Monica Crowley asserted "liberals like the Clintons" argue against tax cuts, but Sen. Clinton has proposed tax cuts
SUMMARY: On Fox News' Your World, Monica Crowley asserted that "liberals like the Clintons" argue "against tax cuts" and to "let the government have more of your money." In fact, Sen. Hillary Clinton's website says that she would "[l]ower taxes for middle class families by: extending the middle class tax cuts ... offering new tax cuts for healthcare, college and retirement, and expanding the EITC [earned income tax credit] and the child care tax credit."
On the April 7 edition of Fox News' Your World, while discussing the Clintons' income since leaving the White House and whether former President Bill Clinton should relinquish his annual lifetime presidential pension, radio talk show host and Fox News contributor Monica Crowley asserted: "[T]he hypocrisy of the Clintons is: 'Well, we're happy to tax you. We're making all this money, and therefore, we don't need the Bush tax cuts.' Well, if that's the case then, then forfeit that money, give it back to the U.S. Treasury and let the government have more of your money, because that's what they're arguing for the rest of us." Crowley also claimed that "there's something to be said for saying, well, look, especially for liberals like the Clintons who argue for increased taxes and against tax cuts, for them to say, 'Look, I don't need this government stipend because I can certainly afford to cover my own expenses on my own.' " In fact, contrary to Crowley's assertions that "liberals like the Clintons" argue "against tax cuts" and to "let the government have more of your money," Sen. Hillary Clinton has proposed tax cuts for the poor and middle class.
As Media Matters for America has documented, Clinton's campaign website says that she would "[l]ower taxes for middle class families by: extending the middle class tax cuts including child tax credit and marriage penalty relief, offering new tax cuts for healthcare, college and retirement, and expanding the EITC [earned income tax credit] and the child care tax credit." And in a March 27 speech on the economy, Hillary Clinton called for "middle class tax cuts":
CLINTON: I have proposed a very specific agenda to end the giveaways to corporate special interests and to save the American people at least $55 billion a year.
That's money that can go right back into your pockets through middle class tax cuts, money we can use to create new high-paying jobs, to invest in our nation's futures (sic) again, you know, for rebuilding our roads to our schools to our manufacturing sector.
From the April 7 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: Well, $52 million in speeches, nearly $30 million from book sales -- Bill Clinton earning a small fortune since leaving the White House, but should he be leaving that $191,000-a-year presidential pension behind, as well? Well, Monica Crowley says yes. She's a radio talk show host, Fox News contributor. So, with all that money, who needs a pension, is what you're saying?
CROWLEY: He's raking in money hand over fist, and he's really taken the post-presidency and turned it into a lifestyle experience. He has taken the Clinton brand and cashed in after leaving office -- and look, we live in a capitalist economy here. We live in a free-market economy. Nothing he's doing is illegal. But to make, what, almost $110 million between the two of them and still to take the $191,000 presidential pension seems to me to be a little bit obscene.
You know, the hypocrisy of the Clintons is: "Well, we're happy to tax you. We're making all this money, and therefore, we don't need the Bush tax cuts." Well, if that's the case then, then forfeit that money, give it back to the U.S. Treasury and let the government have more of your money, because that's what they're arguing for the rest of us, Neil.
CAVUTO: OK, now, if you look at what the Clintons made since 2000, there is a great deal of money. They have given a great deal to charity. They have paid a higher tax rate than anyone in their bracket, close to anyone in their bracket would. So, haven't they paid their due?
CROWLEY: Well, they've certainly paid their share of taxes, but my point is that the presidency is a very unique thing. There was only one president in modern times who didn't cash in on the office once he left it, and that, ironically, was Richard Nixon, who never charged a penny for the speeches that he gave after he left the White House. He took the pension, but he didn't believe in cashing in on the office. He thought that the office required a certain amount of dignity and respect once you leave it. Now --
CAVUTO: Well, there are many who would argue --
CROWLEY: There were people --
CAVUTO: -- that he trashed that with the whole Watergate thing while in office, but --
CROWLEY: Well, I --
CAVUTO: I see -- no, I see your point.
CROWLEY: That's a legitimate argument to make. But I --
CAVUTO: I see your point. Let me ask you this, though.
CROWLEY: Yeah.
CAVUTO: There is the Michael Bloomberg example in New York where he takes a $1-a-year salary --
CROWLEY: A dollar -- right.
CAVUTO: -- 'cause he's a billionaire and all of that. You think the same should apply to elected officials who have a lot of money --
CROWLEY: Well, yes, because not only is it unseemly for people like the Clintons who are making so much money, then to be on the government payroll with a pension, even though they're due it -- there's something to be said for saying, well, look, especially for liberals like the Clintons who argue for increased taxes and against tax cuts, for them to say, "Look, I don't need this government stipend because I can certainly afford to cover my own expenses on my own." A hundred and ten million dollars over six or seven years?
CAVUTO: Maybe they're foreseeing a day --
CROWLEY: I think that they can.
CAVUTO: -- where a Democratic president comes in and the tax rate's back to 70 percent, so they want a little cushion.
CROWLEY: You know, the other thing -- I mean, we mention the Nixon example, and there's certainly some questions surrounding that example -- but I'll tell you, in 1985, Nixon gave up his Secret Service protection voluntarily, because, at that time, it was costing taxpayers almost $4 million. And he said, "I don't want to be a burden on the taxpayers anymore, I'm going to hire my own private security." So, in addition to giving up the pension, I believe that the Clintons -- particularly Bill -- Hillary, she's running; that's different. But once she stops running, if she is not the nominee, they should pay for their own security and get off the government payroll here.
CAVUTO: All right, obviously we're not destined for the next Clinton Christmas party.
Liberals are stereotyped as being "against tax cuts." This is a rightwing talking point which relies on NO facts and NO evidence ... it's just to be accepted as TRUE, just like that the entire MEDIA is Liberal.
Crowley, a member of that media, has accepted rightwing narrative as if it were FACT, to be used as the premise to criticize, slam, and smear Democrats, because that is her job.
I love the ad the "Leftist" Liberal magazine, the Nation, is running They claim that within that magazine, you can read stories from the Liberal point of view, which can be found NOWHERE ELSE. The rightwing would have us believe that the editors of the Nation write the scripts for news coverage at CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS. But if that were true, where IS that coverage that is Leftist, just like the Nation? Hmmm?
It is really sad that armed with freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and an imperative to discover TRUTH and FACTS for the American People, our press is instead repeating rightwing myths. It's almost as if they have become propagandists.
The sad part, Tex, is that this bullsh*t is hardly worth a mention, it's such a keystone of the right wing machine, and accepted by so many as fact.
Crowley says "[T]he hypocrisy of the Clintons is: 'Well, we're happy to tax you. We're making all this money, and therefore, we don't need the Bush tax cuts.'
The "you" they would be referring to in Crowley's hypothetical is others who are doing as well as them, but the GOP and their friends on TV and radio have been very successful at convincing middle class Americans that they're keeping all of "their" money under Republicans and "watching their wallets" under Dems. If the Clinton's are saying that they don't need the Bush cuts, that doesn't make them hypocrites, but rare in their honesty among beneficiaries of the Bush cuts (and I don't describe the Clinton's as rare in their honesty very often, even among politicians... ;0) )
I have, twice in the past few years, convinced a co-worker who was convinced of this myth to dig up their old tax returns(from the end of the Clinton years and the most recent). Even after seeing in black-and-white that their taxes did not fluctuate in the way they'd been told, both of these guys argued with me that they "just knew" it. Seriously, both of them said they "just knew" it.
I think they finally came up with some reason-- Repub. congress or whatever-- to avoid reality.
Funny you should mention that. . .
I was having a discussion with my Mother ( a die-hard Republican, Penticostal Christian) about taxes, global warming, economic issues, and the Fairness Doctrine. Now, keep in mind that I'm 50 (not a young child) I own a successful business, and her only child who attended college.
After citing facts which dispelled her talking points, and offering to show her where we could check those facts, her answer to me was: "I believe what I want to believe, and that's that." I believe this sort of thinking runs deep in the Republican mindset. They'll believe what they want to, and don't need no stinking facts.
The conversation wasn't a total bust. That was some darn good apple pie!
