tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post5736329344648748043..comments2024-03-28T23:32:05.817-04:00Comments on field negro: "Republicans block unemployment extensions and middle class tax breaks"!field negrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15411743587725023134noreply@blogger.comBlogger69125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-7325569058227318742021-03-01T01:36:00.963-05:002021-03-01T01:36:00.963-05:00Hartia event management can do your events,anywher...Hartia event management can do your events,anywhere in India and have already executed events in Delhi,Jaipur Indore, Kochin, Goa etc. Based on your brief, goals, budget we can organize and manage the event for you. We offer our services in Corporate Events, Sporting Events, Special Events,Birthday, Promotions etc.<br /><br /><a href="https://hartia.in/" title="corporate events in Mumbai" rel="nofollow">Corporate events in Mumbai</a><br /><a href="https://hartia.in" title="event management company in Mumbai" rel="nofollow">Event Management Company in Mumbai</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-23572600603945504442010-12-05T17:59:04.734-05:002010-12-05T17:59:04.734-05:00Anon said
"Republicans refuse to increase th...Anon said<br /><br />"Republicans refuse to increase the deficit and raise taxes!<br /><br />1) When looking at the last 5 Presidents, Republican Presidents and Repubs have raised the deficit more than Democrats.<br /><br />2) If Republicans are so concerned about the deficit, then they should let the Bush tax cut for the rich expire. We can't afford the Bush tax cuts. <br /><br />3) The middle class is what sustains our economy. <br /><br />4)If you let the Bush tax cuts expire for the rich their Financial Advisors will find ways to offset it. I sure poor people and most middle class don't have FA.<br /><br />Warren Buffet doesn't need a tax cut.Sandranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-51473916832267475892010-12-05T17:42:42.867-05:002010-12-05T17:42:42.867-05:00well... duh.
anyone who doesn't understand ...well... duh.<br /><br /><br /><br />anyone who doesn't understand this is 1) a paid plant sent here by Rove et al to disrupt an effective af-am blog 2) really woefully uninformed and probably stupid and/or a pathetic addict of (foreign owned, btw) FOX news 3) racist and also #2.chicago dykehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/chidy/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-47947718056353053082010-12-05T17:18:12.397-05:002010-12-05T17:18:12.397-05:00Hathor said...
"Bruno is wrong. SS was never ...Hathor said...<br />"Bruno is wrong. SS was never a retirement program and most people would get what they put in by 2 1/2 years."<br /><br />No Hathor, social security was set up like an insurance annuity that you paid "premiums" on. The level of benefits was not designed to cover everything, but to keep old folks out of poverty.<br /><br />You are right that people generally get more out than they put in today, but that is because we live much longer than we did in 1935, and the retirement age hasn't changed all that much.<br /><br />During the 50's and 60's, there was always a surplus, so benefits were politcally easy to raise. But as our population stopped increasing, the number of people drawing benefits has increased greatly as compared to the number of people working and paying taxes.Brunonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-13623263076552754122010-12-05T17:04:34.838-05:002010-12-05T17:04:34.838-05:00"So why should someone who clearly doesn'..."So why should someone who clearly doesn't need to tap into the social security system be allowed to draw the same as some poor schmuck who earned $50,000.00 per year for most of their lives?"<br /><br />Because they paid in. It is not technically an entitlement program, it is a retirement plan to which you contribute.Brunonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-27675771656934548972010-12-05T16:11:58.360-05:002010-12-05T16:11:58.360-05:00FN,
Bruno is wrong. SS was never a retirement prog...FN,<br />Bruno is wrong. SS was never a retirement program and most people would get what they put in by 2 1/2 years. SS was to provide the minimal support. The government based the program to be solvent based on the lifespan of the population at that time. SS didn't expand to cover those that didn't contribute. It only expanded the jobs that would be covered. SSI is a separate entitlement as is Medicare and Medicaid. <br /><br />Since payout is based on contribution from wages, to be fair, shouldn't you get the same benefit as if you never made a significant amount of money during your year close to retirement. The only reason that SS has problems is that it has been used to supplement the Vietnam war and other government shortfalls.Hathorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12657524404057819428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-85857386693757620592010-12-05T15:36:34.414-05:002010-12-05T15:36:34.414-05:00"It also doesn't answer the question why ..."It also doesn't answer the question why Exxon who profited $35 billion in 2009 paid no US income taxes, but paid $15 billion in taxes to foreign entities. That's quite a bit of change. Exxon isn't paying taxes and its not creating jobs in the US either, there goes the theory of tax cuts to create jobs. So much for that Laffer Curve, it works like a charm."