Ex-Gov. du Pont claimed "[t]ax rate reductions increase tax revenues" -- several Bush administration economists disagree
SUMMARY: In his OpinionJournal.com column, former Delaware
Gov. Pete du Pont wrote that "[t]ax rate reductions increase tax
revenues. This truth has been proved at both state and federal levels,
including by President Bush's 2003 tax cuts on income, capital gains and
dividends." However, several former and current Bush administration
economists have stated that tax cuts, including those passed under Bush,
produce a net decrease in revenue.
In his October 30 Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal.com column, former Delaware Gov. Pete du Pont (R) asserted: "Tax rate reductions increase tax revenues. This truth has been proved at both state and federal levels, including by President Bush's 2003 tax cuts on income, capital gains and dividends." He cited this as an "economic truth[] that America's liberal leadership finds too inconvenient to support." In fact, several former and current Bush administration economists have stated that tax cuts, including those passed under Bush, produce a net decrease in revenue. And during his confirmation hearing, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson testified: "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves."
In a June 25 article, The Christian Science Monitor reported that "even top Bush economic advisers now reject" the theory that cutting taxes increases tax revenues, and quoted Council of Economic Advisers chairman Edward Lazear as saying: "I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves." Indeed, during his September 26, 2006, testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, Lazear said:
LAZEAR: Will the tax cuts pay for themselves? As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data presented above do not support this claim. Tax revenues in 2006 appear to have recovered to the level seen at this point in previous business cycles, but this does not make up for the lost revenue during 2003, 2004, and 2005. The tax cuts were a positive step and have contributed to the enhanced economic growth, additional jobs, higher real disposable income, and the low unemployment rates that we currently see today. Our goal is not to maximize the size of government, but to provide revenues to make sure that we can operate those programs that society deems necessary, while at the same time allowing the private sector to take full advantage of its growth potential.
Similarly, in an October 17, 2006, article, The Washington Post quoted Alan D. Viard, a former Council of Economic Advisers senior economist during the Bush administration, asserting that "[f]ederal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the [Bush] tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that." The Post also reported that "[a]n analysis of Treasury data prepared last month by the Congressional Research Service estimates that economic growth fueled by the cuts is likely to generate revenue worth about 7 percent of the total cost of the cuts." From the Post article:
Bush hailed the dwindling deficit as a direct result of "pro-growth economic policies," particularly huge tax cuts enacted during his first term. "Tax relief fuels economic growth. And growth -- when the economy grows, more tax revenues come to Washington. And that's what's happened," Bush said.
Economists said Bush was claiming credit where little is due. The economy has grown and tax receipts have risen at historic rates over the past two years, but the Bush tax cuts played a small role in that process, they said, and cost the Treasury more in lost taxes than it gained from the resulting economic stimulus.
"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. "It's logically possible" that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. "But there's no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that."
Economists at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and in the Treasury Department have reached the same conclusion. An analysis of Treasury data prepared last month by the Congressional Research Service estimates that economic growth fueled by the cuts is likely to generate revenue worth about 7 percent of the total cost of the cuts, a broad package of rate reductions and tax credits that has returned an estimated $1.1 trillion to taxpayers since 2001.
Robert Carroll, deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax analysis, said neither the president nor anyone else in the administration is claiming that tax cuts alone produced the unexpected surge in revenue. "As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves," Carroll said.
But, he said, "we do think good tax policy can lead to important economic benefits. ... The size of the tax base is larger than it would have been without the tax relief."
During his June 26, 2006, confirmation hearing before the Senate Finance Committee, Paulson said: "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves." The financial information website MarketWatch reported this statement as "echoing the opinion of most economists." Paulson added: "But I have clearly seen -- and I think some of those people you've quoted would say the same thing -- I've seen that tax cuts change behavior. There's no doubt." From the hearing:
SEN. KENT CONRAD (D-ND): Let me just, before I ask you directly what your view is, show you the historical record here, what we have seen since 2000 in terms of the real revenues of the country.
Real revenues in 2000 were over $2 trillion and then we had the massive tax cuts in 2001. We were told that that would generate more revenue; at least some made that claim.
We can see what happens in the real world. We didn't get more revenue. And we had more large tax cuts in 2003. Again, we were told we'd get more revenue and, again, what we saw in the real world is it didn't happen.
I'd ask you, what is your view? Do you believe that tax cuts pay for themselves?
PAULSON: Senator, no. As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves.
But I have clearly seen -- and I think some of those people you've quoted would say the same thing -- I've seen that tax cuts change behavior. There's no doubt.
And there's no doubt, I can remember very clearly what it was like running a Wall Street firm in 2001. The bubble had burst. We were in a recession. We'd had the terrorist attack September 11th. And I watched the tax cuts add to consumer confidence, investor confidence, market confidence, CEO confidence, and I watched it change behavior. So there's no doubt about that.
Further, in the 2005 paper, "Dynamic Scoring: A Back-Of-The-Envelope Guide," N. Gregory Mankiw, Harvard University economics professor and former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Bush administration, writes: "Most economists ... believe that taxes influence national income but doubt that the growth effects are large enough to make tax cuts self-financing." Similarly, in a May 31, 2006, Wall Street Journal op-ed (subscription required) -- also posted on Mankiw's blog -- discussing Paulson's nomination, Mankiw wrote: "Some supply-siders like to claim that the distortionary effect of taxes is so large that increasing tax rates reduces tax revenue. Like most economists, I don't find that conclusion credible for most tax hikes, and I doubt Mr. Paulson does either." Mankiw is currently advising the presidential campaign of Republican Mitt Romney.
Similarly, in his April 27, 2006, testimony before the Joint Economic Committee, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke asserted that "to the extent the tax cuts produce greater efficiency or greater growth, they will partially offset the losses in revenues":
SEN. JACK REED (D-RI): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony today. And just in line with the question about the effect of tax cuts, the former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, Greg Mankiw, wrote in his macroeconomic textbook that there is no credible evidence that tax cuts pay for themselves and that an economist[] who makes such a claim is -- quote -- "a snake oil salesman who is trying to sell a miracle cure." Do you agree with that?
