Gingrich repeated falsehood that Rangel promised to raise taxes if Dems take control of House
On the October 10 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Fox News political analyst and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) falsely claimed that Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) "promise[d] to raise taxes" if the Democrats take over the House of Representatives in the upcoming midterm elections. After co-host Sean Hannity asked Gingrich what advice he would "give the Republicans in the 28 days between now and Election Day," Gingrich responded that Republicans "need to take Charlie Rangel's promise to raise taxes and consider every single tax cut for a possible tax increase and say to the country, 'Do you really want your taxes to go up that much? Do you think that's the kind of House you want?' "
In fact, as Media Matters for America noted, during a September 26 interview with host Neil Cavuto on Fox News' Your World, Rangel, who is in line to become chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee if Democrats gain a majority in the House after the November election, stated that a House controlled by the Democrats "would not raise taxes" and "would not roll back" President Bush's tax cuts enacted by Congress and set to expire in 2010. Rangel added: "The president has -- had allowed these things to expire in 2010 ... and I would not advocate or support a retroactive increase in taxes."
Media Matters noted that, on the October 6 edition of Your World, Cavuto similarly did not challenge Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman's false claim that Rangel had said that "you would get across-the-board tax increases" if "the Democrats were in control."
From the October 10 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: Here is my question for you, 'cause you're the architect of the Republican victory in '94. They say your revolution is about to come to an end. What advice do you give the Republicans in the 28 days between now and Election Day?
GINGRICH: They need to go back to the basics. They need to emphasize how big the contrast is. They need to take Charlie Rangel's promise to raise taxes and consider every single tax cut for a possible tax increase and say to the country, "Do you really want your taxes to go up that much? Do you think that's the kind of House you want?"
If this is true, that Rangel will not raise taxes on anyone if Democrats take control, then that will surely raise the ire of many posters here who salivate at such a tax increase.
Good for you Rangel, let's hope you keep your promise.
Tommy,
1 or 2 questions
1. Is the deficit a problem?
2. If it is, how should it be fixed?
1) Yes, the deficit is a huge problem.
2) Reduce spending appropriately in line with low taxes.
3. Where do you cut spending? Remember, we're talking hundreds of billions annually.
4. Do poor people need the stuff you're cutting?
I'll trot out the Fundamental Theorem of Liberalism: rich people are still rich after taxes. After Clinton's 1993 tax hike, rich people made out like gangbusters throughout the decade.
One more question:
5. How high would taxes have to be before you say "I don't want to be a millionaire. The tax bracket is a killer."
If you don't think there are tens of millions of pork spending and wasted money flowing out of our government daily, then you would be mistaken. Giving lawmakers more money only encourages their spendthrift ways and recklessness. Every single budgetary item needs to be evaluated and looked at for efficiency and it's usefulness. This is why we elect these people, they are the stewards of the money we give them. They need to make tough choices, forget special interest groups and stand up to lobbyists.
Hey Tommy;
The "Jimmy Carter Democrat" would chime in and recall during a time of OPEC embargo, double digit interest, double digit unemployment, and a time that a nation was paying for a failed paranoid policy in a war in Vietnam, we decided that government was the problem, not the rich meddling in our government and elected Ronnie-the-Chimpman.
The billions of dollars and escalation of military spending on technology, and hardware that has never been effective in combat, or even successfull in testing like Star Wars, and that magical laser shield in Ronnie-the-Chimpman pea brain was little more than a political pay-off.
The Iraqi War is a pay-off to the very same croud that had Ronnie running around looking for new ways to expand a military that needed to tranform and invest in their human assetts.
$448 billion for the military that is smaller, weaker, and less capable, and incredibly wastefull to the degree the world has never seen. We have a cabal that believes the military is little more than an government function needing privatizing as every other function of government.
All privatization has proven is that it makes a few political cronies insanely rich, and deprives whatever service provided by government that was privatized, and does so at a price so great it had never imagined possible.
No-Bid Contracts made under our noses to political allies!! The military of this democracy is better served if we spend on it's needs, and mission of protecting the nation, not for political power, and corporate greed.
The issue you raise about tax increases are simply answered with the resent history of Clinton surpluses and Bush deficits. The tax structure needs to be what it was in 2000 before Bush/Cheney's "deficits don't matter " approach to governing.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
in the right mind would not want a million doallars?
Yes, some of the poor do need social programs, but there are tons of lazy ones out there that make me want to cut it all! Get a grip on the ones taking advantage of the system, and throw them OUT!
We definitly should seperate those who really need help from those who are taking advantage. Of course the easiest way to do that involves a jobs program that the rightwing keeps voting against. While we are at it, lets seperate the corporate trough piglets from their corporate welfare, I mean we spend about twice as much on that as we do help for the poor.
Let's make Haliburton and the other defense contract thieves account for every penny they've been given. We need to throw these bastards off the corporate welfare rolls. We need to put the anti-Robin Hoods in jail. No more stealing from the poor and working class to pad the pockets of the rich!
All the corporations who are setting up phony "offices" that are really just an address in the Caribean should be held accountable for shirking their repsonsibilities to this country.
as well, cut social programs that are found usless... I am sure there are a few. Stop giving free services to people that are not American Citizens . Get rid of the loopholes that allow the rich and corporations to hide funds from taxation, tax incoming cars and goods . And for gods sakes, cut the SS that the goverment officials get for the rest of their lives. And on and on... .
Can you expand on this please?
Rangel has expressed support for restoring PAYGO. Still, what would you cut?
go to www.cagw.org.
Citizens against government waste and check out their "pig book". Over 200 billion alone in pork spending since 1991. And that isn't even counting across the board cuts necessary to reduce waste.
Clinton balanced that deficet, remember? he fixed the republican deficet and still found time to pursue his hobbies.
And in the greater scheme of things, 200 billion is nothing. your buddy bush spends that a year in Iraq.
One has nothing to do with another. Your rubber stamp on pork spending is very revealing however.
I am for fiscal restraint across the board, military when necessary, social programs when necessary, every single item when necessary. If you want to waste money, waste your own. You have no business wasting mine or anyone else's.
You use that phrase frequently. What the hell does it mean? Would you care to explain what you believe it reveals? Are you implying that Fatbob doesn't mind that his taxes are wasted? (I doubt it.) Or are you implying that he must be the beneficiary of pork?
In any event, Fatbob never wrote anything to suggest he was rubber stamping pork. I bet he would prefer if it was zero. However, I believe that his point was given the choice of the recent fiscal results of Democrats vs Republicans, he'd choose the Democrats.
Oh...did you know that CAGW reported that pork spending rose to a record $29 billion in 2006?
Everything is connected. The money and human effort being applied to the occupation of Iraq are resources that could be freed up to fund the selfsame initiatives that are being strangled due to our monumental deficit due to the occupation of Iraq.
