The GOP will raise taxes — on the middle class and working poor - The Washington Post

Your puzzlement is due to a purposeful ignoring of the fact that Dems want the Bush Tax cuts to expire on the wealthiest Americans.

Bush's tax cuts made the tax system more progressive

False. It did the opposite. Where do you get your information from?

Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush's tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners....Tax cuts were much deeper, and affected far more money, for families in the highest income categories. Households in the top 1 percent of earnings, which had an average income of $1.25 million, saw their effective individual tax rates drop to 19.6 percent in 2004 from 24.2 percent in 2000. The rate cut was twice as deep as for middle-income families, and it translated to an average tax cut of almost $58,000.

Your comment is based upon talking points not reality.

So which is it, do Democrats went a less progressive tax system with greater costs to the low and middle class, or where they just blowing smoke with their opposition to Bush's tax cuts?

You are just blowing smoke with rhetoric. The facts are the opposite of what you assert here.

Meanwhile it was the Bush/GOP tax cuts that decreased the percentage of Americans paying a net income tax, and now the GOP wants to complain that not enough Amerians are paying federal income taxes.

Only 20% of Bush's tax cuts went to "the rich"

Only 20% of the benefits went to the top 1% of the wealhiest? Care to document that including the impact of inheritance tax cuts and shift to capital gains?

Yeah, folks do tend to prefer one cop over the other... it's too much strain to keep the manipulative game in mind.

But you see... You don't have to tax the rich... just threaten to tax the rich, and the rich send another round of campaign donations.

Every time Bachmann says something fringey, the fringe sends another round of checks too.

The Dems and Pubs play "good government/bad government"

...and we voters choose to be liberal or conservative...not because of policy preferences... but for the same reason we choose to be Dodgers or Raiders fans... You know... just team picking.

What is the liberal view of these three wars? Do liberals feel that we have adequate checks and balances on the executive branch?

What is the liberal view on the Patriot act...or Citizens United?

Right. Nobody knows... and even fewer care.... Same with Conservatives.

Politics has been replaced by political theater.

Just along this theme...

When Bush was in office, Democrats were decidedly antiwar and anti corporatism....and I'm not just talking about Party members... I mean the voters too. NV was filled with criticisms of the war... vehement ones.

After Bush, and Obama got the Presidency, Democrats stopped being anti war.

Why and how was the electorate informed of this decision? Why and how did the anti war NV crowd change subjects?

The GOP does the same thing... you never hear about cost cutting when they have majority... or planned parenthood funding... or abortion at all, for that matter.

Can anyone track their own changing emphasis and say how it happened? How is it someone would unconsciously shift their political thinking on cue like that? Just human hypocrisy?

Yearning,

The whole problem with your analysis is that it assumes every issue is yes/no when they are not.

The Democrats were never anti-war and anti-corporations. (A small percentage may be pacifists, but there is zero evidence they have changed, they were against war under Bush and against war now).

In contrast the GOP today REALLY does portray taxes as if it were a yes/no issue even though it isnt.

Why and how did the anti war NV crowd change subjects?

Your imaginary crowd doesnt really exist. There may be a handful. There is just as much if not more, pro-war NV crowd who suddenly became anti-war with the current President.

In my case, I supported the war in Afghanistan, even though many did not. I opposed the Bush administrations case for war against Iraq because (1) I believed they were misleading the public (2) Iraq didnt have anything to do with Sept. 11; and (3) it would take the focus away from our fight with terrorism.

As for Libya, I personally believe that Obama should have gotten authority from Congress. I think the approach taken of not getting involved in direct combat was a wise one in any case.

The GOP does the same thing... you never hear about cost cutting when they have majority... or planned parenthood funding... or abortion at all, for that matter

Apparently you havent been paying attention sense the GOP demogogues the issue of abortion all the time.

Can anyone track their own changing emphasis and say how it happened? How is it someone would unconsciously shift their political thinking on cue like that? Just human hypocrisy?

Why not start with yourself? Why exactly are you bringing up war in a thread about taxes?
First, your are drawing conclusions from extreme examples - which is part of the reason people shift.
Second, you dont actually identify any individuals who have done so on "cue" but just assume that people do.
Third, the world is complicated, and not everything is exactly the same.
Fourth, everyone is biased to some degree but that doesnt take away from the fact that some people are more hypocritical than others.

The Republicans are extremely and transparently hypocrtical about this issue. The fact that some other people may to also be some times isnt particularly relevant. Just because some people might be hypocritical about war does not mean we shouldnt actually hold the GOP for being hypocricital about taxes.

Gonna try this again...

Ah yes... the hypocritical Republicans... >sigh<

The other group that didn't used to exist was Republicans on NV talking about cost cutting...but they're hypocrites... they only talk about cost cutting when they're the minority...

And the Democrats aren't hypocrites because they've been anti war all along.

That's funny right there... I don't care who you are.

Yes, clearly it is in your economic best interest to bankrupt Social Security and Medicare even sooner than expected.

What was asinine? Besides the payroll tax holiday that is? Without the payroll tax holiday Social Security would have run a surplus last year. With it, they had to tap into the Social Security Trust Fund. They weren't supposed to start running deficits for decades. This is a terrible policy if you like Social Security. I simply cannot believe this idea came from Democrats.

With it, they had to tap into the Social Security Trust Fund. They weren't supposed to start running deficits for decades.

Without the Bush tax cuts the debt today would be hundreds of billions lower than it is now. Why is it that Republicans cannot see that?

They weren't supposed to start running deficits for decades. This is a terrible policy if you like Social Security. I simply cannot believe this idea came from Democrats.

The Bush tax cuts are a lot more terrible if you dont like deficits.
In the real world issues are not absolute yes/no and always good/bad. The current economy could use some economic stimulous and pay roll taxes are more effective than cuts for the wealthy on income taxes. Rigid ideology that ignores reality results in bad policy.

The Republicans have adopted rhetoric saying that tax cuts are the solution. Now they claim that pay roll taxes dont count. Why? They do not provide a coherent answer.

Cutting the pay roll tax is a temporary measure and should be.

Without the Bush tax cuts the debt today would be hundreds of billions lower than it is now. Why is it that Republicans cannot see that?

I agree with you, but then I'm not a Republican.

The Bush tax cuts are a lot more terrible if you dont like deficits.

So? I was talking about the solvency of the Social Security system, which USED to be projected to use up its trust fund in 2037, slightly before I retire, but now that date will have to be moved up. It is an absolutely indefensible policy for a Democrat, hastening the insolvency of Social Security.

The current economy could use some economic stimulous

So? You don't think the future economy can use some stimulus too? Why is it fair for us to commit their resources? States have a way of dealing with rough patches, called a rainy day fund. Where they actually save up real money, instead of just borrowing it. If you want to be Keynesian, that doesn't mean you need to borrow money.

Cutting the pay roll tax is a temporary measure and should be.

Right. They're just announcing that it will be extended again. And then later it will be extended again. The Patriot Act was a temporary measure as well.