BERNANKE: I don't think that as a general rule tax cuts pay for themselves. What I have argued instead is that to the extent the tax cuts produce greater efficiency or greater growth, they will partially offset the losses in revenues. The degree to which that offset occurs depends on how well-designed the tax cut is.
In a January 3 "New Year's Plea," to "anyone in the [Bush] Administration who may read this blog," Andrew Samwick, an economics professor at Dartmouth College and former chief economist to the Council of Economic Advisers during the Bush administration, wrote:
You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.
From du Pont's October 30 OpinionJournal.com column:
Nobel Peace laureate Al Gore believes global warming is "an inconvenient truth." Here are some economic truths that America's liberal leadership finds too inconvenient to support.
Tax rate reductions increase tax revenues. This truth has been proved at both state and federal levels, including by President Bush's 2003 tax cuts on income, capital gains and dividends. Those reductions have raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.
These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP, which is half of the average of the past 50 years.
Lower tax rates have be so successful in spurring growth that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the very wealthy has increased. According to the Treasury Department, the top 1% of income tax filers paid just 19% of income taxes in 1980 (when the top tax rate was 70%), and 36% in 2003, the year the Bush tax cuts took effect (when the top rate became 35%). The top 5% of income taxpayers went from 37% of taxes paid to 56%, and the top 10% from 49% to 68% of taxes paid. And the amount of taxes paid by those earning more than $1 million a year rose to $236 billion in 2005 from $132 billion in 2003, a 78% increase.
Finally, another inconvenient truth is that there have been 49 consecutive months of job growth as a result of the economic expansion induced by President Bush's 2003 tax rate reductions.
Well, good. This should set all of the Dittoheads straight.I'll bet not one of them posts here that tax cuts cause revenue increases and pay for themselves.
Har! Just kidding.Rush should be wrapping up his show shortly, and sending his monkeys right over.
Oh, noooooo! Not the flying monkeys! They'll be mean to me! Why, oh why?
I just heard Limbaugh speaking on this topic just a half hour ago...in the context of class resentment, that is. After going on about how tax cuts for the wealthy indirectly benefit the poor and middle class he said, in essence, that those who do not belong to the small ecomoic elite should be "thankful" there is such a disparity between the rich and the rest of the country because it gives the less fortunate something to aim for. I am not making this up...
Where's Tommy? His issue is being debunked.
Debunked?
I have learned that arguing against high taxes with liberals is a waste of time, essentially. Their love of taxes, the higher the better, is akin to a parent's protective rearing of their child.
Your mind is unchanged because it's ingrained into your souls that government is the answer and the unfair playing field needs leveling; and that government is better equipped to spend your money than you are, apparently.
Vote to raise taxes, by all means.
I know what you think of me and all Liberals Tommy, but what do you think of this thread ?
Economists have always had various disagreements about supply side economics, this is nothing new. I don't share this websites view, or the liberal view, or these cherry picked views.
I believe tax cuts stimulate the economy thus creating jobs, thereby increasing government revenues.
Everyone's entitled to their opinion.
How much of a cut?
Actually I am in favor of the fair tax and stop punishing income. Eliminate it and replace it with a higher sales tax.
We need a far simpler tax code, eliminate the IRS, etc.
Since a sales tax is essentially a regressive tax system, how would you feel about a combo of a sales tax, flat income tax, and a raising of investment income tax to equal the income tax rate? That would seem to balance things out. I know some conservative economists, such as Greenspan, call investment taxation double taxation, but that is exactly what sales tax is also.
Amazing how much we agree on.
But specifically, you promote "tax cuts", saying they stimulate the economy. In the current political atmosphere, going with "tax cuts" means NOT abolishing the tax system as it exists in order to switch to a federal sales tax. Seems like a self-defeating stance. Even more, what I really want to know is how much of a tax cut would be optimal, and when the tax revenues fell initially, where would the 100s of thousands of employess of the government contractors (military contractors, for example) who were no longer receiving those tax dollars find temporary employment until the revenues starting flooding in from the explosion in private industry again?
eliminating income taxes and replacing them with sales taxes generally favors the wealthy at the expense of the poor. which i guess would make tommy happy.
Despite the DEMONSTRABLE FACT that revenues fell when Raygun cut taxes and when Bush cut taxes it is still your contention. OK, we got it.
SOLON:
I like to remind folks that Reagan's "BOOM ECONOMY" had two features: An aggregate gain in GDP of around $3 trillion (GROWTH!), and an aggregate gain of DEBT to the tune of around $3 trillion (Ooops! That GROWTH was instead a WASH, prosperity put on a credit card. Eight years in office, and Reagan advanced the nation economically NOT ONE WHIT.)
This whole tax cuts increase revenue is like religious dogma. They just believe it on faith in the face of demonstrable evidence to the contrary. It is not to be questioned.
Lynn,
Just to clarify, it is what I think of liberal's political philosophy.
However, it is not how I see anybody personally.....that is totally separate. I have many close friends and family members that are as liberal as anyone I know. We disagree politically, but that's it.
I knew what you meant, I don't take any of your Liberals are stuff too seriously.
TOMMY:
I'm a Liberal. What we disagree about is the legitimate function of government. I believe that in a nation of self-rule, by "we, the people", that the government has a great many tasks to perform FOR THE PEOPLE, with their majority consent, because there are many things a society needs done that cannot be done by the private sector.
Rural electrification was one of the first of the "big Liberal Projects", which sought to improve the entire nation by bringing substandard technilogical regions of the nation up to standard.
Social Security sought to keep our elder poor from ending up in abject desperation.
Agencies such as OSHA and the USDA seek to enforce rules, regulations, and laws about things ranging from workplace safety to assuring against tainted meat products.
Zoning Laws, enforced by government, assure that investments in property cannot be undermined (and value destroyed) by the actions of nearby property owners.
As a nation, EVERYONE benefits from infrastructure, defense, law enforcement agencies, primary education of all citizens and help with higher education, disease control, and a thousand other tasks which no individual citizen could hope to perform. In most cases, like environmental protection, there is no "profit motive" for assuring compliance; the benefits realized are not a cash sale, but instead the savings of costs down the road of the results of pollution and unhealthy conditions.
