Poll finds people who want fiscal responsibility actually want more spending

So I've been harping for a year that this whole "fiscal responsibility" movement is largely a sham. Not that we don't need it, but it's been my feeling that the Obama-hating right just uses this as a meme to tie Obama to the stereotype of a tax-and-spend liberal.

They might scream for fiscal responsibility at the town halls, but what they really mean is 'screw the poor and the blacks and the Mexicans'. I've wanted to see what happens when and if deep cuts happen. Do you think angry grandpa is going to be happy when his Medicare gets slashed? Do you think angry roughneck is going to like the gigantic 8-foot pothole in front of his driveway that doesn't get fixed for 3 years? Do you think mama grizzly wannabe is going to be happy when her child's Head Start funding is cut?

Hell no.

And that's why this whole thing is a crock of shit. The Tea Party likes slashing programs in theory, as long as the theory is that it's minorities and liberals getting hit. The reality is that cuts as deep as they want are going to wreck many of the programs they depend on.

There's a new Pew Poll out. As Greg Sergeant writes in the Washington Post:

The poll finds that in general, more Americans think deficit reduction is a more important priority (49 percent) than spending to help the economy recover (46 percent). But check out what happens when Americans are asked what they think about spending on specific programs:



More favor an increase in spending than a decrease on 15 of 18 issues tested in the poll. Now, these numbers aren't all that clear-cut. But the overall conclusion is clear: Once you start to talk specifics, the public's aversion to government spending rapidly evaporates.

This is why the Tea Party can't be taken seriously. It's populated by people with an agenda. an agenda that can be boiled down to "Gimme mine and screw the rest of you."

The Tax Foundation did a study in 2007 (that they're seeking to update) that shows Federal Spending per dollar of federal taxes. Basically, do you get back more or less than you give. Here's the chart for 2005, and next to it is a map I put together based on the Tax Foundation data:
You can't overly generalize. But it's not hard to see where the biggest tax hogs are. Anyone care to overly a Tea Party activity map on this?

Red-state welfare: the hypocrisy of the tea party

The New York Daily News has done an incredible piece about how the states governed by Republicans, the anti-handout, bootstraps crowd, actually gets more federal money back then they pay in taxes. Should anyone be surprised at this point? It's more hypocrisy from the Paliners, and the Paulers and the Teabaggers.

At this point, my suggestion to them is this: leave. Go. Try and make it on your own and see how quickly you become an impoverished third-world hellhole.

But to stand up and scream about how repressive the federal government is when you're reaping the benefits of the work of the blue states is startlingly stupid. Or as they call it, Monday.

Alaska gets $1.84 in federal spending for every dollar it pays in federal taxes. We in New York get just 79 cents on the dollar.
Which means we subsidize Alaska even as it enjoys a $2 billion-plus budget surplus.

Even as New York faces a huge deficit that will require ever more painful cuts.

[...]

Maybe there will be more reality shows featuring other big names in the Tea Party who call for cuts in government spending even as their home states are subsidized by the rest of us.

There could be Sen. Jim DeMint's South Carolina, which gets $1.35 on the dollar.

There could also be Sen.-elect Rand Paul's Kentucky, which rakes in $1.51.

Compare those states to two that are in financial crisis and suffer an even worse balance of payments than we do in New York.

California receives only 78 cents on the dollar.

And New Jersey gets just 61 cents, though it does have a hit reality show.

h/t Cesca

Ken Buck doesn't believe in separation of church and state; inadvertantly solves deficit problem

Huff Post

Colorado Republican Senate candidate and Tea Party favorite Ken Buck last year said he "strongly" disagrees with one of the bedrock principles of American society: the separation of church and state.

"I disagree strongly with the concept of separation of church and state," said Buck at a forum for GOP Senate candidates last year.

EXCELLENT! If this is now the accepted view, then it goes both ways. We can tax churches on their land and buildings and generate hundreds of millions in new tax revenue.

THANK YOU! Ken Buck, financial wizard.

Senate Republicans hate the middle class

Mitch McConnell said that Senate Republicans will unanimously oppose extending the middle class tax cuts unless the tax cuts for millionaires are also extended. This despite those pesky F-A-C-T-S that say that they provide only $.32 on the dollar in return.

Won't ANYONE please THINK about the MILLIONAIRES!?!?