<br /><br />I co-sign with you on that one. And we justlearned that corporations are sitting on billions (with a b) of dollars worth of profits.There is something wrong with that. <br /><br />Bruno, I understand benefits and consntributions being capped, since, for the most part, you should get out what you put in. <br />So why should someone who clearly doesn't need to tap into the social security system be allowed to draw the same as some poor schmuck who earned $50,000.00 per year for most of their lives?<br /><br />Why should John McCain, for instance, get $23,000.00 per year in social security benefits?field negrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15411743587725023134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-58572322862152222842010-12-05T15:21:40.854-05:002010-12-05T15:21:40.854-05:00"Question for Bruno: why is the ss tax capped..."Question for Bruno: why is the ss tax capped at a certain percentage? If I make a millon dollars a year and some other person earns $100,000.00 per year, why should we both pay the same 6.20% ? $150,000 per year. That doesn't seem fair to me. Just asking."<br /><br />Because social security was not set up originally as an entitlement, it was a program that you contributed to so that you could draw from it when you retired.<br /><br />Since benefits were capped at a certain amount, so were contributions.<br /><br />It wasn't designed to be "fair", i.e. everyone doesn't pay their share of everyone's retirement, they pay only for their own retirement.<br /><br />And the rate is the same for everyone, which makes it a "flat tax" (which is good), but since the amount earnings taxed is capped at about $98,000, it is a regressive tax (which is bad). Therefore someone who makes 98,000 pays the maximum payroll tax amount, the same as Bill Gates.<br /><br />Over time, as more people were added as beneficiaries, and as people lived longer, there has been less and less correllation between what you put in, and what you eventually get out.<br /><br />Since it is no longer so much a retirement plan as an entitlement, it should be funded from general revenues and the separate (regressive) payroll tax abolished.Brunonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-77818870432203890072010-12-05T15:14:38.262-05:002010-12-05T15:14:38.262-05:00Nevermind, I know Bruno and the anon person would ...Nevermind, I know Bruno and the anon person would get the correct number. I just found from an article from Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0116815520101201<br />The article discusses the impact of Bush era tax rate expiration, however, the article does give a breakdown of taxpayers and who pays what:<br /><br />There are approximately 170 million taxpayers with just under a million people that made enough taxable income above $373,650 and here are the other groups break down for 2010:<br /><br />Approx: <br /><br />1.6 million have taxable income above $171,850- pay a 33% marginal rate<br />4.7 million have taxable income above $82,400 - pay a 28% rate<br />24.8 million have income above $34,000 and pay the 25% rate<br />50 million have income above $8,375 and pay a 15% marginal rate<br />27.1 million earn up to $8,375 and pay a 10% rate<br />62.7 million pay no taxes, either because they don't earn income or get tax credits such as the earned income tax credit for working families. So the percentage is not 47, but 36.9%.<br /><br />What is jarring is that we have that many people living in poverty in this country, and how they are surviving on less than $8,300 a year anywhere in the country? Are you saying that they should pay taxes and agree with Glen Beck that if they don't pay taxes, they serve in the military? Does that mean Biff will have to serve in the military as well?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-58809950435011903202010-12-05T14:41:21.587-05:002010-12-05T14:41:21.587-05:00Field:
It also doesn't answer the question wh...Field:<br /><br />It also doesn't answer the question why Exxon who profited $35 billion in 2009 paid no US income taxes, but paid $15 billion in taxes to foreign entities. That's quite a bit of change. Exxon isn't paying taxes and its not creating jobs in the US either, there goes the theory of tax cuts to create jobs. So much for that Laffer Curve, it works like a charm.<br /><br />I am not economist, only my limited knowledge from taking ECO101 in college. I am having this discussion because I am curious and want a better understanding, but this laffer Curve still smells of supply-side economics from the 80s and from what I've seen didn't turn out so well as the Reagan Administration had to raise taxes from overspending. I cannot stress that point enough. This is a fairytale and it's biting us in the ass at this moment. Bruno you have not shown any data for the 47%. Back up it with facts and not some video on You Tube. I don't think I have look up so much data since college.