Is government "ALWAYS THE ANSWER"? Certainly not. But it OFTEN is, and just as often, there are people like yourself who say "Government is the PROBLEM, keep government from doing ANYTHING."
Easy to say, but how solid are you, Tommy, in this anti-government zeal? Should Social Security be eliminated? Zoning laws? Meat inspections? Road improvements? Help for college loans?
When one gets into the SPECIFICS of your "philosophy", we get a better picture of the KIND of nation you wish this to be, in opposition to the nation it IS as a result of a myriad of "Liberal" social programs.
Tell us how much government you would eliminate to establish what you see as Utopia? And to help us further, how about an example of the paradise which results from the removal of government from society, perhaps some example from history (or in the current world), where the lack of government "interference" has resulted in a great life for all?
Oh, and about taxes. As a Liberal, I see them as a reasonable cost for living in the greatest nation on earth and in history. Our taxes SHOULD pay for the tasks we assign to government, we should pay our way.
A ZERO tax would be wonderful, but would not work. There is no "free ride".
You attempt to "frame" Democrats as "LOVING TAXES", but that's asinine. As a Liberal, I don't "love" taxes any more than I "love" paying my mortgage. It's just something that has to be done, to live in the style I have chosen.
Tex,
Whenever someone frames a pro-tax argument in the context of the following below, then the premise is disingenuous and phony; We shall disagree.
Conservatives, low tax proponents want;
1) Zero taxes.
2) Defunding of essential services like police and fire.
3) Gravel roads.
4) Electricity discontinued in rural areas.
5) No OSHA, or safety standards in the workplace.
6) Rotten food in our grocery stores, no more inspections, etc.
7) Poor, elderly people can starve to death, not our problem.
8) Disease ridden streets throughout the country.
---------------------------
If you believe we are undertaxed, that is your opinion.
TOMMY:
I ASKED you to elaborate on what you would eliminate in the way of government services to attain your "lower taxes" goal.
Instead, you put together a list of what would be the RESULT if the government services I listed were simply eliminated.
I don't know what POINT you are trying to make. Do you wish to CONTINUE the programs that prevent the conditions you list? And go ahead and be taxed for them? Or do you wish those programs eliminated, but do not believe there will be any bad result? (in other words, is your list of extremes 'sarcastic'?)
The question remains, and you have dodged it by a strange listing (are we to suppose of things you DO NOT wish to result?)
So, attack the question directly. What do you wish eliminated?
Tex,
Your clever framing of the low tax discussion isn't fooling me, try it somewhere else......you know exactly the way you presented it is nothing but a straw idiotic argument. But nice try.
This is a fundamental philosphical difference in your liberalism of high taxes and income redistribution....I get it, I just don't agree.
As I said, vote YES on every tax increase.......and then we will still have paved roads and fire and police protection, whew.
TOMMY:
It's one thing to preach the rightwing, Libertarian, "government IS the problem" line. Harms nothing, probably makes you "feel better".
But, as I said, when it comes down to specifics, you bail out. I can't really blame you. It's an argument which too clearly reveals the kind of world you would opt for, if you had your way.
And it is ugly.
So, best to avoid any specific discussion, and just keep up the generalized carping about those darn taxes. Maybe you even think it portrays you as a "wise elder" or something. Whatever...
Anybody can go in an cut taxes. It is easy and popular. The difficult thing is to cut spending. No one seems to be able to do that on either side. It only seems to happen under (politically) divided government.
Exactly, very well said. Taxes are really not the larger issue, thank you open_mind for bringing us back to the much bigger, more important picture.
spending is a very important component, but so is revenue. you decide what you want and then you pay for it. we're paying 250 billion a year in interest, a lot of that going to foreign countries buying our debt. that 250 billion truly is wasteful spending.
And when people frame the debate as liberals love high taxes the higher the better THAT is also disengenuous.
Just as I have learned that to argue against conservatives love of starving children is a waste of time. Conservative love to starve children the more children starving the better conservatives like it.
"The degree to which that offset occurs depends on how well-designed the tax cut is."
There's the key. To Republicans, it doesn't matter though, because there is NOTHING that can convince them that a tax cut isn't bad. This is just another argument for them, and if this fails, they'll move on to something else. They don't see tax cuts as means to an end, the tax cuts to them ARE the end.
.....and to liberals, it's just damn unfair that the job creators shouldn't have the lion's share of their income redistributed downward and given to those who didn't screw the system or are just the spoiled rich trust-funders - because that is all the rich are anyways.
Except the rich liberals, and they do God's work.
Tommy you’re so funny! BTW poor Liberals do God's work too! Seriously we indeed have very different philosophies and approaches to life and surely we disagree on what's best for society, and on what policies produce the healthiest viable society. Of course I wouldn't want to live in a world of your creation and you certainly wouldn't want to live in a world of mine. Actually if I were queen I would take all your money just for a while and I'd give you a minimum wage job with no benefits and watch you do some boot strap pulling, I'd do that to rich Dave tool. Maybe I'd make you two roommates. Oh yeah I'd give you a rented room in a boarding house because I would be a compassionate queen and I wouldn't see you homeless. After or when you have learned your lesson I'd give you all of your money back. What a great mid-day fantasy!
Lynn, You can be my Queen anytime! As long as I have cable in my room, all is cool.
You won't be able to afford to have cable on a minimum wage, but the cable Co.s provide freebies every now and then:;
Actually if I were queen I would take all your money just for a while and I'd give you a minimum wage job with no benefits and watch you do some boot strap pulling, I'd do that to rich Dave tool. Maybe I'd make you two roommates. Oh yeah I'd give you a rented room in a boarding house because I would be a compassionate queen and I wouldn't see you homeless. After or when you have learned your lesson I'd give you all of your money back. What a great mid-day fantasy! Lynn
LOL
Lynn if only you could, I would love to see that! It is so easy to say what someone can and should do.
LYNN:
America today is LARGELY the result of decades of "Liberal Programs". Everything from worker's rights to civil rights to financial regulations to environmental protections are all the result of "Liberal" lawmaking, which has dictated what our nation IS TODAY.
Health care ... nobody can be turned away from an emergency room ... public education, the GI Bill and help with college tuition, on and on, in thousands of ways, this nation is as it is TODAY as a result of Liberal Programs.
