Article: Obama Capital Gains Tax Hike Would Hit N.Y. Hard

AS opposed to the devastation wraught on every aspect of America - housing, banking, lending, stock market, military, etc, etc by the Republican Administration?

Obama owes an explanation to every middle class family living in the NY-NJ-CT area why it is fair that their total tax burden should exceed 50% of gross income under his various tax hike plans.

Republicans owe an explanation of why they have bankrupted the country, all its citizens, wiped out our stock market, caused millions of foreclosures, ran up huge amounts of federal debt, worn out our millitary, gave huge amounts of money to defense contractors, abandoned our soldiers, and then left the bill to our children.

You are a fool for actually thinking that Obama's plan could come near the amount of damage that the Bush Admin has done to our citizens. You are a partisan fool.

So my anti-tax stance makes me a "partisan fool?"

completely

how can you even think about being anti-tax? Do you not use the services of the govt? military for protection? roadways? currency system? How does all those things get paid for?

moron.

By middle class, you mean households making over $250,000?

TheFed - Yes. If you make 250k and take home roughly 125k after tax, that leaves you with just over $10,000 per month to support a family. Take out housing costs, insurance, food, a car, basic utilities, schools, etc. and you are left with very little. At the very least, there should be some allowance made for location specific cost of living in the tax code.

Peter, I use all of the services you mentioned, and I pay plenty for them. I'm just not interested in paying more, particularly since so much of it is wasted on bloat, incompetence and fraud.

Obama would put this country in a worse economic malaise than Jimmy Carter did. Government could cut taxes further and still have more than enough to function and provide adequate services. The problem is out-of-control spending. Social Security and Medicare need massive reforms, and other spending needs to be slashed. Socialists like peterfitz would change America from the land of opportunity to the land of welfare and government control. You try to blame Republicans for everything when the Democrats have been just as much to blame, or even more to blame, for this country's current problems.

if you are truly against bloating and incompetence in government spending your post would have been directed at the current administration who has spent more in pork barrel spending than any other in history.

You choose to target a tax plan that hasnt even spent a dime yet.

You are obviously a partisan fool who has been exposed.

LIC says "Obama would put this country in a worse economic malaise than Jimmy Carter did."

But not worse than the economic malaise that Bush put us in?

Hmm - Bush has bankrupted th epeople, the govt, the banks, the military? All our banks could possibly go under.

Hmmm when was the last time banks went under? Oh yeah the Republican caused S&L scandal.

LIC you are also a partisan fool.

petr, I don't make dumb conclusory statements that are ridiculously stupid. Let's see, under Carter we had sky-high interest rates, falling GDP, high unemployment, and now we have low rates, stable to growing GDP, low unemployment. Sure, you know what you're talking about . . .

Hasn't it been the democrats in Congress that have held up domestic oil drilling, more nuclear power, and social security reforms? Didn't most democrats also vote for the war?

petrfitz...give it up. You can support Obama for many reasons, change, social justice, leadership, etc. but don't for one minute think Obama is going to be good for the economy.

julia - was Bush good for the economy?

LIC - didnt know if you noticed it but most economic indicator are the worst since the GreatDepression. Not the worst since Carter. That means our current economy is in much worse shape than it was under Carter.

The problem is not paying taxes - the problem is that the tax code penalizes high earnings without making the corresponding offset for the high cost of living that comes along with living in high-earnings areas. It is completely irrational.

I agree. Obama's tax plan is going to have a devastating impact on NYC's middle class. With a significantly higher living costs and already high tax rates, it will be very difficult to absorb. Instead it will become an incentive to leave the NY area or not work hard at all.

The key is for the government to be more judicious about spending and cut back on the excesses, reform medicare and social security, not to just levy on more taxes on middle-upper classes.

Good News! After the Republican Bush years THERE IS NO MORE MIDDLE CLASS.

Anyone who is even thinking about voting Republican has no interest in the good of the country, and not spent even 1 moment of non partisan thinking.

Obama cant devasted the middle class anymore than Buas already has you partisan morons.

This article is garbage. Wall St. flourished while Bill Clinton was president, during which taxes were jsut as high as Obama wants them to be when he is elected.

Bill didn't also increase the amount deducted for social security and increase the tax on dividends and capital gains. The issue is that not only is the base tax rate changing but the amount going to social security as well, which means a substantial decrease in take home pay for many people who would not be considered rich in this city ( albiet in other parts of the country they may).

alpine - I think that I like you now. I feel really weird.