Rick,
I learned a long time ago that:
A person convinced against their will is of the same opinion still.
ps. It doesn't matter whether one is conservative or liberal.
ps. It doesn't matter whether one is conservative or liberal."--AnotherAmerican
I agree with your point, however, it floors me how often many (not all)Conservatives disregard facts that are contrary to what they prefer to believe--a trait I've not seen often with Liberals.
COL:
The Clintons are joined by Bill Gates' family, Warren Buffet, and many, many other wealthy Americans with a conscience in not WANTING to be showered with every governmental benefit, break, and advantage. People of conscience do not resent paying a share in maintaining this great nation of ours.
It's about simple self-interest versus ENLIGHTENED self interest. Rightwingers are all about ME and TODAY, a mindset which is greedy, paranoid, and short sighted. It's all about MY money and MY rights.
In THEIR self interest, Liberals realize that it does no good to have all the gold in a community that is racked with suffering, disease, poverty, and injustice. To the rightwinger, having material wealth only has meaning if others have to do without. Those who haven't "made it" are thus inferior, lazy, undeserving, and even less than human.
To the Liberal, tasking government to make sure everyone has a safety net ... especially abandoned women and children ... means this nation is good and just, and in a SELF-INTERESTED way, makes this a stronger and better nation for EVERYONE's future. We're ALL better off the more educated our population is. We're ALL better off if everyone has basic necessities, like health care, shelter, clothing, and food. And we know from our own history that "private charity" is woefully inadequate to see to these needs.
Ah, but the rightwinger believes "nobody ever GAVE me anything", and so everyone must simply fend for themselves. If they suffer or fail, it's all on THEM for a lack of character, for flawed morals, and that goes for their children, too.
Our NeoCon wealthy feed the fears, hatreds, paranoia, and prejudices of the American People, cajoling them through propaganda to support policy which benefits ONLY the wealthy, and HARMS average Americans and their families. No welfare. No unions. No government programs to address social problems. No access to courts. No regulations. No right to question government (when it's GOP controlled). No oversight of "the market". Nationalism, jingoism, American "exceptionalism" (we're the best, everyone else is crap).
A fair amount (it's boiled down to about a 28% core) SUPPORT this elitist, aristocratic mindset, and are convinced to vote against their own best interests. We see the results today: Prices for commodities going through the roof, health care, gas, heating oil, food, tuition becoming UNAFFORDABLE, people losing their homes by the millions, an unwinnable and enormously expensive WAR, TRILLIONS in deficit spending, secretive government, a government that spies on its own people, CEO compensations and corporate profits soaring while working Americans are losing their jobs.
The Bush Administration has enabled all Rightwing wetdreams to come to pass. EVERY advantage has gone to the wealthy, while the needs of average Americans (I.E. our very FUTURE) have been ignored. The very wealthy have become fabulously wealthier, due DIRECTLY to governmental policy, while average families are losing ground (higher costs of living, stagnant wages ... if there is any job at all).
And a MEDIA that serves as propagandist.
The MEDIA is helping hide the truth. For one example, how many Americans are unemployed? How do we know? The GOVERNMENT tells us, specifically a labor department under the control of the Administration. So, how are unemployment figures calculated? It depends on what the Administration wants to show. If it wants to show "full employment", the trick is HOW to eliminate unemployed folks from the tally. No problem. THIS Administration has determined that if someone is looking for work, and unable to find a job for six months, that they are no longer looking, so cannot be included in the "unemployed" numbers. How many MILLIONS have simply been arbitrarily removed from the count by such TRICKS? We won't know until we get an honest Administration. The MEDIA, God knows, will never investigate the TRUTH.
The problem Republicans have today is that NO amount of propaganda can convince people that what they KNOW to be true, is not true. Rightwing greed and avarice has so affected every life in America that "talking points" cannot overcome the realities of people's lives. The rampant greed and corruption of the Bush Administration (along with GOP allies in Congress) has altered the reality of America in ways that cannot be ignored or explained away.
So, we now see the Rightwing Media demonizing every Democrat in sight, spouting talking points, and perpetuating rightwing MYTHS, in a desperate attempt to preserve the status quo (McCain, though flawed, will continue Bush's legacy).
Do Americans want "more of the same"? They do not. They have seen Rightwing Utopia, and it is ugly.
Tex, it's impossible for me to understand why the wealthiest among us seem to be the most unwilling to pay (in taxes) for that priveledge.
After all, isn't it the wealtiest who have the most to lose?
THE RICK:
Recommended viewing: "It's a Wonderful Life". The exposition of Mr. Potter shows the mindset of today's rightwinger. They believe their fellow man are vermin, riff-raff, unworthy of any grace or respect. It's all about TAKING money, and enjoying it all the more because it has been taken from someone else, who then will SUFFER.
You don't understand how rightwingers cannot have ANY feelings of social responsibility, because you don't understand their root mindset.
For example, the sociopath does not behave in normal ways, because their brains are wired differently. Normal people take for granted that everyone they meet will have respect for human life. Sociopaths have NONE. It's not that they don't know right from wrong, they are wired not to CARE. Taking a human life to a sociopath has no more emotional meaning than picking out a shirt to wear.
We make a mistake if we try to judge everyone's motivations by our OWN values and morality. We need to realize that rightwingers are not motivated by the same things as we are. We may be motivated by compassion and empathy. They don't even recognize these things, they are motivated by cash and greed. We may wish for a better future for all, while they are wishing for a record-breaking profit this month.
A good guide for knowing rightwing "values" and mindset is readily available, and it's quite ironic. JUST TODAY, note the charges being made in the Media against Liberals and against the Democratic candidates for President. Rightwingers routinely PROJECT their root motivations onto others, and by this we can know them better. Things like "liar" and "will do anything to win" and "blatant opportunist" ... there's your rightwinger.
Agreed. I understand, but I'll never understand . . .
Tex,
Recommendation. Why do you feel the need to tell us all how corrupt and evil conservatism is? What are you so fearful of? Do you mischaracterize and demonize it for a reason? Why? Why not just stick to clearly outlining your own liberal philosophy and leave your absolutely insane interpretations of conservatism and "rightwing" values to those who have a shred of knowledge or inslight as to what that is, 'cause that ain't you Pardner, your posts only display a rabid partisanship fueled by an incredible cluelessness as to the laughable talking points you spout at every opportunity.
Honestly, never mind - keep at it, sinking yourself with such drivel and foolishness at nearly every post is quite entertaining.
Go TEX!
Hey, Tommy, demonstrate where Tex is wrong here.
Gimme a break, look at the incredible diatribe of nonsense - we have no social responsibility, we don't care about children, we are greedy paranoid and shortsighted, we only value material wealth when others have none, we are hateful, prejudiced and out to harm families, we want no welfare or safety net, no access to courts, no regulations, no right to question govt., we are liars, opportunits and will do anything to win.
Need I go on, his crap doesn't even deserve the bandwith I have given it.
If you believe Tex, you are as sadly mistaken and clueless as he is, sorry.
He posts this nonsense here because he rarely, if ever, is challenged. And frankly, he isn't worth it. Believe what you want.
You're not serious? Why don't you ask Tex to backup his ridiculous and inflammatory accusations, he made them.
If you believe him, that is your business.
Unfortuneately, she and her husband fill the bill on every point.
Yes, I am serious. You danced just short of calling Tex stupid, then told me that it was my business if I wanted to believe his statements. You made it your business with your post above.
There is much evidence to back up these assertion which you seem to think are stereotypes. The evidence appears here every day. But, you called him out, finish the job.
Or don't.
If I call you a liar, and all the other hideous insults that Tex just did, is it incumbent upon me to prove you are one, or is it your responsibility to prove you are not?
Not such nice qualities Tex ascribed to a certain ideological viewpoint is it? As I said, I am sure your Mother, who you mentioned, would be slightly offended, and she damn well ought to be.
"If I call you a liar, and all the other hideous insults that Tex just did,...I am sure your Mother, who you mentioned, would be slightly offended, and she damn well ought to be." --Tommy
She may be offended, and I might be also, but, that doesn't mean that she's not a liar--if she is a liar. I'm a builder. Some/many builders are liars, yet I understand that someone saying builders are liars doesn't necessarily mean that I am a liar.
