HilBam have said they will raise taxes; both have said the Bush tax cuts benefit the "rich", whoever they are, as that term in not defined. ( I define someone as being "rich" if their investment income is sufficent to live on without working; if you still have to work to pay the bills, you aren't rich, but that is another debate.)

Here are some interesting facts from the conservative Heritage Foundation:

"Consequently, from 2000 to 2004, the share of all individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40 per­cent dropped from zero percent to –4 percent, mean­ing that the average family in those quintiles received a subsidy from the IRS. (See Chart 6.) By contrast, the share paid by the top quintile of households (by income) increased from 81 percent to 85 percent.

Expanding the data to include all federal taxes, the share paid by the top quintile edged up from 66.6 percent in 2000 to 67.1 percent in 2004, while the bottom 40 percent's share dipped from 5.9 per­cent to 5.4 percent. Clearly, the tax cuts have led to the rich shouldering more of the income tax burden and the poor shouldering less.[18]"

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2001.cfm

The liberal Brookings Institute admitted:

"That means that the administration's claim — that the cuts are progressive because high-income households will pay a higher share of the income tax after the changes than before — is misleading. It's true that high-income households will pay a higher share of the income tax, at least in the short run. But changes in tax shares are not an accurate way of measuring progressivity. If we reduced everyone's income tax by 99.9 percent, for example, the shares of income taxes paid would remain constant — but the net result would be highly regressive."

http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2005/0504taxes_gale.aspx

The Brookings folks are engaging in sophistry, of course, as making the top 60 percent of income earners pay a higher percentage of the overall tax burden is what it is. Brookings has to engage in some mighty spin to make this sound "bad".

Liberal NPR argues as follows:

"The president's use of averages is misleading and masks who actually benefits most from his tax cuts. The Citizens for Tax Justice estimate that the middle 20 percent of Americans will receive 11 percent of the Bush tax cuts between 2001 and 2010, while the top 1 percent will receive 36 percent. That means the middle 20 percent would lose about $540 a year in tax breaks if the Bush tax cuts are not renewed. The top 1 percent would lose an average of $34,000 a year. "


http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/01/in_t...ch_we_have.html

This means that the middle 20 percent will pay 540.00 more in Fed income tax if the cuts the expire; the top 1 percent, 34,000.00; but

"...what is misleading ... is that the top 1% of income earners pay 39.4% of all the taxes while earning only 21% of all adjusted gross income. "

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

In short, if you vote for in November for HilBam, and you make an average income, your taxes will go up if HilBam get what they have promised you. These tax cuts were not just "for the rich", whoever they are.

Questions for debate:

1) If you have a job, isn't a vote for HilBam in November a vote for you to pay more tax?

2) Wouldn't it be better to control spending than to raise taxes?

3) If you can't control spending and cut taxes, which we all prefer, isn't getting lower taxes better than getting neither?

Your questions are so biased that they defy answering.

Prove I am wrong.

If I may... Even if I may not

Having a tough time reading today?

This thread was started so far from the neutral position that I have no interest in proving you wrong.

It's the old thing about when did you stop pulling your cat's tail.

Count me out of this one.

The sad part is I agree with your premise. I just don't think these questions as originally posted are very good. That last question in particular is a real mess. If we can't control spending and cut taxes shouldn't we have lower taxes? Well if we can't cut taxes how can we make them lower?

I might be wrong, but the way I read it was "If we can't have both, shouldn't we at least go for one of them?