First, I'll start with the wars, Obama said Afghanistan was a "Just War" and he added 30,000 troops to the war and after 4 yrs under Obama we're still there with no end in sight. All unfunded, and the worst part we are losing the war. Obama invaded Libya, all unfunded. In fact Obamacare is unfunded, in fact Obama raised the national debt by 6 trillion in just 4 yrs, all unfunded. Further Obama, even if he gets the tax hikes he wants of around 800 billion over 10 yrs he will still be borrowing 1.1 trillion a yr, all unfunded. Do you see the picture a little clearer now?
I would agree that the president should have ended the war in Afghanistan faster, but he is ending it faster that the other viable candidates proposed both in 2008 and this election, and he did not start the war in Afghanistan, he is the one ending it. He has been drawing down troops for withdrawal of all military troops by 2014. Its noteworthy that you completely ignored the GOP war in Iraq that the president also ended, despite objections from the GOP.
Now to the rich.
The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share. Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
They make more income so they pay more income taxes. What you neglect to mention is they pay a lower total tax rate than they did in the 1990s, and that FICA taxes provide as much federal revenue as does income taxes for which the wealthy are not taxed on 100% of their income as the working class are taxed.
Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush's tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.
Who Pays the Most Income Tax?
Now do you see a the picture a little clearer now?
"It's true that President Bush lowered tax rates for everyone in 2001, but the rich benefited more than other Americans.
The Bush tax cuts were a primary driver of the growth in income inequality over the past decade, the Congressional Research Service found.
The tax cuts reduced the middle three income tax rates of 28%, 31% and 36% by 3 percentage points, while shaving 4.6 percentage points off the top rate of 39.6%. It also created a new 10% bracket.
This knocked roughly $11,000 off the tax bill of those in the top quintile of taxpayers, on average, according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center. They got to keep an extra 5.4% of their after-tax income.
But the middle quintile only received a 2.6% boost in their after-tax income, or about an $1,100 tax break. The bottom quintile had just a $74 reduction in taxes, about a 0.7% change in after-tax income."
Five tax breaks Washington has given the rich - Bush tax cuts (2) - CNNMoney
In addition the rich got:
Lower rates on capital gains and dividends
Five tax breaks Washington has given the rich - Lower rates on capital gains and dividends (3) - CNNMoney
Big benefits for those who die
Five tax breaks Washington has given the rich - Big benefits for those who die (4) - CNNMoney
Itemized deduction advantage
Itemized deduction advantage
Tax-free interest on municipal bonds
Five tax breaks Washington has given the rich - Tax-free interest on municipal bonds (6) - CNNMoney
You still haven't gotten the message from the presidential election, have you? Its about the economy:
"Today, the Congressional Budget Office gave the GOP one more piece of evidence to ignore.
CBO updated its analysis of the scenarios that make up the so-called “fiscal cliff” and found that extending all of the tax cuts would boost the nation’s economy by “a little less” than 1.5 percent of gross domestic product. Extending all of the tax cuts other than the high-income Bush tax cuts, meanwhile, would boost the economy by 1.25 percent, CBO found:
Extending all expiring tax provisions other than the cut in the payroll tax and indexing the AMT for inflation—except for allowing the expiration of lower tax rates on income above $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for single taxpayers—would boost real GDP by about 1¼ percent by the end of 2013. That effect is nearly as large as the effect of making all of those changes in law and extending the lower tax rates on higher incomes as well (which CBO estimates to be a little less than 1½ percent, as noted above), primarily because the budgetary impact would be nearly as large
(and secondarily because the extension of lower tax rates on higher incomes would have a relatively small effect on output per dollar of budgetary cost).
Congressional Budget Office: Expiration Of High-Income Bush Tax Cuts Would Have Little Effect On Economy | ThinkProgress