Citizens against government waste and check out their "pig book". Over 200 billion alone in pork spending since 1991. - from tommy
I strongly suspect that if we were to examine the details of what this group calls pork we would find much of value to the US. Regardless, taking their numbers it breaks down to a little about 15 billion per year. That's less than 8/10 of 1% of government spending over the same period. You could cut every penny of that money and it would be almost unnoticeable.
The simple fact is that there isn't as much waste in government as many wish to believe.
I did find one thing interesting. Your group found twice as much pork per year during Bush's time in office as it did during Clinton's time.
"Its such a small % of the whole, that its not worth going after." In that case, lets forgive all student loans, all IRS underpayments, all Medicare (or other government program) fraud, etc, etc, because each by itself is a small % of the whole, but it is a part and should be recovered. A lot of us are plain tired of "the system's broken, but if we just throw more $$$ at it, we are sure things will turn around."
This is an argument we hear time after time, "Its such a small % of the whole, that its not worth going after." - from Oscar The Grouch
The only problem is that I didn't make that argument. Tommy lives in a fantasy world in which billions of dollars of lost tax revenue can be made up by rooting out pork and fraud. I pointed out that the group he cites, whose soul goal is to dig up such waste and fraud, could only come up with a fraction of a percent of government spending that they believe qualifies.
I am also disgusted by pork, fraud and waste. I'm also aware that some worthwhile programs could be described in ways that make them sound ridiculous. I'm simply not under the illusion that waste and fraud, even if it coud be fully defined, rooted out and elimated would drastically reduce government spending.
Would you cut, or simply raise taxes?
I would cut pork barrell first, then defense waste, then corporate subsidies. Of course I would go after ineffective welfare entitlements, but the money wasted there doesn't compare to the defense spending waste.
It's shameful enough that our economy depends so much on the military industrial complex, but then we the taxpayer get to subsidize their boondogle research, and finally pay to purchase the end product.
Rangel should be listening to his base should he not? Where does he come off advocating for tax cuts??? Traitor.
Exactly. Let's drum him out of the party right now. How dare he consider a chairmanship committee position and not raise taxes!! This is an abomination!
Stereotype is clever. Wait, isnt JFK one of the most beloved of liberal icons? Didnt he CUT the marginal rate? This came when Mondale was silly enough to tell the truth about taxes. He said I am going to raise your taxes. So will he (Raygun) the difference is I am not lying about it (that is a paraphrase) Of course Mondale was correct. Raygun lied won the election then raised taxes. Go figure. I think liberals just think taxing instead of borrowing and deferring the ultimate tax raising onto our children isnt really the best tactic. As long as we are talking about cutting spending how about the billion a week or so we are spending in IRAQ?
running around being scared of all the evil and doersofevil maybe we could cut some defense spending instead of cutting social programs.
One in touch with reality would agree that in government, as in physics, "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch."
In contrast, Duhhbya and his co-conspirators have shown us the results of six years of "Come And Get It."
I prefer TANSTAAFL and I'm willing to pay for it.
It's funny how the republicans in control right now seemed to have forgotten how they've given Bush and Co. a blank check since he was first elected. The man has signed every spending bill that has come across his desk, and he had the gall today, to talk about "financial responsibility". Hmm, when there was a "tax and spend" liberal in the White House, we had a balanced budget, a budget surplus, and quite possibly the strongest and most robust economy that the country has ever seen.
I guess I would rather be tax and spend, rather than what we currently are, which is just spend, and spend some more when there is no source for their spending.
How to save billions? Pull out of Iraq, now. That would save what? 1 billion per week?
MMFA and Rangel are parsing here.
Rangel has said that he would not renew Bush's first-year tax cuts. Essentially, that's the equivalent of rasing people's taxes!!
Bush cut taxes. Rangel wants to do away with the cuts. That's raising taxes, folks.
(link): "[Rangel] said he 'cannot think of one' of President George W. Bush's first-term tax cuts that merit renewal."
Awww the poor people that make 200K+ are going to have to pay a little more in taxes if shrub's deficit-expanding tax breaks aren't renewed..
I'm playing the worlds' smallest violin for them too..
Oh please - Next thing you'll be telling us is that if they don't get their tax breaks those of us in the middle and lower middle classes are gonna lose our jobs and the economy will suffer.. Oh! Wait! We already are losing our jobs, not getting pay raises etc...
I'm all for being fair and I don't mind paying what gets taken out of my paycheck with regards to taxes, but it would be nice if our (middle and lower middle class) needs were considered as well..
I hope if the dems do get control that Charlie won't forget about us..
The whole class warfare argument is so tiresome, not to mention it never has, and will never work, to divide one group against another.
It isn't even about taxes as it is about spending. Taxes should be appropriately low on everyone, loopholes should be closed and a smaller, fairer, easier tax system would benefit everyone. We need to reign in spending, that is our biggest problem. If that were done there would be no need or debate to raise taxes on anyone, in principal.
Force lawmakers to cut their spendthrift ways, that would accomplish alot.
The issue isn't spending vs taxing, it's leadership that believes in effective, strong, and honest democratic governance.
The party that bemoans government waiste, crys for small government, has been in power for 12yrs, and complete power for 6 years. They spent more, but did cut taxes for the richest among us, and now we have debt that will burden our grand children, leave vulnerable the poorest, the sickest, and the young, and elderly without the safety net from their government that a civilized nation should provide.
This same old simple minded way of complaining perpetually about government waiste has been made by the worst among us.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
If more people complained about how elected officials waste OUR money, then we would all be better off.
I said do it loudly, often and then louder and more often.
I would if the people whom seem to own this mantra are the very same to have put us in the deepest hole.
The fact is sincerity of purpose, and a honest embrace of those policys that have to be done by our government is the only way to spend tax dollars effectively, not the Norquist model of financially crippling our government until it can be drown in the bath.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
This is why the liberal, and currently some Republican, lawmakers just love you. You have no real interest in seeing them reign in their spending of your money. They can have a field day at your expense and you will just happily keep reelecting them. Forget accountability of how they appropriate your money.
Keep raising taxes onthe rich, let lawmakers raise their salaries, fund every pork program that will get them reelected........no wonder they love you and your vote.
I don't know if you know this but CAGW rated one certain liberal democrat with being good with spending. His name: RUSS FEINGOLD. On the pork barrel thing, yeah we SHOULD get rid of it. It is nothing but bribery to me and is very wasteful. Tax Cuts in a time of war is very irresponsible in my mind. Tommy, don't you think we should be providing our troops with the best equipment and technology posible?
Tax Cuts in a time of war is very irresponsible in my mind. Tommy, don't you think we should be providing our troops with the best equipment and technology posible?
*************************
Cutting taxes and/or spending cuts is in no way related to our troops and their equipment. That is just a left wing false comparison made to keep taxes high and shun spending cuts. There is plenty of waste to cut and keep taxes low, while funding our troops fully.