"Anyone who is even thinking about voting Republican has no interest in the good of the country, and not spent even 1 moment of non partisan thinking."

Really? That is the most shallow, ignorant thing I've ever seen posted on this board (some might say that's saying a lot). I don't get why you try to turn every discussion here into an anti-Republican gabfest. As a lot of people here are saying, the cost of living in NYC is exponentially higher than elsewhere - how can anyone really dispute that?

this post started out as an anti Democratic post on a board where it didnt belong. I jus tstood up to the idiot paartisan moron who posted it

this is not an anti democratic post..it's just information for all of us to absorb. Petrfitz you need to open your mind and look at all points of views before calling people idiots, and morons. Remember what Sen. Obama wants, a new way to look at politics, no name calling, no bickering. Petrfitz, you're the old way...

oh julia you are such a saint. Have you answered my question as to whether or not Bush was good for the economy?

Above you started "don't for one minute think Obama is going to be good for the economy." - How is that non partisan? And then you wont answer my question as to whether or not you thought Bush was good for the economy.

I looked at all the points, and all the points say that the current administration has wiped out America. Why did the original post focus on policies that have not yet had any effect on our economy but partisanly focused on policies yet to be implemented?

petrfitz, I wonder what Obama would think of your investment idea of buying a rent stabilized building, moving in temporarily, and then re-renting all the units at market rates? that really sounds like an idea all americans can get behind.

you are the least consistent person I've come across on these boards.

oh - can you even vote? I thought you were Canoodian.

huh - not Canadian at all. Never said I was. I did say that Canadian were kicking our asses in many industries because of their health care policies.

I dont agree with Obam on everything nor would he agree with me on everything. Hence I am not a blind partisan moron.

Rent stabilization is a legacy policy that no longer serves those who need it. It is a policy that is abused by many who are not in need.

Liberal, Conservative policies need to be revisited when they are outdated or no longer effective for their original purpose - like rent stabilization

I am a huge proponent of affordable housing set asides and have publically supported them in the EV/LES rezoning and in my own buildings.

one more thing. one of the main criticisms of bush has been that he abused his power in the wake of 9/11, when the country basically let him do whatever he wanted. obama may be the greatest guy in history - I don't really know - but even if so, why can't we examine, and even criticize, his policies? just because I think extending the payroll tax to incomes above $250K is a terrible idea for both myself and the country doesn't mean I want more of the current policies.

I rather take a capital gains tax hike than an income tax hike. With the budget deficit growing due to two wars we are not able to extricate ourselves out of. I think captain gains tax of 10% is too low, it is regressive. How many poor people get captain gains? Yes, rich people will pay a little more, particularly those on wall street, but frankly, it is about time. I earn 6 figures, but find it hard to pay my bills and that is scary. I have not bought any real estate because I can't afford it and I make 6 figures!

revisiting rent stabilization laws and using a loophole to evict tenants are not the same thing at all. my point is that, for all your rhetoric, you ultimately seem like a rich guy who doesn't really give a rats ass about the poor or middle class. and yes, "middle class" in manhattan means making up to mid six figures (as you pointed out previously - remember, "chump change"?), so if some of obama's stated policies go through, it is going to hit people who live here hard.

Obama = Socialist
McCain = Capitalist

Some of the economic disaster we have faced were unavoidable, yet some preventable.
I am a srong republican who would vote for McCain even if he is as dumb as bush. Nothing good comes out of the Democrats... Feeding bunch of lowlife bottom feeders running to the ATM with their Medicaid cards and HMO Health care. More companies will go oversea, greater unemployment, etc.

Can someone tell me how millions of illegal aliens are able to goto our public schools and get Medicaid??? out of our tax dollars?

petrefritz,
Canada does not have a good health care system and they are not kicking anyone's asses. In fact, even mexicans are getting better care then the Canadians. I could write a whole book about their health care system fallout, but rather not on this RE forum.

P.S. I am a health care provider from Canada, along with thousands of Doctors migrating to the US EVERY YEAR.

petrefritz,
Canada does not have a good health care system and they are not kicking anyone's asses. In fact, even mexicans are getting better care than the Canadians. I could write a whole book about their health care system fallout, but rather not on this RE forum.

P.S. I am a health care provider from Canada, along with thousands of Doctors migrating to the US EVERY YEAR.

