Glove Guy wrote:The tax cut excluded the 12 million children whose parents make between $10,000 to $26,000 a year. Those who needed the money most got the shaft.
The tax rate for incomes below $14,000 was reduced from 15% to 10% in the initial Bush tax cuts. Many people in the bracket you designated can use deductions and excemptions to get below the threshold that requires them to pay income taxes.
Infact, that group ($0-25k) saw a 1.3% income increase in the first two years of the initial Bush tax cuts (while the top end (200k+) saw drops). Not to mention that the child credit was increased by nearly double and that the marriage penalty was removed.
The top would of course get the largest dollar value of a tax return seeing as they currently pay they largest amount to begin with. Infact, that tax burden has swung to be increased on the rich. As Matthew said, the top 20% pays 82% of the taxes (up from 78% in 2001) while the bottom 80% pays 18% of taxes (down from 22%).
The initial Bush tax cuts had a more focused goal to get the economy booming. The second term plan is more across the board income rate reductions whereas the core of the initial Bush tax cuts was not the income tax reductions but the dividend and capital gains cuts. As insensative as it may sound (though not to me and I'm po') I've never been hired by a poor person.
Here's a simpler explanation of tax cuts:
Every night, ten men met at a restaurant for dinner. At the end of the meal, the bill would arrive. They owed $100 for the food that they shared. Every night they lined up in the same order at the cash register. The first four men paid nothing at all. The fifth, though he grumbled about the unfairness of the situation, paid $1. The sixth man, feeling generous, paid $3. The next three men paid $7, $12, and $18, respectively. The last man was required to pay the remaining balance of $59.
The ten men were quite settled into their routine when the restaurant threw them into chaos. It announced that it was cutting its prices: Now it would charge only $80 for dinner for the ten men. This reduction wouldn't affect the first four men — they would continue to eat for free. The fifth person decided to forgo his $1 contribution to the pool, and the sixth contributed $2. The seventh man deducted $2 from his usual payment and now paid $5. The eighth man paid $9, the ninth, $12, leaving the last man with a bill of $52. Outside of the restaurant, the men compared their savings, and angry outbursts began to erupt. The sixth man yelled, "I got only $1 out of the total reduction of $20, and he" — pointing to the last man — "got $7." The fifth man joined in the protest. "Yeah! I got only $1 too. It is unfair that he got seven times more than me." The seventh man cried, "Why should he get a $7 reduction when I got only $2?" The first four men followed the lead of the others: "We didn't get any of the $20 reduction. Where is our share?"
The nine men formed an outraged mob, surrounding the tenth man. The nine angry men carried the tenth man up to the top of a hill and lynched him. The next night, the nine remaining men met at the restaurant for dinner. But when the bill came, there was no one to pay it.
But we aren't talking about tax cuts here. We're talking about the war. And as I've said before, it trumps everything, for we must win.
Thought is the devil 
. But the rest of us took action before anything escalated, and it was needed. Not only did it eliminate the threat, sadaam is gone and their country is in alot better shape. But you want to call that a terrorist action? Well I guess when England retaliated to germany invading poland in ww2 was a terrorist action too. If you say no, you're contradicting yourself.
