Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

Im not sure if the source is trust worthy but..

[url=http://www.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html?mod=psp_mostpop]Their Fair Share - WSJ.com[/url]

The nearby chart shows that the top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at least 40 years. The top 10% in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid 71%. Barack Obama says he's going to cut taxes for those at the bottom, but that's also going to be a challenge because Americans with an income below the median paid a record low 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1%. Perhaps he thinks half the country should pay all the taxes to support the other half.

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

You cut the tax rate on the wealthy and they make even more money because they can bring home a larger % but they also end up paying more in taxes.

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

[quote]"Mr. Obama proposes to close this deficit by raising tax rates on the rich to their highest levels since the late 1970s."[/quote]

Yet another reason not to vote for him. I just can't wrap my mind around that being "fair".

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

[quote=jsarno;458564][B]Yet another reason not to vote for him[/B]. I just can't wrap my mind around that being "fair".[/quote]
OK, ill bite. what are some of the other reasons? then ill try to match yours, with reasons of my own, on why people should not vote for old man McCain

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

[quote=dmek25;458572]OK, ill bite. what are some of the other reasons? then ill try to match yours, with reasons of my own, on why people should not vote for old man McCain[/quote]
Didn't you see the cover of the New Yorker, isn't that enough! :laughing- [B]J/K![/B]
(That was an incredibly stupid move and in bad taste on their part)

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

[quote=mlmpetert;458542]Im not sure if the source is trust worthy but..

[URL="http://www.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html?mod=psp_mostpop"]Their Fair Share - WSJ.com[/URL]

[/quote]
The Wall Street Journal is a very credible source. The lean a bit to the right, but their information is spot-on.

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

[quote=mlmpetert;458542]Im not sure if the source is trust worthy but..

[URL="http://www.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html?mod=psp_mostpop"]Their Fair Share - WSJ.com[/URL]

The nearby chart shows that the top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at least 40 years. The top 10% in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid 71%. Barack Obama says he's going to cut taxes for those at the bottom, but that's also going to be a challenge because Americans with an income below the median paid a record low 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1%. Perhaps he thinks half the country should pay all the taxes to support the other half.[/quote]

One of the most credible sources in all of jouralism. Their analysts are top notch, when they publish numbers, they're right.

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

Yeah sorry was being completely sarcastic with my title for this thread and my "knock" on one of the most credible news sorces. I remeber reading something hear a while back about the amt and someone callled one of the sorces into question.

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

I don't see how Obama can actually carry through any of his idealistic campaign promises. I'm not that worried about him being elected, because I think that if/when he takes office, it will become clear to him that these dreams of 'equality' he has are just pipe dreams, and that even as president, he'll be pretty powerless to make such dramatic changes to the system.

But if he did have that kind of power, boy should we all fear his idealistic nature.

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

[quote=jsarno;458564]Yet another reason not to vote for him. I just can't wrap my mind around that being "fair".[/quote]
The funny thing is that the article demonstrated how cutting taxes actual increases the amount of taxes paid to the federal goverment. From eveything I have read this has been true anytime that taxes hve been cut. Its only lip service so the lower class can get that warm fuzzy feeling that they are sticking it to the mean old rich people.

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

[quote=firstdown;458653]The funny thing is that the article demonstrated how cutting taxes actual increases the amount of taxes paid to the federal goverment. From eveything I have read this has been true anytime that taxes hve been cut. Its only lip service so the lower class can get that warm fuzzy feeling that they are sticking it to the mean old rich people.[/quote]
And yet Obama still wants to raise taxes on the rich.

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

I feel so bad for the rich. They will only be able to afford a new Bentley every other year now.

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

[quote=Daseal;458693]I feel so bad for the rich. They will only be able to afford a new Bentley every other year now.[/quote]
Class envy?

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

Not at all. I'm actually in favor of a flat percentage tax. But people that make the most money in this country should do more to support it. Most of the people that whine about the rich being over-taxed aren't anywhere close to that bracket, and they play more when the ultra-rich get savings.