Peter,

Honest question: if the Federal government gave you the option to (1) pay more than your required tax responsibility, (2) refuse your social security checks upon retirement, or (3) make outright donations to the US Treasury, would you be interested in any or all of these options? I'm not trying to be cute - I'm genuinely interested. I have met a lot of folks like yourself that have a pretty staunchly redistributionist ideology, but many aren't sure what to say when I ask them how they would respond to options like those I listed above. (By the way, you're in good company -- Warren Buffett believes he should pay more taxes, too.)

Many people don't know ins and outs of the economy other than what they hear from FOX news and the fat retard's (Micheal Moore) documentary.

"I am a health care provider from Canada, along with thousands of Doctors migrating to the US EVERY YEAR."

How much do Doctors get paid in Canada? That might have something to do with all the Doctors trying to come here. Come here, work less, make more and be protected by one of the strongest unions in the country (AMA). Pretty easy to do the math on this one....

I'll make this short to explain the health care system in Canada.

1) Doctors Salary is capped (very low 90k after tax, depends on specialty). Doctors work 3-4days a week with 8 weeks of vacation. This is due to their Capped salary. Why work more when you get pay the same?

2) Quality of services are low. Again, capped salary allows the providers to skimp out of any work.

3) Patients can't find providers because they are migrating out. months on wait list, delayed surgeries, standard poor quality of service.

I am sure you guys had experienced similiar problems when you went to see your doctor/dentist in here. They talk to you for 2 sec and leave the room. This was rare in the pre-clinton days.

ba you are obviously partisan republican. Canadian are kicking Americans asses in move production, video game development, web development, and virtual world development. Basically everything you see in the theatres or experience online. Befor eyou dismiss this as a small part of the economy, the numbers are massive and where most companies are heavily investing over the next 5 years.

Why are they kicking our asses in these fields? Because you can higer talented programmers and visual artists for a fraction in Canada than you can in the US all because of their universal health care.

ba - even if the quality of care is low - which I dont believe - it is better care that 50 million americans are getting right now.

petrefitz,

Most film works and game developments are done in my home town Toronto, and Vancouver. If Obama takes over, there will be more production and developments heading up north. You are contradicting yourself here.

Health care in Canada is federal funded so it has absolutely nothing to do with investments.
All those productions and developments are OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Why the hell are they up there? like you said, because it's CHEAP! so obama starts taxing the corporates and high income class like mad monkey, more will head up north which will drive our economy down to hell.

petrfitz, if you're referring to the number of uninsured (which you inflated to 50 million for some reason), you're wrong to assert that those individuals receive no care. Most of them use safety-net facilities (ie: ERs, academic medical centers, etc.). I don't think Mexicans are getting better care than Canadians, but don't know much about the Mexican system either. Canada is by no means great despite Michael Moore and petrfitz' insistance. Still, seems surprising.

I thought we already went through this...TV and film production is migrating to Canada for multiple reasons, but the idea that health care is at the top of the list is laughable. It's all about major tax incentives and less restrictive union work rules.

By the way, Microsoft owns almost half of Rogers Canada which is the largest Cable/Phone/Wireless company in Canada. My prediction is with Obama in the white house, google, MS, and hollywood will relocate to Vancouver.

hmm - wow I am glad that you guys know more than I do about game development. My only experience is actually owning a development shop there, and working with the largest virtual world and game developers in the world.

And BA most of the development is done in Montreal.

My costs have nothing to do with tax incentives and have everything to do with salary, gavt grants and healthcare costs.

and BA you have no grounds to base your "if Obama gets elected" every tech company will leave the country.

Guess what - under Clinton Tech flourished, under Bush tech died and went offshore. What do you base your opinions on since they are opposite of actual facts?

Obama is no Bill Clinton!

EAO - i know he is more of a JFK. Anything but a Bush or a MCain.

So now the tech boom and bust is Bush's fault, even though it happened under Clinton's administration, including the bust.

Tech bust happened with Clinton's administration.
If I murder someone in my house and sell, does it make the buyer a murderer?

Some gaming giants (UBISOFT) are based in montreal but Majorities (90%) are based in Toronto and Canada. I can bet both of my enlarged testicles on that one.

Toronto and Vancouver...typo sorry.

There goes one testicle.

Obama is like JFK..what did JFK do other than Bay of Pigs, Vietnam...

" [blah blah] current administration who has spent more in pork barrel spending than any other in history."