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-64469013196628436222010-12-05T14:31:30.821-05:002010-12-05T14:31:30.821-05:00Thank you Mr. President!I knew that the [ignorant]...Thank you Mr. President!I knew that the [ignorant] Anon. representing themself as being a part of your organization was a fraud.<br /><br />And good luck with rooting out the "the anon inhumane society" from your ranks. :)field negrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15411743587725023134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-3436035629104015112010-12-05T14:27:40.137-05:002010-12-05T14:27:40.137-05:00http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B26HU201012...http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B26HU20101203Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-72843535498871478742010-12-05T14:25:38.588-05:002010-12-05T14:25:38.588-05:00Field, "Dear president of Anon Inc. Anon@ 7:5...Field, "Dear president of Anon Inc. Anon@ 7:57 AM is an embarrassment to you and your organization and should be thrown out. Their comments were ignorant and childish and your organizations name should not be associated with such trash."<br /><br />Dear Mr. Field, Let me make it clear that Anon, Inc. does not hire agents like anon7:57am.<br /><br />Our policy is to only hire Anons with a 'sense of decency' who consider themselves part of the entire human race. Clearly anon7:57am is nothing of the sort. Let me say that there is a hate society that runs counter to our organization, which calls itself 'the anon inhumane society'. (It doesn't capitalize its name for strange incestuous reasons). <br /><br />Let me say that Anon, Inc is a highly respected company with quality Anons. We have no affiliation with such a sick society.<br /><br />However, if you would like to write them concerning anon7:57am, their weird address is as follows:<br /><br />anon inhumane society<br />dirt Muddi Rd<br />trailer Park #9<br />Deep'n Woods, MS 8mysis<br /><br />I know the zip code is a little weird but life can be that way, sometimes. Let me warn you that anon7:57am is considered a treasured member-the 'best' of the 'best' of his kind. Hence, you might not get a sane human response....I hope you can read between my lines.:D<br /><br />As always, Anon, Inc has enjoyed being part of FN blog and look forward to adding a 'dash' of colorful comments in 2011.<br /><br />Best Wishes for the Holidays,<br />President <br />Anon, IncAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-5397727448870102092010-12-05T14:10:52.392-05:002010-12-05T14:10:52.392-05:00He could work at several trade jobs he was offered...He could work at several trade jobs he was offered. But it is beneath him. Problem is, he has an 8th grade education. Speaks only ebonics and little english. Has a thug mentality, can barely state a coherent thought. Hates anyone that has something, no way they could have earned it, just got out of prison for stealing and drugs and believes the best way to pass the day is call someone to see if they holdin or playin gran tourismo. Yeah, somebody is holdin him and you down....look in the mirror."<br /><br />Anon. I think you made that guy up. <br /><br />Bruno and hennasplace, I am enjoying the discussion on the tax code.<br /><br />Question for Bruno: why is the ss tax capped at a certain percentage? If I make a millon dollars a year and some other person earns $100,000.00 per year, why should we both pay the same 6.20% ? $150,000 per year. That doesn't seem fair to me. Just asking.field negrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15411743587725023134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-8707103199893717622010-12-05T13:42:20.044-05:002010-12-05T13:42:20.044-05:00If you want to talk about the totality of the tax ...If you want to talk about the totality of the tax code, that's something else. Personally, I think the whole thing needs to be scrapped and redone anew.<br /><br />Payroll taxes are regressive since they are capped at a certain income level. The payroll tax should be abolished and social security funed from general revenues (which in fact it essentially already is).<br /><br />However, what is being discussed in congress is the federal income tax. The previous anon was correct in asserting the bottom half (somewhere around 47%) of earners pay no income taxes.<br /><br />Part II of the Laffer curve series offers some <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsB_rnzBA08" rel="nofollow">some historical evidence</a> as to how tax increases don't always increase tax revenues.Brunonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-66895774341190167782010-12-05T13:26:58.758-05:002010-12-05T13:26:58.758-05:00Bruno:
