Democrats - read it and weep!

[Crookshanks]

Guess those tax cuts are working after all!

US Treasury Sets New 1-Day Tax Receipt Record Of $85.8 Billion
Tuesday September 19th, 2006 / 0h04

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. government recorded record-high overall and corporate tax receipts on Sept. 15, which was a quarterly deadline for tax payments, the Treasury said Monday.

Total tax receipts were $85.8 billion on Friday, compared with the previous one-day record of $71 billion on Sept. 15 of last year, the Treasury said.
Within the overall figure, corporate tax receipts Friday were $71.8 billion, up from $63 billion in September of last year.

Treasury Undersecretary for Domestic Finance Randal Quarles said Friday's numbers provided a "continuing demonstration of the strength of the U.S. economy."

"In fact, Friday's gross receipts were the largest in a single day in the nation's history - 20% higher than receipts on the same quarterly tax payment date last year," Quarles said in a statement.

-By Benton Ives-Halperin, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9255; [email protected]

======================================

Poll finds rebound in Bush approval

By Jill Lawrence and Susan Page, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Amid falling gas prices and a two-week drive to highlight his administration's efforts to fight terrorism, President Bush's approval rating has risen to 44% in a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. That's his highest rating in a year.

The poll also showed likely voters evenly divided between Democratic and Republican candidates for Congress, 48%-48%. Among registered voters, Democrats had a 51%-42% advantage.

The results come seven weeks before closely contested elections for control of Congress. Republicans have struggled to overcome problems, including Bush's low ratings, continuing violence in Iraq and the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina.

They also come as terrorism is making headlines: an alleged plot to blow up planes headed from Britain to the USA, the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, and weeks of focus by Bush and other top Republicans on terrorism and whether Democrats can protect the country.

The new findings reflect "a consistent, persistent, tenacious effort to make ... the Republican Party's ability to deal with terrorism the No. 1 issue in the campaign," said political scientist Richard Eichenberg of Tufts University, who has studied presidential job ratings during wartime. He called it "a carbon copy" of the successful 2004 playbook.

Bush's approval rating has edged up largely on the strength of Republicans coming back to the fold — 86% with him now compared with 70% in May.

Scott Reed, a Republican strategist who ran Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign, said GOP fortunes have turned since Labor Day: "This has been the best two weeks Republicans have had since Bush was re-elected."

Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin said Bush's approval goes up and down with each poll, and the even division of likely voters has been constant for a month. "There's no momentum here," he said. "The story is Republicans at a standstill."

The new poll found likely voters more prone to vote for candidates who support Bush on terrorism, 45%-28%, and evenly divided on those who support and oppose Bush on Iraq. More than a quarter said Iraq is their top concern this fall. For the first time since December 2005, a majority of people did not say the war there was a mistake; the split was 49%-49%.

Bush's terror-fighting techniques drew mixed reviews. A 55%-42% majority supported his policy of wiretapping phone conversations between U.S. citizens here and suspected terrorists in other countries without getting a court order.

But by 48%-41%, people said it would be worse to convict defendants on evidence they are never shown, as Bush wants, than to let some suspected terrorists go free. And 57% said the United States should abide by the Geneva Conventions that bar humiliating and degrading treatment of prisoners; Bush wants to write U.S. standards that critics such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., say would weaken protections.

The Iraq war continues to be problematic for Bush. Six in 10 people said he does not have a clear plan for handling Iraq (two-thirds said the same for Democrats), and 56% said Congress is not doing enough to oversee U.S. policy there.

Three-quarters said Iraq is in a civil war, though the administration says that is not the case. And 58% said the U.S. goal in Iraq and the Middle East should be stable governments; 33% agreed with Bush's aim of democratic governments.

Posted 9/18/2006 11:07 PM ET

===========

Looks like that expected take-over of Congress by the Democrats is slipping away! :lol

[George Gervin's Afro]

scare tactics always work.. rove has mastered the technique..

[Yonivore]

scare tactics always work.. rove has mastered the technique..
So, the federal government scared Americans into paying more taxes by lowering their taxes?

Give Rove a Nobel in economics then.

[RandomGuy]

I always find it funny that administration apologists love to trumpet data like this.

Here is something to consider to put the above information in a better context.

If tax receipts mirror economic growth exactly, then when the economy grows at .0001% per year, EVERY QUARTER WOULD BE A NEW "RECORD".

The other thing is that taxes tend to be "skimmed" off the top. No profit=no taxes.

If you go an extende period of reduced profitability, then you get MUCH lower revenue.

A SLIGHT uptick in the economy leads to large jumps in revenue.

The last thing all of this happy crap ignores is the fact that the overall US government debt is still growing FASTER than the US economy. :depressed

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/debtfull.gif

[101A]

That's alot of taxes for poor people to pay. Those poor, poor people. Glad I'm rich and didn't pay any taxes on Friday.

[cherylsteele]

Tax cut???
I'll let you all know when it comes around to someone like me.

[nkdlunch]

Tax cut???
I'll let you all know when it comes around to someone like me.

hahaha same here. Shit is getting more expensive and I don't see any tax cuts for me. fuck Bush that motherfucker

[Crookshanks]

Tax cut???
I'll let you all know when it comes around to someone like me.

If you make enough to pay taxes, then I'll guarantee that your tax rate is lower now than it was before the tax cuts.

Do you keep your old paystubs? If so, divide the federal withholding by the gross wages; and then do the same thing with your current wages - see if there's a difference.

[101A]

EVERY tax bracket got a cut, and % wise, the lower the bracket, the larger the cut. So, y'all either never paid taxes before, or you don't know what you're talking about.

[Crookshanks]

EVERY tax bracket got a cut, and % wise, the lower the bracket, the larger the cut. So, y'all either never paid taxes before, or you don't know what you're talking about.

Exactly! I make less than $30,000 a year and my tax rate went from about 10% to about 6%. 4% of $30,000 is $1,200 a year - that's $100 a month - and that is significant to me!

[cherylsteele]

If you make enough to pay taxes, then I'll guarantee that your tax rate is lower now than it was before the tax cuts.

Do you keep your old paystubs? If so, divide the federal withholding by the gross wages; and then do the same thing with your current wages - see if there's a difference.

Yes I do keep them....and they haven't changed since Bush has been in office.
And really even before that.