Guy, "pork barrel" spending as you call it refers to riders added to appropriations bills by members of the Congress, not the President. Therefore, to blame Bush for "pork barrel" spending is like blaming your boss for how much the company spends on sugar packets. Rail against Bush for the cost of the war, thats valid, but for "pork barrel" spending? And you call everyone else a moron?

Vote for Obama all you want. he's already tanking in the polls. Most Americans, even us liberal northeasterners have had enough of getting taxed up the ass by these socialists.

"EAO - i know he is more of a JFK. Anything but a Bush or a MCain."

JFK. Botched the Bay of Pigs and almost got us into WW III. Great President. If the guy hadn't been killed by the mafia because of his brother he'd have ended up indicted. Talk about fixed elections. 1960 was an actual fixed election unlike the concocted "fixed" election of 2000. Hear nary a peep out of your type about 1960.

It is not only the capital gains tax but the sunsetting of all the tax cuts. I am happy to admit that I am a one issue voter. Taxes. As I struggle to provide for my family, housing, school fees, medical care etc. what matters to me most is the percentage of my hard earned paycheck that I am actually allowed to keep.
I do not agree with W. on much but petrfitz I have to tell you that I think I currently have the lowest marginal tax rates I will see in my lifetime.
And petrfitz the Congress is controlled by the Democrats and has been (stop the partisan nonsense - they are all the same) and they do not even need to vote or raise their hand to push the trhough largest tax increase in history on to the American people. All they have to do is not vote to extend them and the tax cuts sunset in 2010. Can't you hear it now from the tax and spend crowd who now get to spend without asking for more taxes - "I didn't VOTE TO raise taxes" (tee-hee, taxes are higher cuz I didn't vote yes to extending the cuts).

This is a big negative for real estate as 1) potential home owners have less take home pay to spend on housing and 2) hikes in the capital gains tax make owning a home less attractive from a total return after tax point of view. And investors will not be too excited about this either and make no mistake the condo flippers have been a very important demand source for new developments in Manhattan.

Arguing that Rebublicans (McCain)=capitalists and Democrats (Obama)= socialists is getting harder by the minute,
given the Fannie/Freddy rescue debacle. And even Republicans can't disagree about the absolute disaster for the country
(at all levels) that the Bush II presidency has been (the worst Prez ever? that's for history to judge, but he's certainly
in the running!)

But all that aside, east_cider (and then mbz) made an interesting point here.

"At the very least, there should be some allowance made for location specific cost of living in the tax code."

That seems quite reasonable - according to loose cost-of-living estimates, 250K in NYC translates to about
550K in say, St.Louis. Clearly, that money in St.Louis buys you a very rich lifestyle, whereas in
NYC you'd be lucky to break even (esp if you have say a couple of kids)

Any specific thoughts on why this can't/won't/shouldn't work?

Obama is just engaged in class warfare. He's no better than George Bush or John McCain. No worse, but no better.

Things just suck. I've been in the upper-middle class (by NYC standards) for the last 10 years. We've been raped by the tax system. Now (my whiny) little family is (under Obama, and we're VERY liberal) going to be hit by huge taxes for the wealthy, which may make sense but we still don't have close to enough for a down payment for over 1100 sf for 3 people.

Why does paying a huge tax increase make sense? I too consider myself a liberal ( socially, not economically). My family's financial welfare is important to me, so for that reason I could never vote for Obama. My husband and I have worked too hard to watch even more of our income widdled away.

Todays news:

Consumer prices surge in June at 2nd fastest pace in 26 years, reflecting soaring energy costs

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Consumer prices shot up in June at the second fastest pace in 26 years with two-thirds of the surge blamed on soaring energy prices.

hmm - Republican administration in the white house now and there was one in the White House 26 years ago when consumer prices increased the most (2nd year of REagans term)

EAO - paying a higher percentage on a good income is a lot better than paying a lower percentage on no income.

Bush has bankrupted millions, millions foreclosed on. I bet those people dont care about the extra few percentages they paid in taxes under Clinton. Or ouwld be happy to pay a few more percentage in taxes under Obama if the country actually had an economy that would give them jobs, and were they wouldnt lose their homes and life savings.

EAO - also do you own a property in NY? If so how much of a decrease in Federal taxes have you had under Bush, and also how much were your State and City taxes just increased as a result of the State not having the federal funding?

I bet that your increase in State and Local taxes increased dratamically more than your Federal decreased

"Bush has bankrupted millions, millions foreclosed on."

