Taxes, taxes, taxes

[keithster]

Does anyone have an opinion on the proposed tax cut?

I figure it's our money. The govt wastes a bunch of it. I figure I can spend it better than the bureaucrats can.

And, a second question: Why even bother with corporate taxes? After all, they just pass it on to the consumer so you and I end up paying for it anyway.

Does anyone really know what a gallon of milk costs? If it weren't for all the taxes, we'd probably pay about 1/2 what we get charged in the store.

The farmer pays taxes. The company that picks up the raw milk and transports it pays taxes. The dairy that processes it pays taxes. The company that makes the cartons or plastic jugs pays taxes. The company that makes the processing equipment pays taxes. The electric company providing juice to the plant pays taxes. The company that puts gas in the transport trucks pays taxes. The oil company that produces the gas pays taxes. The store that sells the milk pays taxes. They all pay property taxes. And so on and so on.

Every step along the way, Uncle Sam has his hand in somebody's pocket.

[blinc]

Aargh! Taxes! Man, you sure picked on a sore subject with me! {toothy} I'm against any more gobbldy gook for tax cuts, tax laws, tax incentives... tax anything! I'd rather see a straight tax anyday!

I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but I think the worst thing that ever happend to government, was that it was over-run by lawyers! A 1,000,000 page tax code? C'mon! The government has made the tax laws so unbelievably convoluted and grotesquely unintelligible that the layman can no longer invest the time to learn everything... if they were even capable of understanding all the legalese contained in the tax codes!! The ONLY way people can get the tax breaks they do deserve is to HIRE someone to do them! I seriously doubt that our founding fathers would smile with approval at the greedy and underhanded maneuvers our government has come up with, to bilk us of even more money out of our pockets.

Here in N.Carolina and in Virgina (I think there are one or two other states that do this) they have what they call a "Personal property tax". It's not for property - like what you build your house on... it's a tax on the "property" you own! Cars, boats, etc. That infuriates me!! You buy a car with money you earned that was taxed... you buy the car at the dealership and pay sales taxes when you purchase it. Then you pay a YEARLY tax to the state, for having bought a vehicle! Every year we have to pay out close to $600 just for the privelge of owning two vehicles and a boat! Oh, then there is a personal property tax on the boat trailer! Every single year!! They gradually reduce the cost of what you pay over 15 years... as the "property" devalues. Then of course, we have the REAL "property" taxes, for the property we do own... the land and the home.

AAAARRRRGGGGH!!!!! I'd go on, but I've given myself a blasted temper tantrum headache! {flame}

[keithster]

Go for it!

Maybe this should be moved to "Vent Your Spleen." :)

If you want to see your taxes in action, I suggest reading any number of the books by Martin Gross. Waste, waste, waste.

[blinc]

If I read any more or heard any more... think I'd have an aneurysm. What's that news show that has the expose' pieces on tax waste? It's something to do with the way our tax dollars are spent... The bilking of America? Oh darn! Can't remember the name of it!

Anyways, I catch that every now and then, but by the time the piece is over, I'm just frustrated, infuriated and sick at heart! A Represenative spending $10,000,000 dollars to build a park around an old locomotive, because he's a model train enthusiast? The instances go on, and on, and on, and on, and AAARGH!

I just can't get over ANY state, in this day and age thinking it's a "privilege" to own a vehicle! That's what they base the tax on - that it's a priveledged or luxury item. What the heck? What about a necessity? How do they expect people to get to work? To the grocery store? To a Doctor or Hospital? We don't have city buses out here in the boonies! Or even a taxi service! AAARGGH!

OH! And did I mention that when you buy a car and register it in N. Carolina, when you register it, you have to pay a one time ROAD TAX! That's a few hundred per vehicle! Plus one for the boat, since you'll be using the BOAT TRAILER on the roads! Have you ever heard of such nonsense?

My husband works in Virginia... but we live in N. Carolina. So that means we not only pay state taxes to Virginia, but N. Carolina wants a cut, so we end up paying state WAGE taxes to N. Carolina as well! ARRRRGH!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

*runs to look for valium before brain explodes*

[kezzer]

Taxes hmmm, I remember learning in school about no taxation without representation. Well, I don't remember representing any of the taxes I am forced to pay. I love when legislature and etc propose themselves pay raises. Um, hello, over here, I propose myself an extra hundred thousand or so a year too but..... Why should they all get big honkin raises so people like you and I can go to work, bust our behinds and pay even more in taxes just to pay their salaries.