So, when you say Tommy would not wish to live in a nation of YOUR creation ... in a very real sense, HE IS. He reserves the right to bitch and complain about it, of course, but everywhere you look in our society, you see the result of Liberals working hard to make a better nation.
And I agree with you entirely, NOBODY would want to live in a world formed and fashioned by an American Rightwinger. A colder, more heartless, more soulless place one could not imagine.
But if you loved only money, and you were one of the "chosen few" who had it all, it would be your dream come true. Bush has worked hard towards that goal, but he's lost the support of the nation. Too bad.
So Tex, people that work hard day and night and provide comfortably for themselves and their family as a reward for their toil, sweat and labor are the "chosen few" in your mind.
What an insulting thing to say, you ought to be ashamed.......of is just sour grapes?
TOMMY:
Wealth has been "redistributed" throughout the history of the world. Through FORCE, or through BLOODLINES, all the wealth of nations has been redistributed UP, into the hands of the rulers. Feudal systems, monarchies, dictatorships, always the same.
Meanwhile, the common people labor and work for subsistence living, peons and serfs, raising their families and often providing the fodder for ever more wealth-accumulating WARS.
Today in America, the trend continues. There are the wealthy elites, friends of Bush, the CEOs and owners of capital who make up the top 5%. Income and wealth, the capital of America is being steadily redistributed, UP into their pockets, and away from the hardworking people of America. This is due to those elites being in charge of the rulemaking, including OUR CURRENT TAX SYSTEM.
Your phony outrage at what you interpreted as my dissing working folk is laughably stupid.
Read history. Read up and study about the TRENDS in America. Figure it out: as a rightwinger, you are doing the sycophantic bidding for those who currently have MOST of the power and money, and want ALL of it by cutting their own obligations while sticking it forever to the middleclass workers (gas prices, heating and energy, health care, and other costs that eat away at workers' disposable income, going directly into the Cayman Island accounts of the "owners" of industry).
Figure it out. The fact that you spend ANY time on the internet indicates that, when the time comes, you will discover that the guys you've been cheerleading for consider you to be just another "useful tool"... and a member of the class to be shafted regularly.
I would never eliminate "rich" folks, or get rid of incentives to do wonderfully well. America SHOULD enable our most industrious to be fabulously wealthy. We deserve to have the richest rich people in the world. That's great!
I WOULD, however, change the rules to be more fair, and to reward LABOR at least as much as the simple holding of capital (which in many cases was not even EARNED).
Study Bill Gates. HE is wealthy beyond comprehension, but he and his family understand the obligations to his country. He wants more fair taxes, that would tax him MORE. HE sees the system is gamed to advantage the already very weathy, and he understands that is not GOOD for the nation.
The TREND should be made to "raise all ships", rather than just the yachts.
Sorry Tex, Socialism "raises all ships", go back and study a 5th grade history book and you will discover that BOOM, we are not a socialistic country, nor we were founded that way.
I know that's depressing to you, but you will have to plug the holes in your own "ship", ok?
TOMMY:
The "rising tide" quote comes from that great tax-cutting SOCIALIST, John F. Kennedy.
"John F. Kennedy repeatedly sounded the optimistic note that good times would be beneficial to all. In his June 1963 address in Frankfort, Kennedy said, 'As they say on my own Cape Cod, a rising tide lifts all the boats..'"
You may be comfortable forwarding the notion that JFK was a Socialist, but you'd have to make your case with facts and evidence. As always, simple red-baiting does not constitute a valid argument ... it's just lazy and ignorant.
YEAH that is the way George Bush did it isnt it? He worked HARD day and night he achieved...Wait no it isnt, he was born into a rich family, did poorly in school, bankrupted every business he ever ran being bailed out again and again by his rich daddy's friends seeking political influence. Then using his NAME he got a tax increase for Arlington Texas which increased the value of the baseball team he owned a very small part of and was GIVEN another 10% of the team for doing EXACTLY that. The ONLY thing Bush ever accomplished and the source of his millions is THAT TAX INCREASE. Then again Paris Hilton she did work hard, wait...
Right out of Tex's playbook, Paris Hilton. And you want to engage in a serious discussion about tax policy?
You and Tex get together and throw darts at her picture, you'll both feel better.
I am doing EXACTLY what you did. Who is claiming NO rich people earned their money. YOUR take was pretty much a claim that ALL rich people EARNED theirs through hard work. And yet that demonstrably isnt so as I showed. This is why anecdotal arguments dont go to the heart of the matter. George Bush and Paris Hilton dont represent all rich people anymore than you claim about working hard night and day do. By the way an argument isnt a bad one just becaue it blows YOURS out of the water.
America today is the result of liberal programs!! Do you have any clue what the US Constitution is Tex? Show me one liberal program born out of that document?
TOMMY:
The Constitution set up three branches of government. The Constitution itself was placed in the hands of the Judiciary, and their charge was to determine if governmental action was Constitutiional (and could continue), or was UNConstitutional (and would be stricken down).
Our elected representatives voted in majority to establish Social Security (to use just one of thousands of examples of "Liberal Government Programs").
So, my answer to YOU is, the Constitution has been followed, and Social Security is Constitutional, per the Constitution itself. The government DID it, it is not UNConstitutional (or else it would have been stricken down), and so it is Constitutional.
It is the same for every social program in America. The ones that were UNConstitutional? They no longer exist. Get it?
Rural Electrification was born out of the premables exhortation to promote the general wellfare just off the top of my head there is one.
TOMMY:
Maybe we're going about this "tax" thing all wrong. Maybe we should be charging "fees" to industry, but no taxes.
Say you're a business. It's a new arrangement, and you pay NO taxes. Instead, you pay FEES. You need an employee. To hire him, you must pay for his education. Call it ten grand a year for 12 years, that's about $120,000. Then there's college, call it $30,000 a year times four, that's another $120,000.
You're already at a quarter million owed, and this is just one hire.
You want him to drive a truck, so you'll be using the roads. Oh, and any raw materials or natural resources you use, they'll have road use delivery fees as well.