Yahoo! News

Senate GOP leaders declared on Monday that Republicans are, to a person, opposed to legislation that would extend only middle-class tax relief — which Obama has repeatedly promised to deliver — if Democrats follow through on plans to let tax rates rise for the wealthiest Americans. The GOP senators forcefully made their case one day after House Republican leader John Boehner suggested he might vote for Obama's plan if that ends up the only option.

Seriously? I hope the DNC is producing ads with this in it and that they ram them down the GOP's throat. You know, since they're so obsessed with getting things rammed down their throat by a black president.

Bush "tax cuts" will represent a HIKE in taxes for those making under $300K in 2011

via Cesca

This graphic needs to be seen by everyone. From the pages of the Wall Street Journal - read that again... the Rupert Murdoch-owned WALL STREET JOURNAL - comes this graphic showing taxes in 2011 if the Bush "tax cuts" were still in place, versus a 2011 under the Obama plan, with the tax cuts for the wealthy being allowed to expire while middle-class tax cuts (for those making under $250,000) are extended.

Read very carefully. The Bush "tax cuts" are only a tax cut if you make over $300,000. For anyone under that line, these "tax cuts" are actually a tax increase.

As the GOP - and it's house organ Fox News and it's lunatic fringe the Tea Party - attempt to flog the Bush "tax cuts" as a tax cut for anyone other than the wealthy, remember this graphic. As Fox trots out commercials for their Sunday programming that suggest that everyone is talking about the Bush "tax cuts" as a way to stimulate the economy, remember this graphic.

Also remember that when it comes to direct injections into the economy in the form of unemployment benefits that are immediately spent, they oppose it. When they scream about fiscally responsible policy that must be paid for before it goes into effect, they don't mean the Bush "tax cuts" for the wealthy. They're perfectly OK with that.

When they yell about deficits, they don't take into account the effect that the Bush "tax cuts" will have (see graphic at right) at ballooning the deficit.

This is a microcosm of how Fox and the Tea Party and the GOP work hand-in-hand-in-hand. Fox has spent a decade setting up strawmen to strike fear into the hearts of Great Americans everywhere, so that like Pavlov's dogs, they react whenever Fox tells them to. Then Fox trots out a meme, such as "the Bush Tax Cuts will spur the economy that the Kenyan Messiah has wrecked". And respond they do. Never mind that the economy went under during Bush 43. Never mind that whatever gains we've had have come as a result of Obama and the stimulus. If Fox says Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest are good, the fearful will respond.

How do I know this? It's obvious. Look at Fox's viewership in terms of the commercials they run. Gold. Diabetes supplies. Senior insurance. HoverRounds (go, go, go). Home security. Their viewers are, by-and-large, older white people. Older white people who are scared, of death, illness and Kenyans wrecking the economy, seeking reparations and Islamicizing their grandkids. They're so scared that they'll vote against their own economic self-interest because Fox News tells them that the Black Kid is bad.

Look at the chart again... the majority of Fox's viewers are not making over $300,000 a year. So why would they push for policies that hurt their pocketbook? Because they're scared of what the Tea part and the Tea Party mouthpiece that is Fox News tell them to be scared of.

The politics of killing the tax breaks for the wealthy while maintaining the middle-class breaks is a risky one. It shouldn't be, but given the climate in the country right now where the right wing can make up their own facts while ignoring the real ones (about the impact of the deficit, for example) this threatens to be the key issue of the midterm elections.

And while the Democrats are finally starting to try to tie the GOP in to the more extreme beliefs of the Tea Party candidates they support, they're not doing enough. This is bareknuckle politics and the Democrats have to become far more aggressive in not letting the GOP/Tea Party/Fox News dominate the conversation with half-truths.

Real deficit numbers and the (huge) difference between tax cuts and unemployment

Reflecting on today's earlier post, what's more harmful to the deficit, unemployment or the Bush tax cuts?

Ezra

By the way, note how much cheaper it is to do tax cuts for those under $200,000. Look at how much more it costs to subsidize tax cuts for the wealthy - which is the difference between the yellow and red lines.

John Kyl and the GOP openly favor oil companies over working Americans

Republican Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) is deeply concerned about extending unemployment benefits for the neediest of working Americans. Almost 2 million of those out of work the longest because of the recession have seen their benefits go away. He has raised eyebrows by calling jobless benefits a necessary evil", despite the fact that the OMB and most economists correctly point out that putting money that will immediately be spent into the economy provides a boost.