Here is a reality check most Americans pay...Bruno:<br /><br />Here is a reality check most Americans pay more payroll taxes than they do in federal income tax. Only a very small percentage of Americans pay no federal taxes, and most of those folks are paying at least some state taxes. However, Exxon who profited $35 billion paid no taxes, and they paid most of their taxes to foreign governments. That story was picked up by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and was barely picked up by the US media. Do you know picked up this story, The Daily Show, a satirical show http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-13-2010/that-s-tariffic, and found this by reading a story in Mother Jones that is not a mainstream publication.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-35799787269876319582010-12-05T12:59:59.849-05:002010-12-05T12:59:59.849-05:00Anon:
You are daft, I only used that as an exampl...Anon:<br /><br />You are daft, I only used that as an example or an analogy to explain a larger point. And it is obvious to me that you do not nor comprehend what you read. Here you are writing comments with access to a computer and internet without bothering to do any research as to what the others are discussing. You cannot answer a question because don't have a brain that God gave a raisin. You are too lazy to think.<br /><br />You are throwing out a number 47% without any breakdown analysis as to what it means. I think 47% is too high because they are probably other factors that you haven't added to the equation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-21497764520290781262010-12-05T12:44:36.961-05:002010-12-05T12:44:36.961-05:00It's not that simple. Have you heard of the t...It's not that simple. Have you heard of the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8" rel="nofollow">the Laffer curve</a>?Brunonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-88499534676130318552010-12-05T12:32:14.953-05:002010-12-05T12:32:14.953-05:00So the problem is that the government is not recei...So the problem is that the government is not receiving enough revenue to cover the expenditures. I have a question as to what "other mandatory programs" that cost $571 billion are, however, it does take a large chunk of the mandatory spending budget. I am actually learning about while writing about it at the same time. The total 2010 budget is $3.552 trillion (estimated), and total revenue is $2.381 trillion. This means the budget as a shortfall of $1.171 trillion. If Congress does pass a tax cut for people under $250,000, and increase taxes for people making over $250,000 would add $700 billion, then the shortfall would be $471 billion. 60% of the shortfall would be covered by increasing taxes on the wealthy and the remaining budget can be filled by reducing spending in defense, other mandatory programs and restructuring Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. That's what needs to be doneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-26702091793404084552010-12-05T12:20:57.716-05:002010-12-05T12:20:57.716-05:00To illustrate, here is a parable that circulated b...To illustrate, here is a parable that circulated back in 2002:<br /><br /><br />This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this. The first four men — the poorest — would pay nothing; The fifth would pay $1: the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; The ninth $18. The tenth man — the richest — would pay $59. That’s what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement — until one day, the owner threw them a curve.<br /><br />“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. “So dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six — the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?” The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being *paid* to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth Man with a of $52 instead of his earlier $59.<br /><br />Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth. “But he got $7!” “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got seven times more than me!” “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They’re $52 short!Brunonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-31770663161482927542010-12-05T12:19:51.919-05:002010-12-05T12:19:51.919-05:00Democrats don't seem to understand the differe...Democrats don't seem to understand the difference between percentages and totals.<br /><br />We have a progressive tax code in America, meaning the more you make, the higher your tax rate gets. The idea is that people who have been successful in this system shold pay more to keep it going.<br /><br />All we heard from the democrats in 2002 were that the Bush tax cuts were "tax cuts for the rich".<br /><br />But the Bush Tax cuts actually made the income tax code MORE progressive, i.e. the "rich" actually paid a higher percentage of the total tax burden after the Bush cuts then before.<br /><br />Democrats howled because the actual dollar amounts in people's tax bills went disproportionally to the "rich", but this could only be so, since they paid most of the taxes.<br /><br />You can't give a tax cut to people who don't pay taxes.Brunonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-23922807096285957182010-12-05T12:13:56.363-05:002010-12-05T12:13:56.363-05:00hennasplace said...
