Stats are stats, that's true but stats are misrepresented all the time, there are confidence intervals, sample sizes, skewed sample populations and lots more.

You would do much, much better posting IRS stats rather than anything having to do with Rush Limbaugh. The man has no credibility with anyone who isn't already mesmerized by his voice.

i don't listen to rush at all. the stats he's referencing are sraight from the irs. i'm betting the numbers are good. sure, they are a sampling, etc. it wouldn't change my point at all if the number was actually 86%, or whatever.

i knew if i posted anything that had rush's name in it, it would be a distraction. the point that the top half of the the taxpayers foot the majority, and it's not even close, of the federal bill. i like to keep that in mind when i hear about breaks for the wealthy.

The whole idea behind tax cuts is to stimulate the economy, right? It's the flow of money, not the hoarding of it that stimulates growth. And actually it's the small businesses that are paying most of the taxes. So if you cut the taxes on the people who are paying %96 of the taxes, where do we make that up?

And who needs it more: the person in the %90 tax bracket, or the 1000 or so lower-middle class workers who wil have an extra $25 each week?

I'm reminded of what Pete Incaviglia said about baseball salaries a few years back. It was something like "You have to remember that not everyone's making a million dollars a year. Most guys are only pulling down 2 or 3 hundred thousand."

The bottom line is that the best way to cut taxes is to cut spending. Something that the Clinton admistration did that the current regime seems to have forgotten.

Sorry for the rant so far back in the archives, but I can't see your main page for some reason. Most of the left side is cut off.

easy
i'm not getting your point here, but let me react to what you wrote. i wasn't suggesting or supporting the recent tax cuts. what i was pointing out is that, given the data that i collected, one must keep a perspective on the federal income picture. the top half of the taxpayers pay, for argument's sake, all the taxes. if one wants to spark the economy, and a tax-cut is the direction chosen, it has a good chance of effecting the top half of the taxpayers.

some say that targeting the lower brackets would hit the economy with more liquidity. in this post i am not arguing either way. lower brackets may purchase more consumer goods, the higher brackets may invest more of their money, etc. at this point, all i'm saying is that tax-cuts for the rich is bogus. that statement is over simplified, and negates the economic theory behind the actions.

which, as a side note, is where i think the media fails miserably in its responsibility to educate. tax-cuts for the rich creates class-conflicts. calling it by its true name, either trickle-down econ or reaganomics keeps the debate neutral.

and, sorry about the site issues. but i am not sure what the problem is. the site should scale horizontally, proportional to your screen resolution. try a setting of 1024x768, or if you can, 1280x1024. if you're using a mac, as i am, and the page seems to load and then vanishes, try adjusting the size of the browser window. that should cause the browser to re-render the page. if that doesn't work, drop me an email w/ specifics.