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

[quote=Daseal;458702]Not at all. I'm actually in favor of a flat percentage tax. But people that make the most money in this country should do more to support it. Most of the people that whine about the rich being over-taxed aren't anywhere close to that bracket, and they play more when the ultra-rich get savings.[/quote]
Well what facts do you have that supports that the rich gets ultra savings? Anything I have ever seen is that they are a small % of the tax payers but pay a much greater % of all the taxes collected. Like the top 1% pays 40% of all the taxes collected. That does not sound like ultra savings to me. I don't whine about it and your right I'm not in their bracket but I do think they pay more than their share as it is and that article even pointed out that raising their taxes will not increase tax revenue as Obama thinks it will.

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

Firstdown, I'm running out now so no time to back up the numbers I have heard with statistics, so Ill try to remember to get into that later. My thing is if one household brings in 10 million dollars a year, and lose 40% of that, it's a huge chunk. If another household brings in 100,000 a year and lose 40% of that, they're crippled.

Firstdown, would you be okay if everyone paid (just pulled a number out, statisticians would have to come up with an accurate number for this) 20% of their income at the end of the year to the government? I think doing it on a base percentage is the best way to go about it. Although I still don't know if the very poor could handle something that large.

I guess I just have no sympathy for someone paying more taxes that has all the money/luxuries they need. The top 1% won't come tumbling down because of their taxes. I'm more concerned about the folks that lose their homes because they can't pay property tax, or that have to choose between putting food on the table and paying the government.

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

[QUOTE=Daseal;458707]Firstdown, I'm running out now so no time to back up the numbers I have heard with statistics, so Ill try to remember to get into that later. My thing is if one household brings in 10 million dollars a year, and lose 40% of that, it's a huge chunk. If another household brings in 100,000 a year and lose 40% of that, they're crippled.

Firstdown, would you be okay if everyone paid (just pulled a number out, statisticians would have to come up with an accurate number for this) 20% of their income at the end of the year to the government? I think doing it on a base percentage is the best way to go about it. Although I still don't know if the very poor could handle something that large.

I guess I just have no sympathy for someone paying more taxes that has all the money/luxuries they need. The top 1% won't come tumbling down because of their taxes. I'm more concerned about the folks that lose their homes because they can't pay property tax, or that have to choose between putting food on the table and paying the government.[/QUOTE]

Why are you saying $10 million? The top 1%, per this article, make above $388,000. There's a huge difference between that and $10 million

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

[quote=Daseal;458707]Firstdown, I'm running out now so no time to back up the numbers I have heard with statistics, so Ill try to remember to get into that later. My thing is if one household brings in 10 million dollars a year, and lose 40% of that, it's a huge chunk. If another household brings in 100,000 a year and lose 40% of that, they're crippled.

Firstdown, would you be okay if everyone paid (just pulled a number out, statisticians would have to come up with an accurate number for this) 20% of their income at the end of the year to the government? I think doing it on a base percentage is the best way to go about it. Although I still don't know if the very poor could handle something that large.

I guess I just have no sympathy for someone paying more taxes that has all the money/luxuries they need. The top 1% won't come tumbling down because of their taxes. I'm more concerned about the folks that lose their homes because they can't pay property tax, or that have to choose between putting food on the table and paying the government.[/quote]
I'm for anything better then what we have in place today. Either a flat tax or a consumer tax which I believe is around 22% and the lower income receives back tax credits. Neil Bortz (spelling) has a book out on the consumer tax which I have not read but have heard about. Your example of someone making $100,000 is not very good because they do not pay that much in taxes. I agree that yes the rich can afford to pay more (which they do) but that upper bracket starts with families with incomes around 350,000. While that is very well off its far from your example and they end up paying around $140,000 in taxes. So now they are bringing home 210,000 which just doe not seem right. Think they have to work almost 5 months just to pay their Federal Taxes and this does not even enclude state and other taxes. The main problem is Federal, State, and local goverment has become to big and way to waistful. We have plenty of money to meet the needs of the people we just need to cut out the waist in all three.