You are clearly a reactionary with little in the way of substantive input. Better off taking your anti-Bush rants to move-on.org where I'm certain you already have an account.

By your twisted logic, Bush has also made millionaires out out countless people whoi were bright enough to sell to the upside when the market was hot.

Give NYS government more money and they will just spend more, they wouldn't lower local taxes. You are a partisan buffoon petr.

Our situation has actually improved under Bush, but only because my husband and I work very hard to earn the living that we do. Bush's tax cut was an improvement for us. Again, I believe the issue here is not about increasing taxes but rather reforming government spending. If we tax more, the government will just spend more.

EAO you didnt answer the question as to whether the federal cuts decreased more than your local taxes increased. I know the answer - unless you live in a local area that is a complete outlyer then any decrease in your Federal was more than wiped away with higher local taxes.

Hey the country agrees with you guys:

Nine in 10 likely voters dissatisfied with U.S. economic policy

Dissatisfaction with U.S. economic policy continues to increase, with 89% who now view the nation’s economic policy as fair or poor, up from 84% who said the same last month – 55% now give U.S. economic policy a “poor” rating. The vast majority of Democrats (96%) and political independents (91%) have a negative view of the nation’s economic policy, while 80% of Republicans now share those feelings, an increase from 71% who said the same in June.

ZOGBY

and 4 out of 5 Streeteasy.com posters think your posts are worthless partisan crap.

TOTALLYANONYMOUS

Petrfitz,

if kerry was elected, we would've been in a situation worse than imaginable. If you support Obama, why don't share your 50% of your disposable income with some of your medicaid neighboring friends? I certainly like to keep what I earned and only share what is right.

petrfitz...the democrats control congress and the senate it's their economy that the country is unhappy with. That will not help Obama in the fall. His poll numbers are falling and once the debates start they will fall further.

At this point, you have a better chance of getting into Yale Law School than finding someone who approves of the Democrat controlled Congress. Pelosi is clearly a mistake.

I agree. Pelosi is a bigger mistake than Bush. You could see when she got elected as the speaker of the house, she was more smug than Bush and was more interested in the being in the limelight and dressing up for photo ops than doing something constructive. Time has proven that she is totally useless.

hey lets blame it on some one or some party who has not actually been in charge! In the dems fault even thought th erepublican have had the white house and congress, and have set the agenda for the past 8 years.

Its always someone else's fault says the party who claimed to return the era pf responsibility!

And herein lies my conundrum with these candidates. Do I take old-man, inarticulate McCain and keep my money? Having to endure years of international embarrassment as he fumbles over his words? Or do I take charismatic Obama and see my savings and livelihood start to erode? Hmm, I guess McCain isn't *too* embarrassing!

SSKIT - because the lower tax for the rich scam ran by the republicans really puts more money in your pocket:

"“There’s not enough lipstick to put on this pig,” Richard Moody, an economist at Mission Residential, wrote in a note to clients. “No matter how one slices and dices,” he added, “the bottom line is that U.S. workers are falling farther and farther behind.”

petrfitz,
you are starting to remind me of the mailings i get from WWF which pretty much tell me that if I do not immediately send $50 to WWF then George W. will kill all the polar bears!
Wake up! and stop with gross exaggerations. W. does not have legal standing in any foreclosure proceeding. I hate having you put me in a position where I have to defend W. (cause on many points he has no defending) but on this one the truth is he has bankrupted no one. And stop playing the "blame any one but me, i am a victim" game. Unemployment rates are low and have been low (probably lower than where they have been for most of your lifetime). I am surprised you do not remember the 7% unemployment rate we had in your boy Bill's first term. More recently, in fact, the Fed had a bias to higher unemployment rates as a 4% unemployment is a rate which introduces substantial inflation threats.

i will take a lin efrom the REpublican playbook "the 7 % unemployment in Clintons first term was because he was handed a horrible economy from HW Bush"

petr, all you do is try to blame everything on Republicans, and you distort lots of facts to do it. Pelosi is a disaster and the democrats have had control of Congress for years now. They shamelessly do whatever they can to get more power even if it is bad for America. Both parties can share the blame for current problems. Do you not mind coming across as a total hack?

i think that any problems that occured while the Dems have been in Congress is due to problems created during the previously Republican controlled congress. :)

Also maybe the Democratic Congress could get things done if the Republican minority was not a bunch of obstructionists.