TPM
Kyl dismissed the view of the Congressional Budget Office, and a large swath of economists, that during a recession, extending unemployment is one of the ripest forms of stimulus.

"CBO's been wrong before," Kyl said. "It's not a stimulus for the economy, to try to help people through tough times. It's a necessary evil, in a sense. We'd like not to have to raise revenue in order to pay people for not working--or not to pay them for not working, but because they can't get work."

"To me you shouldn't look at it as an economic matter, it's a humanitarian matter. You got people who are out of work, who can't find work, you want to help 'em out. Families need help. That's why you provide it. You don't do it because it's going to stimulate the economy. You have to borrow the money in order to pay the folks. That borrowing has huge costs. They are adverse economics costs. So it's not a good thing for the economy. It's a bad thing for the economy but it's still the right thing to do for other reasons.

But, he says: [C]ontinuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work."

This Republican meme that people are living high-on-the-hog on unemployment benefits is a complete fallacy, and worse than that, an insult to anyone who has ever been forced to reply on the benefits.

SocialistWorker.com
No one who looks at the facts could take this seriously. The long-term unemployed aren't still jobless because they're enjoying the high life off an unemployment check that averages just over $300 a week--not much above the minimum wage, and not nearly enough to keep a family of three above the official poverty line.

The problem is that there aren't any jobs for the jobless. According to government statistics, there are almost five unemployed workers for every one job opening. Overall employment has grown since the beginning of the year, but not fast enough to keep up with the natural growth in the population, much less replace the 8 million jobs lost in the recession.

And for some some people who are jobless today, they may not work ever again--not because they're "lazy," but because age discrimination has made it even more difficult for workers in their 40s and 50s.

That hasn't stopped wingnut Senate-hopeful Sharron Angle of Nevada...

Allentown Morning-Call
"You can make more money on unemployment than you can going down and getting one of those jobs that is an honest job that doesn't pay as much," Angle recently told an interviewer. "We've put so much entitlement into our government that we really have spoiled our citizenry."

Ah, yes. The citizenry spoiled by sending jobs away and then handing out checks so they can drive their Cadillacs and live in leisure, not working, while titans of industry toil restlessly to support them.

However, when it comes to tax breaks for the wealthiest 3% of Americans (4 percent tax increase on those who make over $250,000), Senator Kyl is undisturbed by digging the deficit deeper to the tunes of $678 billion, even though that's close to the number for 10 years of health care for Americans that was also a problem.

Kyl tried to defend his contradictory positions to Chris Wallace of Fox News:

New York Times
Mr. Kyl's first line of defense was to dismiss Mr. Wallace's query as "a loaded question" because "the Bush tax cuts applied to every single American." Mr. Wallace pointed out that he was only referring to the top tax brackets.

Eventually, Mr. Kyl trotted out the tired and unsubstantiated argument that the tax cuts for the wealthy must be extended because otherwise "you're going to clobber small business." Mr. Wallace persisted: "But, sir, . . .how are you going to pay the $678 billion?" -- at which point Mr. Kyl descended into nonsense. "You should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes," he declared. "Surely Congress has the authority, and it would be right to, if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs. You do need to offset the cost of increased spending, and that's what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset [the] cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans."

So now stimulating the economy is a good thing, unless it's by direct infusions of cash under a program like TARP. TARP, which by the way, was proposed by Bush and continued under Obama but is being used to try to hang an non-existant albatross around Obama's neck.

Let's continue to oil company subsidies and tax breaks, to the tune of about $4 billion a year, which Kyl also supports. While stopping unemployment benefits (because of deficit concerns) and supporting tax breaks for the wealthiest 1% of Americans (despite deficit concerns), Kyl also supports tax breaks for big oil, an industry which rakes in billions a year selling a product to the American taxpayer that they've subsidized.

In fact, the oil companies pay a tax rate that ends up being far less than other, smaller and less-well-connected businesses:

New York Times
According to the most recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry.

The standard GOP cry is that if we don't subsidize the oil companies, jobs will decrease, as will oil production. If that happens, the terrorists win. However:

New York Times
But some government watchdog groups say that only the industry’s political muscle is preserving the tax breaks. An economist for the Treasury Department said in 2009 that a study had found that oil prices and potential profits were so high that eliminating the subsidies would decrease American output by less than half of one percent.