Oh, so Tex just meant "certain" rightwingers, not all of them?
Well, if that is the standard, let me also say that "certain" liberals are lying thieves, just not all.
I guess we're even then.
That is certainly a true statement. There are tens of millions of liberals in America to think none of them are lying thieves would be naive. Here is the problem. I respect conservatives. I grew up with seeing very principled conservatives. IF I use a term like wingnut to make a point about a certain group of conservatives I get called out as denigrating conservatives if I just say conservatives I get the same response. I am not sure exactly how to seperate the ones I am talking about from the reasoned cons.
Because to generalize, in the nasty and horribly offensive way that Tex did in several posts earlier in this thread, is ridiculous. He should be challenged by every decent liberal and conservative here to back up exactly what he says, as he doesn't say "some", or "a few", but rather he implies these hideous characteristics apply to all "rightwingers". He always does.
Ideological or political opinions are not dependent on character, there are decent people from all persuasions. If people here can't acknowledge that simple fact, then pure partisan hatred has infested your bloodstream, and that is sad.
Tex is a lost cause, I have no interest in his opinions anymore. He has every right to espouse them as he sees fit. But he is nothing more than a cartoon to me after the tripe he spews, sorry.
Solon, I am broadening Tex's shorthand? I repeated verbatim exactly the terms he used to describe rightwingers.
Whatever.....Tex may get the respect of many here, but unlike the respect I have for you, I have none for him.
SOLON:
I don't know any "conservatives", and I don't see any in today's political scene. Today's Republican bears no resemblance to a "conservative".
RIGHTWINGERS are the firebreathing haters who populate talk radio, and more and more the "mainstream" media (Coulter being a frequent "guest," for one example among dozens).
THEY define "rightwinger", and those who support their stances are rightwingers as well. POLITICALLY, the Rightwing mentality is reflected perfectly by Dick Cheney, and GW Bush. Those who support these NeoCons are ALSO Rightwingers, and are NOT NOT NOT "conservatives" by any stretched definition.
Conservatives have principled reasons for their stances, and I might disagree, but they are rational. Rightwingers are a compendium of the fearful, the haters, the bigots, and the religiously insane, their opinions are formed by the worst of human traits, and they are fueled in America today by an entire industry of propagandists, available to be heard 24/7 and in many venues at a time.
I OPPOSE Rightwingers, including Limbaugh, Bush, and TOMMY. They are indeed evil people, because the policies they promote for America are heartless and cold, greedy and cruel. They are unfair and unjust. Their political tactics are despicable, and I see no need to temper my own presentations until the hammerlock hold Rightwing Hatred has on America's media is broken.
Tommy doesn't like me "stereotyping"? Tough. I don't see any Rightwingers pulling their punches in their universal hatred of Liberals and Democrats.
P.S. I have reasons for everything I say. If TOMMY or anyone cares to challenge WHY I would tar all Rightwingers by an accusation, I'll be glad to take each issue one at a time, and explain. In general, it has to do with actions, behavior, and mostly POLICY of Rightwingers, and brings in all those who SUPPORT those rightwingers.
Perhaps Tommy wants unilateral disarmament? LOL Ain't gonna happen.
I completely agree that the Bush administration and the GOP Powerstructure that supports them are not conservatives. More like radical statists. I disagree that Tommy is one of them. Tommy is libertarian. We disagree on WHAT will happen but I am confident that Tommy is NOT motivated by greed nor intolerance. He really thinks that the free market is the answer to all ills. I disagree. However I BELIEVE that Tommy thinks the free market if left alone will make things better for all people. I thing Bush and Cheney flat dont CARE what happens to the poor and middle class as long as THEIR class is taken care of and catered to. As an oversimplification. I think for the radical statists its all ABOUT the protection of privelege. For Tommy and those like him it is a difference of opinion about the best way to help EVERYONE. I dont see Tommy as an Ebeneezer Scrooge worshipping statist.
Thank you Solon, It is refereshing to see an honest, unabashed liberal like yourself defend your own ideas and opinions without feeling the need to trash and lie about your political opponents, as Tex has just done to me. He is calling me a hater, a bigot, etc. He can call me whatever he wants too, I am indifferent to it.
In some strange way I read Tex's post above and I actually have empathy for him, someone who is so consumed with such intense hatred that he has to resort to such disguisting lies and falsehoods. Sad.
I look forward to our back and forth, we may get heated but with you I know I get a fair shake. We need more of that, the exact opposite of what Tex brings.......he thinks he lifts the country up, he is wrong.
Some CLARIFICATIONS for TOMMY:
TOMMY: "Oh, so Tex just meant "certain" rightwingers, not all of them?"
RESPONSE: I mean ALL rightwingers. Not necessarily all Republicans, and not all Conservatives ... if you can even find one. I mean ALL NeoCons. And I mean all rightwingers who support, enable, vote for, and "ME TOO" the hate-spewing rightwing rhetoric across the spectrum of our Media.
Rightwingers include the "Swift Boat" people, and all those who failed to condemn them. It's Bush and Cheney and all those who voted for them. It's especially those who continue to DEFEND them. It's all those folks who sought to destroy the Dixie Chicks. It's the religiously insane, who promote and support Robertson, Falwell, and use GOD as a bludgeon (while their own behavior is the opposite of "Christian").
And it's those who, although they claim to "not support everything" Bush and Republicans DO, continue to support them being in POWER, and thus are responsible for the POLICIES they have inflicted on America. "Preemptive War Doctrine" ... to preempt what doesn't exist ... is Rightwing policy. Spying on Americans without warrants (pissing on the Constitution), TORTURE, GitMo, mercenaries in American employ, NO-BID contracts for Halliburton, BILLIONS in tax dollars going to oil companies who are showing record profits already in the tens of billions ... THAT is rightwing policy.
Failure to enforce regulations, gutting social programs, "No Child Left Behind" foisted on states but without funding, Anti-welfare, Anti-Union, PRO-"Tort Refom" (which would remove the courts from access by average citizens), all this is RIGHTWING policy, and it's BAD for America.
And whoever SUPPORTS these things, by voting for, supporting, or failing to protest the NeoCons who make that policy ... those are the Rightwingers I'm talking about.
A "Libertarian" who is grumpy but reluctantly supports BUSH, a "conservative" who is feeling "left out" but supports Bush ... these are every bit as bad as the Rightwingers who are enthusiastic Bush supporters.
And now it's McCain who promises to extend the Rightwing reign of error and terror into the future. Rightwingers are supporting HIM, and mainly are pulling out all stops to smear, insult, belittle, and hopefully DESTROY Hillary and Obama. These are the Rightwingers I refer to.
TOMMY: "Well, if that is the standard, let me also say that "certain" liberals are lying thieves, just not all."
RESPONSE: This site, MMFA, has documented for YEARS the hateful, blanket statements Rightwing Media "personalities" have made about who and what Liberals ARE. Evil, bad, out to destroy America, commies, socialists, Anti-American, Anti-troop, cowards, collectivists,"long-haired maggot-infested FM-type environmental wackos", WITH the terrorists ... on and on and on. Why would THAT not be "the standard", Tommy? The standard for acceptable political discourse?
TOMMY: "I guess we're even then."
RESPONSE: Not even close. Not a scintilla of comparison to the level and amount of virulent Liberal/Democrat bashing in our media today, compared to any criticism Republicans, Bush, or NeoCons receive.
But it's OK. With sites like MMFA, the TRUTH is becoming clear to the American People. They CAN believe their own eyes and ears, rather than take on faith what Bush, or any of a thousand surrogates, tells them. "The economy's great! The surge is working! More tax cuts will fix things!" and all those self-serving lies are no longer working.
Hope that helps clear up WHO I'm talking about when I characterize Rightwingers BY THEIR ACTIONS (from which they cannot escape), and some specificity on WHY it's important to recognize it is not appropriate to engage in civil, calm discourse against a hoard approaching with flamethrowers and machetes. They are deadly dangerous to America, these Rightwingers. They are not nice people, and they are not rational.
No, it's far easier for you to believe that liberals are good, and conservatives are bad. Sorry Rick, I expected more from you.
As I said, believe what you want.