I think we should get rid of these unessessary programs BEFORE we get tax cuts. You see if we have tax cuts but pork barrel continues then thier is less money for the government to spend on our troops, school lunch program, and other services. Right?
but sadly, politicians are going to cut taxes to buy votes and not cut spending to buy more votes. It appears to me the vast majority in Washington DC are concerned only about themselves (not counting people such as Feingold and a relatively small handful of others). Power at any cost and they are more than happy to spend others (taxpayers) money to retain that power. Except for the last couple of years of WJCs term (and very few other times) spending has always outpaced revenues for as far back as I can remember.
Cutting taxes and/or spending cuts is in no way related to our troops and their equipment. That is just a left wing false comparison made to keep taxes high and shun spending cuts. There is plenty of waste to cut and keep taxes low, while funding our troops fully. // Tommy
With the whole budget represented by 65% defense spending, while not including the supplemental spending for the two front wars we're waging, the raiding of the Social Security Surpluses that will likely leave a short fall for the baby-boomers, with Medicare being bankrupted with drug company pay-offs from Part D, with the quandering of funding to the Homeland Security Department, with the constant privatization of government services that result in corporate plundering of tax dollars and deprevation of services, with a Defense Department that has squandered hundreds of billions of tax dollars for contracts that do little to help the military like missiles in Alaska that could'nt shoot down a blimp, you ask about spending???
Good, honest, sincere governance is the best way to affect the tax spending and all matters related with taxation.
The lesson that has been fervantly avoided by the richest among us for no other reason than lust for power, and greed.
We taxed so much less than the other major democracies that we have under educated, under invested in an infastructure that should be propelling the next generations of Americans into the future. Our fathers, and fore fathers did so much more for our present that we have become the feckless spoiled child of our day shunning our responsibility to our children and grand children.
We didn't know what homelessness was until we decided the mentally ill didn't need the governments help, that the helping hand to the poor just made lazy people when Ronnie-the-Chimpman was elected. Remember the 64 mile stack of bills when he started that was 240 miles when he was done?? Where did that money go??? Not to the poorest, sickest, oldest, of most vulneralbe of us. It went to the richest, greediest, and most powerfull among us.
Reality hurts when you spend so much effort to avoid it.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan
Effective government requires mutual responsibility. We the people need to reign in our lawmakers when they go asrtray, that's the beauty of this democracy: proactive citizens working in cooperation with responsive government. It's like the wayward son. Does a truly loving parent disown him or do they nurture him and show him how to behave responsibly?
It isnt class warfare to raise taxes on the rich while allowing companies to put a mailbox in the Grand Caymans, then claim they are not an American coroporation so skip out on millions of taxes its just class warfare to POINT OUT THATS WHATS HAPPENING. Sorry we are cutting the special ed class that taught your dyslexic kid. On the other hand I just got a huge tax break on my million dollar a year stock portfolio. Its not class warfare to DO that only to point it out. It wasnt class warfafe for Reagan to USE TAX DOLLARS to get corporations to redeploy to Central America, it was only class warfare to talk about it.
Of course it has worked to divide people against one another its the oldest trick in the book. Its the way the few have ruled the many for thousands of years. Its what the attacks on Gays and the GOP "Southern Strategy" was all about. Its why the Limbaughs, Coulters, and Wieners of this world even HAVE a job.
Why is whenever this issue is raised there are always the same points thrown out there, and the runaway spending is ignored. Nobody disagrees with any of these arguments about corporations and the loopholes or the welfare they receive. Nobody disagrees that we need a safety net in place, an efficiently run safety net. Nobody disagrees on the waste or that everyone, including the rich, should pay their fair share.
But whenever a conservative says cut taxes and spending, inevitably these points come up - because tax cuts and spending cuts are like poison to many liberals. These precious useless and overspent government programs may just get cut necessarily, and that scares many of the left to death.
Failing To Extend The Tax Cuts Would Result In A Nearly $2.4 Trillion Tax Increase On American Taxpayers. (Office Of The Press Secretary, The White House, "Growing Our Economy: Keeping Taxes Low And Restraining Spending," Press Release, 5/3/06)
o 115 Million Taxpayers Would Pay An Average Of $1,716 More A Year; o 84 Million Women Would Face An Average Increase Of $1,970 A Year; o 48 Million Married Couples Would Pay An Average Of $2,726 More A Year; o 42 Million Families With Children Would Face An Average Increase Of $2,084 A Year; + A Family Of Four Earning $50,000 Today Would Owe An Additional $2,092 A Year - A 132 Percent Increase In Their Tax Bill; + A Family Of Four Earning $60,000 Today Would Owe An Additional $1,858 A Year - A 58 Percent Increase In Their Tax Bill; o 12 Million Single Mothers Would Face An Average Increase Of $1,062 A Year; o 17 Million Seniors Would Pay An Average Of $2,034 More A Year; o 26 Million Small Businesses Would Owe An Average Of $3,637 More A Year; o 5 Million Low-Income Individuals And Couples Would Again Be Subject To The Individual Income Tax. (U.S. Department Of Treasury, "Without Permanent Tax Relief, Millions Of Americans Will See Their Taxes Go Up By Billions Of Dollars In 2011," Fact Sheet)
[link to www.gop.com]
Notice the talk about AVERAGES. I was in a bar the other day, the nine people there were worth about 100,000$ a peice. Suddenly Bill gates walked in NOW the average worth of the people was about 6 billion dollars, wow werent we lucky? Not really. Talk to me about MEDIAN average
Meanwhile what will it COST?
[link to www.cbpp.org]
Their cost will be more than three times as large as all federal funding for education at elementary, secondary, and post-secondary levels combined. It also will be more than three times the cost of all veterans programs, including veterans health care, veterans pensions, veterans disability compensation, and other veterans services. The cost of the tax cuts will dwarf the budgets of smaller departments. The cost of the tax cuts will be 30 times the Environment Protection Agency’s budget and more than five times the cost of all housing and urban and community development programs operated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (i.e., more than five times the full HUD budget). Looked at another way, the cost of the tax cuts will equal the cost of all of these agency budgets combined: education, veterans affairs, homeland security, state, HUD, EPA, and energy. Just the cost of the tax cut for the top one percent of households, a group whose average income is about $1 million a year, will be nearly the same as the total amount the federal government spends on education at all levels. The cost of the tax cut for the top one percent also will be about as large as the cost of everything the federal government spends for veterans.
Tax Cuts Cost Three Times More than Social Security Shortfall
Throughout last year’s debate on Social Security, the White House emphasized the magnitude of the shortfall in the Social Security Trust Fund, as part of its efforts to build support for its proposal to replace part of Social Security with private accounts. The size of the Social Security shortfall pales, however, in comparison with the cost of making the tax cuts permanent.