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

Why can't they just add more tiers to the current system, so that the "ultra-rich" (the ones Daseal is referring to...) are taxed heavily, but the people making "only" $350k don't give up a disproportionately large chunk of their income. It seems as if the official definitions of "rich" are far outdated.

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

[quote=firstdown;458716]I'm for anything better then what we have in place today. Either a flat tax or a consumer tax which I believe is around 22% and the lower income receives back tax credits. Neil Bortz (spelling) has a book out on the consumer tax which I have not read but have heard about. [/quote]
Neal Boortz actually has two books out, the first is "The Fair Tax Book", the second is "The Fair Tax Answers the Critics" (I believe). I highly recommend you read them both. I read the first and haven't finished the second. Fair Tax is a great program. More info at: [URL="http://www.fairtax.org"]www.fairtax.org[/URL]

A tax structure which fully funds the government, protects the poor, eliminates corporate and capital gains taxes, taxes earnings of the underground economy (drugs, other illegal activity, illegal immigrants) and most importantly takes a great deal of power away from the lobbyists on K St. and out of DC has my support.

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

I'd prefer if we just figured out how spend less money rather than raise taxes. I am pretty convinced we can get the same level of shitty services out of our gov't for 75% of our current collective tax burden is. Hell if done right we could probably get fair to middlin' services for 75% if we had competent politicans in charge of putting competent people in charge of our programs and got special interests out of the game.

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

Taxes are all psychological. You lot need to stop whining.

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

[QUOTE=saden1;458862]Taxes are all psychological. You lot need to stop whining.[/QUOTE]

Huh? I am not sure what you mean. I think taxes are pretty real. I know when I get my paycheck every other Friday it says I got paid XXX but they only sent YYY to my bank because of taxes.

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

[quote=FRPLG;458865]Huh? I am not sure what you mean. I think taxes are pretty real. I know when I get my paycheck every other Friday it says I got paid XXX but they only sent YYY to my bank because of taxes.[/quote]

Perhaps you need a psychological stimulus to get you to see the light?

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

[QUOTE=saden1;458868]Perhaps you need a psychological stimulus to get you to see the light?[/QUOTE]

Apparently so.

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

[quote=saden1;458862]Taxes are all psychological. You lot need to stop whining.[/quote]
Well it seems pretty real each month when I have to write a check to the IRS and then one to the state to pay my taxes. I think everyone should have to pay their own taxes each month and write a check the IRS. It hits home much harder when you have to take money allready in your checking account than to have your boss just taking it out of your check.

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

[quote=saden1;458862]Taxes are all psychological. You lot need to stop whining.[/quote]

Looks like this is flying over people's heads.

I'll toss out a clue.

[url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11917.html]McCain’s head games on taxes - Ari Melber - Politico.com[/url]

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;458914]Looks like this is flying over people's heads.

I'll toss out a clue.

[url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11917.html]McCain’s head games on taxes - Ari Melber - Politico.com[/url][/QUOTE]

Ugh. That's pretty damning.

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;458914]Looks like this is flying over people's heads.

I'll toss out a clue.

[url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11917.html]McCain’s head games on taxes - Ari Melber - Politico.com[/url][/QUOTE]

This is a great post by Mr. Solar:
[quote]Since the lower income 50% of taxpayers pay only 3% of federal income taxes, they really don't need a tax break. And many get lots of money back with the earned income credit and additional child tax credit. Bush's tax cuts did lower rates on the top brackets. Result? The highest-income taxpayers had incentive to make more money, and they paid MORE taxes. The deficit, as a percentage of GDP, went down. And lower-income tax payers got jobs. I would love to see high-income athletes and actors pay way more tax, but a tax cut on the wealthy who create jobs (directly, or through investments) is good for everyone, even the jealous. Want out of the recession? More jobs? Better-paying jobs? Support McCain's proposal to cut the corporate income tax, which is higher than that of most other countries. Add drilling offshore and in ANWR, cut red tape (and useless government workers), and lower taxes on upper tiers, and the recession will end.[/quote]

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;458942]Ugh. That's pretty damning.[/quote]
Pretty Damning! I guess the guy did not read the WSJ article which was posted here or did very much reserch on the topic because the facts show that the rich are paying even more taxes after the Bush tax cut. I'm not sure how you find that damning unless you go with an article based on opinion or one from the WSJ which used fact to form its article.

