How come it's not OK to cut taxes across the board, where the top 20%, who pay 80% of the taxes, get 75% of the dollars returned? Yet it is OK when raising taxes to increase taxes only on the top few per cent?
Example: In 1993, Clinton put a 10% surtax on the top two tax brackets, and increased taxes on no one else. In 2001, Bush removed that 10% surtax and ALSO cut everyone else's taxes by about the same amount, plus a bit more at the low end.
Yet it's Bush's 2001 tax cuts that are unfair, and Clinton's 1993 hike and Kerry's proposed 2005 hike that are "fair." Can someone explain this to me? Preferably someone from the CBS Truth Squad...
Be careful what you say Comrade, Moscow is listening. The Commentariat Diktat is clear, only bad things have happened under the fascist Bush. There will be no discussion of good things until the evil usurper is removed. Before the counterrevolutionary Bush arrived all was as Eden was, babies everywhere were fed and all children were in bed by 7:00 in the common nursery.
There are no "taxes" comrade, only "voluntary contributions" to repair the damage done by centuries of nacent Capitalism in the class struggle of the proletariat. The party will decide how much can you have, no one else. This ensures that the needs of the many are satisfied before your own selfish needs. It is subversive to think of keeping your own money. What are you Comrade, a Capitalist?
( Winston Smith - your room is ready sir....)