The Social Security actuaries project that over the next 75 years — the period customarily used to assess Social Security’s finances — the deficit in the Social Security trust fund will equal 0.7 percent of GDP. In contrast, Joint Tax Committee estimates indicate that the cost of making the tax cuts permanent equals about 2 percent of GDP over the next 75 years.[3]
Between fiscal years 2001 and 2006, these tax cuts will cost nearly $1 trillion, not counting interest costs, and $1.1 trillion when the interest costs are included. These tax cuts will cost another $0.8 trillion in lost revenue between 2007 and 2016, even though they are scheduled to expire by 2010. They also will result in $1.1 trillion in additional interest payments between 2007 and 2016, even if they expire on schedule. This raises the total impact of the tax cuts on the deficit to $1.9 trillion over the 2007-2016 period, if they expire as scheduled. (The interest costs are very high because the increases in the debt that the tax cuts are generating will endure even if the tax cuts expire.) Thus, even if allowed to expire, these tax cuts will increase the debt by a total of $3 trillion by 2016. Extending the tax cuts, rather than allowing them to expire, will cost another $2.7 trillion between 2007 and 2016. These costs consist of the following:
$1.7 trillion to extend the tax-cut provisions enacted in 2001 and 2003. $671 billion to extend the associated Alternative Minimum Tax relief. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts worsened the AMT problem that existed prior to 2001. (An additional $243 billion of AMT relief would be needed to address the AMT problem that existed prior to 2001.) $387 billion for the higher interest payments on the debt.
These estimates are expressed in “current” dollars. If they were expressed in constant 2005 dollars, the cost of extending the tax cuts would be $2.3 trillion for the first ten-year period through 2016, and $4.2 trillion for the second ten-year period, 2017 through 2026. With interest costs included, the totals would be $2.7 trillion in the first decade and $6.6 trillion in the second decade.
more GOP bs. Color me surprised. Damned crooks.
Grove Norquist is a big guy in your party. He may not be elected but he pulls a lot of weight and he said directly that the point was to make the Federal Government small enough that he can drown it in the bathtub.
Do you really think I am all for wasting tax payer dollars? Why do YOU keep bringing up the same strawman. I think we might disagree on what is a necessary program. I want to feed and shelter the truly needy. I want special education programs to help the disadvantaged (say dyslexic) children get an education that will allow them to contribute to society. I think those are worthy programs. The problem I dont think you are seeing is they are politically WEAK. The poor, the disadvantaged, well they just dont buy that many Senators. On the other hand the programs I talk about that funnel money into Martin Murieta, Pillsbury, Bechtal. Well THEY are politically strong, they have the constitutency that matters the ones that can cough up the big bucks. See THAT is why I speak for the disadvantaged because when those spending cuts that you talk about come down the pike who do YOU think is going to feel the brunt of them. The politically powerful or the politically WEAK?
That is one of my two bedrock political principles, you never, NEVER stand with the powerful against the weak. I can see quite clearly this is NOT one that you subscribe to. That is not a criticism by the way. There are reasonable reasons to see this differently. I understand that. However you asked WHY I keep bringing up the same things. THAT is why.
Solon wrote: That is one of my two bedrock political principles, you never, NEVER stand with the powerful against the weak.
What if the weak are wrong?
And the powerful are right. The powerful dont need my help.
So even if the weak are wrong, you still side with them.
BTW, I am fairly confident that the strong are getting by without both of us... ;-)
Congratulations on showing your "Bush"-league logic. You created a false dichotomy of the "if you're not with us, you against us" variety. Of course, Solon spending time as an advocate of the less fortunate is simply a matter of effective use of limited resources.
I appreciate the support. Obviously I didnt sayI ALWAYS stand with the weak against the powerful I said I NEVER stand with the powerful against the weak. Do I REALLY have to explain the difference between these two statements?
I see your point and apologize. In my haste last night I misread your note. Thanks for taking the time to clear it up.
I credit you for your unqualified apology. If only Bush had a fraction of the humility you demonstrated.
AA, but you are a classy guy. Let me appologize in advance for the next snarky and less than charitable thing I post to you out of arrogance and frustration.
Because Of The 2001, 2003, And 2004 Tax Cuts, This Year:
* 111 Million American Taxpayers Will Save An Average Of $1,877; * A Family Of Four Making $40,000 Will Save $2,010; * More Than 5 Million Individuals And Families Will Have Their Income Tax Liabilities Totally Eliminated; * 44 Million Families With Children Will Save An Average Of $2,493; * 14 Million Elderly Individuals Will Save An Average Of $2,043; * 25 Million Small Business Owners Will Save An Average Of $3,641. (U.S. Department Of The Treasury Website, www.treasury.gov, Accessed 4/12/06)
see: [link to www.gop.com]
There for a second I was worried your numbers might be wrong, but a link to a GOP website quoting a government agency...they have no reason not to be 100% truthful. Now we can all rest easy.
Pretty funny! I can appreciate someone on the far left, (i.e., Democrat,) expressing these sentiments. ;-)
It is so typical here that someone would question these numbers WITHOUT ANY supporting counter documentation.
The dialog would be much better and the thread a lot more interesting, if you'd include some sort of reasoning behind your sarcasm.
While probably accurate, those figures you cite lack the necessary context to make them meaningful. Note:
1. A lot of those figures are averages, which are misleading. For example: "17 Million Seniors Would Pay An Average Of $2,034 More A Year." Because of the disproportionate concentration of wealth in the U.S., I suspect that the large majority of those seniors will see a very small increase, while a relative handful of very wealthy seniors will pull up the average. In other words, most people aren't going to see their Aunt Mabel hit with a $2,034 tax increase.
2. The figures fail to take into account the value of government services that are lost if they are not funded. For instance, Aunt Mabel may see a tax increase of $200 but lose $300 worth of government services because they can't be funded.
3. The figures do not take into account the long-term cost of running a deficit.
While I appreciate your sentiments and your devotion to your aunt, your post is all hypothetical. And since it is hypothetical, you can infer what you want... but to me it is simply your unsupported opinion.
If you could present a counter argument that is a bit more reality based, I'd appreciate it. :-)
It is not all hypothetical. Take out my examples, and you're left with:
1. Averages, by themselves, tend to be misleading.
2. Your figures do not account for the value of forgone government services.
3. Your figures do not account for the long-term cost of running deficits.
Which of these statements do you disagree with, and why?
My point was that the figures you posted, while probably accurate, only paint a very small part of a much larger picture.
How statistics can mislead. However an "average" is an acceptable method of analyzing these large numbers... not perfect, but not especially misleading as you suggest.
My questions to you include what sort of statistic do you offer that might support your contention? Otherwise it is as I said, simply YSO -your unsupported opinion.