Keithster, I'm starting to think maybe this should be moved! Lol!

[Berta]

Blinc here is Ct it's the same way, in the town we live if you own a small business your suppose to registar your business property with the town so they can tax that. I honestly haven't why would I want to pay tax on my computer, I use a small portion of it for my business, but the majority is for personal, I'm also suppose to pay tax on my washer and dryer, because I wash towels that the children use and blankets and sheets. I don't think so. It really really really makes me mad, than the officals of the town get upset when the people turn down a vote for a community center that would benefit the officals more than the people.

[Mickyhoo]

SC charges a property tax on vehicles too...
And in VA.. if a non-resident military member owns a car they are exempt.. BUT if the spouses (non-military) name is on the title/registration they DO have to pay the tax..

So then you leave your name off to save hundreds of dollars a year.. but if you get a divorce.. GUESS who gets the vehicle?

[keithster]

Think about buying a gallon of milk. How much of the cost is taxes?

The farmer pays taxes. The company he buys feed from pays taxes. The company he buys equipment from pays taxes. The electric utility providing him power pays taxes. The company that buys the milk pays taxes. Etc. etc. etc.

How much would a gallon of milk cost if there were no corporate taxes?

[keithster]

According to a couple of different sources I've read (one being Martin Gross), the actual tax percentage we pay is close to 60%. When you add up that tax component of everything we buy, and the fed, state, and local taxes, it runs pretty high.

60%! The colonists went to war for independence over a 2% tax.

The Founding Fathers are all spinning in their graves.

[blinc]

I know what you mean about the taxes adding up Keithster! When you add up sales taxes, taxes on your utility bills, taxes on your phone bills, taxes at the grocery store, at the gas station, etc., etc., etc., added on to what taxes are taken out of our incomes, it's just ridiculous the amount of money that is spent on taxes just to live a normal lifestyle!

Mickyhoo - I didn't know that Virginia did that! I thought military servicemen/women and their immediate families were tax exempt! That stinks! Here's the people who defend the system that taxes us - and they're taxing the families that defend them? Aargh! That's just tooo blasted greedy!

Berta, if you could afford to hire someone to do your taxes, (because heaven knows the tax laws for businesses are even more confusing then for individuals) you'd probably make out like a bandit under small business tax status. Heard there were some really good breaks. Computer use, washer and dryers, electricity, depreciation of the equipment you do use, etc. could be wrote off as a business expense. Of course, it would probably have to be compared against the rate that your city would tax you. But, it might be worth looking into.

[PsalmReader's Mom]

Hub told me last night he read an article stating the proposed tax cut that is supposed to benefit "everybody" would save a wealthy person enough to buy a new car, the middle class a new hubcap, and us? . . . maybe a lugnut! Not to get into a partisan thing, but my boss is big on the "trickle down" theory. Told him if the big rocks at the head of the stream displace more than their share, the "trickle" gets pretty slim before it reaches its lowest point.

I'm usually a fairly conservative person politically, but one thing I think would work better than the system we have now is a flat percentage of gross gain. No other taxes, no deductions, no shelters . . . just pay a fair portion of your income over a year's time, whether you are a CEO, a "blue-collar" worker (I don't like that term), or live on income derived from welfare. That's all the Lord asks for. Looks to me like it would be much easier to administrate too. Am I crazy, mislead, or does that make sense?

[Mickyhoo]

Yeah, but those rich folks who will save enough to buy a car are already paying more in taxes in a year than hubby and I EARN in a year...

Blinc.. the only times the military does not pay taxes is when we shop on base there is no sales tax at the exchange or commissary (althought there is a 5% "surcharge" at the commissary to pay for bags and new commissaries)

Also if a military member is in a hostile fire zone ( the Gulf, Bosnia, Korea etc) then the MEMBER'S portion of the taxes are exempt and they get free postage!!

So we pay our own paychecks!! And alot of us qualify for welfare!!

[jamesglewisf]

I want to point everyone again to this thread:

http://www.frappydoo.com/forum/showthread.php3?threadid=98

It really explains why a person in the wealthiest tax bracket gets a Lexus for a refund and the person in the lowest tax bracket gets a muffler.