"... it's far easier for you to believe that liberals are good, and conservatives are bad. Sorry Rick, I expected more from you.
As I said, believe what you want."--Tommy
Sorry Tommy, but you know that doesn't cut it, because I never said that. I'm not talking about the individual, I'm asking about the ideology.
I have many friends who are Conservatives, who are very good people with a few very ugly traits. And while the same holds true of my Liberal friends and family members, I still wonder what Conservative traits might be considered good.
I realize you think I'm being a jerk here, still, you haven't given me a core Conservative quality that I feel comfortable cozying up to.
Tex specifically says "rightwingers", he does not speak of the ideology, it's far more personal with him. Read his stuff again.
I'm done.
Since I was no longer talking about Tex when I asked YOU to give me a few admirable Conservative traits, and since you're "done," I'll have to continue going through life believing there are none.
I expected better from you.
Obviouselly
TOMMY HAS a "Recommendation."
RESPONSE: Recommend away.
TOMMY: "Why do you feel the need to tell us all how corrupt and evil conservatism is?"
RESPONSE: Because Republicans with power cause great harm to our nation, and they LIE about their true selves in order to get elected. They are dangerous frauds, and exposing them is a public service.
TOMMY: "What are you so fearful of?"
RESPONSE: Unnecessary wars, FAILURE to address real problems like terrorism, destruction of our constitution, destruction of our ability to lead the world by example, a government that lavishes every advantage on the already very wealthy to the detriment of the rest of America, rampant greed, rampant corruption and cronyism, and mainly the aristocratic disdain they have for average Americans. Republicans are TERRIBLE for this nation, and the harm they cause is hard to calculate (4000 dead in Iraq, 30,000 maimed and dismembered, for example). Plus, they are liars and scandalmongers and hypocrites.
TOMMY: "Do you mischaracterize and demonize it for a reason? Why?"
RESPONSE: I don't mischaracterize it. I tell it straight, and if that "demonizes" it ... then that's what it is. Rightwingers are BAD people. No way to sugarcoat it.
TOMMY: "Why not just stick to clearly outlining your own liberal philosophy ..."
RESPONSE: I do that constantly.
TOMMY: "...and leave your absolutely insane interpretations of conservatism and "rightwing" values to those who have a shred of knowledge or inslight as to what that is, 'cause that ain't you Pardner, your posts only display a rabid partisanship fueled by an incredible cluelessness as to the laughable talking points you spout at every opportunity."
RESPONSE: Then what's your problem? Is it that I don't have a talkshow to do the above, like Hannity, Limbaugh, Ingraham, and a thousand other Rightwingers?
TOMMY: Honestly, never mind - keep at it, sinking yourself with such drivel and foolishness at nearly every post is quite entertaining. Go TEX!"
RESPONSE: I intend to continue, thanks. And I don't expect brainwashed sycophants for tyranny, such as yourself, to change. I DO expect to have a majority of Americans to toss "your" candidates into the ashbin of history, where they can no longer bring suffering and harm to this great nation.
nixon may not have taken money for speeches [i wonder how many offers he had], but he wrote a ton of books. see link. and the clintons did pay 33 million in taxes.
http://www.amazon.com/Books-by-Richard-Nixon/lm/1IEPW16VU3QU8
Personally, I am always grateful whenever a liberal politician lets me keep some of my money.
It's mighty big of them!
Go Obama!!!
You are a liar and a fool. Saying it is YOUR money is acting like you dont OWE taxes to society. Typical of the freelunch conservative wing you dont aknowlege the investment society makes in everyones ability to make money. Taxes are the cost of having a society. Selfish, Ebeneezer Scrooge worshiping, self absorbed cretins ONLY care about THEIR money screw society.
Saying it is YOUR money is acting like you dont OWE taxes to society.
Let me personally apologize for calling it "my money" ... but isn't this topic another one of those fake attempts to make ultra-libs seem moderate because they "like tax cuts too"?
You should think more and post less, solon. You should have chosen another topic to give your tax-all-the-wealth-because-the-state-is-god rants.
(Hint: MMFA is trying to hide the fact that libs love to raise taxes, solon.)
Oh, and GO OBAMA!
As he spends money on the war like a battle group of drunken sailors, without war taxes, incurring massive budget deficits financed by the Chinese, the plummeting dollar just keeps making things more expensive. And since our manufacturing industry got magically teleported elsewhere, you're buying imports all the time.
Checked the price of clothing these days? Sporting goods? Produce? These major rise in these prices means money is being taken away from you. And let's not even think what $4 a gallon gas does to people's wealth.
It's not your money, Not (may I call you Not?) because the government can and does print more of it every day. That can easily make your money worth less and less.You know that it's not backed by anything any more, right? Nothing other than America's reputation, that is--which is why we should be careful of it.
The Bush administration has been printing paper at Warp 12--bonds instead of bucks, which is even worse. And it's diluting your dollars and making you poorer.
The Republicans talk the talk, but when they get given the opportunity to walk the walk, they acted like swine at the trough.
The Democrats take your wealth and give it to the poor. The Republicans take your wealth and give it to the Chinese Red Army.
PBG:
You make a good point. Does WELFARE "go to the poor" to enrich them at the expense of someone else?
Uh, NO. Welfare dollars go to supermarkets, landlords, hospitals, and department stores. RIGHT BACK INTO THE ECONOMY.
Rightwingers think that THEIR MONEY is wrested from them to lavish on undeserving lazy people, just for the thrill of "redistributing wealth". The REALITY is that welfare dollars (and there aren't many any more) go to the same SERVICES and BUSINESSES that we all use. Directly and immediately.
Yes, the welfare recipient then has a shirt to wear, a meal to eat, and gets to take their kid to a doctor. That's the MINIMAL benefit, and the benefit to society is helping a citizen along that will one day be productive and add to our nation's strength. But those dollars show up on the bottom line of BUSINESSES.
Rightwingers resent the hell out of any welfare, but they typically SUPPORT businesses. And businesses are where their "tax dollars" that go to welfare end up. So we must conclude that rightwingers REALLY resent a poor person getting a shirt or a meal or a doctor's visit ... THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MINE!!!!!
Oh, and most Rightwinges claim to be "CHRISTIANS". LOL Such irony.
"Checked the price of clothing these days? Sporting goods? Produce? These major rise in these prices means money is being taken away from you. And let's not even think what $4 a gallon gas does to people's wealth."
Not only that, but I have the feeling we'll be bailing out the airlines again. I don't know if anyone's been paying attention but Skybus just went bankrupt and American Airlines canceled over 500 flights just yesterday because the FAA is phenomenally corrupt. All those checks they're doing on the wiring of the planes? That's just the half of it. Cracked windshields, rusted bolts and bad engines have been reported as widespread throughout the airline system.
We could have prevented this. It's been reported that FAA inspectors have been fired or removed from their posts, at the behest of the airlines themselves, simply for pointing out major problems with the maintenance of our airplanes. This has gone as far back as 2000, and is a direct product of the Bush administration's insistence on heading the FAA with people from the airline industry.
I know I'm not going to be flying anywhere for a while...
"Saying it is YOUR money is acting like you dont OWE taxes to society."
That is what SOLON said COL - The implication is that it is not "Your money".
Sounds to me like you are the one listenenig to the EIB too much if you think that's where my inference came from. You have exposed yourself as a closet "dittohead".
One could argue that the Clintons are an American success story, since neither one was born with a silver spoon in their mouth, like some others I could name.
Hillary Clinton enjoyed a very affluent life - and Bill Clinton's childhood (if you discount the myth of "Hope") was very comfortable, too.
Go Obama!
NAC, no need to apologize. The money you earn is "your money". If you don't like contributing, like the rest of us, to supporting our country, go out to the woods, dig a hole in the ground for a house, and eat berries and bugs. Then keep off the roads, don't expect the military to save you when you're scared, and get off the internets you lazy cheapskate.Some of us are trying to have a civilization, and if you can't afford to pull your weight, get off the bus.
I feel for your friends, assuming you have any in real life.I can't imagine how embarrassing it is for them to go out to dinner with you. When the bill comes, and you're under the table squealing about them wanting to take "your money", do they just cover it to get out of the place?.