Exactly! I make less than $30,000 a year and my tax rate went from about 10% to about 6%. 4% of $30,000 is $1,200 a year - that's $100 a month - and that is significant to me!
I make less than $30,000/yr too....and my tax rate has not changed....period.
Unless the company I work for is ripping me off.
The only thing I got extra was about $60/paycheck after I payed my student loan off.....Wages were garnished.....that is a long story.

The only thing I can say is....I have yet to see these "tax cuts".

[Yonivore]

The only thing I can say is....I have yet to see these "tax cuts".
Then you don't know where to look or from where your money comes. Because, as several people have already told you, everybody got a tax cut. Hell, Many who don't even pay taxes got a rebate.

If you didn't, that's not the President's fault.

[Nbadan]

Tax cuts without equal concurrent cuts in deficit spending are really just tax deferments. What Dubya gave the rich is just a loan on our money while we pay the interest, since there are millions of more 'lower wage workers', who hardly got anything, but only a few millionaires, who got a lot.

[Crookshanks]

Tax cuts without equal concurrent cuts in deficit spending are really just tax deferments. What Dubya gave the rich is just a loan on our money while we pay the interest, since there are millions of more 'lower wage workers', who hardly got anything, but only a few millionaires, who got a lot.

Lower wage workers hardly pay any taxes, so there's not much to get back. Conversely, millionaires pay a buttload of taxes, so they got more back. Simple math Dan!

[Yonivore]

Tax cuts without equal concurrent cuts in deficit spending are really just tax deferments. What Dubya gave the rich is just a loan on our money while we pay the interest, since there are millions of more 'lower wage workers', who hardly got anything, but only a few millionaires, who got a lot.
As a percentage of their wages, lower-wage workers got a whole lot more than the millionaires. Hell, many of them got Earned Income Credit and Additional Child Credits that totalled in the thousands more than they paid in income taxes over the year.

If anyone got a loan on our money, it was the poor and low-income wage earner.

And your reference to deficit spending is a red herring. Tax policy and spending are separate issues. This President, as did Reagan and Kennedy before him, recognized that federal revenues could be raised by setting the most efficient tax rate. He did it and it raised money...a lot of it!

You can talk about spending in another thread but, be prepared to tackle entitlements because, that's the black hole down which the vast majority of our federal dollars go.

[Nbadan]

Lower wage workers hardly pay any taxes, so there's not much to get back. Conversely, millionaires pay a buttload of taxes, so they got more back. Simple math Dan!

No Bush Tax cut mean that there is no deficits. No deficit means there are lower interest rates for everybody and more money to spend on tax-cuts for those who much is asked. Simple math Crook.

[Yonivore]

No Bush Tax cut mean that there is no deficits.
Okay, that's bullshit. Kind of negates the rest of your response.

Nbadan, if we took in more money as a result of lowering the tax rate, it couldn't be the cause of the deficits. Hello? Is anybody home?

It's the spending, stupid!

[Nbadan]

As a percentage of their wages, lower-wage workers got a whole lot more than the millionaires. Hell, many of them got Earned Income Credit and Additional Child Credits that totalled in the thousands more than they paid in income taxes over the year.

If anyone got a loan on our money, it was the poor and low-income wage earner.

How do most of the rich make their money? That's right, off the backs of the poor. No poor, no rich. Corporations don't pay taxes, they write everything off with cute accounting tricks that normal citizens would be thrown in jail for taking. So tax cuts should go to the poor, in large margins.

[Nbadan]

Okay, that's bullshit. Kind of negates the rest of your response.

Nbadan, if we took in more money as a result of lowering the tax rate, it couldn't be the cause of the deficits. Hello? Is anybody home?

It's the spending, stupid!

Yeah, like spending on things like unneccessary wars? The trouble with the Bush administration is, it doesn't know how to say NO! Except when it comes to appropriating money for things like rebuilding N.O..

[Yonivore]

How do most of the rich make their money? That's right, off the backs of the poor.
No, off investments.


No poor, no rich.
No rich, all poor. No rich, no jobs. No rich, no products and services.


Corporations don't pay taxes, they write everything off with cute accounting tricks that normal citizens would be thrown in jail for taking.
I agree that Corporation don't pay taxes. But, as far as cute accounting tricks, that's generally left to the individuals. Corporations avoid taxes by passing it on in the price of goods and services. It's imputed.


So tax cuts should go to the poor, in large margins.
And they do. Have you looked at the last tax cut? Those paying federal income taxes is almost less than 50% of all wage-earners. Many of the lower 50% got rebates.

[Yonivore]

Yeah, like spending on things like unneccessary wars? The trouble with the Bush administration is, it doesn't know how to say NO! Except when it comes to appropriating money for things like rebuilding N.O..
That's all partisan rhetoric.

The vast, and I do mean VAST, majority of federal spending is in the fraudulent and mismanaged entitlement programs.

[Extra Stout]

How do most of the rich make their money? That's right, off the backs of the poor. No poor, no rich. Corporations don't pay taxes, they write everything off with cute accounting tricks that normal citizens would be thrown in jail for taking. So tax cuts should go to the poor, in large margins.


Total tax receipts were $85.8 billion on Friday, compared with the previous one-day record of $71 billion on Sept. 15 of last year, the Treasury said.
Within the overall figure, corporate tax receipts Friday were $71.8 billion, up from $63 billion in September of last year.

PWNNED!!!

[Nbadan]

PWNNED!!

Now compare that growth in receipts to the non-growth of real-income for average americans since Dubya took office and you'll get who's been REALLY PWNNED!

[Extra Stout]

Now compare that growth in receipts to the non-growth of real-income for average americans since Dubya took office and you'll get who's been REALLY PWNNED!
One way to know that Dan has been caught with his pants down is when he abruptly changes the subject.

[Nbadan]

No, off investments

No profits, no investments. Record profits for Corporations resulting in higher tax receipts, but not in gains in real wages for normal Americans.

[Nbadan]

One way to know that Dan has been caught with his pants down is when he abruptly changes the subject.

No, I was just clarifying it with my next post, Mr Impatient.

[Yonivore]

No profits, no investments. Record profits for Corporations resulting in higher tax receipts, but not in gains in real wages for normal Americans.
Profits that are re-invested. And, those higher tax receipts went into entitlement programs for the poor as well. Oh, and wages are up.

[Extra Stout]

Question to Yoni:

In a progressive taxation scheme, shouldn't increasing income inequality tend to increase tax receipts?

[Yonivore]

Question to Yoni:

In a progressive taxation scheme, shouldn't increasing income inequality tend to increase tax receipts?
I think that would depend on the apportionment of wealth between the haves and have nots.