We'll calculate a per-person fee for bridges and other transportation expenses that will no longer be paid for with "taxes".
You get the idea. The "employer" who you are so proud of for "providing a job" is taking advantage of a whole lot of social expenses for which he doesn't have to pay. Instead of paying taxes, or being a "free rider", let's break all services down to FEES, and have employers pay those fees as they go.
Oh, crap. You don't want those fine employers to have to pay for this stuff. You want it just "available", like magic. Just a Resource to be exploited with no cost involved.
Let's throw in a river, into which that industry can cheaply just throw all their waste products not having to incur any cost there either.
There's plenty of profit to be made, Tommy, if those who "supply jobs" have to pay realistic COSTS OF DOING BUSINESS. That includes their employees (an educated and skilled workforce), their materials (with quality delivery and transportation available), and the other factors that make for a productive industry (available health care, safe work environment, protections against disease, etc.)
It's great to have employers, but they should not think they woke up one morning in a world of their own creation, free of any expense to themselves. Running a nation incurs COSTS, and saying, "I'm providing a job, so I shouldn't have to pay any of those costs" is an immature and wrongheaded attitude.
Teenagers sometimes have that exact same attitude, but they soon learn there is no free ride. Why you want one for corporations and businesses, I just cannot understand.
See Tex, When you say stuff like "I'm providing a job so I shouldn't have to pay any of those costs"........then you invalidate any serious discussion of this issue.
If you want to keep having straw arguments, try the cornfield on Hee Haw.
TOMMY:
I present my arguments, and you have every opportunity to present yours.
Apparently, you think you're doing well in presenting your position by simply refusing to engage.
Folks are smart enough to realize who is making valid points, and who is avoiding the issues at hand. Your "style" makes rebuttal easy; None is required.
Are you kidding? Your arguments are nothing but ridiculous strawmen and silly talking points. Engage a fellow liberal who agrees with you and leave the serious discussions aside.
You may impress your like-minded followers here, but not me.......sorry.
That was NOT a strawman argument it was a brilliant argument. The fact is society has a HUGE investment in everyones ability to make money. Once you admit that taxes are NOT begging or stealing YOUR money rather the price one pays to live in a society then the only argument is where to draw the line. I am amenable to that argument. The thing is the wealthiest have seen their tax burden drop from 90% in the 50s to about 35% 50 years later now that is a heck of a drop and when we say it went a bit too far, not that we want it back up to 90% but ought to go back just a bit since we have huge debt and serious infrastructure problems we hear all this talk from people like you about the government begging. Actually the wealthy pay LESS than that 35% since a huge amount of their money comes from the money they make OFF of money which is taxed at a LOWER rate than the money I make off of my labor. That is ludicrous. ALL wealth in the end is created by labor NONE by buying and selling. It is absurd that those who buy and sell pay a lower tax rate on their income than the productive income of labor.
That's simply not true. But you know that it IS true that Republicans will argue for tax cuts no matter what. If they are OK with the current spending (and most seem to be) and STILL want tax cuts - there's nothing that can persuade them otherwise.
I am a liberal and AM in favor of selective tax cuts, and also selective tax hikes. It all depends on the situation and what you're trying to accomplish.
And the right just continually argues that cutting taxes raises income. It is a matter of religious dogma to them. They cant show it they just BELIEVE it. Show them that Bush and Raygun tax cuts decreased income they say they dont care they BELIEEEEEVE it anyway. Its like a tent revival thing
And to conservatives its just a darn shame that those lazy good for nothing children dont pay their own way and its time they just starved in the streets died quietly and stopped being a drag on our economy.
It's funny how complicated people try to make taxes.
The government was never intended to be this big bloated monster. Almost all government agencies and programs should be abolished.
Every act of Congress, the executive, and the judiciary should have to pass a Constitutional test.
Is it in the Constitution? No? Then you can't do it. Pretty simple.
Ripper,
To a certain extent I agree with you, but the Constitution didn't foresee an airforce either - but we fund that part of our military.
But your point is a good one, government is not obligated to fund and fund every social program that floats down the pike. Protect it's citizens is priority #1.
The argument is a dumb one. Of course they are not OBLIGATED to fund every social program those are DEMOCRATIC decisions. Which is how they were made and how they will be made. Any claim they are unconstitutional is just dumb
Interesting thing, though Ripper. Your constitutional test is taken every day in the courts.
But heckuva effort, there! Keep up the deep thinking.
It's not followed. Most of our courts are not following the Constitution.
In your professional/scholarly opinion, of course.
In case you were unaware, we're not in kindergarten any more. Check your wall - that poster with Goofus and Gallant atop each column of Do's and Don'ts won't quite fit the constitution.
And verify your talking points when you hear them. Hannity is a known numbskull when it comes to.....anything.
What are you talking about?
Nothing but insults and using conservative boogey men.
Why resort to that simply because you disagree with my opinion?
"Most of our courts are not following the Constitution."
Why don't you cite a few examples?
I'm sorry if that seemed like an insult to you. In order to make up for it, I am providing space for you to:
1. List your credentials regarding your constitutional scholarship and experience.
2. List examples of the judiciary ignoring the constitution.
3. Provide links for said examples.
If that isn't enough room, feel free to add more of your own.
Your baseless assertion is completely without merit. Most hivemind dittobots just spew garbage that doesnt make sense. Hey this just making up accusations and tossing them out there is easy. Most conservatives strangle puppies and molest small furry animals. This is fun.
No roads, no FAA, FCC or FDA, the DEA, CIA and FBI are right out, OSHA, the Social Security Administration and the Department of Education, gone.
Nice world, can we get the hell off of Libertarian Island now and come back to reality?
Maybe they could try setting up their Libertarian Utopia on an Island and we could telivise it as a reality program. We could all watch them reenact the Lord of the Flies
US Government 101 ---> The judiciary is the arbiter on what is the "law". They also rule on other branches exceeding their constitutional authority.
That argument is ludicrous. Just take the preamable to the contition alone.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.[1]”So exactly what constitutes forming a more perfect union? Establishing justice and insuring domestic tranqulity? Providing for the common defense, promoting the general wellfare, and securing the blessings of liberty for us and out posterity? There is hardly anything in the world that could not fit into those criteria alone. Your argument is juvenile.