The example shows how a person who makes $300,000 a year pays $88,092 (29.36% of his income) in taxes. The person who makes $40,000 a years pays $3,638 (9.10% of income) in taxes. If you lowered them both by an actual 9.10%, the person at $40K pays no taxes while the person at 300K still pays $60,792 in taxes. So, who got the bigger tax break? Of course the 300K family did, but the 40K family is paying no taxes at all.

The reason a lot of people think a flat tax is unfair is because of what people will end up paying. Look at the example above. With a flat tax of 15%, The 40K family will pay $6,000 in taxes--about 65% more. The 300K family will pay $45,000 in taxes--about 49% less.

There's just no way to get around the fact that the rich pay a whole lot more in taxes than the poor or middle class. If you give everybody the same percentage tax break, the rich will always get more in real dollars back; but that is because they pay more in real dollars in the first place.

When you talk about a rich person getting enough back in taxes to buy a Lexus, don't forget that they are still paying enough in taxes to buy several Lexuses. They still pay more in taxes than you and I make in gross income. I'm not saying that we should feel sorry for the rich, but we should quit beating them up like they aren't paying their "fair" share of taxes. They are paying the bulk of the taxes.

[keithster]

You also have to consider what "rich" folks do with their money. They invest it a lot of the time. That creates jobs.

And even if they do buy a new car (perhaps a Lincoln), what business is it of mine what someone else does with their money?

The yacht industry was hit hard by luxury taxes a few years ago. Congress wanted to punish the rich for being able to buy big boats. Guess who really got hurt? The rich folks went overseas to buy their boats. The people in the U.S. who made a living building or selling boats took the hit.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's anything, including income and tax refunds. :)

What do I care if Bill Gates gets $1 million in tax cuts?

Cut my taxes for 2 reasons. First, I could use the money. Second, taking money away from the scam artists in D.C. means they have less of our money to waste.

Federal budget deficits are truly a spending problem. Raising taxes to cut deficits slows the economy (which in effect cuts tax revenue) and has always led to increased spending. Forget taxes. Call your congress critter and complain about spending. Read Martin Gross if you need specifics about what to cut.

Maybe the person who will get a muffler really needs some cash to replace the muffler. Every little bit helps when you are living on the edge financially.

It's class envy. That's what's being used as a weapon against the tax cuts. Class envy creates divisions and doesn't help the country at all.

[blinc]

I'd have to totally disagree with you about the "class envy" theory Keithster. I think people are upset about the amount of taxes they are hit with, period. Not just the middle and lower income tax brackets, but the wealthy citizens as well.

Just because people disagree with something, it's no reason for others to trot out sayings that belittle the other side's views. Using terms like "class envy" conveys a tone that I (personally), think is too generalizing, and doesn't really stand on it's own two feet. Who's got class envy? At what level of income does a person fall into that category? How do they know it's class envy? Is there a test? Cause I'd sure like to take it! ;)

[jamesglewisf]

I'm not sure about this one.

Al Gore chose to run on a populist platform. http://www.m-w.com defines that asa member of a political party claiming to represent the common peopleHe supposedly represented the common people's interests over those of the rich. That's an us versus them mentality. It's pitting one class against another.

I think when you start dividing people into classes based upon wealth that you are using envy or pride to divide people. Why else would I care if someone has more or less money than I do other than I wish I had the money?

[jamesglewisf]

I also think that keithster was including himself in the have-nots. If he was genaralizing about a group, he was including himself in that group.

[blinc]

Yes, I do believe Keithster was... the point I was trying to make is that there are terms that are carted out by political parties and advocates of one side of an argument, that do nothing to promote the argument. Terms like "class envy". (I'm not saying Keithster made that term up... I'm too old and I've heard it too many times before, to believe he did!) :)

What I am saying is when a term like that is used, of course that puts the people on the other side of an argument into a defensive stance - because they are no longer allowed to just argue the merits of their particular side of an issue - they are now forced to defend themselves AND their side of the argument against charges (in this case) of being "envious".