[Extra Stout]

I think that would depend on the apportionment of wealth between the haves and have nots.
Well, theoretically, holding national income constant, as the apportionment of wealth to the "haves" in the top bracket increases, shouldn't tax revenues increase as well?

[Nbadan]

Consider this:

Microsoft CEO Bill Gates has more wealth than the bottom 45 percent of American households combined.

[Yonivore]

Well, theoretically, holding national income constant, as the apportionment of wealth to the "haves" in the top bracket increases, shouldn't tax revenues increase as well?
Yes, and they did.

Then, these tax revenues were re-distributed to the poor in the form of rebates, refunds, and entitlements.

[Yonivore]

Consider this:

Microsoft CEO Bill Gates has more wealth than the bottom 45 percent of American households combined.
He's a shrewd businessman and investor. What's your point?

[Extra Stout]

Yes, and they did.

Then, these tax revenues were re-distributed to the poor in the form of rebates, refunds, and entitlements.
So, then what happens to the middle class under such a scheme?

[Nbadan]

Then, these tax revenues were re-distributed to the poor in the form of rebates, refunds, and entitlements.

Duh, If the federal tax system didn't redistribute wealth, the U.S. would be a land once again ruled by rich aritocrisy and douries.

[Yonivore]

So, then what happens to the middle class under such a scheme?
It vanishes.

The secret is to reduce unconstitutional entitlements to where you can lower the tax rate to near zero and still have the revenue necessary to accomplish constitutional obligations.

At that point obscene profits would dissipate amidst competition. Prices would drop, wages would buy more, etc...

[Crookshanks]

It's funny how the libs here have totally ignored the other part of my original post:
Bush's approval rate is the highest it's been in a year and the Republicans have completely closed the gap with Democrats among likely voters.

This news does not bode well for the Democrats hoping to regain power. In fact, their glee over the supposed huge gains in both houses of congress seems to have been quite premature!

[George W Bush]

Bush's approval rate is the highest it's been in a year.


I don't listen to polls.

[Extra Stout]

Consider this:

Microsoft CEO Bill Gates has more wealth than the bottom 45 percent of American households combined.
Solving the problem of wealth distribution is not the same as solving the problem of income distribution.

[Spurminator]

It's funny how the libs here have totally ignored the other part of my original post:
Bush's approval rate is the highest it's been in a year and the Republicans have completely closed the gap with Democrats among likely voters.

This news does not bode well for the Democrats hoping to regain power. In fact, their glee over the supposed huge gains in both houses of congress seems to have been quite premature!


I think the thread went in a better direction.

[Nbadan]

Bush's approval rate is the highest it's been in a year and the Republicans have completely closed the gap with Democrats among likely voters.

That's one poll, and Dubya is still registering his yearly 911 bounce. His overall composite approval rating still is in the 40.5% range. Not that it matters though, he's still a lame duck for two years.

[Nbadan]

Solving the problem of wealth distribution is not the same as solving the problem of income distribution.

No, but it's a start.

[Extra Stout]

It vanishes.

The secret is to reduce unconstitutional entitlements to where you can lower the tax rate to near zero and still have the revenue necessary to accomplish constitutional obligations.

At that point obscene profits would dissipate amidst competition. Prices would drop, wages would buy more, etc...
Which is going to happen first, the elimination of entitlements, or the elimination of the middle class?

[Yonivore]

Which is going to happen first, the elimination of entitlements, or the elimination of the middle class?
Hopefully, the elimination of the progressive tax system. And, I think your premise discounts the necessity to have consumers for the products and services through which profits are enriching the rich.

I should have expanded on my earlier post. This is why I'm in favor of the Fair Tax Plan. It taxes consumption, it exempts the poor, and it completely replaces the current tax scheme, dollar for dollar.

www.fairtax.org Have a look.

[Yonivore]

No, but it's a start.
No, it's an end. It's called socialism.

[RandomGuy]

Profits that are re-invested. And, those higher tax receipts went into entitlement programs for the poor as well. Oh, and wages are up.

Most corporate profits as of late have not been "re-invested". They have been given out in massive stock buy-backs and massive increases in executive compensation.

Meaning that the only people who are really benefitting from the recent economic growth are those who are giving themselves massive raises.

Recent meager wage gains have done little to compensate for a decade or two of stagnant wage growth,

AND

if you factor in growth in health care costs and higher education, real earning power has dropped massively.

Both of those problems have been either actively ignored by the GOP or exacerbated by short-sighted policies with no long-run solutions.

[cherylsteele]

Then you don't know where to look or from where your money comes. Because, as several people have already told you, everybody got a tax cut. Hell,
Many who don't even pay taxes got a rebate.

If you didn't, that's not the President's fault.
A rebate is different from a tax cut.....kinda like a car rebate.....a rebate is a one time thing.
A tax cut should be lower percentage taken from your paycheck.
When was this tax cut supposed to take affect anyways?
I personally know dozens of people who have seen zilch/nada/nothing/zippo/zero in the way of tax cuts.

BTW....how dare you say I do not know where I get my money from....you don't see my check stubs, or my bank statements, or any financial information.....and I don't see yours. All I know is what I see on my paycheck....and from others around me.....where I work and friends in general.


Many who don't even pay taxes got a rebate
Many....not all....how many is many?
I have not seen a change in my deductions in years.

[cherylsteele]

I here about all these tax cuts.....but no link.
If it does exist.....how about a link?

[xrayzebra]

How do most of the rich make their money? That's right, off the backs of the poor. No poor, no rich. Corporations don't pay taxes, they write everything off with cute accounting tricks that normal citizens would be thrown in jail for taking. So tax cuts should go to the poor, in large margins.

Thank you Einstein for your insight on only if the
rich take from the poor do the rich get richer.
I have to wonder why we have so many more
millionaires today than in the past? Damn, I
didn't know we had that many poor people. Wonder where I can find some poor folks to rob from.

[2centsworth]

No, but it's a start.
That's exactly what Stalin said.

[2centsworth]

I here about all these tax cuts.....but no link.
If it does exist.....how about a link?
www.irs.gov (http://www.irs.gov)

[2centsworth]

Most corporate profits as of late have not been "re-invested". They have been given out in massive stock buy-backs and massive increases in executive compensation.

Meaning that the only people who are really benefitting from the recent economic growth are those who are giving themselves massive raises.

you're making up stuff. Home ownership and equity/stock ownership among minorities are at all time highs.


if you factor in growth in health care costs and higher education, real earning power has dropped massively.

