We must support the President's plan to help the economy and the poor

[hfojvt]

Sure, it provides some benefits for the rich, but the primary reasons to pass it are because it keeps the working poor from paying more in taxes and it provides an absolutely necessary economic stimulus in this bad economy.

Here are some more quotes to drive those points home.

"My tax relief plan is a fair one, lowering the rate for all taxpayers. The typical family of four with two children will get $1,600 in tax relief. And the greatest benefits, the largest percentage reductions, will go to those who need them most. My plan is pro-growth. It gives our economy a jump-start by leaving more money in the hands of those who have earned it." Feb 17, 2001

"The President's tax plan provides relief for every income taxpayer; however, it gives the lowest income families the greatest percentage reduction. Indeed, higher income individuals will pay a higher share of income taxes after this plan takes effect. (See Chart 2–2.)" Feb. 28, 2001

"It recognizes that our tax code is unfair. It is unfair to people who struggle to get ahead. It is unfair for the single mom, who lives on the outskirts of poverty, who's working hard to provide for her family. For every additional dollar she makes above $25,000, she pays a higher marginal rate on that dollar than someone who's wealthy. And that's not right and it's not fair. It's not what America is all about, as far as I'm concerned. Our tax code makes the code more fair." Feb 7, 2001

"We need tax relief that creates the greatest number of jobs. (Applause.) The goal is to create a million new jobs by the end of next year. I've submitted a good, strong plan that will help meet that goal. The United States Congress must not only listen to your voice, but must listen to the voice of somebody looking for work. We need aggressive action out of the United States Congress now." May 6, 2003

"Oh, you'll hear the talk about how this plan only helps the rich people. That's just typical Washington, D.C. political rhetoric, is what that is. That's just empty rhetoric. This plan for a family of four making $40,000 a year would see their tax bill go from $1,178 a year, to $45 a year." May 12, 2003

"Yes, I'm worried about the deficit. I'm worried about the deficit, but I'm more worried about the fellow looking for work. I'm worried about the deficit, but I'm more worried about the single mom who's worried about putting food on the table for her children, so she could find work. And that's where the focus of this administration is going to be." May 12, 2003

"But in spite of the good news, people are looking for work. And as long as our fellow citizens are looking for work, we must act. So long as families are struggling to pay the bills, we must act here in America. So long as small businesses are hesitant to expand and to create new jobs, we must act. And the "we" in this case is the United States Congress." May 12, 2003

"We need at least $550 billion in tax relief over the next decade, big enough to make a real difference in the paychecks of American workers, big enough to help entrepreneurs create more jobs, and big enough to give our economy the boost it needs." May 10, 2003

"The unemployment number is now at 6 percent, which should serve as a clear signal to the United States Congress we need a bold economic recovery package so people can find work. (Applause.) That 6-percent number should say loud and clear to members of both political parties in the United States Congress, we need robust tax relief so our fellow citizens can find a job. (Applause.)" May 6, 2003


Ooops, I am sorry, all of those quotes are from George W. Bush and Co, but it happens to be almost the same plan, only with the added cost of a poison pill for social security which actually increases taxes on people making less than $20,000. And it largely provides benefits mostly to the rich too, except places like the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities have fallen on their calculators and are not saying much to oppose a Democratic President. (Way to show that your analysis is partisan rather than objective guys).

Those arguments didn't pass the smell test in 2001 or 2003 and they don't pass the smell test now.