 percent pays around 80 percent of all income tax. Now I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Still, it's a staggering number.

The tax issue is a tricky one. Everyone wants a break and also wants someone else to fit the bill. Right now, that top few percent have most of the burden.

I think the problem is that people see this in the wrong set of terms. The primary purpose of tax cuts should be to force the government to cut spending. With less money going to the government, more of it stays in the economy. Ultimately, that benefits everyone. This divisive sense of class conflict needs to stop.

I think the top 10 percent pays around 80 percent of all income tax. Now I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Still, it's a staggering number.The top 1% shoulders about 35% percent of the total income tax burden. Is that staggering as well? No. What is staggering is the incredible amount of income earned by the top 1%. Of course they pay much more than others - they make that much more than others.This divisive sense of class conflict needs to stop.Then by all means, stop it. Rich people aren't being taxed out of existence; quite the opposite is happening. The rich and the super-rich grow in numbers every year. They are flourishing like never before in human history. Stop trying to make it sound like they're so put upon. This can be your small contribution to ending the divisiveness.

Evil Homer does bring up a good point though, the only way government is going to learn to be more frugal is to give them less money. We should not be cutting taxes for the rich, who can afford to pay them, but for the poor, because less money out of their pockets increases the chances of many of them to move from lower class and lower middle class up to a higher station. This makes sense not only from a welfare state mentality but also from a personal responsibility one. Those with the most money have the greatest pull in politics and have much more clout. They should be paying for government, their representation on Capitol Hill all but dwarfs the poor's.

Divisive class conflict will be a feature of politics as long as sharp class distinctions exist. There is no way to get rid of it, one can only foster upward mobility.

Taxes and government spending should be based on what the economy needs at a given time. If the economy is in a slump and needs stimulation then we can lower taxes or increase government spending. However, if the economy needs a cool-down then the prudent thing to do would be to either raise taxes or decrease spending. In such a case, politicians would probably go for the latter, since it would cost them less votes.

We should not be cutting taxes for the rich, who can afford to pay them, but for the poor, because less money out of their pockets increases the chances of many of them to move from lower class and lower middle class up to a higher station.

You can't reduce the taxes of people that don't pay taxes.

Divisive class conflict will be a feature of politics as long as sharp class distinctions exist. There is no way to get rid of it, one can only foster upward mobility.

An excellent way to foster upward mobility is to let people know that if you earn more, you'll get to keep it.

You can't reduce the taxes of people that don't pay taxes.

All of my coworkers pay quite a bit of income taxes on their paycheck. They are all poor black folk. Sure, they get much of that back, but they shouldn't have to pay it anyway. The whole earned income credit, withholding and return crap should be eliminated for all jobs that pay less than thirty grand a year.

An excellent way to foster upward mobility is to let people know that if you earn more, you'll get to keep it.

A better way is letting them keep money they have now, instead of pie-in-the-sky money. Nobody gets rich off of tomorrow's money. They get rich with money they slowly save up over the years, buy houses with, and make smart investments with. In other words, money they're making right now.

I agree that the rich should be taxed more. However, the current tax rate is bordering on punitive. I am technically in that top 10 percent, but my dad ain't no millionare. He goes to work everyday just like everybody else. He built a small buisness from the ground up, sold it, took over the parent company, and sold that too. Despite this, he made absolutely zero money. He has to pay 45% of his salary right off the top. Then there are state taxes, and because he sold the company, he had to pay 500,000 in "phantom gains" ie. money he never recieved.

The problem is not that the the ultra-rich aren't being taxed enough, the rate is borderline punitive, it's that many of them have lawyers to find loopholes to dodge them.

The best solution would be to try and close loopholes while simultaneously lowering the rate on everyone. I do find the fact that 1% of the population pays 35% of the taxes to be staggering. I do think they should pay more, but that is just insane.

The only real solution is to cut down on government spending. I don't believe in a welfare state...I'm more of a fan of the minimalist state. As little government as possible. A great way to do this is by first reducing the amount of money available.

What I don't get is why people feel that giving others a break somehow hurts them...

I don't think it is possible to cut down on government spending, strangely enough. Politicians will moralize from here till the cows come home about fiscal responsibility, but at the end of the day, pork is the rule, and there's too much established tradition to buck the trend. Big government is here to stay. What we can do, is influence where that money goes. If we can divert some of the money that would otherwise go to pork, or, ideally, the military, to a robust welfare state, I think we can weather the challenges of economic upheaval with a minimum of fuss, without breaking the bank.

I think the best thing we can do, is try to get a handle on pork and start to slowly legislate to what all this money goes to. I would greatly enjoy a minimalist state, but I think it's pretty imaginary at this point.

What goes around, comes around. The endless investigations of the Clinton Administration by a Republican Congress, with very little to show for it, have provided a playbook on just how to do it. The difference is that the Bush Administration, in my opinion, has much more to hide.I think it was a special prosecutor.