Secondly, except for in the abstract, the opportunity costs of forgone services are very hard to construct. Let me just say that in my humble estimation the lost services will amount to, on average, $1.37. In other words, my guess is as good as yours.
All kidding aside, the cost/benefits of forgone services can never be known.
You mention the costs of running long term costs deficits. Do you have any idea what they are? Are there any facts or figures to support your contention?
Again, I understand your reasoning, it is just that you are not providing anything that supports your original hypothetical.
I don't have exact figures. I'm not saying your figures are wrong; I'm sure they're not wrong. I'm just saying that they don't mean much by themselves.
You and I know the implications of "average" but a lot of people don't. Why not use the median increase? For the seniors, the median increase would probably be in the low hundreds, maybe even less. Still a valid statistic, but makes a very different impression.
Please go ahead and show the median. That would be interesting.
I don't think you realize that by asking for the median you are now countering your own original argument, which is that the statistics are taken out of context. If the averages are out of context, so would be the median.
Look, we both know you only brought this up in order to try to counter what the averages show. If averages were not used in just about every other government analysis, I would probably agree with you, but they are. Averages are just as valid as the median.
With all due respect, without any median figures or any other statistic that is more "in context", your argument is, in my opinion, grasping at straws.
Please feel free to have the last word.
If the averages are out of context, so would be the median.
That IS my point. The median by itself wouldn't mean much, right? Neither does the average. That is exactly what I'm saying. You have to look at all the other relevant factors. I can't give you exact figures for them, but I acknowledge that there ARE other relevant factors to consider when talking about changes to income taxes. You seem to want to believe that the averages tell the whole story. Obviously I can't convince you that they don't.
I didn't bring this up to counter what the averages show. They show the blatantly obvious: people's taxes will go up if the cuts are not extended. I brought this up to counter the notion that there's only one factor in the equation.
First of all you do realize that median IS a type of average, just as much so as your mean average. So lets talk about the average earnings of a baseball team. Two players make 10 million a year out of the25 but most of the rest are less than one million. The largest group makes less than 500,000$ a year. So which is really more representative of the average baseball player salary on the team? The MEAN, which is adding them all together then dividing by the number of players? Or the median, which is the point at which as many are making more as are making less? Or my Bill Gates story. Which is more representative of the wealth in the room? No, it is very clear that if we are talking about the impact on the average taxpayer the median would be a more accurate indicator than a mean.
These large numbers first of all accepted by WHOM, not me and not Rusty. Second there are three kinds of average. The MEAN which is what you are using is NOT widely accepted except when there is an even distribution, not among statisticians. The MEDIAN average is THEN substituted. So your claim is without merit.
If 1 guy saves 1 million dollars and 999 people save zero, then a thousand people on average save $1,000. Your dismissive post about hypotheticals is hilarious.
the obvious. So what's your point?
Oh thats right... There is no point except that anything taken to the extreme is ludicrious. Got it. Thank you.
Okay enough fun with the silliness. A reality check is needed here.
Rather than continue this little discourse on the pros and cons of averaging, (since none so far have countered with anything but hypotheticals,) lets get back to the subject at hand of which the crux is that tax cuts have helped millions of Americans, including poor, single mothers, and the elderly keep their own money while the repeal of the tax cuts, (ie. raising taxes as Randel would allow,) will take it away from those very same people and give it to the government.
On the whole, I'd rather the government not take anymore of our money.
You have a solid grasp of the benefits half of the cost-benefit analysis for extending the tax cuts. Everybody will get to keep more of their money. Neat!
And you're saying we'll get all that benefit at no cost?
I am saying you have not shown me any of your 'half' of the equation. I am not accepting your inference that there are lost benefits when you have none to show. (Which of course you can't because nobody knows.) That is the point I've been trying to make.
Well, I've had my fill. I'm more than willing to let this discussion go...
Yes, as far as I'm concerned, it's gone. It's all yours.
[link to 72.14.253.104]
The typical working-age household, meanwhile, has seen income losses during the currentexpansion. Census data show that among households headed by someone under age 65, medianincome, adjusted for inflation, fell again in 2005 and was $2,000 below its level during the 2001 recession.This marks the first time on record (with data back to the 1970s) that the median income of theworking-age population was lower in the fourth year of an economic recovery than it had beenduring the previous recession. Similarly, the poverty rate remained higher in 2005 than during thelast recession, which marks the first time on record that poverty has been higher in the fourth yearof an economic expansion then in the preceding recession. ([link to www.cbpp.org]
The tax cuts enacted in recent years have gonedisproportionately to high-income Americans. In2006, the 0.2 percent of households with incomesabove $1 million will receive nearly $112,000, onaverage, from tax cuts enacted since 2001,according to estimates by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. Incontrast, households in the middle of the incomespectrum will receive an average tax cut of $750.The Tax Policy Center estimates also show thatthe tax cuts represent a larger fraction of incomefor high-income households than for low- ormiddle-income households, a clear indication ofthe tax cuts’ regressivity
The President’s tax policies, however, have widened the differences in take-home pay betweenhigh- and low- and middle-income households, according to Tax Policy Center estimates. In 2006,households with incomes above $1 million will receive tax cuts equivalent to an increase of 5.7percent in their after-tax income. Households in the middle of the income spectrum will receive taxcuts equal to only 2.5 percent of their income. And households in the bottom quintile will gain byless than half of one percent
Claims that all taxpayers are winners from the President’s tax cuts rest on the false assumptionthat Congress and the President can provide trillions of dollars in tax cuts without anyone everfooting the bill. As noted in Myth 1, the tax cuts so far have been financed by deficits, and mostproposals to extend them include no measures to offset their costs. In the long run, however, it iswidely recognized that deficit-financed tax cuts eventually must be paid for. As former FederalReserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned, “If you’re going to lower taxes, you shouldn’t beborrowing essentially the tax cut. And that over the long run is not a stable fiscal situation.” Simplystated, funds that are borrowed must eventually be paid back
Even if the tax cuts’ costs are eventually paid for through a more balanced package of spendingreductions and progressive tax increases, data from the Tax Policy Center show that, on average, thebottom four-fifths of households will lose more than they gain from the combination of tax cutsand the financing for them. That is, once the need to pay for the tax cuts is taken into account, the2001 and 2003 “tax cuts” are best seen as net tax cuts for the top 20 percent of households, as agroup, financed by net tax increases or benefit reductions for the remaining 80 percent of households, as agroup. ([link to www.cbpp.org]
For some reason I am unable to follow your link. Anybody else having this problem?
I would appreciate if you could explain to me the following:
data from the Tax Policy Center show that, on average, thebottom four-fifths of households will lose more than they gain from the combination of tax cutsand the financing for them.
What exactly is the financing of tax cuts?
(Sounds pretty Orwellian to me.)