Rudy:
I know how people think...hennasplace said...<br />Rudy:<br /><br />I know how people think that one day they can be among the wealthy, but the reality doesn't match the dream. I don't understand why they do not realize that this is not going to happen. People do understand what it would take to become among the wealthy and doubt very seriously that they are going to read the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell to know what would have to happen for that to occur. Part of it is being in the right place at the right time in order to take advantage of the opportunity. Woody Allen once said that eighty percent is showing up, and people do not realize how that statement is so true. We know that among a million athletes only 1,300 will become pro and a small percentage of that 1,300 will become multi-millionaires. Those are slim odds because only 2% of the population are wealthy that means that they are only 6 million wealthy people in the country compared to 300 million of the total population. However, they hold a considerable amount of the wealth in this country and they pay the least.<br /><br /><br />My god. What a sad person you are. In your mind the only way to make money is to be a sportstar?<br /><br />The wealthy pay the least? You do realize that they pay the most and without them the 47% of us who pay nothing at all and actually get tax money taken from someone else refunded to them? <br /><br />How about talking about abuse? How many people you know get foodstamps dont work and certainly can? I know a nice big strong able brother who refuses to work at anything less then a managerial high paying position. He could work at several trade jobs he was offered. But it is beneath him. Problem is, he has an 8th grade education. Speaks only ebonics and little english. Has a thug mentality, can barely state a coherent thought. Hates anyone that has something, no way they could have earned it, just got out of prison for stealing and drugs and believes the best way to pass the day is call someone to see if they holdin or playin gran tourismo. Yeah, somebody is holdin him and you down....look in the mirror.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-62524073857742621682010-12-05T12:12:02.737-05:002010-12-05T12:12:02.737-05:00Here is the breakdown of discretionary spending:
...Here is the breakdown of discretionary spending:<br /><br />Discretionary spending: $1.368 trillion (+13.1%)<br />$663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)<br />$78.7 billion (−1.7%) – Department of Health and Human Services<br />$72.5 billion (+2.8%) – Department of Transportation<br />$52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs<br />$51.7 billion (+40.9%) – Department of State and Other International Programs<br />$47.5 billion (+18.5%) – Department of Housing and Urban Development<br />$46.7 billion (+12.8%) – Department of Education<br />$42.7 billion (+1.2%) – Department of Homeland Security<br />$26.3 billion (−0.4%) – Department of Energy<br />$26.0 billion (+8.8%) – Department of Agriculture<br />$23.9 billion (−6.3%) – Department of Justice<br />$18.7 billion (+5.1%) – National Aeronautics and Space Administration<br />$13.8 billion (+48.4%) – Department of Commerce<br />$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of Labor<br />$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of the Treasury<br />$12.0 billion (+6.2%) – Department of the Interior<br />$10.5 billion (+34.6%) – Environmental Protection Agency<br />$9.7 billion (+10.2%) – Social Security Administration<br />$7.0 billion (+1.4%) – National Science Foundation<br />$5.1 billion (−3.8%) – Corps of Engineers<br />$5.0 billion (+100%) – National Infrastructure Bank<br />$1.1 billion (+22.2%) – Corporation for National and Community Service<br />$0.7 billion (0.0%) – Small Business Administration<br />$0.6 billion (−14.3%) – General Services Administration<br />$19.8 billion (+3.7%) – Other Agencies<br />$105 billion – OtherAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-53684474140370139202010-12-05T12:09:55.390-05:002010-12-05T12:09:55.390-05:00Yes that will be part of the compromise and the re...Yes that will be part of the compromise and the republicans knew what they were doing when the voted against the unemployment extension a couple of weeks ago. This tactic that occurs on both sides of the aisle when one wants something pass, it's only now that we are paying attention to this partly because the state of the economy and an African American President. This is how Senator Chuck Schumer stopped the bankruptcy bill the first time by including abortion rules into the bill, and prevented bank lobbies from making more difficult for individuals to file for bankruptcy. If you want to kill a bill, add a social value to it. This is politics. <br /><br />The answer to the second question is yes, but will not happen because politicians pay lip service to the American people. They tell the people what they want to hear and not what they need to hear. You have to reduce spending and increase tax revenue. Something will have to be done to prove to our creditors to prove that we doing something to reduce our debt. The government does make the budget available to the people, but who has time to sit and read over 800 pages with the exception of professionals that have to?<br /><br />Here is a breakdown the mandatory spending:<br /><br />Mandatory spending: $2.184 trillion (+15.6%)<br />$677.95 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security<br />$571 billion (−15.2%) – Other mandatory programs<br />$453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare<br />$290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid<br />$164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt<br />$11 billion (+275%) – Potential disaster costs<br />$0 billion (−100%) – Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)<br />$0 billion (−100%) – Financial stabilization effortsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-12975701274738378842010-12-05T12:09:26.611-05:002010-12-05T12:09:26.611-05:00And no one is talking about cutting taxes for anyo...And no one is talking about cutting taxes for anyone; the Republicans want to leave the current rates where they are.<br /><br />The democrats want to raise rates for upper earners. Many economists beleive this is a bad idea, especially in a recession.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com