Both of those problems have been either actively ignored by the GOP or exacerbated by short-sighted policies with no long-run solutions.so what do you suggest? welfare

[boutons_]

"Bush's approval rate is the highest it's been in a year"

Still in the historical toilet.

All of Congress is corrupt and will be earmarking (aka raiding the slush funds) to buy as many votes as possible. ie, America is for sale, the American voter is for sale, America is all about nothing but $$$. Ain't democracy, American or Venzuelan, devilishly fantastic? :lol

Crookie cheer is that Repugs don't appear to be totally destroyable. That's the only kind of cheer they have, which is hardly any cheer at all.

==================

September 20, 2006

Poll Finds Most Americans Displeased With Congress

By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JANET ELDER

With the midterm elections less than seven weeks away, Americans have an overwhelmingly negative view of the Republican-controlled Congress, with substantial majorities saying that they disapprove of the job it is doing and that its members do not deserve reelection, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The disregard for Congress is the most intense it has been since 1994, when Republicans captured 52 seats to end four decades of Democratic control of the House and retook the Senate as well. It underlines the challenge the Republican Party faces in trying to hold onto power in the face of a surge in anti-incumbent sentiment.

By overwhelming margins, respondents said that members of Congress were too tied to special interests and that they did not understand the needs and problems of average Americans. Two-thirds said Congress had accomplished less than it typically does in a two-year session; most said they said they could not name a single major piece of legislation that cleared this Congress. Just 25 percent said they approved of the way Congress was doing its job.

The Times/CBS News poll also found that President Bush did not improve his own or his party’s standing through the intense campaign of speeches he made and events he attended surrounding the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The speeches were at the heart of a Republican strategy to thrust national security to the forefront in the fall elections.

Mr. Bush’s job approval rating was 37 percent, virtually unchanged from the last Times/CBS News poll, which was conducted in August. On the issue that has been a bulwark for Mr. Bush, 54 percent said they approve of the way he is managing the effort to combat terrorists, again unchanged from last month, though up from earlier this spring.

Republicans continue to hold a slight edge over Democrats on which party is better at dealing with terrorism, though that edge did not grow since last month despite Mr. Bush’s flurry of speeches on national security, including one from the Oval Office on the night of the Sept. 11 anniversary.

But the Times/CBS News poll found a slight increase in the percentage of Americans who say they approve of the way Mr. Bush has handled the war in Iraq, to 36 percent from 30 percent. It also suggests that after bottoming out this spring, Mr. Bush’s approval ratings on the economy and foreign policy have returned to their levels of about a year ago, both at 37 percent. The number of people who called terrorism the most important issue facing the country doubled to 14 percent in this poll from 7 percent in July; 22 percent named the war in Iraq as their top concern, little changed from July.

Across the board, the poll found marked disenchantment with Congress, highlighting the opportunity that Democrats see to make the argument for a change in leadership and to make the election a national referendum on the performance of the Republican-controlled Congress and Mr. Bush’s tenure. In one striking finding, 77 percent of respondents — including 65 percent of Republicans — said that most members of Congress had not done a good enough job to deserve re-election and that it was time to give new people a chance. That is the highest number of voters who said it was “time for new people” since the fall of 1994.

“You get some people in there, and they’re in there forever,” said Jan Weaver, an Aberdeen, S.D., resident who described herself as a Republican voter, in a follow-up interview. “They’re so out of touch with reality.”

In the poll, 50 percent of voters said they would support a Democrat in the fall Congressional election, compared with 35 percent who said they would support a Republican. But the poll found that Democrats continued to struggle to offer a case for control of government to be turned over to them; only 38 percent of all respondents said the Democrats have a clear plan for how they would run the country, compared with 45 percent who said the Republicans had offered a clear plan.

Overall discontent with Congress or Washington does not necessarily signify how someone will vote when they see the familiar name of their member of Congress on the ballot. Thus, while 61 percent of respondents said they disapproved of the way Congress was handling its job, just 29 percent said they disapproved of the way their own “representative is handling his or her job.”

For all the clear dissatisfaction with the 109th Congress, 39 percent of respondents said their own representative deserved re-election, compared with 48 percent who said it was time for someone new. What is more, it seems highly unlikely Democrats would experience a sweep similar to the one Republicans experienced in 1994. Most political analysts judge only about 40 House seats to be in play at the moment, compared with more than 100 seats at this point 12 years ago, in large part because redistricting has created more safe seats for both parties.

The New York Times/CBS News poll began last Friday, four days after the commemoration of the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, and two weeks after the White House began its offensive on security issues. A USA Today-Gallup Poll published on Tuesday reported that Mr. Bush’s job approval rating had jumped to 44 percent from 39 percent. The questioning in that poll went through Sunday; The Times and CBS completed the questioning for this poll on Tuesday night. Presidential addresses often produce shifts in public opinion that tend to be transitory.

The nationwide telephone poll was conducted Friday through Tuesday with 1,131 adults, of whom 1,007 said they were registered to vote, and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

The poll found indications that voters are paying unusually close attention to a midterm election: 43 percent said they are more enthusiastic about voting than usual. But with turnout promising to be a critical factor in many of the closer Senate and House races, there was no sign that either party had an edge in terms of voter enthusiasm.

Evidence of antipathy toward Congress in particular — and Washington in general — was abundant. Seventy-one percent of those polled said they did not trust the government to do what is right.

“If they had new blood, then the people that influence them — the lobbyists — would maybe not be so influential,” Norma Scranton, a Republican from Thedford, Neb., said in a follow-up interview after participating in the poll. “They don’t have our interest at heart, because they’re influenced by these lobbyists. If they were new, maybe they would try to please their constituents a little better.”

Another person who participated in the poll also expressed discontent with legislators. “There’s so much bickering, so much disagreement, they just can’t get together on certain issues,” Lois Thurber, a Republican from Axtell, Neb., said in a follow-up interview. “They’re kind of more worried about themselves than they are about the country.”

Across the nation, incumbents and challengers are trying to accommodate this sour mood. Democrats are presenting themselves as a fresh start: “Isn’t it time for a change?” asked an advertisement by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee directed at Senator Jim Talent, a Republican of Missouri.

And some Republican incumbents are seeking to distance themselves from fellow party members in Washington. “I’ve gone against the president and the Republican leadership when I think they are wrong,” Representative Chris Shays, a Connecticut Republican locked in a tough re-election battle, said in a television advertisement being shown this week.