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;458914]Looks like this is flying over people's heads.

I'll toss out a clue.

[url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11917.html]McCain’s head games on taxes - Ari Melber - Politico.com[/url][/QUOTE]

Ha ha.
<Homer Simpson>I get jokes</Homer Simpson>

I am usually smarter than that. Damn.

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

[QUOTE=firstdown;459018]Pretty Damning! I guess the guy did not read the WSJ article which was posted here or did very much reserch on the topic because the facts show that the rich are paying even more taxes after the Bush tax cut. I'm not sure how you find that damning unless you [b]go with an article based on opinion[/b] or one from the WSJ which used fact to form its article.[/QUOTE]

Isn't that the democratic motto? ;)

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

This article looks like it came out of the WSJ Editorial board rather than the WSJ. There's a huge difference. The editorial portion is pure shit, not journalism, and it's been that way for decades. The actual WSJ is high quality.

I say the article looks like editorial because it says editorial at the bottom and because it refers extensively to the voodoo economics known as supply side. Bob Bartley, the most famous chief editor of the WSJ editorial, was a major advocate of supply side (along w/ Jude Wanniski). Believe it or not supply side has never been an economics based theory. Bartley and Wanniski said tax cuts for the rich, beyond JFK's in the early sixties, would yield so much in tax revenue that America would see a budget surplus. Economic studies have shown GDP would have to grow by 10 to 12 percent (annually) to achieve surplus alongside Reagan's tax cuts. Any idiot who pays even the least bit of attention to public policy knows that each time supply side tax cuts have been implemented the budget collapses into deficit. When Reagan took office the US gov owed about $1 trillion. Reagan's supply side policies added over $3 trillion. The two Bushes have added most of the other $6 trillion to take our current national debt to $10 trillion. The only brief reprieve from massive budget deficits came from the economic team of the 1990's (Summers, Rubin, Sperling) - not really Bill Clinton.

As to the merits of the article, there is no there there. All good macroeconomics is founded in microeconomics, and to get at the micro picture you've got to ask what percentage of household income is going to the federal government. Sadly, the percentage of household income among the working poor (blue collar, service sector, etc) has climbed dramatically over the last 3 decades to have nearly doubled. Think about out social security was saved in the 80's. The tax was doubled for W-2'd workers. If you're wondering how this group is somehow paying a lesser portion of income taxes, it's because they're earning significantly less real income than 30 years ago. The real income, when adjusted for inflation, has fallen for blue collar and service sector workers. Meanwhile, the percentage of household income taken away from the top decile in the form of taxes is lower than at any other time since WWII (when the modern tax system was implemented). Again, if it seems curious that this group is now paying a larger percentage of income taxes, all you have to look at is their enormous gain in real income. At the micro level, where it really counts, the poor are paying more than ever before (percentage of household income) and the rich are paying less than any time since WWII (percentage of household income).

Lastly, the WSJ editorial here is pure bullshit for an entirely different reason. Notice it talked about income taxes and not payroll taxes. Most families (4 out of 5) live w/ the payroll tax, levied at 15.3%, as their primary tax. The income tax only accounts for about 10% of what the median family pays in total tax. In simple terms, the editorial completely ignores the tax paid by the vast majority of American households. This is a slick little way of distorting the reality, but it's not a new trick by any means. The reason we can say that the bottom 50% of workers paid just 2.9% of the income tax is because they don't make enough to pay much in income tax, but you can be quite sure that they're not escaping the payroll tax which is counted separately.

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

[quote=The Goat;459162]This article looks like it came out of the WSJ Editorial board rather than the WSJ. There's a huge difference. The editorial portion is pure shit, not journalism, and it's been that way for decades. The actual WSJ is high quality.