“We’re giving tax breaks to highly profitable companies to do what they would be doing anyway,” said Sima J. Gandhi, a policy analyst at the Center for American Progress, a liberal research organization. “That’s not an incentive; that’s a giveaway.”

So let's sum up the Kyl/GOP position:

Item: Deficit
Verdict: BAD

Item: Unemployment extension for working Americans hurt by the recession
Cost: $34 billion
Verdict: BAD - drives up the deficit

Item: Tax breaks for wealthiest 1% of Americans
Cost: $678 billion
Verdict: GOOD - although it drives up the deficit

Item: Tax breaks and subsidies for big oil on billions of dollars of profit
Cost: $4 billion
Verdict: GOOD - although it drives up the deficit.

Whose side are they on, tea partiers?

GOP hypocrisy: Ronald Reagan raises taxes, adds to bureaucracy, supports gov't entitlements

When Republicans go after entitlements, criticize Obama on taxes or invoke The Great Communicator, remember that Reagan signed a $165 billion tax increase that added hundreds of thousands of "bureaucrats" and that his tax increases in 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 took back most of the reductions made ion his 1981 tax bill.

PolitiFact

In 1983, Reagan signed legislation aimed at preserving Social Security's solvency by raising payroll taxes and taxing Social Security benefits of upper-income Americans.

The plan certainly preserved Social Security but also demonstrated that Reagan was willing to impose tax increases, even if he didn't propose them and rarely accepted them with enthusiasm.

As former Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett wrote in a 2003 article for National Review, Reagan signed two major tax increases in 1982 that took back much of the break he'd provided in his 1981 tax bill. After the Social Security tax increase of 1983, Reagan approved further tax increases — in one form or another — in 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.

None of them was particularly draconian and taxes as a share of GDP continued to decline until 1984, when they bottomed out at 18.4 percent but then rose back to 19.2 percent by 1989, when Reagan left office. The overall percentage then was still lower than during Reagan's first year in the White House.

Still, the fact that Reagan signed legislation raising taxes at all during his presidency certainly runs counter to the current GOP orthodoxy and would seem to contradict, if not disprove, McCain's statement, which we find to be Barely True.

Krugman (2004)

The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton's 1993 tax increase.

Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was also motivated by a sense of responsibility -- or at least that's the way it seemed at the time. I'm referring to the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by Alan Greenspan. Its key provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.

For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent -- but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.

Nonetheless, there was broad bipartisan support for the payroll tax increase because it was part of a deal. The public was told that the extra revenue would be used to build up a trust fund dedicated to the preservation of Social Security benefits, securing the system's future. Thanks to the 1983 act, current projections show that under current rules, Social Security is good for at least 38 more years.

I'll remind you that in 2009, Americans paid the lowest tax rate in 50 years, 9.2% of all income. In the Reagan years of 1981-89, the lowest rate paid was 13.1%.

So please, don't buy in to the GOP's "the sky is falling" mentality. They're lying.

The Hypocrisy of the Budget-Cutting Right; Christie on pace to be a one-termer

Governor Chris Christie was ushered into office amid the fanfare of wins in Virginia and Scott Brown's election to Ted Kennedy's seat and cries that America was rejecting the deficit spending of the Obama Administration.

He'll cut taxes, they said.

He'll eliminate waste, they cried.

He'll balance the budget, they promised.

It's easy. Just tell the damned poor to go get a job, crack down on the illegals and stop abortions and it'll all be swell.

As has been said before though, you can't have everything. If you want a balanced budget, hard cuts are going to have to be made. While it's a lovely narrative for rich white folks to demonize those not like them as lazy layabouts sucking down all of their hard-earned taxes, the reality is different.

As Christie found out.

NJ.com via Boehlert

Public opinion of Gov. Chris Christie has taken a dive in the aftermath of his first state budget, according to a poll released today.

The Rutgers-Eagleton poll found that Christie's favorability rating sank 12 points since February, when 45 percent of residents had a favorable opinion of the governor and 26 percent unfavorable. Now that stands at 33 percent favorable and 37 percent unfavorable, according to the poll.