The ones within the study I dont know about. I dont get what is Orwellian. Did you think the tax cuts would pay for themselves? Did you think it would be paid for by pennies from Heaven? Eventually the money will have to come from somewhere. We pay interest on the debt we accrue. When that cost is paid this study claims it will be a net loss for the bottom four fifths of the economic ladder. You ASKED for the numbers go to this site, read them and weep
What percentage of the tax revenue should the "rich" pay?
Should they pay 20%?
Should they pay 60%?
How about 75%?
Not enough? How about 90%?
Actually, the top 50% of income earners pay a whopping 96.5% of federal income taxes.
That means, the lower 50% of income earners pay just 3.5%.
For all you non Economics majors out there, that is the reason the richer got more back from taxes. It is because they paid in practically all of it!
The top 25% pay 83.88% of federal income taxes.
The top 10% pay 65.8% (these are people with an adjusted cross income of about $95,000 or higher).
The top 5% pay 54.4%.
The top 1% pay 34.3% (these are people with an adjusted gross income of about $300,000 or higher).
Since the median income in this country is about 45,000 dollars then by claiming the top 50% as rich is ludicrous. First of all four fifths of taxpayers pay more in PAYROLL tax than they do in income tax, payroll tax being a regressive tax that you pay ONLY on the first 96,000 in income. So by excluding that alone you skew the data. The most meaningful discussion of all this would come from discussing DISPOSABLE income and what percentage of THAT is paid by each bracket. Keep looking in that window and kissing rich butt while accusing US of class warfare, perhaps someday you will get a crumb.
I see you don't like it when we talk averages and you don't like it when we talk actual numbers. Hmmmm?
Also, I think you forgot to mention that payroll taxes are for Social Security, (correct me if I'm wrong.) Which your side so adamantly supports.
Howeve, we were discussing income taxes... at least up to now... Looks to me like you are changing the subject.
Nice try, and childish insults aside, it didn't work. Time and time again I see lefties here use this technique... insult and change the subject, insult and change the subject. Very weak.
Than insulting, if I took that too far I appologize I didnt mean to be rude. I made specific arguments about your numbers. Are you still going to tell me that the rich pay practically ALL of the income taxes by defining the top 50$ as rich? I am supposed to accept that? Also what is being discussed here is the effect of the tax cuts on the average taxpayers, that has been what we were talking about for 20 posts or more. You can TRY to define what YOU want to talk about and demand we dont make larger points that refute you but I am not buying. My point was by trying to define the who pays the taxes by EXCLUDING the most regressive of the taxes, might be in your best interest, but it doesnt tell the whole story. The tax burden IS the point, talking only about income tax minimizes the effect of the tax burden on the vast majority of tax payers.
When you phrase it like that.
I think it is fine if you want to start talking about Payroll taxes and the overall effect it has on individual taxation. And I guess you have. Even though it is an interesting topic all by itself. However rather than be pulled off topic, which as I see it, is the effect of income tax reduction on taxpayers and the government..
Oh well. A new day.. and many new topics.
See ya later.
The school in Winslow lost their special education teacher due to last years budget cuts. One of my friends has a dyslexic child the COST to replace that special ed teacher with a special ed tutor would be about 25,000$ I am pretty sure my friend didnt get THAT big a tax break.
Budget cuts and tax hikes are two different things.
I am saying you have not shown me any of your 'half' of the equation. I am not accepting your inference that there are lost benefits when you have none to show. (Which of course you can't because nobody knows.) That is the point I've been trying to make. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Why yes you did. So are you now arguing that my point isnt relevant to what you said above? Or is this some kind of movng target thing where I have to guess at what your point is NOW and talk only about that?
solon,
You can't say a that a program that didn't take place is a cost to lower taxes. The reason you can't say it is because it never occurred.
A budget cut is something completely different than a tax hike. One is not necessarily dependent on another.
While I understand the feelings of the parent of the child with dyslexia, it could be that the cost to the school system to retain that special ed teacher was in the neighborhood of $60,000 or higher when you factor in benefits. So using my example, it costs the school system a lot more to provide the teacher to this student than your friend. You don't say if that child is the only student of the teacher, but that could be the case. Apparently due to budget constraints, the school board felt the money could be spent better elsewhere. That is a separate issue regardless of the income coming into the school from taxes. I would think you'd understand that.
There WAS a special ed teacher, the next year there wasnt. How is this something that never occured. I also am not getting why you keep telling me a budget cut is different than a tax hike. Let me post AGAIN YOUR WORDS: I am not accepting your inference that there are lost benefits when you have none to show. << I showed one. A lost benifit. This is VERY relevant since whatever his tax cut it certainly wont make up for the lost benifit. You can talk about what it cost the school district all you want. He WAS there. Tax cuts, budget cuts he is now gone. You do the math. Tax cuts a few hundred or so, benifit loss worth 25,000 or so. THIS IS THE POINT. Maybe YOU dont have a dyslexic child and dont think it a NECESSARY program but I am willing to go out on a limb and say that anyone with a child needing that special education would disagree
If I average my liberal book club. You know George Soros, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates me and 20 of our friends it will be in the millions wow, I cant afford that? The averages dont mean a THING, that is why they are being used. Cough up the MEDIANS or its all a waste of electrons.
Apparently you can't cough it up.
So, to me, at this point your "median" means even less.
ps. This is all, in my opinion, an argument for arguments sake. So far none of you have countered in any statistic or anything else that favors a tax hike.
Hey, if Rangel wants to raise taxes, he can try.
So far as I see it, if the Dems gain control of Congress, they plan to lose Iraq, at the same time try to appease NOKO with money, give up on Iran, and raise taxes just for starters... Oh well. Good luck.
You lose. When you brought up all of the other issues at the end of your post, you lost credibility. You cannot say that the Dems are going to handle anything on your laundry list of "bad decisions" in the manner in which you described. Get a grip.
Your fear mongering and strawmen arguments remind me a lot of what Hitler said before taking total control. You disgust me.
I do believe you've played your one note before.
However the allusion to Hitler may be a new one? Forgive me if I'm nonplussed.
"So far as I see it, if the Dems gain control of Congress, they plan to lose Iraq, at the same time try to appease NOKO with money, give up on Iran, and raise taxes just for starters... Oh well. Good luck".-AA
"Time and time again I see lefties here use this technique... insult and change the subject, insult and change the subject. Very weak".-AA
Pretty funny. I like that.
Hey, I wasn't trying to change the subject.. just toss in a few zingers... But maybe it looks that way.
I guess you'll just have to call me a liberal...
hahaha...
me too.
Obstinate, flippant, loquacious, intractable even passionate. I would never call you liberal. { ;^ )
The median is LESS relevant to what the average is when the overall is skewed by a Bill Gates or a Derek Jeter. Thats just dumb. It makes no sense at all. It is obvious that the median is a MUCH more meaningful statistic when the distribution is not evenly distributed if you want to get to the REAL average. I mean that is just plain 8th grade math.