I say the article looks like editorial because it says editorial at the bottom and because it refers extensively to the voodoo economics known as supply side. Bob Bartley, the most famous chief editor of the WSJ editorial, was a major advocate of supply side (along w/ Jude Wanniski). Believe it or not supply side has never been an economics based theory. Bartley and Wanniski said tax cuts for the rich, beyond JFK's in the early sixties, would yield so much in tax revenue that America would see a budget surplus. Economic studies have shown GDP would have to grow by 10 to 12 percent (annually) to achieve surplus alongside Reagan's tax cuts. Any idiot who pays even the least bit of attention to public policy knows that each time supply side tax cuts have been implemented the budget collapses into deficit. When Reagan took office the US gov owed about $1 trillion. Reagan's supply side policies added over $3 trillion. The two Bushes have added most of the other $6 trillion to take our current national debt to $10 trillion. The only brief reprieve from massive budget deficits came from the economic team of the 1990's (Summers, Rubin, Sperling) - not really Bill Clinton.

As to the merits of the article, there is no there there. All good macroeconomics is founded in microeconomics, and to get at the micro picture you've got to ask what percentage of household income is going to the federal government. Sadly, the percentage of household income among the working poor (blue collar, service sector, etc) has climbed dramatically over the last 3 decades to have nearly doubled. Think about out social security was saved in the 80's. The tax was doubled for W-2'd workers. If you're wondering how this group is somehow paying a lesser portion of income taxes, it's because they're earning significantly less real income than 30 years ago. The real income, when adjusted for inflation, has fallen for blue collar and service sector workers. Meanwhile, the percentage of household income taken away from the top decile in the form of taxes is lower than at any other time since WWII (when the modern tax system was implemented). Again, if it seems curious that this group is now paying a larger percentage of income taxes, all you have to look at is their enormous gain in real income. At the micro level, where it really counts, the poor are paying more than ever before (percentage of household income) and the rich are paying less than any time since WWII (percentage of household income).

Lastly, the WSJ editorial here is pure bullshit for an entirely different reason. Notice it talked about income taxes and not payroll taxes. Most families (4 out of 5) live w/ the payroll tax, levied at 15.3%, as their primary tax. The income tax only accounts for about 10% of what the median family pays in total tax. In simple terms, the editorial completely ignores the tax paid by the vast majority of American households. This is a slick little way of distorting the reality, but it's not a new trick by any means. The reason we can say that the bottom 50% of workers paid just 2.9% of the income tax is because they don't make enough to pay much in income tax, but you can be quite sure that they're not escaping the payroll tax which is counted separately.[/quote]

Don't agree

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

When Reagan took office the US gov owed about $1 trillion. Reagan's supply side policies added over $3 trillion. The two Bushes have added most of the other $6 trillion to take our current national debt to $10 trillion. The only brief reprieve from massive budget deficits came from the economic team of the 1990's (Summers, Rubin, Sperling) - not really Bill Clinton.

Deficits are based off what comes in and what is spent and you seem to leave those numbers out. With what your saying is that with the Regan and Bush tax cuts revenue to the IRS went down which is totaly not true. The proplem is that Regan went along with Congress way too much and the Dems (with the help of Regan) spent more than the goverment was taking in and the same with Bush (with the help from both parties).

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

[QUOTE=firstdown;459018]Pretty Damning! I guess the guy did not read the WSJ article which was posted here or did very much reserch on the topic because the facts show that the rich are paying even more taxes after the Bush tax cut. I'm not sure how you find that damning unless you go with an article based on opinion or one from the WSJ which used fact to form its article.[/QUOTE]

When I say it's pretty damning, I'm referring to the repeated comments coming from McCain insinuating that the current economic hardships facing many American families are "just in their head." Doesn't say a lot about someone who is claiming to fix issues he doesn't seem to believe truly exist. To me, that kind of double talk is damning.

As for tax percentages and breakouts among varying income levels, that's not my area of expertise and I can't speak intelligently on it, so I won't try.