The survey did not measure Christie's job approval ratings. Another poll, released by Fairleigh Dickinson University last week, found his job approval rating dropped 9 percentage points, to 43 percent, after he introduced his budget in March.

The governor's $29.3 billion budget proposal makes wide-ranging cuts -- including to property tax rebates and school, town and college aid -- while resisting broad-based tax increases. The Rutgers-Eagleton poll said that 43 percent of those who had heard about the budget are very or somewhat pleased with it, while 50 percent are somewhat or very displeased.
“Support for Christie is tied directly to the budget proposal,” said David Redlawsk, director of the poll. “Three weeks after the budget speech, the impact is starting to sink in. The result is a recognition that the proposed budget cuts are going to hurt and a significant decrease in favorable impressions of Christie.”

This is not as easy as celebutard Sarah Palin would have you believe. It's not just the poor and the illegals sucking down the resources.

I don't believe that Americans don't have the stomach for belt-tightening. But when they campaign on a platform of socking it to the layabouts to straighten things out, it comes as a bit of a shock to see your services cut.

Perhaps we ought to start telling the truth to the American people.

SRSLY? It wasn't "No taxation - period".

The Tea Party wing of the GOP has co-opted so many of the symbols nd events of the American Revolution, and it's painfully clear that they don't understand them - or don't wish to understand - them.

The first quote is from the Boston Tea Party Historical Society, with commentary from Bob Cesca in the second quote.

In 1773 the East India Company was one of the strongholds of British economy. Suddenly it found itself at odds with the American non-importation restrictions on tea and with a huge inventory it could not move. The company was not able to meet its payment on dividends and loans and was moving towards bankruptcy. Of course the British government was reluctant to let it happen from fear that this may disrupt financial markets. As an alternative to a direct loan the Ministry decided to allow the company to send tea to America without paying an export duty.

No export duty imposed on the mega-corporation of that era. In other words, a gigantic corporate tax cut. The Boston Tea Party was a protest against the British government's passage of the Tea Act, which allowed the East India Company to undercut the business of small, local tea distributors. Furthermore, the rally cry of "No taxation without representation" wasn't a protest against all taxation -- the slogan was not "No taxation -- period." The Sons of Liberty and other patriots supported fair taxation with adequate representation in Parliament.

So when the modern tea party embraces the Boston Tea Party, they're actually embracing an event that was sparked by a TAX CUT. You know, the words Sarah Palin needed to write on her hand so she wouldn't forget.

Clearly, they don't want to get it. What's sadder is that millions of Americans are being duped by them.

This video, from the GOP, lays it on thicker than usual. (also via Cesca)

Tax Day Tea Party lies: 95% of America got a tax cut, but only 12% know it

Ahead of the wingnuttia surely sprouting today like spring weeds, here is a compilation of the TRUTH about taxes in 2010 under the Obama Administration:

"The only tax I think that has been put in place so far is an increase in the federal cigarette tax. I can't think of another Obama tax that has gone in place so far," said Chris Edwards, Director of Tax Policy Studies at the conservative Cato Institute. "I would say that people are angry because big taxes are coming down the road because of the gigantic deficit built up under Bush and continued under Obama."

The non-partisan Center for Budget and Policy Priorities reported on Wednesday that "Middle-income Americans are now paying federal taxes at or near historically low levels." How low? The average family of four right now is paying 4.6 percent of its income in federal income taxes -- the second lowest percentage in 50 years.

A report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers, meanwhile, asserts that the president's economic stimulus package has sent more than $200 billion in tax relief and other benefits to mainly middle- and lower-income families since its passage.

Citizens for Tax Justice, a self-described non-partisan organization, released a report on Tuesday that read: "The 2009 economic stimulus bill actually reduced federal income taxes for tax year 2009 for 98 percent of all working families and individuals." This total includes the 95 percent of working families that will or have received tax credits in the range of $400 to $800.

The health care bill passed by the administration, meanwhile, includes a tax credit that could cover up to 35 percent of the premiums a small business pays to insure its workers. The Recovery Act, meanwhile, included such tax breaks as a $1,500 credit for home energy improvements, and an $8,000 credit for first-time home buyers.

Yet polling numbers indicate that Americans are barely aware of these developments. Indeed, a good chunk of the country believes it has been saddled by this administration with tax hikes. Back in mid-February, a full 24 percent of respondents to a CBS News/New York Times poll said that their taxes had increased under Obama. Fifty-three percent said they had stayed the same. Only 12 percent thought their taxes had gone down.