I was wondering: When you guys do your taxes do you make sure to pay the difference between what your taxes are and what they WOULD HAVE been without the Bush tax cuts? Surely you guys want to pay your fair share to cover the cost of "investing in society." Yeah I didn't think so.
When it's the liberals own money they don't want to part with it, they want to use everyone else's money and spread the misery around.
You guys must be in an upper bracket where you don't really feel the tax bite, otherwise you wouldn't be advocating the foolish position that we are somehow undertaxed -- or at least 'not overtaxed.'
Gosh, that was unpredictable. Somebody gets called out for being a whiny tightwad, and counters by asking the non-whiners why they don't send ALL of their money to the IRS. Bra--Vo.
Extra points for accusing others of being simultaneously rich (not affected by the taxes) and poor (wanting to take the rich people's money). Another shining example of the ability of people to believe what they want to believe, no matter how little sense it makes.
Fried Chicken Man:
I ask again: How much is enough? How much of the money you earn should you turn over to government to spend on their whims? Have you ever sat down and figured out how much of the money you earn goes to taxes? And I'm talking ALL sources and forms.
How much is enough? What percentage?
NOLEFTTURNS:
You make an interesting admission, and it's very TRUE.
Bush gives tax cuts, which you APPROVE, even if your "share" is $600 while Dick Cheney's is $600 Thousand. You're a fair guy, so you're happy, and Dick Cheney is delighted that you're happy, because you have approved wealth redistribution UP, and he's saved a fortune while you saved very little. You're a "crumb from the table" type of lacky that NeoCons love to manipulate.
But you bring up State and Local taxes. Oh, my! Did Bush REALLY save you anything? Nope. He cuts FEDERAL taxes a bit, then cuts distributions to states expected to pay for federal mandates, and the states have no choice but to raise THEIR taxes to make up the difference. You laud Bush, but all he's done is passed the responsibility along, and you're actually WORSE off in every way. He "saved" you NOTHING! But you were happy giving Cheney HIS $600,000 windfall, so you can flex that Rightwing moral muscle.
And this says NOTHING of the TRILLIONS Bush is saddling your CHILDREN with. Ah well, that's later, not a concern. You're just seething with resentment a poor kid might get a meal on your dime. Did you see those Oil Execs whining for their government handout of BILLIONS of dollars in welfare? While reporting RECORD profits and astronomical pesonal bonuses for themselves? There's your rightwing wealth distribution.
Your priorities and reasoning power are all screwed up in a way that is delightful for tyrants. Of course, the history of the world is full of examples of people just like you, enablers of tyranny who have allowed their rational brains to be shaped and manipulated into supporting policy that harms you and your family, is hostile to society, while lavishing every advantage on the already very wealthy. They LOVE guys like you!
Actually that wasnt your point you said THIS
When it's the liberals own money they don't want to part with it, they want to use everyone else's money and spread the misery around.
Yet Warren Buffet is freely saying he didnt need Bushs tax cuts and that his secretary is taxed a larger percentage than he is and its obscene. So he ISNT arguing that only OTHER peoples money ought to be taxed. Why is it everytime we want to raise taxes on the wealthiest people who have gotten the lions share of the tax cuts since 1980 YOU guys come in here and whine about the middle class. As far as I know the liberals and Democrats are talking about raising taxes on the top rate. On those making over 200,000 a year. IF your only concern REALLY is the middle class and not just your knee jerk pavlovian response taxes AHHHHHH then we are on the same page. We are being saddled with unimaginable debt. WE have to address that but I dont really want to see working class taxes increase. I want the wealthy who have been getting tax cuts in virtually every election cycle to start kicking back some of those cuts. I think it obscene that money wealth makes with its money is taxed at a MUCH lower rate than the money I make off of my labor. That kind of catering to the wealthy has been taken too far and the scales need to be balanced. AFTER we address the debt and get it to manable levels I would be fine in seeing a tax cut that went to the WORKING CLASS and didnt benifit mostly the wealthy.
Solon,
I've seen Hillary say she wants to rescind the tax cuts for those with incomes over $200,000 but I cannot find any hard numbers regarding her tax rates for the rest of us.
I've also seen where Hillary says she wants to rescind the Bush tax cuts. Period. What does that mean?
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm956.cfm
I personally don't understand why liberals do not accept the economic truth that increasing the marginal tax rates on the wealthy reduces investment capital that is needed to keep our market economy growing.
Solon,
I've read where the tax cuts do pay for themselves over time when one factors in the increased rate of growth and resulting tax revenues from that increased growth. However all of those increased revenues do not show up overnight. They make up for it with the cumulative effect over 5-10 years.
Having said that, as a conservative, I am not so concerned with increasing revenues in order to pay for increased spending. I wonder where the increased spending will end? The Republicans have failed in curtailing spending and are being tossed out of office, in part, because of it.
Enough to cover the bills.
"How much of the money you earn should you turn over to government to spend on their whims?"
Ignorant pig, you do not earn money in this country without making use of the commons and infrastructure put in place during the era of good government. You owe for your usage.
Their whims? Stupid jerk, you seperate us form our government. We make the call on where the money goes.
<b>Here is another free lunch conservative telling us WE should kick in MORE so THEY can dodge their societal obligations. Didnt Warren Buffet say he didnt need Bushes tax cuts and isnt he the richest man in the world? </b>
You have a TRUE talent for making your adversaries' point with your inane comments. I'm not trying to dodge anything. I'm just trying to keep a bit more than half of what I earn. And that's ALL taxes counting local, state, federal. All I'm saying is put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is. Kick in as much as you want, but a solid majority in this country say they are paying plenty and it's time for millions to get off the gravy train.
As for Buffet...that's EXACTLY my point. Did you READ my post? Can you READ? From your posts it seems questionable. Buffet is the richest man in America and can pay much more without ever feeling it. The family of three making $70,000 will lose $1,500 in child tax credits if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. Buffet barely notices $10 million, but that family sure could use the $1,500. And they will spend it much more wisely than any politician or gov't bureaucrat. And even if they get the tax credit they are still paying at least $10,000 in federal taxes alone if you count social security and medicare. I ask: How much is enough. Yes, taxes are the cost of society, but the liberals (Democrats AND Republicans) want all that we need to run society, plus 2-3 times more so they can continue to run the lives of the American people.
NLT, the tax cuts on the top 1% of Americans were unnecessary. Do you agree with that? Do you agree with the statement that Warren Buffet pays a less percentage of his taxes than his secretary? In my household, our two incomes come to roughly $64,000 and we're paying roughly $20,000 in state and federal taxes. It's about a third of our income. Now, if all of that was capital gains, we would be paying only roughly $10,000, and that's for doing NOTHING. That's just dividends.
Point is, our tax system is really screwed up. I'm all for paying my fair share of taxes, but I believe Paris Hilton (as an example) should be paying the same percentage.
Something needs to be done, and these neo-liberal "conservatives" in the Bush Administration are definitely not helping, especially with the tax cuts. Never in the history of the world has a country had tax cuts during a time of war.
Oh, and if your notion that a conservative congress kept the "liberal" Clinton from "spending like a kid in a candy store" and because of that we had 8 years of peace and prosperity, then shouldn't we have another liberal President in November with a conservative congress? Isn't that the magic formula?
Funny thing is, your reasoning is taking us, our children and our grandchildren around that same circle and eventually off that cliff with you.
Each person is paying about $100 per month for this war. That doesn't include what we'll be paying to care for our wounded, the cost of rebuilding our military and or Iraq and the cost of servicing the debt we've accrued by waging war with our credit cards. With those items included, the cost to each American rises exponentially.
I'd gladly give back my meager tax cut. It pales in comparison to what this war is costing me.
And that doesn't take into consideration what we pay in national status. Many Americans are waving their flags, wearing their pins and sporting the "Proud To Be An American" bumper sticker but each day fewer citizens of other countries share those sentiments.
Being a good citizen has nothing to do with flag waving or shopping. A good citizen knows that pride can be dangerous. A good citizen knows that we have to work each day to make America better place for our children.
Great post Worrier
Oh yes...Hillary says she is for middle class tax cuts, but so was her husband. And then that was retracted about a month into his first term and replaced with numerous tax increases including several regressive excise taxes that even the Democrats that controlled Congress voted against.