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;459225]When I say it's pretty damning, I'm referring to the repeated comments coming from McCain insinuating that the current economic hardships facing many American families are "just in their head." Doesn't say a lot about someone who is claiming to fix issues he doesn't seem to believe truly exist. To me, that kind of double talk is damning.

As for tax percentages and breakouts among varying income levels, that's not my area of expertise and I can't speak intelligently on it, so I won't try.[/quote]
So you don't think if the news running stories over and over again saying that the economy is going south that it does not any affect on how people feel. Its an election year and the media by their own poll vote something like 80 some percent democratic so I feel their reporting will be slanted. That goes both ways but the dems have the upper hand with the media. [url=http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp]Media Bias Basics[/url]

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

[QUOTE=firstdown;459240][B]So you don't think if the news running stories over and over again saying that the economy is going south that it does not any affect on how people feel.[/B] Its an election year and the media by their own poll vote something like 80 some percent democratic so I feel their reporting will be slanted. That goes both ways but the dems have the upper hand with the media. [url=http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp]Media Bias Basics[/url][/QUOTE]

To answer the bolded question, yes, I do agree that the barrage of negativity has an effect on the public's psyche. I do not believe, however, that the current downturn in the economy is a figment of our collective imagination. I don't [I]think[/I] that the price of groceries has gone up dramatically, I know it. I don't [I]guess[/I] that people are spending less, I see it when I'm out at a restaurant or shopping. I most definitely do not [I]pretend[/I] that energy costs are affecting my monthly budget, I feel it.

McCain's comments bother me because they show he doesn't know/see/feel the same economic issues as the vast majority of the American populace. If he doesn't even believe these issues to exist, how can we realistically expect him to solve them?

To your final point regarding media bias, you'll get no argument from me. One thing that I learn as I get older is that there is no such thing as an unbiased opinion. Every reported "fact," whether it be from Fox, CNN or any of the other outlets has to be viewed with a jaundiced eye. But to counter the point I believe you are making, CNN talking about the sky falling affects me to the same magnitude as Fox News beating me about the face and neck with right wing "patriotic" propaganda. It is not always easy, but any reasonably intelligent person attempts to look through to the core facts, as obscured by partisan rhetoric as they may be. To suggest that this country has simply "talked" itself into a recession is pretty hard to believe.

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

[QUOTE=BleedBurgundy;459272]To answer the bolded question, yes, I do agree that the barrage of negativity has an effect on the public's psyche. I do not believe, however, that the current downturn in the economy is a figment of our collective imagination. I don't [I]think[/I] that the price of groceries has gone up dramatically, I know it. I don't [I]guess[/I] that people are spending less, I see it when I'm out at a restaurant or shopping. I most definitely do not [I]pretend[/I] that energy costs are affecting my monthly budget, I feel it.

McCain's comments bother me because they show he doesn't know/see/feel the same economic issues as the vast majority of the American populace. If he doesn't even believe these issues to exist, how can we realistically expect him to solve them?

To your final point regarding media bias, you'll get no argument from me. One thing that I learn as I get older is that there is no such thing as an unbiased opinion. Every reported "fact," whether it be from Fox, CNN or any of the other outlets has to be viewed with a jaundiced eye. But to counter the point I believe you are making, CNN talking about the sky falling affects me to the same magnitude as Fox News beating me about the face and neck with right wing "patriotic" propaganda. It is not always easy, but any reasonably intelligent person attempts to look through to the core facts, as obscured by partisan rhetoric as they may be. To suggest that this country has simply "talked" itself into a recession is pretty hard to believe.[/QUOTE]

Great points Mr. Burgundy.

Re: Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!
 

oh god. so we aren't really in a recession? im just dreaming that gas prices, food prices, and every other thing under the sun prices are rising? and first down, i love your look on politics. if its someone you like, or have voted for, in your eyes things that go south is never their fault. it always congress, or Bill Clinton's fault. and if something good comes out of someone you don't like, you do everything you can to deflect the praise. your loyalty is commendable