I am not questioning your statistics I am saying they are cherry picked and not relevant to what you are claiming. In the real world I have made that point pretty clearly.
So far what I see is if the wingnuts stay in power they will drive us deeper into debt, push more policies that hurt those most vulnerable and get as many more Americans killed as humanly possible. You got your story, I got mine.
YOU put the gop numbers out there and we told it's crap and why, and yet it sounds as if we had the same meaningless, unprovable counterpoint of averages you would believe it.
Since when does 'far left' mean Democrat? Turn off Savage and Limbaugh and join the 21st century. And for God's sake, quit labeling Democrats as 'far left'. They're not Democrats.
Personally, I'm a member of the far left, but I'm not a Democrat. I am one of those "nasty S-P's" that O'Reilly talks about. You both couldn't be more wrong about us. When you have x-ray vision and can look into our hearts, then you can tell us what party we belong to. Until then, shut the f**k up or bring a coherent argument to the table.
I meant to say that 'far left' does not necessarily equal Democrat. Ordinary Joe, run-of-the-mill Democrats are usually not part of the 'far left'. How ever, some 'far left' people identify as Democrats. Your sweeping generalization and demonization of whole groups of people shows your disgusting blind partisanship. Somehow, the Right in this country has dumbed down the conversation to "Every Democrat is far left and being far left is just like being a communist". Get over yourselves, you amoral pigs.
that someone like you who is arguing about typecasting is so unaware that he is doing the same only worse!
Thanks for the chuckle.
;-)
If you'll look back on my original comment... you'll see that I was speaking in jest. That is why I put the ;-) at the end of the sentence.
Gosh.. I guess that makes you're point superfluous.
I am a religious far lefty. I am also NOT a Democrat. They stopped representing me long ago but are far better than the GOP in my opinion.
fund the highway system, fund school lunches, pay a police officer's salary for a year with their annual savings? Tax dollars are an investment in the commongood and security of the nation.
with their annual tax savings?
"The whole class warfare argument is so tiresome",
First of all, if the status quo is biased for one group and against another, then that is class warfare. it's only when someone points that inherent bias out that you conservatives cry "class warfare" just take a look at some of the preceding posts that claim that we're wasting money on govenment programs. That's too easy an answer. Name some. point out how and why they're wasteful. One of the problems with conservatives is that their defintion of a wasteful program is one that doesn't benefit them.
"not to mention it never has, and will never work, to divide one group against another. "
Who are you kidding. Conservatives do this all the time tommy. bush's manipulation of the religious right for his own purposes is class warfare and it is defintely pitting one group against another.
"Force lawmakers to cut their spendthrift ways, that would accomplish alot."
I agree with you on this. And the easist way to do this is to replace all those wasteful spenders that are putting together budgets and spending our money. Let's go back to the good old days of democratic pay as you go spenders.
with your last sentence.
I don't know... it seems to have worked pretty well for Dubya' & his merry band of economic elites. They've done remarkably well under the neocon scheme of slashing their tax burdon, awarding them no-bid government contracts, & giving them free & unfettered access to the nation's resources.
Meanwhile, the middle class is shrinking, 50,000,000 Americans are without healthcare, well-paying jobs are being shipped to third world nations (as corporations receive substantial tax cuts for enriching themselves at the expense of America's working people), education continues to decline, & our infrastructure continues to crumble due to the lack of funds to repair it.
It seems to me that class warfare has been an effective strategy by these economic pirates. Of course, one factor that aids them immeasurably is the existance of the seemingly endless number of toadies... blinded by their slavish adherence to hopelessly obsolete conservative ideologies... who will stubbornly deny the reality that the neocons are RAPING & PILLAGING THIS NATION WITH A FEROCITY THAT MAKES THE HUNS LOOK LIKE SOCIAL WORKERS!
I am appalled at the number of "welfare queens" in the United States. I mean when oh when are BP and Exxon Mobil going to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and stop taking welfare checks from the government? It is high time these huge multinational corporations learned about work ethic and self-reliance. Take Paris Hilton. With just a Versace handbag and skanky good looks to her credit, she turned a multi-million dollar inheritance into a TV career. And take President Bush. Born into one of the most powerful families in the country, George clawed his way to the top, achieving one obstacle after another with his mother’s tender guidance and his father's phone calls to Yale and Harvard’s various deans and the Air National Guard, plus a tiny bit of assistance from Saudi Arabian royalty.
Why can't these so-called "working poor" manage to climb out of the womb of a rich white lady like Paris and our President did? Maybe next time they'll choose whose family to be born into more carefully.
Don't let the Republicans do away with the Paris Hilton Tax. But the thought of her procreating gives me the creeps. I'm hoping that your reference to anything crawling out of Paris Hilton's womb was just an attempt to scare us for Halloween
As for the accomplishments Clinton usually boasts of -- welfare reform and the balanced budget -- they truly belong to the Republican Congress. Yes, he campaigned "to end welfare as we know it;" but he then proceeded to propose record spending increases in every traditional welfare program. The advent of the Republican Congress in 1994 saw the first serious drafting, without administration input, of welfare reform legislation. And even then, Clinton vetoed it twice and signed it only after becoming convinced that a third veto would doom his re-election. It takes your breath away that Clinton and his cheerleaders claim credit for the balanced budget.
see: [link to www.townhall.com]
So then what the hell is wrong with the Republican Congress we've had for the last six years?
It has been a very keen dissapointment to this citizen how Bush and the Republicans "went off the reservation" and on their spending spree.
Treasury: Federal Deficit Down 14.1 Pct. Sep 13 2:25 PM US/Eastern
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER AP Economics Writer
WASHINGTON
The federal budget deficit, helped by a surge in government revenue, is running 14.1 percent below the pace of last year, the government reported Wednesday.
The Treasury Department said that with just one month to go in the budget year, the deficit totals $304.3 billion, down from $354.1 billion during the same period a year ago.
The Congressional Budget Office is forecasting that the deficit for the entire year will be $260 billion, which would mean that September will see a sizable surplus.
The administration is somewhat less optimistic, forecasting a deficit of $295.8 billion for the current budget year, which ends Sept. 30.
However, both the CBO and the administration are expecting an improvement from last year's deficit of $319 billion, the third highest amount of red ink in history. The record deficit in dollar terms was $413 billion set in 2004.
Even with the improvement, Democrats point to CBO forecasts that the deficit over the next decade will total $1.76 trillion as evidence that President Bush's emphasis on tax cuts has put the country on an unsustainable fiscal path.
The administration counters that Bush's first term tax cuts helped to lift the country out of the 2001 recession and provided support for a strong economic rebound that has resulted in the gusher of revenues this year.