The Republicans continue to be seen as the better party to deal with terrorism, but by nowhere near the margin they once enjoyed over the Democrats: it is now 42 percent to 37 percent. When asked which party takes the threat of terrorism more seriously, 22 percent named Republicans, compared with 6 percent who said Democrats; 69 percent said they both did.

Voters said that Democrats were more likely to tell the truth than Republicans when talking about the war and Iraq and about the actual threat of terrorism. And 59 percent of respondents said that Mr. Bush was hiding something when he talked about how things were going in Iraq, while another 25 percent said he was mostly lying when talking about the war.

Not that Democrats should draw any solace from that: 71 percent of respondents said they believed Democrats in Congress were hiding something when they talked about how well things were going in Iraq — while 13 percent said they were mostly lying.

Robert Allen, a Democrat from Ventura, Calif., who also participated in the poll, said in a follow-up interview: “We’re in a stalemate right now. They’re not getting hardly anything done.”

“It’s time to elect a whole new bunch so they can do something,” he said.

Marina Stefan, Megan Thee and Marjorie Connelly contributed reporting for this article.

[Ocotillo]

More recent polls have him sliding again.....

I guess it was nice while it lasted for you cultists

[2centsworth]

More recent polls have him sliding again.....

I guess it was nice while it lasted for you cultists
and the republicans are still going to win. That's how pathetic the dems are. Too bad because this country could use a legit 2nd party.

[Ozzman]

everyone knows democrats are nothing but sand and various robot parts...lol j/k

[PixelPusher]

The problem with that poll regarding Congress, most Americans hate everyone else's congressman, but then they still re-elect their own incumbnet Senator or Representative.

[Ozzman]

the only problem with congress is that they sometimes agree with bushy wushy.......

[ChumpDumper]

The problem with the Democrats is that even Hilary doesn't have the balls to run the party.

[Nbadan]

Al Gore should have started a parallel government in Washington in 2000.

Seriously, the thugs own big oil, big insurance, pharmacutical and health care, military contractors, bankers and financieers, the people who own e-voting machines, and almost all of the media including radio, TV, and newspapers. Those are huge advantages no matter the opposition.

[RandomGuy]

The part the US should take notice is the clapping and the cheering by other UN members [at Hugo Chavez' speech] --Smeagol



A direct result of 6 years of failed Bush foreign policy.

Bush's short sighted policies are having an effect I predicted, and this effect will only get worse over time, until someone with a better understanding of the world takes the oval office.

People and governments who don't actively support terrorism, will be inclined less and less to actively help us root out those who would do us harm.

I am not talking about official policy to tacitly help terrorists. But rather the actions of individuals who don't like us to not check passports as closely, or to allow overt access to our law enforcement officials. Individuals who slowly over time gain a more and more negative view of our country will do less and less to help us.

Collectively that adds up to a lot more freedom of action for Al Qaeda to operate.

In this, Bush has made us less secure by his actions, and will continue to make us less secure as time goes by.

Those who think that Iraq is "giving the terrorists a platform" to attack troops instead of attacking us here, are partially right. It IS giving them a platform, and a highly visible one, from which to "prove" that they are right about us. The true impact of the bad PR will be felt long down the road.

When that time comes, as it I know it will, the culpability will be DIRECTLY attributable to the Bush presidency.

[George W Bush]

We must stay the course!

In time, the world will end.
Then it will be "Mission Accomplished II"

[Hook Dem]

A direct result of 6 years of failed Bush foreign policy.

Bush's short sighted policies are having an effect I predicted, and this effect will only get worse over time, until someone with a better understanding of the world takes the oval office.

People and governments who don't actively support terrorism, will be inclined less and less to actively help us root out those who would do us harm.

I am not talking about official policy to tacitly help terrorists. But rather the actions of individuals who don't like us to not check passports as closely, or to allow overt access to our law enforcement officials. Individuals who slowly over time gain a more and more negative view of our country will do less and less to help us.

Collectively that adds up to a lot more freedom of action for Al Qaeda to operate.

In this, Bush has made us less secure by his actions, and will continue to make us less secure as time goes by.

Those who think that Iraq is "giving the terrorists a platform" to attack troops instead of attacking us here, are partially right. It IS giving them a platform, and a highly visible one, from which to "prove" that they are right about us. The true impact of the bad PR will be felt long down the road.

When that time comes, as it I know it will, the culpability will be DIRECTLY attributable to the Bush presidency.
Okay...........now that you have squarely laid the blame, just what are your solutions? Many on here are great at criticizing but rarely offer any solutions! And don't tell me that Bush has screwed up things so bad that it can't be done. Some solutions please!

[RandomGuy]

Okay...........now that you have squarely laid the blame, just what are your solutions? Many on here are great at criticizing but rarely offer any solutions! And don't tell me that Bush has screwed up things so bad that it can't be done. Some solutions please!

Heh, that would require an hour or two for one good post. I have been meaning to find that hour or two just to address this very important question.

I agree, that one should not bitch incessantly without a plan of one's own.

[boutons_]

"Some solutions please!"

400K troops into Iraq, and 100K troops into Afghanistan.

Impeach dubya/dickhead/rummy/condi and replace with an Executive branch that reaches out to allies, and neutrals, shows them respect, encourages their participation with the USA in the fight against terror (and in everything else). An admiinistration that realizes that making the world better makes the world better for the USA, rather than the Repugs' Darwinian, meanest badass onthe planet of "America first and only. Everybody else go fuck yourself"

[Hook Dem]

"Some solutions please!"

400K troops into Iraq, and 100K troops into Afghanistan.

Impeach dubya/dickhead/rummy/condi and replace with an Executive branch that reaches out to allies, and neutrals, shows them respect, encourages their participation with the USA in the fight against terror (and in everything else). An admiinistration that realizes that making the world better makes the world better for the USA, rather than the Repugs' Darwinian, meanest badass onthe planet of "America first and only. Everybody else go fuck yourself"
Who opened your cage? Go back to sleep!

[Crookshanks]

Boutons - your "solution" is not a solution at all. You still haven't come up with specifics of HOW you would reach out to other countries. Would you throw a big party, have a barbeque, toga party, wine-tasting, WHAT?

[rascal]

When did these tax cuts occur? I did not see any difference in my pay. Anyways with the high gas prices I have less with the Repubs in office.