What a non story as he eventually agrees that lower taxes do increase revenues 2 the govt, LOL. Besides, JFK did the same thing.
Thank you. Where did liberalism veer off the tracks from JFK's low taxation days, to the current crop of soak the taxpayer philosophy?
JFK entered office with a top rate of 91%. He lowered it to 70%. The top rate is currently 35%. If you want to get back to that rate, like you say, that's fine. However, I defy you to find a Democratic politician that is advocating a rate hike that's even in the ballpark of what JFK reduced the top rate to.
JFK wanted the tax rate lower than that, to 65% - all he got was 70%. His goal was to lower income tax rates by about 30%.......show me a Democrat today who is advocating any substantial tax cuts on upper income taxpayers? None.
They have drifted far away from the JFK days, there is no denying that.
Come on, that's a stupid argument. He wanted to lower the rate so much because it was too high. The bottom line is that he thought that the ideal rate was not 91%, but that it was 65%. The current rate of 35% is almost half of what he thought was ideal. So explain to me again how current Dems, who are arguing for a rate MUCH lower than his 65%, are for more taxes than him? Admit it, your argument is completely illogical.
JFK wanted lower taxes on everyone, that is the point.
Today's Democrats say that about only certain classes of people, and even that is hogwash.
Class warfare.
That doesnt mean he wanted it to just keep dropping as a matter of dogma. That no matter how low they got he wanted them lower still. That is dumb. Almost as dumb as your class warfare argument in the 80's the top one percent of the country owned about 20% of the wealth today that is closer to 40%. In the 70s a CEO made about 20 times as much as the average worker today that is more like 400%. the gap between the rich and poor has widened and social mobility in THIS country used to be among the best in the world today it is among the worst in the industrial world. There IS a class war going on alright and the middle class is getting its butt kicked in the past 30 years wages have been flat while corporate profits have soared.
PLEASE just admit that your original JFK comment was stupid. I believe that you are smart enough to see that. He cut taxes for everyone because the top rate was astronomical. His ideal level was 65%. If he thought his ideal level was 20%, he would have said that. If he did, then your point would make sense. He didn't, so your point is illogical. Now trying to defend it, you look ridiculous.
Your argument makes no sense unless you can say JFK wanted the tax rate LOWER than 35% I am fine with 60% I would be fine with 50. No one is even advocatingn 40%. Are you claiming JFK would have just keep cutting the top rate until it dissapeared entirely? I agree 90% was too high so I AM in line with JKF the thing there is no disputing is that YOUR argument was dumb.
SOLON:
The REALITY of taxes when JFK entered office was that the top marginal rate was high at around 90% ... BUT NOBODY WAS PAYING THAT RATE.
Why? Because of loopholes, of course. The wealthy had a thousand ways to make sure they paid LESS that the people working for them (as a percentage of income), and it's the same now.
What JFK determined, of course, and Reagan learned as well, was that 70% of something amounts to a lot more money than 90% of NOTHING.
Any revenue increase at the time of a tax cut invariably came from the LOOPHOLE CLOSING that took place at the same time.
Every time a Republican says he's going to cut taxes, no one ever asks them how they will make up for the lost revenue. But whenever a Democrat says he/she will introduce a program that will help give expensive goods/services to those who can't afford it or can't afford it comfortably, they always ask "Well, how will you pay for it? By RAISING TAXES?" Bill Clinton raised tax rates on the rich and brought in record revenues.
I feel like if we get a Democratic president, it's going to be the Revolutionary War all over again, where we fought the British so we wouldn't have to pay taxes.
This is not conservative misinformation - it is a story of two opposing opinions. Bottom line is revenues to the Treasury are up and the wealthy are paying a greater percentage of the federal income tax burden.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in06tr.xls
What's really amazing about this story is that there are people out there who think tax cuts need to be "paid for". That logic is born of the notion that all money belongs to Washington first and it is what they let us keep that determines our wealth.
On the other hand, one could say that making someone explain how a tax cut would be "paid for" would be an easy way for the voters to make a defined choice of what is more important, the tax cut or the program that is being defunded. Without that transparency, the politicians are trying to dupe the electorate by making them think they can have their cake and eat it too.
Or better yet - instead of withholding money from paychecks - send a monthly bill with a line item list of how much everything costs. Then watch the revolt begin as people start to write the monthly checks.
WC:
You got THAT right. An itemized bill from GW Bush, asking for your part of the Iraq War?
Or would it be further itemized, making you cut your check to fund Halliburton and Blackwater?
...would be real eye opener!
I think we can all agree that the more transparency, the better. Too bad that we are so far from it in today's political process and shotty media reporting.
"That logic is born of the notion that all money belongs to Washington first and it is what they let us keep that determines our wealth."
Wow...! You are quoting Rush Limbaugh almost verbatim...from not more than one hour ago.
That's the problem I have with the crdeibility of many of the right wing posters on this site. While it may be unfair to say affirmatively that you can't think for yourselves, why is it that so many arguments are almost verbatim repitions of the likes of Rush Limbaugh? It certainly suggests a sheep-like mentality and...well, an inability to think for one's self.
That's a conservative stance that goes back to Ronald Regans innaugural address in 1981, and probably before that. It was also advanced by Dick Army during the flat tax debate in 1992.
Rush Limbaugh didn't invent conservatism - he only espouses it.
You really know your dogma. I will give you that.
In other words yes I got it from Rush an hour ago and came in here to repeat it like a demented myna bird and got caught but kinda remember that Raygun said something like it too. So yes I am repeating hivemind talking points but they are OLDER than an hour ago
So Rush isn't so much a trendsetter, but the "Classic Rock" of propaganda?The dittoheads are apparently the political version of the people calling up and requesting Foreigner's Hot Blooded on Saturday night.
Your not actually expecting a response from a group of people that call each other "ditto head" like it's something to be proud of?
Conservatism was around long before Limbaugh, and it will be around long after he's gone. You are very much mistaken if you believe he sets the conservative agenda - which probably explains why the constant attempts to silence him continue to miss their mark.
Next time focus on the topic of the thread and not the messenger - I am happy to engage in the debate.