The Clintons have a long history of lying and their reputation for lying is well-deserved.
Bill Clinton brought this country out of a recession, and Presided over the best economy in this Nation's history. During that time most of us paid a little more in taxes. The poor paid less, and the rich paid 3% more. But, we were all the better because of it.
Spending was up, profits were up, the economy was up, jobs were up, unemployment down, crime was at an all time low, education was up, wages were up. It was the first time in my adult life that I realized the effects of a good economy. THEN CAME GEORGE . . . look around you now--enough said.
The 4th quarter of 1992 saw growth in GDP of about 5%. Bill Clinton took office in 1993. The mild recession of 1991-92 was LONG over when he took office. In October 1994, at the end of Clinton's first two years in office, unemployment was up to 6.2 percent and growth was in the 2 percent range. His and the Democrats' clueless economic policies were then soundly rejected in the 1994 election when not a single Republican incumbent was defeated.
The resulting growth in the 1990s was a dot-com boom coupled with restraint of Clinton by a Conservative Congress which pushed through very small tax cuts and reduced growth in governement spending. Clinton went along with this as he saw it as the best way to get a second term. It was lucky for the country that he was only a liberal crusader when it could result in personal gain.
Several of my posts have debunked the Clintonomics myth, but liberals are allergic to facts
NOLEFTTURNS:
You have "debunked" nothing.
Noleftturns,
As you have noticed some posters here rely on invective and little else when they see posts that provide a different opinion than theirs.
I've come to the opinion that they are not really interested in discussion, but only want to express their strongly held beliefs that conservatives are somehow evil/racist/greedy/hateful/robots/etc. Whenever anyone counters their belief system they then feel they are justified in name calling.
It's not all of them. Some liberals are interesting and bring up good points. Some of the name callers occasionally do the same. However those name callers cannot help themselves and use vitriol as a fall back.
There have been some good post. But intermingled with them are those of you who prove my point.
…I feel for your friends, assuming you have any in real life.I can't imagine how embarrassing it is for them to go out to dinner with you... - col.
You are a liar and a fool – solon
What a dumb post…. You guys really live in your own little world unconnected to reality dont you? – solon
Gosh, that was unpredictable. Somebody gets called out for being a whiny tightwad… - col.
You have "debunked" nothing. - tex
YOU have a long history of Delusion and IT is a reputation well deserved. – solon
If you call those above, "a discussion", well then you prove my point.
"...some posters here rely on invective and little else"
"...they are not really interested in discussion...",
"...only want to express their strongly held beliefs that conservatives are somehow evil/racist/greedy/hateful/robots/etc. "
"Whenever anyone counters their belief system they then feel they are justified in name calling. "
"...those name callers cannot help themselves and use vitriol as a fall back. "
(AA, all from a single post in this thread)
You do understand that a sharp or insulting comment can contain a lot of substance,and address the issue, whereas your little lectures, with all their polite and cowardly insults, are nothing but turds wrapped in shiny ribbons, don't you?
It looks like the more straightforward remarks, mostly done in a friendly way, get you so upset that you don't understand the thoughts behind them. That's not necessarily the fault of the poster. Maybe there's a scrapbooking forum somewhere that would suit your delicate sensibilities better.
And I find it funny that you missed the entire point. A comment can be meaningful, even if it contains one of those awful insults that sends you right to the fainting couch.
By the same token, your posts, containing no direct honest insults, only nicely packaged ,muttered insults, wrapped up in motherly nagging about etiquette, rarely have anything of substance in them.
I don't know if I can dumb it down any further for you, but if you cna grasp this, you might understand who's really providing the laughs around here.
Col.
I got your point. It didn't make any sense. Meaningless insults are supposedly substantive and substantive criticism is meaningless. Righhht.
Let me make myself clear. Go ahead and argue that calling people liars and fools, or comments like, "whiny tightwads", "embarrased to go out to dinner with you", and "delusional" are meaningful.
That is antithesis of debate and clearly meant to intimidate whomever it is you are directing your attack toward. I think these type of comments are very cowardly as it is obvious you do not know whom you are insulting. You do it only because you can hide behind your own anonymity. I personally think it childish and diminishes any good points you might make.
COL:
Lately I've been listening to some "new" sources, to me, of rightwing "discourse". They give us guidance on how to approach "the enemy", or at least, how the Rightwing feels is fair to characterize Liberals.
Very vocal on the scene now is Jonah Goldberg, promoting his book that links Liberals to Hitler and Mussolini.
Another Goldberg, Bernard, is promoting his new book that identifies Liberals as "Crazies". His last book, of course, lists the 100 Liberals who are "Screwing Up America". (He may have thrown in a moderate or two).
Then there's Mark Levin, whose vitriol and hatred towards Liberals is epic. His radio show comes on after Hannity in my market, and his stereotyping and namecalling is nonstop and stated in absolutist terms.
Each of these Rightwing stereotypers of Liberals has an audience, perhaps with some overlap, and if you add in Coulter and Savage and the other Rightwing haters, you identify a substantial audience of Rightwingers who support and applaud the business of demonizing, namecalling, and smearing all Liberals and Democrats.
So when TOMMY comes along and criticizes me for painting with too broad a brush, I have to laugh. My one voice on a website versus the combined megaphone of all talk radio, FOX NEWS, Regnery Press's output of Rightwing Liberal-bashing books, the carriers of rightwing myths and narratives like Russert, Matthews, and O'Reilly ... ALL OF WHOM, DOCUMENTED HERE ON THIS SITE, ENGAGE IN RIGHTWING BIAS DAILY ... I guess I'm flattered.
Rightwingers across the nation chewing up Liberals, insulting, challenging their patriotism, smearing, and belittling, even PSYCHOANALYZING!!,
LYING about what they've said and what "it MEANS" ... and TOMMY wishes for ME to be civil. Rightwingers holding the PEP RALLY FROM HELL, twenty-four seven, screaming about "SOCIALISTS" and "DEFEATOCRATS", and TOMMY thinks I should sit politely in the corner of the auditorium and raise my hand to speak, and if recognized, to not use too harsh a word.
NO FRIGGIN' WAY, TOM. I understand your wish to have opponents carry a peashooter to a gunfight, but it's not gonna happen.
Now there's a great comeback. ;-)
(I noticed you didn't prove your point.)
Trying to waste my time or are you having problems reading today?
Gimme a break, look at the incredible diatribe of nonsense
Need I go on, his crap doesn't even deserve the bandwith I have given it.
You should think more and post less, solon.
MMFA is trying to hide the fact that libs love to raise taxes, solon
When it's the liberals own money they don't want to part with it, they want to use everyone else's money and spread the misery around.
You have a TRUE talent for making your adversaries' point with your inane comments.
The Clintons have a long history of lying and their reputation for lying is well-deserved.
That ought to be good enough to show my point. I notice you didnt say a THING about this invective. These rude mischaracterizations. IS that because you dont CARE when its a con and just like to call us liberals out. It sure looks like I said you just want to protect an exclusive franchise on personal invective for conservatives. I dont want to play that game apparantly YOU do.
Solon,
Just like Col. I find it funny that you even try to equate those quotes you gave as somehow equal in the vitriol you and some of your friends eschew day in and day out. If that's the best you can do with regards to conservative insults , I think you made my point.
Solon,
The comments you posted were people were not different from your posts by degree. They were different in meaning, expressing diagreements and opinions, not ad hominem attacks.
There is a difference between disagreeing with someone and calling that poster a liar and a fool. I realized a long time ago you do not know that difference.I find it funny that you even try to equate those quotes you gave as somehow equal in the vitriol you and some of your friends eschew (sic)day in and day out (AA)
You've missed the point again. They are in no way equal. Sub par, at best, and most offensively, boring
And continuing with our "Helping Hand" program for wingnuts, work on this one, AA;
eschew
Col.
Thanks for the correction regarding eschew. I meant "embrace".
My pleasure, AA. I'm here to help you. I'd suggest as your next project ad hominem, which you seem to be confused about as well.
Yes you ARE confused otherwise you wouldnt be claiming the things I cut and pasted were NOT ad hominem attacks when several of the CLEARLY were.