"Belief is triumphing over reality," explained Bob McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice. "Part of it is they watch the wrong television shows and believe it.

"Obama passed 25 separate tax cuts," Sheryl Stein, founding member of "The Other 95%" said in a statement announcing the group's plans, "including $300 billion in middle class tax cuts -- one of the largest in history - as part of the stimulus package. Unlike President Bush's 2001 tax cuts, which went to the wealthiest 2.2%, President Obama's tax cuts overwhelmingly benefit working and middle class families -- in fact, 95% of all Americans."

And there is some indication that Americans are satisfied, generally speaking, with the current trade-off between their tax burden and the benefits that government provides. "Just ahead of Tax Day, a new New York Times/CBS News poll finds that most Americans regard the income taxes that they will have to pay this year as fair, regardless of political partisanship, ideology or income level," the Times reported.

Perhaps even more surprising, though, is that even among the 18 percent of Americans who say they support the Tea Party movement, more than half call their own income tax fair. Sentiment turns more sour, however, among the smaller group of Tea Party supporters who are active in the movement. Most of them, 55 percent, regard the income tax they have to pay as unfair. Thousands of Tea Party supporters gathered in Boston today for a rally near the original site of the Boston Tea Party.

Of course, they're not gonna let a little thing like the truth stop them. Oh no - the truth is fe those academic thinkin' types





PS - I hate Alians too.

Sarah Palin expresses support for Obama tax cuts at Tea Party rally

At a Tea party rally today in Boston, Sarah Palin cma eout in enthusiastic support of President Obama's tax cuts to 95% of working Americans.

MSNBC

"We need to cut taxes, so that our families can keep more of what they earn and produce and our mom-and-pops then, our small businesses, can reinvest according to our own priorities, and hire more people and let the private sector grow and thrive and prosper."

It's refreshing that the governor, who has criticized President Obama on taxes, can now embrace the sweeping tax cuts that he's made.

PoliticFact checked Obama's claim:

"We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses," Obama said. "We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college."

The key word in his statement is "working." Obama's claim is based on a tax cut intended to offset payroll taxes. Under the stimulus bill, single workers got $400, and working couples got $800. The Internal Revenue Service issued new guidelines to reduce withholdings for income tax, so many workers saw a small increase in their checks in April 2009.

During the campaign, the independent Tax Policy Center researched how Obama's tax proposals would affect workers. It concluded 94.3 percent of workers would receive a tax cut under Obama's plan based on the tax credit to offset payroll taxes. According to the analysis, the people who wouldn't get a tax cut are those who make more than $250,000 for couples or $200,000 for a single person.

CBS News highlights a problem: although 95% of working families got tax cuts, very few know about them

Here's the poll question: "In general, do you think the Obama Administration has increased taxes for most Americans, decreased taxes for most Americans or have they kept taxes the same for most Americans?"

The answer:
• 24 percent of respondents said they INCREASED taxes.
• 53 percent said they kept taxes the same
• And 12 percent said taxes were decreased.

Of people who support the grassroots, "Tea Party" movement, only 2 percent think taxes have been decreased, 46 percent say taxes are the same, and a whopping 44 percent say they believe taxes have gone up.

So why don't more people know about them? Go back to the top of the story. Or listen to the rhetoric:

MSNBC

"Is this what their 'change' is all about?" Palin asked. "I want to tell 'em, nah, we'll keep clinging to our Constitution and our guns and religion — and you can keep the change."

The change is here, some are just willfully ignoring it.

America is a stupid country - the reality of 'throw the bums out'

Let's look at the reality versus the truth that's being spun regarding this president and his "failures".

John Cole/Balloon Juice

When the President was elected and this congress took office, we were losing over half a million jobs a month. Now, we are gaining jobs.

In the past year and a half, they’ve stabilized the banks, the economy, and the major car companies, they passed health care reform that adds thirty million people and cuts the deficit long term while getting rid of the worst abuses of the insurance companies, extended the solvency of Medicare for a decade, we’re drawing down troops in Iraq, we are making progress with green energy, there has not been one successful terrorist attack on American soil, we’ve just signed a nuclear arms reduction treaty and re-examined our use of nuclear weapons and we are making great progress on the global stage. Hell, the DOW is up over 3,000 since we got rid of the bums. Personally, we’re getting a road paved near me that was a disaster, and it is being paid for with stimulus money. We’re gonna put some people to work and have a nice paved road! And Obama and company did it all without getting blowjobs from interns.

