http://www.oag.state.ny.us/complaints/pdfs/piu001_complaint
_form.pdf

If its the wrong place they will refer you.

Joe lost by 2 votes after Republican Jim Smith went to court won a ruling to disgard 5 absentee ballots (3 of which were from Republicans).

We do need an ethics board here, no matter what party is in control.

Hmmmm….let’s see tax cuts at the top have accomplished the same thing this time around as well - where are we now? a lagging and failing economy, bottomed out housing markets….higher unemployment rate - looks like it’s working huh?

As far as your socialist comment - your point was originally that lower income people paid less under Bush II than under Clinton - my point was that EITC (championed by Dems) cancels out most income tax for lower income earners - call it commie or socialist if you wish but it still serves well as a counterpoint to what you were purporting.

There are numerous creditable sites that discuss what income groups pay the most taxes. Basically it boils down to this. The top 1% of taxpayers pay 33% of all income taxes. The top 5% of taxpayers pay over 50% of all income taxes and the top 50% of taxpayers pay nearly all of the income taxes collected by the government.

Which brings me back to EITC. I know people that have (because of EITC and other tax policies) received more money back on their tax return then they paid in income taxes. That’s not right. That is clearly a socialist income redistribution.

Regarding presidents, tax rates and economies. For you to argue that the Clinton economy was much better with higher tax rates is unfair. The Clinton economy was better not because of Clinton, but because of the trickle down economy of Ronald Reagan. Reagan’s tax cuts set the country up for a great economy which the first Bush and Clinton ruined and then turn it over to the current Bush who manages to get blamed for a bad economy when if fact it was Clinton’s policy (and let’s not forget 9/11) that set Bush up for a failing economy.

Let’s also not forget the many tax breaks the rich get that are championed by Republicans - if you earn more than 95K a year you only pay Social Security taxes on 95K - so one could earn 150K and have 55K go untaxed for Social Security.

The very rich usually don’t live on an income rather they live on capital gains and dividends which are taxed at a much lower rate than income is. Corporate tax loopholes are also common place whereas small business owners receive the short end of the stick consistently.

And just a quck review of the Clinton years reveals a much better economy, a stabler foreign policy, a lower unemplyment rate and a fairer business environment.

See:

http://www.clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-03.html

Below is the reduction in tax owed and the percent decrease.

Single, income of 30,000 $ 401.25 -12.7%
Single, income of 50,000 $ 656.25 - 9.0%
Single, income of $75,000 $1406.25 - 9.9%
Single, income of $125,000* $2906.25 - 9.9%

Married, income of $50,000 $1072.50 -21.1%
Married, income of $60,000 $1072.50 -16.3%
Married, income of $75,000 $1664.00 -17.7%
Married, income of $125,000* $3964.00 -16.9%

I find it interesting that the people who have benefited the most (percentage wise) under Bush are typically the ones that vote against him.

I don’t buy into the argument that the rich have benefited more. Yes they have had a greater dollar amount reduction, but that’s only because they pay a greater dollar amount to start with.