Projection alert. It is you who have proven over time you are more allergic to facts than a vampire is allergic to sunlight. A president often gets too much credit for a good economy and too much blame for a bad one. You guys want to claim all the good and put all the bad on Dems. Its simplistic and frankly stupid since the trends prove otherwise but you are fairly brainwashed. The tax increase was passed without a single republican vote. Clinton GOT what he wanted and the GOP WAS HOWLING that it would lead to a recession. Instead we had the longest peacetime expansion in history. YOU want to explain it away but it was this it was that and yet you want to take credit for the economy growing under Reagan. Why do you think you get to have it both ways?
http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/income.pdf
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006282.php
The results are simple: Democratic presidents have consistently higher economic growth and consistently lower unemployment than Republican presidents. If you add in a time lag, you get the same result. If you eliminate the best and worst presidents, you get the same result. If you take a look at other economic indicators, you get the same result. There's just no way around it: Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican administrations.
Skeptics offer two arguments: first, that presidents don't control the economy; second, that there are too few data points to draw any firm conclusions. Neither argument is convincing. It's true that presidents don't control the economy, but they do influence it — as everyone tacitly acknowledges by fighting like crazed banshees over every facet of fiscal policy ever offered up by a president.
The second argument doesn't hold water either. The dataset that delivers these results now covers more than 50 years, 10 administrations, and half a dozen different measures. That's a fair amount of data, and the results are awesomely consistent: Democrats do better no matter what you measure, how you measure it, or how you fiddle with the data.
Under Democratic presidents, every income class did well but the poorest did best. The bottom 20% had average pretax income growth of 2.63% per year while the top 5% showed pretax income growth of 2.11% per year.
Republicans were polar opposites. Not only was their overall performance worse than Democrats, but it was wildly tilted toward the well off. The bottom 20% saw pretax income growth of only .6% per year while the top 5% enjoyed pretax income growth of 2.09% per year. (What's more, the trendline is pretty clear: if the chart were extended to show the really rich — the top 1% and the top .1% — the Republican growth numbers for them would be higher than the Democratic numbers.)
Solon,
I noticed an anomoly in the data. It looks as if the Republican Presidents can somehow cause income in the lower brackets to go up during Presidential election years? Can you explain that?
I took a look at the original report you linked and it was so overwhelmingly wonkish and footnoted that it was hard for me to follow online. Maybe you could follow it? I understood the charts but not the statistical methods that were needed to arrive at those figures. I'm hoping both sides, over the next few months can provide some added insight. However it does provide grist for the mill.
Rick,
Where do you get your figures?
Here are some I found:
Tax rates on those with high incomes are far greater than for other Americans. Folks at the top pay about 25% of their income in federal income taxes, which compares to less than 5% for half of the population at the bottom end.
For the top two groups, the tax rate in 2005 was about the same as 1990. Essentially, the Bush tax cuts just reversed out the Clinton tax increases on these folks.
The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced tax rates for people in every income group. Indeed, those at the bottom had the largest relative reductions in their tax rates.
This is a little wonky, but let’s compare average tax rates in 2000 to 2005. For the top group, the rate fell from 27.45% to 23.13%, a reduction of 16%.
Now consider the middle-income “top 26-50%” group, for example. Their tax rate fell from 9.28% to 6.93%, a reduction of 25%.
Those at the bottom have paid little, and now they pay even less, due to legislation under both Clinton and Bush. Indeed, these data do not include the tens of billions of dollars sent to lower-income families as a result of the earned income tax credit, and thus it overstates taxes paid by the bottom group.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/10/09/tax-shares-for-rich-and-poor/AA, what constitutes the "top 26-50%"? Do you have a dollar figure?
I consider myself middle income, and I'm paying roughly 32% in taxes. I have a friend who's a reporter whose income is $28,000, but after taxes he actually only made $17,000.
I see you got your figures from the CATO institute which is a libertarian think tank known for skewing its figures to fit its agenda.
Oh ok, that's solely federal taxes, which I can understand. I'm paying way more in state taxes though because my state's federal subsidies have been slashed greatly.
Of course, I do also live in one of the highest income percentage per-capita areas in America, so maybe my figures are slightly skewed compared to most other Americans.
DB,
Correct me if I am wrong, (see the cato link,) but I do believe those percentages are groups by income. So the 26-50% are those t who, at the bottom end earn more income than 25% of other Americans and at the uppper end, earn less than 50% of Americns. If I read it correctly, if you earn $30,881 then you earn more than 50% of tax payers.
You may not like the Cato Institute, where I found these figures, but they are based on the Internal Revenue Service data on individual income taxes comes from calendar year 2005.
We pay a lot more in increased state and local income taxes, real estate taxes, sales taxes, licensing fees, permit fees, state gasoline taxes, sin taxes, and every other kind of tax , fee or service charge now, due to cutbacks in money that no longer flows back to the states from the Federal Government.
The right has been playing this tax cutting game since Saint Ronald's time in office. We've experienced almost eight years of government money being spent by an administration that does not believe in government. Regulation has gone out the window and every friend of the administration has their hand out or in our pockets.
Worrier,
Do you have any links that support your claim that all those state and other taxes are due to diminished Federal funding.
Doesn't that go against the reality that Federal spending is, and has been on the rise during the Bush years? How do you explain that?
DB and worrier,
I am not arguing that State taxes have gone up. I am objecting to DB's contention that those State tax increases are solely because of reduced Federal spending.
The following statistics refute DB's contention:
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, among the increases from fiscal year 2006 are:
- Funding increases were included for low-income, elderly, disabled and formerly homeless individuals to retain housing and shelter. This included a $115 million increase for homeless assistance grants to meet expiring contracts for the Shelter Plus Care program and the Supportive Housing Program.
http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/news/article.cfm?id=6066Using whole numbers really doesnt tell the story though. How much did COSTS go up? NCLB was an underfunded mandate. Bush PROMISED to fully fund it but he lied which is pretty much what he does.
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/3163/81/
For FY 2005, Bush's budget underfunded NCLB by $9.4 billion, and other crucial partner programs were cut altogether. Among those on the 2005 chopping block: Even Start (reading program for poor families), Javits Gifted and Talented Program (for gifted students who are minorities, disabled or who speak limited English), Dropout Prevention, Foreign Language Assistance, and Arts in Education. All in all, the Bush administration's 2005 budget proposed cutting $1.4 billion from the education budget and axing 38 federal education programs.
So No Child Left Behind was MANDATED spending for states which Kennedy only supported after Bush PROMISED to fully fund it. He didnt. Now the states are MANDATED to spend this money but Bush didnt give them the money to fulfill the mandates. Those other programs cut mean either the states lose those programs or find money for them.
Solon,
You make a good point. I understand your point about NCLB and I agree with it. However my point contended the original argument that state tax increases were the result of federal spending cuts. I don't see it that way. I think states are also increasing taxes and spending for reasons other than reduced federal spending.
Heck, I am for spending cuts across the board both Federal and State. I think we should have a balanced budget and limit federal spending to those items enumerated in the Constitution. Is that going to happen? No.
I realize that some of the state tax increases came from unfunded mandates, but not all.
Solon,
But spending went up in the Reagan years. You can argue where that money was allocated, but it was not due to spending cuts.
ANOTHER AMERICAN:
One of the things Rightwingers like to tout is that JFK cut taxes. He took them from around 70% in the top bracket to around 30%.
Ah, but how terrible was that tax burden on America, before JFK came along and saved the day?
To know this, we'd have to look at the 1950's, when those "sky high" tax rates were in effect. They CRIPPLED America, didn't they? Not really. In fact, the 1950's were BOOM TIMES for America. Post-War growth was astronomical, the average income for Americans went way up, the quality of life ... home ownership, new cars, new TV sets, new manufacturing jobs, GDP ... all went way UP in those 1950's ... and with the top marginal tax rate at 70%!
How can that BE? High taxes means a destroyed economy, right? High taxes means no new jobs, no growth, only bad economic times and misery across the land.
Except, history tells us clearly that we had BOTH: Huge growth along with high tax rates.
How do you explain this away? I'm dying to know how doom-and-gloom predictions of the results of higher taxes explain the phenomenal economic performance of America in the 1950's. This should be fancy footwork worthy of "Dancing with the Stars".