[Crookshanks]

Anyways with the high gas prices I have less with the Repubs in office.

Right, because the current administration is to blame for everything that caused oil futures to skyrocket. :rolleyes

[Ocotillo]

Okay...........now that you have squarely laid the blame, just what are your solutions? Many on here are great at criticizing but rarely offer any solutions! And don't tell me that Bush has screwed up things so bad that it can't be done. Some solutions please!

There is tremendous work to be done. The best start is to elect Democrats to the House and Senate simply to provide oversight and balance to this mistake prone administration.

[clambake]

400k troops in Iraq and 100k in Afghanistan is a start. Don't fuck up afghanistan. The world agreed with that action. In Iraq, we have to staighten out this biggest of mistakes in modern history. Remove the ahole that lead us into this abyss on a lie. Remove the least trusted President in todays world, and other countries will embrace our efforts of redemption. Beg to form alliances with a foundation based on truth, justice, and mutual respect of fellow mankind. Inspire other countries to examine the benefits of reducing the affects terrorist. They cannot be completely destroyed, but can be isolated and less affective. Convince the Jews and Arabs that working together with help from the world could lead to peace and mutual, beneficial respect. Israel must stop their expansion and build an economy that includes the Palestinians.

This might be a start.

[Crookshanks]

Wishful thinking - most of what you suggested will never be possible. How are you to build alliances built on trust, justice, and mutual respect when many of the world's countries don't know the meaning of those words. Their idea of a hero is Hugo Chavez, Ahmidina-whackjob, and Fidel Castro!

Also, there will never be lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians - mainly because the vast majority of Arabs don't want sister states, they want Israel wiped off the map and all the Jews with it!

[clambake]

Impossible just takes longer. I prefer that to our current stategy of bombing=solution. That plan will only get you dead. If we don't form real alliances, we will be isolated and eventually devoured. Why should any country believe in our current administration? Shouldn't they fear an attack from us based on nothing more than fabrication?

[cherylsteele]

www.irs.gov (http://www.irs.gov)
Where does it say at that website anything about a tax cuts and how much is/was?
That is the site to inform the taxpayer on actually filing a return.

How about a link to where it actually talks about the tax cut.

[clambake]

400k troops in Iraq is a very good idea. We have to try to right this horrible wrong. Our current strategy is failing miserably. This war is cancerous and we have to remove the tumor that caused it. To the rest of the world, Bush is the face of danger. I spent August in Europe and they urgently wanted to express this.

[Yonivore]

Where does it say at that website anything about a tax cuts and how much is/was?
That is the site to inform the taxpayer on actually filing a return.

How about a link to where it actually talks about the tax cut.
Okay, why don't you just post your financial information and let a few of us tell you what you're apparently too dense to figure out on your own.

Please be sure and post last year's information as well so we can tell you exactly how much less in taxes you paid.

[Yonivore]

400k troops in Iraq is a very good idea. We have to try to right this horrible wrong. Our current strategy is failing miserably. This war is cancerous and we have to remove the tumor that caused it. To the rest of the world, Bush is the face of danger. I spent August in Europe and they urgently wanted to express this.
Let's see...

Ended the despotic regime of Saddam Hussein.

Held the dogs at bay while the Iraqis ratified their own constitution and held free and fair elections.

Just turned over security duties on the second province to the Iraqis today.

Killed a buttload of terrorists in the process.

Yeah, I like your definition of failure.

Europe? :lmao

[cherylsteele]

Okay, why don't you just post your financial information and let a few of us tell you what you're apparently too dense to figure out on your own.

Please be sure and post last year's information as well so we can tell you exactly how much less in taxes you paid.
This would be like giving your credit card number to some stranger over the phone.
How about posting yours?
While your are at it post your credit card numbers bank accounts and the passwords too.:rolleyes


All I asked for is a link that actually talks about the tax cuts and you talk down to me.....and provide no information except your word. I know what my paycheck stubs have said over the past several years, and this tax cut has not gotten to me apparently.

A simple link to the actual tax cut information and you berate me instead. that is really mature.

I know dozens....and many more people.....who have seen nothing of these taxs cuts you are so hyped up about. All I know about those tax cuts is what I see paycheck to paycheck, and I see no change.

BTW.......I am not the only one here to have seen nothing on my check stubs to support you claim to these tax cuts. A couple of others at least have said the same thing I have. You brought it up so provide a link to support your argument.

[Yonivore]

This would be like giving your credit card number to some stranger over the phone.
How about posting yours?
While your are at it post your credit card numbers bank accounts and the passwords too.:rolleyes


All I asked for is a link that actually talks about the tax cuts and you talk down to me.....and provide no information except your word. I know what my paycheck stubs have said over the past several years, and this tax cut has not gotten to me apparently.

A simple link to the actual tax cut information and you berate me instead. that is really mature.

I know dozens....and many more people.....who have seen nothing of these taxs cuts you are so hyped up about. All I know about those tax cuts is what I see paycheck to paycheck, and I see no change.
Okay, what is taken out of your salary and, therefore, reflected on your pay stub is determined by how you fill out your W-4. If you made no changes to your W-4 in the past couple of years, there may not be any difference...I don't know. Why? Because I don't know what you make.

So, the tax cuts would be realized when you filed your annual return with the IRS. And, depending on how you did that, you may or may not know what kind of benefits you realized.

The way you're phrasing your rant about the tax cut is indicative of a person that hasn't been paying attention to the news, their taxes, or both. You had the condescension coming, in my opinion.

Unfortunately, the Tax Code is an unwieldy beast and I'm not sure exactly which parts were affected by the President's tax cut but, I do know the effective tax rate went down for EVERYONE so, unless you experienced a significant pay raise or incurred a hefty taxable windfall, or unless you screwed up your return, there is little chance you paid more or even the same amount of taxes in 2005 that you did in 2004.

That's the best I can do. I know of no one that paid more in taxes last year unless their taxable income outpaced the tax cut we all received across the board without exception.

[Yonivore]

Here's a simple execise for you Cheryl.

Take your 2004 tax return and your 2005 tax return. Look at your Gross Income for both years. Then, look at your amount of taxes paid for both years.

Keep in mind that, depending on your income and deductions this could be a negative number.

So, if your Gross Income was about the same then it will be real easy to tell if your taxes went up or down. If they're different, it might be easier if you calculated a percentage amount instead of looking at the straight dollar amount.