I think it's a bad tactic when I see politicians do it... they'll use a broad term, that conveys insult, to put the other side on the defensive, but does nothing to explain their side of the issue. In my opinion, it only serves to muddy the waters, because while the sides are busy defending themselves against accusations of being jealous (for instance) and then whatever the other side comes up with to hurl back - the issue itself gets lost in all the mess and no one wins, because the issue has become so steeped in generalities, that if you stand for this, then you MUST stand for this... no one can focus anymore on just the issue itself.

It's just like when a person has a valid complaint about the government - another person says, "if you don't like it leave". What does that do? It puts the person who had the complaint on the defensive... but the person who said "if you don't like it leave" came up with no valid argument to support their side - they used a "saying" that was trotted out long ago, to shut people up who dared to complain. What would have happend to our country if the early settlers did just that - when it came to rebelling against England? They could have decided "hey, we don't like this.. let's leave"! Who know's where we'd be today, if generalizations really did govern our actions.

I'd agree that if you tried to divide people up into classes, based on wealth alone, then you would be attempting to create that division based upon the "you've got it better then I do" mentality. But, if anyone is saying that because I believe that a straight tax is better, that my decision is based upon envy of the rich - then I'd have to completely disagree... Vehemently! I refuse to be pigeon-holed so handily! {toothy}

I like the straight tax idea better for one reason... because the tax laws are so unbelievably difficult to understand, that only the people who can afford to hire people to do their taxes - can take full advantage of the tax breaks that are available. It's not fair to the lower income people that this state of confusion exists. (We've been on that end of things too and there's no guarantees in life that we won't end up there again someday). However, we had to give up doing our taxes years ago, because it was just too bloody confusing! Now, we have our taxes done by a "professional" - which means yes, we're getting back more money then ever before.

The thing is, what about the people who can't afford to shell out several hundred to a $1,000
(or easily more) to have their taxes done, so that they also can get the full benefit of the tax laws? I think that is totally unfair! And yep, it ticks me off to no end, that the tax codes are so confusing, that we have been forced to pay someone else to do our taxes! We both are college educated people... it's not like we are too stupid to make sense of something understandable - it's that the government has made something that should be understandable, into something so completely undecipherable to the average person, that for most people, either you get by with a 1040EZ or shuck out the bucks to have the long version done.

I could care less what Joe Blow down the street has - I'm happy with my life as it is - doesn't mean I'd turn down the winning lotto numbers... but it also doesn't mean I'm happy with the way the government has convoluted the tax laws. Not happy at all! *whew* Yackity, yack, yack! {toothy}

[Mickyhoo]

I am also for a flat tax... although I think about 5% is enough... for everyone...

I also still think a 1% per child deduction until they either grad HS or College... if the parents are paying for College...

I know alot of people without kids think tax deductions for kids are unfair, but let them live in reality for a min..

Without kids the race would end. If you do not want kids fine.. but after my kids grow up they will pay the taxes that supports my generation when we stop paying taxes..

[kezzer]

Ok, ya know what really gets me, when I take a personal day from work, and they give me a separate check for it and they take more taxes out for that one days pay than for my entire weeks paycheck. Same with sick pay. A $100 check and I end up getting maybe $50 after all is said and done. Argh!!! {fire} {flame}

[blinc]

So if someone had 5 kids Mickyhoo, they would pay no taxes? Just curious! Not sure I understood that part. :)

We don't have kids - but we sure know couples who do. You're right... the tax deductions are low. What is it now, $500 per child?

Kezzer, I know what you mean! The hubby wasn't able to take his vacation time this past year, so he was "reimbursed" for it. OOOOH, what they did to that check! {flame}

[Mickyhoo]

That is an extra tax credit..

But I guess they would not pay taxes until the first kid graduated..

And then both the parents AND that kid would pay that year.

But maybe they would not need food-stamps either...
so it would balance out as the taxes pay for the food-stamps.

The amount of food-stamps that I would qualify for at our family size and income is almost the same exact amount we pay in taxes each month..
I do not get food stamps though. Although we qualify, our 8 yr old van disqualifies us.
Would I use them? I am not sure. I make ends meet, but do not have any left over at the end of the month. And for a military family, online providers are cheaper than phone calls... and I can email hubby when he is out to sea, and can even IM him at times.

[blinc]

You know, I had know idea how tough things were for military families. All this time I thought the families paid no taxes... I'm still just flabbergasted over that bit of news Mickyhoo! Baffled!