Now that I've got the Limbaugh slam out of the way - do you see where the opinion generates from?
Well, honestly, the fact that Limbaugh just used the same phraeology today, and considering that you say this phrase dates back at least to Reagan, it does strike me as a sheep-like mentality is in play when certain catch phrases endure among conservatives as though they were Gospel truth handed down from the mountain top.
Let me try it this way.
If you own a business supplying widgets and one of your customers says he is cutting his orders in half - do you ask him how he is going to pay for your lost revenue? That attitude precludes that he owes you his business - not it is not yours to earn.
In the same way when a government says you have to make up the shortfall that is created when they allow you to keep more of your earned income that they believe it is theirs - not yours.
Your analogy is flawed. See society itself has made a huge investment in everyones ability to make money. That is providing a military, electrification, a world class communication system, a world class transportation system, an educated workforce, police and fire depts to protect your bussiness. So you didnt make that money in a vacuum. It is reasonable to say you have to pay YOUR share of the cost OF a society. It is selfish beyond belief to accept the benifits OF that society then snivel that it costs you money.
No one is disagreeing that the government requires funding. It it the prevailing attitude that tax cuts need to be "paid for" that is in contention. As an experiment - if you have little kids that Trick or Treat - try this tomorrow night. Ask them for a piece of their candy and they will most likely and graciously give you one. Then take a piece of candy from them and see how their reaction differs.
I dont think anyone would disagree that there is tremendous waste in Washington either. As I said in an earlier post - eliminate the withholding of taxes in paychecks. Send out a monthly bill with an itemized list of what we are paying for. I guarantee you will see a tax revolt like never seen before.
If no one is disagreeing that taxes are necessary then we are only arguing about the small adjustments made in that funding mechanism. So why the structural arguments about candy and business owners? Why not specific arguments about why THIS tax is too much? The REAL topic is that the very people who ADVANCED Bushs tax cut are saying directly that those tax cuts DONT PAY FOR THEMSELVES. While several conservatives keep coming in here and telling us as a matter of dogma that they do.
The fallacy in the argument is that tax cuts need to be "paid for". No true conservative believes that and therefore I question thier credibility.
I can understand the theoretical point you are trying to make. The problem is that it makes no sense in the rational world. We have current programs that require funding and which make up the budget. To cut taxes, money must be cut from some of those programs. What Bush did was to cut nothing and just say that the increase in revenue would make up the difference. It didn't, and the money instead had to be heaved onto the deficit. It's like taking money out of the ATM with your credit card. That is what these economists are saying, not some high-fallutin theoretical argument.
Thank you - you have it exactly right. Bush is no friend of mine when it comes to his spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave and piling it on the deficit.
Though not practical in todays world the thoery is what is important for Washington to grasp. Washington looks at our wallets as their open checkbook. Whenever they want something -they raise taxes. Once they understand that our earnings are not their open checkbook they will spend much more cautiously.
No. YOU dont get to demand YOUR frame is what must be discussed. The fallacy is that tax cuts pay for themselves. Those who advocated the last one dont believe it. Many conservatives keep saying it because to them it is religious dogman. Taking YOUR frame you ADMIT that society has a right to taxes in order to maintain a society. What exactly are you saying that it doesnt matter if tax cuts hurt societies ability to pay for itself just the fact it is a tax cut JUSTFIES ITSELF? You arent making sense.
There is a prevailing attitude in Washington that all money is theirs first. When they want something more - they just increase your taxes. Tax laws are such that you really have no choice but to pay them. That is the mentality from which comes the notion that tax cuts must be "paid for".
Tax cuts do not need to be paid for - programs need to be paid for. n the eys of a liberal allowing you to keep more of what you earn creates a shortfall for government - and therefore it must be made up. That is a government first attitude - that is wrong. That is an attitude that says we are here to support the government when this government was created to support us. Government has become so big and bloated that it can not survive without it's hands in our pockets. The tax code, the IRS, the withholding laws are all in place to keep the beast alive and keep us in compliance without noticing.
There are functions our government must provide and that do need to be paid for. But where does it stop? However as I suggested - end the witholding BS - send out a monthly itemized bill to the taxpayers. Let us see what we are paying for. You wil see Washington on the run.
That is your hivemind repitition of what Washington thinks. AGAIN Society puts a huge investment into everyones ability to make money. When you say its YOUR money and they are putting their hand in YOUR pocket you are saying I dont CARE what society has done for ME I dont want to pay my share. WHAT is done is a democratic decision. YOU think they are doing too much. Conservatives have been saying this all along when they OPPOSED rural electrification, the highway system, Social Security and basically ANY output of money that didnt go immediatly into a rich mans pocket. The taxes on the top rate have gone from over 90% down to 35% now saying they ought to go back up a bit and we hear this hysteria about how all Washington wants is our money. We have a HUGE debt and are paying for a very expensive war. The Wealthy in this country benifit greatly from societies investment and it isnt too much to ask that they give some more back after THEY have been given so much back for so long.
My local taxes pay for our schools, hospitals, police, and fire services. Gas taxes pay for federal highway maintenance, auto registration fees, pay for local roads. Telecommunications taxes pay for infrastructure - our electricity grid is maintained locally which is paid for by my electricity bill. The services you allude to have been paid over and over.
As you continue to directly ignore the point I make about the Government first attitude I can only assume you agree with it. In fact your posts on the matter reinforce that you support it. Once you believe that the people exist to support the government you are headed towards socialism. That's not a "hivemind" thought - thats what socialism is. That was my point at the beginning of this thread and it still stands.
Actually, it depends more on the time frame being analyzed. Tax cuts usually increase revenues in the short term, but decrease overall returns over time. The claim of increased revenue is misleading on its own and would qualify as misinformation without mentioning the overall shortfall that is a direct result.
The economy keeps growing so the revenues are up however they DROPPED first and they arent up as high as they would be without the cuts. You are putting this as he said she said but you fail to take into account that THESE GUYS saying this are Bushes OWN ADVISORS. So its more like even the guys who championed this cut are saying it didnt pay for itself. So YES I would say it IS conservative misinformation.
The economy keeps growing so the revenues are up however they DROPPED first and they arent up as high as they would be without the cuts.