[Nbadan]

The marginalized tax-cut is insignificant for those making less than $100g's/per. Yes, eveyone is paying a lower effective tax rate than 2005, but we are having to pay more of our money toward the credit card that we are racking up because we aren't bringing home enough money to pay our commitments. How long can this borrow and spend by the 'Conservative Party' continue?

[cherylsteele]

They are slightly different....and the percentages haven't changed....so where are the tax cuts?

[Yonivore]

They are slightly different....and the percentages haven't changed....so where are the tax cuts?
I don't know...I guess you didn't get one. Sorry. Better luck next time.

[Crookshanks]

Okay - I went to the IRS website and looked under "Tax Stats" and here is what I found:

Tax rates in 1999 (%) Tax rates in 2001 (%)
10 8
15 10
20 15
25 20
28 25
31 30.5
36 35.5
39.6 39.1

Now, do you see the difference? Also, this kinda debunks the notion that the richest americans got the biggest tax cut!

[Nbadan]

Will the tax-cut win for the wingnuts in November? dubya plays the tax card....

Bush on Democrats: 'They will raise your taxes'


TAMPA, Fla., Sept 21 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush charged on Thursday that Democrats would raise taxes if put in control of the U.S. Congress, turning to a familiar campaign theme as he seeks to stave off Republican losses in November.

"If they get control of the House of Representatives, they'll raise your taxes. It'll hurt our economy. And that's why we're not going to let them get control of the House of Representatives," Bush said.

...

Bush warned Democrats will say they have to raise taxes to balance the budget. "They will raise your taxes and figure out new ways to spend your money," he said. "The best way to balance the budget is to keep pro-growth policies in place."

Alertnet (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N20255897.htm)

The taxes are coming! The taxes are coming!

Run for your lives!!!


:lol

[cherylsteele]

Unfortunately, the Tax Code is an unwieldy beast and I'm not sure exactly which parts were affected by the President's tax cut but, I do know the effective tax rate went down for EVERYONE so
You know everyone got but don't know which parts?

If you made no changes to your W-4 in the past couple of years, there may not be any difference...I don't know.
And yet you are swearing up and down EVERYONE got a tax cut.

You had the condescension coming, in my opinion.
I asked for a simple link....and received none....after I said that I saw no changes. So being condescending is the only way to communicate your ideas?

I have noticed you act like you know everything about everthing and when someone starts to question you, you becoming condescending towards them.
This is one of the many problems with our government and the reason too little gets done. People that act like you are acting create nothing but animosity, so when things come up for debate, they create problems just in spite.

Sure my refunds and such have changed but that is because I received raises, the tax percentage has been the virtually the same. If it did drop any it was too insignifcant to even get excited about. If it happens to be that small.....I don't see why you are so hyped up about it.

You act like I am going after you in some way.....I asked for a link or two to get better information.......and you go off. Like I said before that....not very mature.

[clambake]

Sorry yoni but Saddam was the only guy who could control things. Don't harp on how he did it if you support a man that invades and kills without justice or merit. What's good for the goose......

Dogs at bay or throwing them meat of dead Iraqi inocent. Tell the troops atleast you held them at bay before you gave your life for a lie.

2nd province will allow more room for both sides to operate. I'm guessing there will be more desertions from the Iraqi side.

Buttload of dead is nothing more than headcounts. 6,600 in the last 2 months alone. Excellent job mr. president.

We already know how you feel about Europe. Remain isolated yoni. You present no help towards the future.

[Crookshanks]

Another interesting tidbit - in 1999, there were 864,306 returns filed by those in the top bracket; in 2001, there were 846,345. That means the number of very wealthly individuals actually went down.

Also, in 1999, the number of returns in the lowest bracket was 9,308,031; in 2001, there were 2,735,436. You tell me - does that mean over 6.5 million people raised their income enough to move into a higher bracket? Or did they just not file returns?

[cherylsteele]

I don't know...I guess you didn't get one. Sorry. Better luck next time.
I am not buying a lottery ticket.
You said
EVERYONE got tax cuts.
That is like saying in a way....everyone gets a car......you didn't?......gee sorry....better luck next time. :rolleyes

I am not the only one that saw nothing.

[Yonivore]

You know everyone got but don't know which parts?
Yes, I know this because the President's plan effected tax rate cuts on every income scale and it increased deductions in by removing the marriage penalty, allowing more for charitable giving, and increasing the child credit.

Nothing in the President's implemented tax plan left anyone at the same rate or increased any other area of taxes. Period.

No one's tax burden remained the same and no one's tax burden rose. Everyone's tax burden fell. It's that simple. That's how I know everyone got a tax cut.


And yet you are swearing up and down EVERYONE got a tax cut.
Yep.


I asked for a simple link....and received none....after I said that I saw no changes. So being condescending is the only way to communicate your ideas?

I have noticed you act like you know everything about everthing and when someone starts to question you, you becoming condescending towards them.

This is one of the many problems with our government and the reason too little gets done. People that act like you a

Sure my refunds and such have changed but that is because I received raises,
Did your raises put you in a higher bracket?


the tax percentage has been the virtually the same
If it did drop any it was too insignifcant to even get excited about. If it happens to be that small.....I don't see why you are so hyped up about it.
Who said I was hyped up about it. The fact is that the tax rates dropped for everyone. I don't know who does the accounting at your place of employment or why the deduction for federal income taxes would remain the same when you've experienced raises and the rate has, by law, changed but, I'd suggest you take it up with them.


You act like I am going after you in some way.....I asked for a link or two to get better information.......and you go off.
No, I just think you're being obtuse and are deliberately remaining ignorant. I bet I can go to the irs website and find both the tax rate before the Bush tax cuts and the tax rate afterward for your salary range but, to tell you exactly how much your tax cut amounted to your going to have to reveal other things such as marital status, charitible giving, number of children etc...

[Crookshanks]

Hello Cheryl - did you even bother to read my post showing you the effective tax rates?! Look a few posts up - you'll see your answer!

[cherylsteele]

Okay - I went to the IRS website and looked under "Tax Stats" and here is what I found:

Tax rates in 1999 (%) Tax rates in 2001 (%)
10 8
15 10
20 15
25 20
28 25
31 30.5
36 35.5
39.6 39.1

Now, do you see the difference? Also, this kinda debunks the notion that the richest americans got the biggest tax cut!
What numbers do those correspond with in regards to amount earned?

[Crookshanks]

Gosh darn it Yoni, Cheryl - read post #84!