For August, the deficit jumped to $64.6 billion, up from $51.3 billion in August 2005. The federal government has run a deficit in August every year since 1954.
Through the first 11 months of the current budget year, revenues have totaled a record $2.12 trillion, up 11.5 percent from the same period a year ago.
Government spending is also at record levels so far this budget year, totaling $2.43 trillion, an increase of 7.6 percent from the same period a year ago.
The faster growth in revenues than in spending has meant that the 11- month deficit of $304.3 billion is 14.1 percent below the red ink run up during the same period a year ago.
[link to www.washingtonpost.com]
Okay, so let's review this issue with the help of some experts. I'd like to cite Richard Kogan of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, because his work inspired this column. But to win over reasonable conservatives, I'm going to choose N. Gregory Mankiw of Harvard, a proponent of tax cuts who chaired the Council of Economic Advisers in the Bush White House. Mankiw is a top-notch economist hired by Bush and Cheney to advise them. And last year he published a paper on how far tax cuts pay for themselves, reporting enthusiastically that this self-financing effect is "surprisingly large." How large, exactly? Mankiw reckons that over the long run (the long run being generous to his argument), cuts on capital taxes generate enough extra growth to pay for half of the lost revenue. Hello, Mr. President, that means that the other half of the lost revenue translates into bigger deficits. Mankiw also calculates that the comparable figure for cuts in taxes on wages is 17 percent. Yes, Mr. President, that means every $1 trillion in tax cuts is going to add $830 billion to the national debt. Let's engage in what Bush might call the soft bigotry of low expectations and cut Republicans some slack. Hey, maybe they just overlooked that Mankiw paper? Or maybe, despite hiring Mankiw to head the Council of Economic Advisers, they later acquired reasons to doubt his judgment? In that case they should at least have listened to Douglas Holtz-Eakin, another conservative economist who worked in the Bush White House and who went on to run the Congressional Budget Office. In a study published under Holtz-Eakin's direction last December, the CBO estimated the extent to which a 10 percent reduction in personal taxes might pay for itself. The conclusions confirm that the free-lunch mantra is just plain wrong. On the most optimistic assumptions it could muster, the CBO found that tax cuts would stimulate enough economic growth to replace 22 percent of lost revenue in the first five years and 32 percent in the second five. On pessimistic assumptions, the growth effects of tax cuts did nothing to offset revenue loss. So Mankiw isn't with them. Holtz-Eakin isn't with them. Which raises a question: When top Republicans go around claiming that tax cuts pay for themselves, which economic authorities are they relying on? None, is the answer. These people's approach to government is to make economics up. The Republicans' only argument is that tax receipts have boomed in the years since the 2003 tax cut. But the question is whether tax receipts increased because the tax cuts worked some kind of magic or because the economy was headed up anyway after the recession, thanks maybe to low interest rates resulting from the Asian savings glut. Friends, the reason we have economists is so that they can solve these puzzles for us. Ignoring their solutions is like ignoring the judgment of medical science in favor of faith healers and quacks. Politicians are always speechifying about how the United States must lead the world in research to maintain its edge. But having the world's best economics research isn't particularly helpful if those same politicians are silly enough to tune it out. The truth is that American business excels at turning university research into world-beating products; the paranoia on this score is overdone. But American government is often lousy at turning research into policies. That's what we should fret about.
almost everything Rusty..... They are big spending sissies, yes sissies.........
When it's a Democratic Congress and a Republican president (the Reagan years) every positive aspect is the Republican's doing, and all the negatives are blamed on Democrats. And when the reverse is true, still the Republicans get all the credit while the Democrats take all the blame. How about this as an explanation of the good and the bad: both parties had a hand in both outcomes, that compromise produces mixed results. The past 6 years of terrible governmental mismanagement plainly illustrates that the best government is comprised of the many ideologies spanning both the Democratic and Republican Parties, not just one.
You said it best! I completely agree with that statement 100%.
If there is just one politician runing for president that will take his runing mate and make them vice president, he/she (not meaning a transgender:) will get my vote. I am SICK AND TIRED OF THIS GOTCHYA POLITICS THE DEMS AND REPUBS ARE BOTH GUILTY OF!
They are ALL SCUM BAGS!
allowed too much power of the pursestrings to be "grabbed" by those in Washington DC, both elected and non elected officials. It is time to regain control, starting this November and continuing through at least the next three election cycles. Term limit those with more than 10-18 years of Congressional service, it's either time for them to retire or to have to earn a living like the rest of us do. Repeat in each election for the next three (and after that). Require all new Congressmen/women to hire completely new staffs. Demand more oversight of government programs. Possibly even a moritorium on new laws until existing laws are enforced. Demand accountability from your Senator/Representative from now forward.
Maybe ask how the last six years of the Bush fiasco has destroyed our economy. Yeah Newt what about the fiscal hole we have now not some projected slander.
I understand a benefit reduction in the school system. My only point is that your analogy didn't fit.
Because, if you use your reasoning, anything that isn't being done (a proposed program or service or handout) isn't being done because taxes are not high enough to pay for the whatever it is you want done. (I hope that made sense?)
There is no end to that line of reasoning. That is why I do not go along with "costs" of a tax cut. Yes, you could say money might be spent on this program or that, had taxes been there, but there is no guarantee that it would. It is purely hypothetical and no one can ever prove you right or wrong.
So to me, the creation of "the cost of a tax cut" is just a bunch of mumbo jumbo meant to confuse and make the tax cuts sound like a bad thing.
I know that it is the liberal line, and liberals want Government to spend money trying to solve every social ill, and I know the Republicans went wild on spending, but I for one, would prefer much less spending by our government and as much as possible, less taxes.
I agree with you that the dyslexic parent would like someone else to pay for his child's remedial reading program. However, I am sure there are other alternatives than shelling out $25,000 per year himself.
EVERYTHING has a cost. Tax cuts obviously have a cost. Many programs existed BEFORE and lost money mandating a CUT, someone doing a job that after the budget crunch is no longer doing that job. Running a society costs money, when there is less money did you think the education fairies and the road maintenence fairies were going to take up the slack? If your budger were say 85, 000$ a year (because that was your salary) You had your kid in a private school, taking Kung Fu classes learning piano. THEN, your salary was cut to 60,000$ a year. Your kid can no longer learn piano. That is a cost, its hard to argue that learning piano was crucial to his well being but he now WONT learn piano. OR he wont learn Kung Fu. That might never be a big thing OR he might get beat up in High School by a bully that he would have made mincemeat out of IF he had been able to learn this skill. See I chose those costs because they may not be so substantial that you can put a numbe to them but they WERE being done, you never know WHERE they might lead (Julliard, life saving self defense) and now they HAD to be sacrificed THAT IS A COST.
I enjoyed the give and take. Many interesting points of view. However for me it is time to move on. Maybe we can catch up some other time...