Or is only bad when the dems where"obstructionists" to the Republicans? Even the the current Republican minority has set the record on beig "obstructionists."

well not exactly but don't let the facts get in the way of your argument. Remember you were the one who started in on jobs. Despite a higher unemployment rate, the fac is that the economy grew at about 3.5% rate during Bill's first term and in fact printed a 5% groeth rate in the first year he was president. Honestly not so horrible. Another fact is that in response to that strong growth the Fed began raising interest rates in 1994. maybe you googled the wrong Republican play book?

Petrfitz,
You sound like a communist.

ba - i am using republican talking points from the past 8 years, swopping out democrats for republicans.

do you not remember when the RNC told you guys to rail against the "obstructionist democratic minority?"

its fun using the RNC slim against you guys!

i can wait when if Obama gets elected we will be able to say that anyone who doesnt support him or his policies is "unAmerican" and "supports the terrorists"

Democrats will NEVER win. Bush was re-elected because no one believes in Democratic system. If Bush was able to serve the 3rd term against Obama, I'd think he'd win again.

Democratic party does nothing but give and give. Our dollar is dry, deficit is high, HMO health care stinks, all jobs going oversea. We'll see more non-motivated welfare, medicaid feeding lowlife with democrats.

At least if you cut the tax $ from the riches, they will create jobs for many couch potatoes.

BA says "At least if you cut the tax $ from the riches, they will create jobs for many couch potatoes" please cite an examnple of how this happened under Bush.

Also I think that you like being trickled on.

Your philosphy of "mkae the rich richer and they will take care of the poor" is abusrd and the same philosphy as "dont regulate industries as they will regulate themselves" - where did that get us in this credit market meltdown.

Petrfitzs. In case you weren't aare, the banking industry is already one of the most highly regulated industries we have. Perhaps they should have regulated the borrowers who bought $500 M properties with $1 M down.

I remind you that Bill Clinton won 41% of the vote in 1992--the plurality president. and in 96 he won only 49%. If Perot was never bron, Clinton would never have been elected. I also remind you that he lost control of the Congress in 1994.

Petr,
cut taxes from the riches create jobs, this is ECO101 FACT.
We would have a higher unemployment rate with Democrats so you should be thanking bush that things aren't any worse.

So if you are a strong believer of the democrats, why not share your wealth with your medicaid fed neighbor? Just please don't drag the rest of with you.

Let's see, the democrates blocked domestic oil drilling and more nuclear plants, social security reform and judicial nominations, and tried to weaken national security by blocking the wiretapping provisions. What did the Republicans block?

Who said not to regulate industries? petr is making things up to argue with himself. Your plan to tax our way to prosperity isn't exactly genius there petr . . .

"cut taxes from the riches create jobs, this is ECO101 FACT."

What is this? Trickle down economics?

its called Trickle down economics or voodoo economics. It works the same way as Fairy dust does.

blank? economics?? anybody?? buhler?? anybody??

sorry. couldn't resist. petrfitz you are making me laugh.

In my off-line life the people I've met who want higher taxes were just too plain lazy to go out and make money for themselves. petfitz, does the shoe fit you?

Don't you see? if you or you and your spouse make more than $250,000 then you are a "wealthy" American? At least to Obama.

LP1, I asked him a related question yesterday on this very thread (24 hours ago, at the moment) and he wouldn't answer.

LP1 - I own my own business that employs over 100 poeple, have started and sold 3 companies previously, and I also currently own 4 buildings in Manhattan. My current net worth is over $10 million (was over $11 million a few weeks ago)

does that sound like I am lazy?

TA - if your federal tax rate went down but all your other expenses go up like health care, local taxes, schooling, municipals, etc does it do you any good?

Bush has "lowered" taxes (mainly on the uber wealthy) but all the other expenses to Americans increased dramatically because of a lack of federal funding.

In 2005, the average rate of personal savings was an astonishing -0.5%, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. That means that not only were we spending all of our income, but also that a good number of us were also dipping into personal savings. This was the worst savings rate that Americans have recorded since 1933 when it was -0.7% during the Great Depression.

east cider - what was your question again?

so why are you anti-bush?
He gave you all the small business tax break, in return you were able afford those 100 people.
There ya go, cut taxes from the riches, it creates job. You are a FINE EXAMPLE!

Rise in Health care cost is due to Clinton Administration. Local taxes and municipals? who is feeding the welfare and medicaid? especially to the illegals. This is all Democrats doing.