[Yonivore]

I am not buying a lottery ticket.
You said
EVERYONE got tax cuts.
That is like saying in a way....everyone gets a car......you didn't?......gee sorry....better luck next time. :rolleyes

I am not the only one that saw nothing.
I can't help that your blind.

For me to show you your tax cut you're going to have to tell me things you're not going to so, I'd say go to an accountant and ask them where your tax cut is.

[Yonivore]

What numbers do those correspond with in regards to amount earned?
For the love of Pete. He should send you a bill.

[Crookshanks]

What numbers do those correspond with in regards to amount earned?

Okay, you read my post. It didn't give the income range for each bracket - but it's obvious that EVERYONE's tax rate went down!

Like I said before, I earn less than $30,000, and my tax bracket went from 15% to 10%.

[cherylsteele]

No, I just think you're being obtuse and are deliberately remaining ignorant.
Yep.....I love to be ignorant about my money. :rolleyes
I am asking questions and you post this kind of reply.

I can't help that your blind.
And so you just insult me even more.

At least Crookshanks is discussing in a civilized manor. He is also not be condencending.
And he is giving me some information.

[Yonivore]

Yep.....I love to be ignorant about my money. :rolleyes
I am asking questions and you post this kind of reply.

And so you just insult me even more.

At least Crookshanks is discussing in a civilized manor. He is also not be condencending.
And he is giving me some information.
So, ignore me. I don't get people that get their panties all in a wad on this forum.

Look, you're an idiot about your taxes. That's okay, many people are. But, damn, you come in hear and expect everyone to be your google engine. The answers are out there -- go find them.

I bet it took crook all of 30 seconds to find the tax rate table at irs.gov. You too can browse.

[Crookshanks]

So, ignore me. I don't get people that get their panties all in a wad on this forum.

Look, you're an idiot about your taxes. That's okay, many people are. But, damn, you come in hear and expect everyone to be your google engine. The answers are out there -- go find them.

I bet it took crook all of 30 seconds to find the tax rate table at irs.gov. You too can browse.

It took me a little longer - about a minute! :lol Also, for those interested, there is quite a bit of information in those tables. For instance, it tells the total income taxed for each bracket and the amount of tax revenue generated.

[cherylsteele]

Okay, you read my post. It didn't give the income range for each bracket - but it's obvious that EVERYONE's tax rate went down!

Like I said before, I earn less than $30,000, and my tax bracket went from 15% to 10%.
Did the cuts go into effect on the 2002 EOY taxes? If so I need to go back and find the older returns and stubs from that year. I guess the jump in pay made it look like I didn't get any...if it was in that time period.

Plus I changed jobs that year and the differnce in pay was significantly higher. I make less than $30,000 as well.

My bracket is currently similar to yours it seems....give or take some. I was in the lowest one before.

Thank you for the information, Crooks.



For the love of Pete. He should send you a bill.
Get over yourself.....geez.
Others and myself asked when they went into effect and you failed to answer that. Crooks showed those tax bracket numbers....I guess I missed them on the IRS website.

[xrayzebra]

So, ignore me. I don't get people that get their panties all in a wad on this forum.

Look, you're an idiot about your taxes. That's okay, many people are. But, damn, you come in hear and expect everyone to be your google engine. The answers are out there -- go find them.

I bet it took crook all of 30 seconds to find the tax rate table at irs.gov. You too can browse.

Two to one she, he or it didn't pay any taxes
in either year. But thinks she is getting screwed
anyhow.
:lol

[Yonivore]

Two to one she, he or it didn't pay any taxes
in either year. But thinks she is getting screwed
anyhow.
:lol
Hell, 10 to 1 it got a rebate that exceeded it's tax burden...free money.

[Crookshanks]

Did the cuts go into effect on the 2002 EOY taxes? If so I need to go back and find the older returns and stubs from that year. I guess the jump in pay made it look like I didn't get any...if it was in that time period.

That tax rate was for 2001 taxes - so that means your 2001 tax return - the one you filed before April 15, 2002.

[cherylsteele]

Two to one she, he or it didn't pay any taxes
in either year. But thinks she is getting screwed
anyhow.
:lol
I have not missed paying my taxes since I started working in 1980.
Besides......don't you get them deducted from your paycheck automacically?

So, ignore me. I don't get people that get their panties all in a wad on this forum.
You're joking right?
You do it all the time.

Look, you're an idiot about your taxes. That's okay, many people are. But, damn, you come in hear and expect everyone to be your google engine.
Many people are....yet you berate those that ask questions.
I did Google.....and did really find it.....either I used the wrong keywords, or didn't relize I actually found them or something....

[cherylsteele]

Hell, 10 to 1 it got a rebate that exceeded it's tax burden...free money.
Like I said before....I did get a rebate....It was about $80
"IT"? what do you mean by that?



That tax rate was for 2001 taxes - so that means your 2001 tax return - the one you filed before April 15, 2002.
That makes more sense.....that is when my tax bracket changed with my new job.

Now what did you put into the google to find them...maybe I didn't use the correct keywords. So I can look into this further.

[Yonivore]

Like I said before....I did get a rebate....It was about $80
"IT"? what do you mean by that?
I thought may xray had some insight of which I was unaware.


That makes more sense.....that is when my tax bracket changed with my new job.
Ah.


Now what did you put into the google to find them...maybe I didn't use the correct keywords. So I can look into this further.
Try "tax cut"

[Crookshanks]

Now what did you put into the google to find them...maybe I didn't use the correct keywords. So I can look into this further.

Actually, I didn't google it - I just went to www.irs.gov. At the bottom of the home page it says Tax Information about and then lists several different categories. I clicked on Tax Stats. There are several different tables you can look at on that page. Some of the tables list the income brackets - hope this helps!

[cherylsteele]

Try "tax cut"
I did that and got a bunch of stuff that made little sense.
Actually, I didn't google it - I just went to www.irs.gov. At the bottom of the home page it says Tax Information about and then lists several different categories. I clicked on Tax Stats. There are several different tables you can look at on that page. Some of the tables list the income brackets - hope this helps!
That is the first site I went to....2cents posted the link to try to help. I thought I looked at everything and missed it.

I tried another google search with some different keywords and found this:
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
It easy to read and use in layman's type terms.

[cherylsteele]

Thanks Crooks for your patience and help.

[Yonivore]

Thanks Crooks for your patience and help.
Yeah, well, crooks is a saint. And, why am I not surprised that "tax cut" googles made little sense to you?