No, I am no expert. Never said I was. That's why I looked it up. Turns out I was right. Now the US Treasury is a blog?

You say: "The next proof is that the wealthiest 10% pay less than they did ten years ago per capita and that the middle class under Bush pays more than the wealthiest 10%."

10 years ago Bush wasn't president. So if you want to prove Bush's tax cuts were for the rich then you can only go back to when Bush became President and signed into law the tax cuts. I think this was 2001. That said the site referenced clearly says that the wealthiest are paying more.

You say:"Funny how you disregard everything said up to this point and use your one suspect source as the final solution to the debate.
Sorry; do some research. If this is important to you get on the stick and find some facts. The Bush administration has been a dfisaster for the middle class and now: "

I have not disregarded any you've shown to be true. You have not shown anything to be true. Up until this point you have only stated numbers that you say came from the IRS site, but have not shown where on the site you got them and in what context. The "One suspect source" was basically suggested by you. You suggested the IRS as a good source. I found a site by the US treasury that summarized the info from the IRS. Before you were willing to accept the numbers. Could it be a "suspect source" now because your having trouble twisting the numbers? As far as Bush's administration being a disaster for the middle class. Saying something doesn't make it so.

You say: Everyone out there reading this...There is a initiative under the Bush administration currently in discussion to cut the MORTGAGE DEDUCTION on YOUR house to a maximum of 300k allowable. Watch out guys; here goes your future down the drain. And your childrens legacy.

What's all this? Let's stay on point.