Tex,
With the election of Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower as president and a Republican Congress in 1952, a golden opportunity to cut the wartime tax rates was created. Unfortunately, Eisenhower believed that taxes could not be cut until the budget was balanced. "We cannot afford to reduce taxes, reduce income," he said, "until we have in sight a program of expenditure that shows that the factors of income and outgo will be balanced."(39)
Although Eisenhower's sentiment was admirable, losses in the 1954 election cost the Republicans control of Congress. The return of Democratic control meant that any chance of reducing wartime tax rates was lost for the balance of the 1950s. It took the election of a Democratic president in 1960 to finally bring that about.
Eisenhower's fiscal conservatism carried a heavy price. There were three recessions during his administration--July 1953 through May 1954, August 1957 through April 1958, and April 1960 through February 1961--and real growth of the gross domestic product averaged just 2.5 percent over those eight years. In large part, that sluggish growth was due to high tax rates, not just on the wealthy but on the middle class as well. In fact, as Figure 2 shows, increasing tax rates on the wealthy led to increases in tax rates on middle-class incomes (defined as $50,000 for a family of four in 1992) as well.(40)
Thus, Democrat John F. Kennedy was able to run as the candidate of growth in 1960, promising to "get the economy moving again." Republican Richard M. Nixon, saddled with the legacy of slow growth during the Eisenhower years, paid the price, loss of a close election.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-192.htmlKennedy pushed for tax cuts, which were enacted in 1964 after his assassination. The top marginal tax rate was reduced from 91 percent to 70 percent by 1965. What followed was a major expansion in the economy. Real gross domestic product rose in the four years after the tax cut by an average of 5.1 percent per year. Unemployment averaged 3.9 percent, compared to a 5.8 percent average in the four years prior to the tax cut.
http://www.businessandmedia.org/commentary/2006/com20060111.asp
ANOTHER AMERICAN:
We'll let slide your "opinion" that the 1950's in America represented "slow growth," and look at your actual figures along with the "result":
You cite, "Democrat John F. Kennedy was able to run as the candidate of growth in 1960, promising to "get the economy moving again." ...Kennedy pushed for tax cuts, which were enacted in 1964 after his assassination. The top marginal tax rate was reduced from 91 percent to 70 percent by 1965. What followed was a major expansion in the economy."
So, there we have it. MAJOR EXPANSION comes with top marginal rates at 70%. (and a 5.1% GROWTH per year thereafter. What's that growth percentage at today's 28% rate? Hmmm? Ah, yes. It's 0.5% this year ... ONE TENTH of what it was with a 70% rate.)
THANKS SO MUCH FOR YOUR EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. What can we do to relive that BOOM ECONOMY that a 70% rate brought?
Tex,
Don't try to weasel out of this my friend. I was just proving your facts were wrong about the 1950s:
You said, “Post-War growth was astronomical,” - No. According to the figures I found said it was around 2.5% .
You said “..in those 1950's ... and with the top marginal tax rate at 70%!” – No. The top marginal rate was 91%
I also provided evidence that the economy took off in the 60’s when the top marginal tax rate was reduced. I do believe it has been shown that whenever there has been a decrease in the marginal tax rates, higher rates of growth ensued.
(I noticed you didn’t provide any links to back up your figures of growth this year so that makes it hard to know what particular set of data to which you are referring.) No doubt in 2008 we are in a slowdown and possibly a recession. To take this one year as proof of your point does not make any sense because you are now comparing apples and oranges.
I contend that lowering marginal tax rates stimulates growth and over time revenue to the government greater than higher marginal tax rates.
· In 1963 when the top tax rate was 91 percent, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid 35.6 percent of all income taxes. In 1965, when the top rate had been lowered to 70 percent, the top five percent of taxpayers paid 38.5 percent of all income taxes.3
· This pattern was repeated during the 1980s. Although the highest income tax rate was reduced from 70 percent to 28 percent (for the wealthiest taxpayers), the share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of income earners grew from 18 percent in 1981 to more than 27 percent in 1988.4
http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s159/s159.html
If you want to make an economic argument that raising the marginal tax rate will stimulate the economy, by all means do so. Please include any sources that support your contention. – Thanks.
ANOTHER AMERICAN:
Yes, JFK lowered the rate TO 70% (from 91%). YOU claimed this resulted in several year's growth averaging 5.1% a year. You scoff at my growth figure for 2007, but that's OK. Pick ANY of Bush's years, and compare. If he didn't hit 5.1%, then it must be time to return to the 70% level BY YOUR ACCOUNTING.
Yes, decreases in marginal rates result in more revenue to the treasury, but that is because when such laws are passed, they include a raft of loophole closings. Thus, under JFK, NOBODY nobody paid the 91% rate, because deductions, favoritism, and shelters protected the income. With the loopholes CLOSED, of course more revenue resulted.
To be fair, some tax cuts CAN lead to some growth in tax revenue, ON THE MARGIN. If your formula were always true, then a tax rate of ZERO would produce the greatest amount of treasury revenue. I don't think even you would suggest that could be true.
What you admitted, proved, and suggested was that, when the top marginal tax rate was 70%, growth spiked to a sustained 5% per year, and you considered that great.
What you need to explain is why we should not return to that time you admit that the rates and results were so wonderful. At 28% NOW, we aren't coming CLOSE to the kind of growth you cited. Why NOT go back to 70%?
There is no proof that higher taxes during the Clinton administration actually helped the economy in any way. The reason Clinton presided over the best economy in the nations history is because Reagan pulled us out of the worst economy in the nations history caused by the Carter administration.
There's a whole lot of really funny stuff on this thread posing as facts but you have taken the prize with this one. The economy during the Clinton years was due to Reagan??!?!?!?! Really? The massive deficit spending during the Reagan years led him to have to seriously reduce and reverse a lot of his tax reduction plans by the end of his tenure and eventually Bush 1 had to break his famous lipreading pledge to fix things. Bush 1 also had a recession during his term. But despite all that, somehow the Reagan plan magically gave a booster shot to the American economy in the 90s.
Ok then.
Ah, of course, the unwritten rules of selling voodoo economics and cowboy diplomacy to the uninformed public...
RULE #1:
During a Republican administration, Anything bad that happens is the fault of the last Democratic Administration, and anything good that happens is the sitting Republican's fault.
RULE #2:
During a Democratic administration, Anything bad that happens is the sitting Democrat's fault, and anything good that happens is the fault of the last Republican administration.
CONCLUSION:
Maybe Democrats aren't so evil in the end, since the supposed benefits of voodoo economics and cowboy diplomacy only seem to come around when they are in office.
:-)
"...The reason Clinton presided over the best economy in the nations history is because Reagan pulled us out of the worst economy in the nations history caused by the Carter administration."--deeyoolaylowmowchowhi
Two points on this load of horshit you're trying to pass off as fact--
1) the ression during the Carter administration was NOT EVEN CLOSE to being the worst economy in the history of the U.S., and by your logic, it must have been caused by Ford/Nixon.
2) The economy during Reagan was a boom for those who had money and a huge price was paid by the mentally ill, union workers, and those medically unable to fend for themselves. Reagan created all the $4.25/hr jobs anyone could perform--and not much else. He also created the largest deficit (at the time) ever.
Bush Jr. followed right down Reagan's foolish path, and once again, we have a great economy for those who are wealthy. Everyone else ? Too dambadforyou.
A small point.
Congress controls the purse. The blame for excessive spending goes to a great degree, to them.
Make no mistake about it, both Republicans and Democrats are to blame then and now. I"m disgusted with both parties.
Albeit true, your small point has nothing to do with what we are talking about--TAXES.
When Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992 he promised a middle class tax cut. After he was elected but before he took office he announced that as hard as he tried, after reviewing the situation, the tax cut could not become a reality. (disclosure - I voted for BC)
Imagine that, a politician reneging on a promise. Perhaps these pundants are reflecting on history.
They can reflect on history all they want, but they can't be allowed to distort history or the here and now.
HISTORY:
Bill proposed a tax cut and didn't deliver it.
THE HERE AND NOW:
Hillary is proposing a tax cut, but has yet to even get the chance to deliver it.
Meanwhile, Crowley says that Hillary is arguing against tax cuts, which is false.