Another hit for the Democrats. Wow, are our Democrats working hard for us? We love you and will see that a Democrat gets in the WhiteHouse and also gains even more of a majority. We love your honesty and smart writing of good Bills for the people. Thank God, the rubber stamp is for the people instead of for Bush.

And we all know that those 10 Republican Senators (and probably that Independent Republican) will "hedge" on their votes so this won't survive a Bush veto either.

Keep the legislation coming that stops the welfare for billionaries.

All right!!! The billionaires get to pay for the infrastructure and services they keep demanding and don't want to pay for!!! Hoooah!!!
If Bush vetoes the bill, we need to drag it through the media, about how Bush wants the rest of us to pay for the rich and greedy's free ride, and then push the bill back through Congress.
As for overriding a veto, I get the feeling that the closer to election time we get, the more likely there will be more Republicans willing to vote for the bill.

Hey guys...didn't JOhn Edwards work for a $30 billion hedge fund himself? I seem to recall that happening. He is also a very rich man. So is Clinton Inc, and Dianne Feinstein, and Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, and John Kerry, and Jon Corzine, and Jay Rockefeller, and Jane Harman, and Herb Kohl etc, etc. My point is is that these fat cats, whom for some reason you all love and adore, have gotten rich off people like yourselves. Wake up!! This has no chance of passing because that means guys like John Kerry (at $675 million) will lose out big time. We can't have that. Democrats losing money to big government? Absurd.

Using numbers generated by Laurence J. Kotlikoff in his work on “Intergenerational accounting,” it is estimated that a child born today will be paying 76 percent to 84 percent on his or her income in taxes as an adult just to fund the entitlements on the books today. This assumes that there will be no more entitlement programs passed for the next 50 years. The latest Medicare program alone will cost more than seven trillion dollars that will have to come out of our taxes and taxes on our children.

The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.

I have to agree with Rushbabies (is that really on the Democratic site?) and American1776. I did my study in accounting and economics and I strongly disagree with this position by the Democratic party. The top 5% pay well over 50% of the tax burden now. You want them to pay more? We need these people to invest their money in the open market, to help keep the ecomomy moving, and hence keep jobs available. Everytime we have crushed the rich in taxes, our economy has slowed. It's simple economics. The poor aren't paying anything in taxes, actually, most of them are receiving money from the government.

I disagree al66888. Rich fat cats have large foundations that are tax-exempt. They invest millions into the markets, make millions in return, and give 5% of that to education and think-tanks to push their ideology. The money they put into their own foundations are tax-deductable, so the more money they remove from one pocket and put into the other, the less taxes they have to pay and the more money they make. The income tax system was meant to tax the rich as it was anyway. However, the rich ended up creating foundations, and making them tax-exempt in the income tax bill. Look at the 990-PF's of the Carnegie Corporation or the Rockefeller Foundation. They own 250 pages of freaking stock, all tax free of course.

I disagree al66888. Rich fat cats have large foundations that are tax-exempt. They invest millions into the markets, make millions in return, and give 5% of that to education and think-tanks to push their ideology. The money they put into their own foundations are tax-deductable, so the more money they remove from one pocket and put into the other, the less taxes they have to pay and the more money they make. The income tax system was meant to tax the rich as it was anyway. However, the rich ended up creating foundations, and making them tax-exempt in the income tax bill. Look at the 990-PF's of the Carnegie Corporation or the Rockefeller Foundation. They own 250 pages of freaking stock, all tax free of course.

Did you ever learn in your economics courses that a private central bank, the Fed, screws up our economy? That is why $1 of today's money is worth 3 cents of pre-fed money. The reason why is that inflation has run so high because of the Fed's practices. They had to get us off of the gold standard, so we had the depression. Thereafter we went into a hybrid gold/fiat currency system in the 50's, and in the 70's we went to complete fiat currency. Now we have infinite reserves, we are not bound by a finite resource like gold. So, there's no reason to cap federal spending. It just keeps running on and on and on, and in doing so, the inflation goes higher and lowers our CPI and standard-of-living. Meanwhile, that government money, all that it spends, is going into someone's pocket. I can almost guarantee you're not getting the multi-billion dollar contracts the government's handing out. No, they are.

Also, the Fed is a private bank. I don't care what you were told about it, it isn't federal, and it is a private bank. Its stock is owned in their entirety by 12 regional banks, those regional banks have member banks which own a little stock in the regional banks, but the primary stock owners of the regional banks is people like the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Morgans, etc through their big banks. Like the Chase Manhattan Bank of the Rockefellers. The New York Fed controls the Federal Reserve System and the Rockefeller banks control the New York Fed. Did they teach you this in economics class?

Heed the words of Thomas Jefferson:
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson, Letter 1802 to Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin

The founding fathers weren't stupid, and they resisted, for a long time, a private central bank.

There is a quick and simple solution to this issue. If the rich are over taxed (which they rightly are) and the middle class and the poor are already paying out the whazoo themselves, the answer is not tax cuts or tax increases, because in reality they are all paying alot of tax, why don't we introduce fiscal spending. You may ask "What is fiscal spending?" Well that's a good question. For those of you in Rio Linda, fiscal spending is something middle class and poor Americans have been doing since before America was America. It's called not spending more than you already have in your account. Example: if you have $100, you cannot go and buy a $150 item. It's called responsible spending. Maybe if we adopted that idea and embraced it, we wouldn't have to go through all this every year. That means Nancy Pelosi cannot to to Syria and spend our money to finance her unauthorized excursions to the Middle East. That also means Congress would have to do some work in balancing the budget, but that's what you were elected to do, right? You can do it guys!