[Mickyhoo]

To be fair to the military.. our huge family is why our pay does not stretch far enough.. but an E1 makes $964, before taxes.. and you cannot work overtime or have a second job without permission. But there are special pays (hazardous duty, sea pay, etc) and you do get a housing allowance if you are married.

Here is a link to this years military pay.. as proposed.. I do not think it is final yet!! BTW you HAVE to have acrobat to read it I think.....

http://www.dfas.mil/money/milpay/pay/draft_2001.pdf

The sad thing is we found out we qualified a few years ago when they told us on our LES... which is like a pay stub!!

[Mickyhoo]

By the way you read it from the bottom up... the lowest levels show the enlisted pay.. the officers are listed first!!

so do not think everyone is making the big bucks in the first 10 lines!!

for the first line there are only 6 people per branch earning that pay.. maybe 50 at the next level down and so on.

[kezzer]

I think a flat tax would be more fair. This year my hubby and I made more than any other year we've been together, but after taxes we actually made less. The more you make, the more you get taxed, and I don't like it!

[Mickyhoo]

All I know is no matter how rich you are you should not have to pay 39% of it in taxes... and that is what the richest pay.. That is VERY unfair...

I also do not think those on welfare should have that money taxed, as it is now.. HELLO they cannot EAT or pay RENT... but they can pay FICA??? That makes no sense at all..

And I know.. some people abuse the system.. but some NEED it, due to physical and/or mental illness, either their own or a family member that they have to care for.

And I do nto resent paying for the kids of the ones who are too lazy to work.. the parents may make me mad.. but the kids are not to blame.

[Mickyhoo]

I know this is not a joke thread.. but his BELONGS here.

A Dutchman was explaining the red, white, and blue
Netherlands flag to an American. "Our flag is symbolic
of our taxes. We get red when we talk about them, white
when we get our tax bills, and blue after we pay them."

The American nodded. "It's the same in the USA only we
see stars too!"

{dizzy}

[jamesglewisf]

Blinc,

I don't think Keithster said he was opposed to the flat tax. He said that people who are opposed to Bush's tax cut plan use class envy to denounce it. The soundbite they used is that the rich get a lexus and the poor guy gets a muffler. In other words, they (specifically Tom Daschle and Richard Gephardt (http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/02/08/bush.tax.01/index.html)) are using class warfare to denounce the plan.Daschle said the president's plan is unfair to lower income families because much of the break goes to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.

Richard Gephardt and Tom Daschle say Bush's tax-cut proposal would leave the richest Americans enough money to buy a Lexus.

"If you make over $300,000 a year, this tax cut means you get to buy a new Lexus," Daschle said. "If you make $50,000 a year you get to buy a muffler on your used car. That's the difference." You might say that it is unfair to characterize Daschle's argument as appealing to class envy, but I'm not sure how else I would characterize it. He reduced Bush's tax cut plan to an example that might be factual, but is irrelevant. Although the 300K person makes 7.5 times the salary of someone making 40K, he pays 24 times as much in taxes. His tax savings should be larger.

What Daschle tried to do is make people who identify better with the $50K salary think it is unfair that the $300K person gets a bigger tax cut. The government takes more from the rich than they do from the poor, but Daschle is making out like the tax break is being unfair to the poor. The rich will still pay more in taxes than the poor, both in dollars and in percentage. Whom is it unfair to?

The point keithster was making is that why should the lower-income person care if the rich person gets a bigger tax cut? The rich guy will still pay more in taxes than the lower-income person. The only reason I can think of why I would care is envy (covetousness). I want what the other person has. So, Daschle's soundbite seems to have been aimed at pulling out the envy that is in us all. It's covetousness. Regardless of how much money I make I can covet what other people have.

I don't think keithster was saying that if you are opposed to Bush's tax cut plan it is because of class envy. I think he was saying that Daschle is trying to use class envy as a weapon to oppose Bush's plan.

[jamesglewisf]

{homer} LOL! I just talked to blinc and I misunderstood her post. Duh. She wasn't talking about keithster but about political parties.

[Mickyhoo]

One way to cut taxes is to go back to only paying the Congressman a very small fee.

Originally it was only a second job!!! Not a way to get rich, but in fact most of them lost money going to work as a servant of the people, not an out of touch idiot like most of the ones there now!!