And we’re going to reward them by kicking a lot of them out of office. We’re a really stupid country.

Ford's turning a profit, the president made $8 billion for the nation in the Citi bailout, jobs are up, if START II passes the threat of nuclear holocaust is pushed back, the troops in Iraq are coming home without it turning into a bloodbath, we've avoided terroist attacks on our homeland (unlike Bush), we've captured or killed 10 top terrorists in just over a year.

Yeah, throw the bums out.

If we do, this is what we get: a reversal of all of the gains we made. And a return to the world created by this guy. Don't believe me? Here's the guy who shut down government and drove us to our knees 15 years ago in the name of dogmatic conservative "principle":

Dave Weigel

"Stage one of the end of Obamaism will be a new Republican Congress in January that simply refuses to fund it," said Gingrich -- that last word was drowned out in a standing ovation.

Gingrich ribbed the media for suggesting that this wasn't possible. "I think they forget that once upon a time I used to be Speaker of the House," he said. "Under our Constitution, Congress doesn't have to pass the funding."

What's funny is that Republicans claim to be for tax cuts. They're not - they're for them as political leverage when they deliver them. When President Obama cut taxes by 10% for 95% of all Americans, that's bad.

Bad.

So bad that Glenn Beck wants you to give it back.

Here's the President in his Weekly Address

Benen

"So far, Americans who have filed their taxes have discovered that the average refund is up nearly ten percent this year -- to an all-time high of about $3,000. This is due in large part to the Recovery Act. In fact, one-third of the Recovery Act was made up of tax cuts -- tax cuts that have already provided more than $160 billion in relief for families and businesses, and nearly $100 billion of that directly into the pockets of working Americans.

"No one I've met is looking for a handout. And that's not what these tax cuts are. Instead, they're targeted relief to help middle class families weather the storm, to jumpstart our economy, and to bring the fundamentals of the American Dream -- making an honest living, earning an education, owning a home, and raising a family -- back within reach for millions of Americans."

The reality is that this President is standing up for the economic needs of the core demographic of Tea Partiers. Except, you know, he's black.

Jeebus v. Capitalism

(BCGDAB)
Michael Moore has written an open letter to churchgoers on this holiest of days, and it's refreshing to see someone square in the public eye finally address the almost impossible task of reconciling the current state of capitalism and Christianity:

It doesn't seem you can call yourself a Capitalist AND a Christian -- because you cannot love your money AND love your neighbor when you are denying your neighbor the ability to see a doctor just so you can have a better bottom line. That's called "immoral" -- and you are committing a sin when you benefit at the expense of others.

It's a poignant commentary on the intellectual bankruptcy of Christianity that churches (Edit: With exceptions. - R.) aren't getting behind healthcare reform. I'm pretty sure Jesus spent most of his fictional time tending to the sick and absolutely none of it proselytizing about the awesomeness of naked short selling or decrying corporate taxes. I believe his exact words were "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" which simply translates to "Pay your taxes, bitches."

The Bush Tax Cuts

I referenced these figures from Citizens for Tax Justice regarding the Bush Tax Cuts in another post, and then started looking more.

In June of 2001, Bush signed a bill cutting taxes by $1.3 trillion - more than the cost of the House Health Care Bill and less than the Lie In Iraq has cost. Here are some really interesting figures.

Although everyone's taxes went down, look at the percentages. Look at whose dropped the most. The upper 1%'s taxes dropped by almost double the next closest demographic.

Next, look at the change in share of total taxes paid. The Top 1% paid 2.4% less. Those in the top third of wealth (upper middle class, from 61-99) paid more.

But it's the true middle and lower classes that interest me the most. Their share didn't change much at all. They still carry the same amount of burden. The truly interesting part is that these are the people being duped by the GOP. These are the Palin-ites. These are the teabaggers. These are the people who have been fooled into thinking that the Republicans represent their issues, are fighting for their tax dollars.

It's all bullshit. They're fighting to protect the interests of the very, very, very wealthy.

It's all a con and still some people are dumb enough to buy it.