This is a theory by some the economists that is open for debate. Would the economy have kept growing without the tax cuts? Some say yes - some no. History has shown that when Kennedy, Regan, and Bush have initiated substantial tax cuts the economy grows and therefore increases total treasury revenue. Opinions differ on what would have happened had things been done differently.
NO these are NOT opinions. First it would keep growing because the POPULATION keeps growing that is MORE taxpayers are paying taxes, that is pretty basic.
And NO the actual numbers show exactly what they show that both Raygun AND Bushs tax cuts cause LESS revenue in the immediatly following years that is NOT an opinion it is a FLAT OUT FACT.
Media Matters likes to cherry-pick it's sources to help sell it's propaganda. Here's another source to counter your understading.
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
The propaganda is yours as usual. NOthing in your article denied what I said and it wouldnt its a plain fact. Notice they started in 1984 AND talked about the top 10%. The bottom line is without dispute the revenues DROPPED for the first two years after the Raygun tax cuts
http://a255.g.akamaitech.net/7/255/2422/23feb20050900/www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/pdf/hist.pdf
In constant dollars 83 and 84 the revenue was smaller in absolute dollars it was smaller in 83 than in 82. Its just that simple. You can spew all the propaganda you want it wont change the plain facts.
Yes in the immediate years that follow a tax cut revenues do fall. However as described in the link in my previous post as the investment grows it expands the workforce creating more tax payers, therefore increasing revenue. Not all investments pay off immediately. Look at the revenue tables for 1964-68, 1983-88, 2003-2007. There is a trend. If the population continues to grow without economic expansion the only thig you end up with is larger welfare rolls.
If economies expanded simply based on population growth as you assert in a previous post then India and China would have the strongest economies - and while China's is now growing - it is due to a recent influx of capitalism - not population growth.
Your point is flawed. The question isnt is Chinas economy bigger than ours rather does it increase or decrease as the population increases. Thats like saying putting performance enhancing fuel in a Volkswagon doesnt increase performance because it doesnt outperform a Ferarri. You cannot show that your assertion that tax cuts increase revenue not population. By that logic if you dropped taxes to zero the economy would blast off. I have linked to Manikow Another of Bush's advisors saying the SAME THING. That tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves and the stimulation effect makes up for about 80% of the revenue lost. Now Media Matters has put up two more of Bushs tax cut enthusiast economists saying THE SAME THING. Dont you think if it were TRUE that tax cuts paid for themselves that the very economists TOUTING those cuts would say so instead of saying they DONT?
The point I am trying to make to you is that there are other economists who argue the other side. I know there are economists who argue for and against supply side economics. The Revenue tables in the federal budget you linked to show the trend I mentioned in a previous post. I nyour research don't just look for the opinions that agree with yours - look for the ones that disagree too.
Once again Media Matters is trying to sell differing opinions as misinformation. I repeat from another thread - If it is 60 degrees outside and I tell you it's 55 - thats minsnformation. If I tell you it's cool outside -that is my opinion. If you think 60 is warm we have a difference in opinion - that's not misinformation. Media Matters fails again.
I am not talking about opinions. I am talking PLAIN FACTS. MMFA showed that the very tax cut PROPONENTS that push tax cuts are admitting that they dont pay for themselves. The FACTS actual numbers show they bring in less revenue. YOU guys just keep saying it as a matter of religious dogma. YOU keep talking about trends the TREND is more people which means more taxpayers which means MORE REVENUE. You cannot show that tax cuts pay for themselves. What ever happened to Aurthur laffer and his Laffer curve? Is he washing cars now? It is a repudiated dogma only sold to people who dont know better. EVEN BUSH'S OWN tax cut proponent economists ADMIT that tax cuts DONT PAY FOR THEMSELVES. You CANNOT show they can but we CAN show that revenues have dropped after tax cuts.
It is not just a difference of opinion that the guy just CLAIMS that the Bush tax cut raised revenues when the people RESPONSIBLE for that cut DENY THAT IT IS TRUE.
Whether you realize it or not you have stumbled upon the benefit of supply side econimics.
the TREND is more (jobs) people which means more taxpayers which means MORE REVENUE.
You realize that it happens, now you just need to understand why. I could point you in the direction to follow up on this but I have learned that research is much more effective and lasting when you do it on your own.
Tex and Solon, you're both very good on this subject. I get the feeling some of your opponets didn't read before posting.
The subject of the National debt didn't come up, so far. I've heard 70% of it was created by three Republican presidents. Our current is supposed to be responsible for 40%. I don't think talking up tax cuts is sane, or responsible, given our current level of debt.
Thank you and I agree we need to address the debt. Money spent on service of the debt is poured down a black hole.
On the flip side, it could be said tax increases seldom pay for themselves either. As has be iterated before (and undoubtably be reiterated in the future), with few exceptions, revenues to the government will double about every 8-10 years, no matter the tax rates (as long as they are no lower than today or no higher than the late 70s, early 80s) and spending will double every 6 - 8 years. Go back to the early Kennedy days, tax the Millionaires (athletes, CEOs, etc) 90% on their taxable income over $1 Million and governent would find a way to spend it all, without giving thought to debt reduction. Clinton's last couple of budgets showed surpluses, but the debt (not the deficit) still grew. Go back pre Vietnam and you will find balanced budgets, with a stagnant or slightly shrinking debt. but since then, very rarely. Talk about the hockey stick of global warming, look at the hockey stick of growing government over the past 40 years or so.
To be fair, Clinton's surpluses did not happen until his last years, and looking at the 2000 elections, Gore talked about paying down the debt with the surplus and protecting the SS trust fund. Bush talked about ignoring the debt and giving the money back. I would love to have extra spending money by ignoring my credit card bill, but it is irresponsible and would be devastating down the road.
The counter-argument to the tax increase/revenue argument is that using tax money to increase the power and stability of the working class and middle class is the best investment to make for long term economic success.
If Liberals truly believe in higher tax rates, they can pay higher tax rates. It's not illegal to give the government more than you owe. Liberals are always more comfortable taking other peoples' money and freedom. I wish that our President had been fiscally conservative. His spending habits should bring joy to the hearts of big spending liberals.