And take away thier ability to vote themselves raises..

Make each state pay thier own Congressman as originally.

And let us vote on their pay!!

Think of all the money that would be saved!!

And we might even get a better quality Congressperson!!

[keithster]

Jim nailed it nicely.

I'm talking more about how the arguement against tax cuts is framed. Create divisions and pit one group against the other. Create fear and use it to sway votes.

It happens in many issues. Gender. Age. Race. Religion. It's pure exploitation for political gain and the method often stretches the truth or downright lies.

The tax issue can be looked at two ways: the $ amount of the tax paid or the percentage. In the Reagan tax cuts, the wealthy got the lowest percentage cuts, but their cuts amounted to more $ simply because, for example, 1% of a $100,000 tax bill is more $ than 5% of a $5000 tax bill.

I'm absolutely for a flat tax. It would eliminate bracket creep (anyone remember this from the pre-Reagan years?), simplify taxes (which is why H&R Block hates the idea), and stop social engineering that disguises itself in the tax code. It would also eliminate favors paid to certain corporations.

[keithster]

Whoever started income tax withholding was a clever weasel. People now look at their net income and count on that every week/month and hardly think about gross.

Imagine if you got paid your gross every month and then had to sit down a write a check for income tax. Once you have that money in the bank, you don't want to part with it. If payday was run this way, there'd be a tax revolt so fast it would make your head spin.

[PsalmReader's Mom]

All points well made! I think the twinge of bitterness I still haven't dealt with comes from when I had a teensy weensy business and had to deal with the barrage of taxes at every turn . . . could hardly make ends meet for a long time. Then came time to do tax returns and guess what . . . still owed more taxes! It's a problem

As for class envy . . . has nothing to do with it. I don't begrudge anybody their money as long as it was honestly earned and no one was trampled in the process. We all have sense enough to know there are good and bad folks on both sides of the street. Money (excess or lack of) just doesn't measure worth.

I really don't see that "tax cuts" are of much benefit in the long run, though. It seems to me the better answer is, as was said above, to cut government spending. (Some spending is totally out of line and completely wasteful. Think of the good those wasted tax dollars could do.) And I still think an even tax percentage across the boards with no "loops" is the only method fair to all . . . why should anyone have to pay less or more. (And FORGET property taxes, sales taxes, etc. . . . City, County, State governments could work on the same format.)

[keithster]

Here's an interesting tax proposal, which on its face does have some appeal. I'm not fond of socialists, but might entertain this idea. $300 per person tax cut. If you have a family of 4, your get $1200.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/2/17/223209.shtml

But, if you reverse the notion, I'll bet the socialists would be outraged. How about split the spending bill by the number of folks in the country, and that's what you owe? Everyone would owe $10,000 or whatever.

The socialists would never go for that.

[TWTCommish]

Well, I'm sure no one here will be surprised when I say that taxes are far too high.

As for all this "class envy" stuff - I don't really know. Here's what I do know: a lot of public figures (typically liberal public figures) just love to demonize corporations and the wealthy individuals who run/own them.

It's like referring to upper-management as "suits", which is a mild insult. I look up to the suits and the wealthy individuals.

Don't we all want to be rich? Of course! So why are the ones who actually become rich all of a sudden evil?

I've actually found webpages online containing multi-page rants about how McDonald's is evil for paying their employees so litte. Good grief! They get mininimum wage, at the least (which is too high, BTW :)), and they agree to that amount...

...actually, they don't just agree, they apply for that amount. They ask for the job! LOL! :)

Anyway, I'm done venting now.

[keithster]

We need a tax revolt. This is just getting ridiculous.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/534541.asp

We used my stock options (not that there was an awful lot there) to adopt our children. The income from the options was enough to push me up over the limit where I no longer got the tax credit for adopting.

They get you coming and going.

[keithster]

Any thoughts on the Bush tax plan? Do you think it will pass through Congress? Do you want it to pass?

[keithster]

If the Democrats are going to sink this thing, they'd better hurry up. Tax season is upon us and it's the perfect time to go public and push for tax cuts. Perhaps that's why Zell Miller, the Dem Senator from Georgia, is bucking his party and stating that the public was eat Dems alive if they fight this thing.

If they filabuster in the Senate, the press will spin it one way, but the way Bush works, he'll probably help people see through the tactics.