« Blinded by the white | Main | Love Those Aussies »

How To Pay For Those "Tax Cuts For The Rich"

For those who ask (what I believe is) the silly question of how will we "pay for" tax cuts, the answer can be found here:

The U.S. government recorded record-high overall and corporate tax receipts on Sept. 15, which was a quarterly deadline for tax payments, the Treasury said Monday.

Total tax receipts were $85.8 billion on Friday, compared with the previous one-day record of $71 billion on Sept. 15 of last year, the Treasury said.

Within the overall figure, corporate tax receipts Friday were $71.8 billion, up from $63 billion in September of last year.

Treasury Undersecretary for Domestic Finance Randal Quarles said Friday's numbers provided a "continuing demonstration of the strength of the U.S. economy."

"In fact, Friday's gross receipts were the largest in a single day in the nation's history - 20% higher than receipts on the same quarterly tax payment date last year," Quarles said in a statement.

Short version: they pay for themselves.


TrackBack

Comments (71)

Lorie:Please don't... (Below threshold)
Doug:

Lorie:

Please don't quote numbers and facts like these. You're only baiting others to ratchet up the rhetoric re: class warfare.

It's not fair.
[sarcasm off]

Drawing a rather strong con... (Below threshold)
Herman:

Drawing a rather strong conclusion from a single quarter, aren't we now, Lorie? Noticed that though Bush's tax cut for the extremely wealthy came in 2001 you didn't use an earlier date, such as one of the quarters of 2002 or 2003. (Results wouldn't have been quite what you liked, right Lorie?). Notice too that federal revenues increased at an even faster overall rate under Bill Clinton, without the tax cuts for the extremely wealthy, so any causal relationship between tax cuts for the wealthy and gain in federal revenue may not, shall we say, necessarily exist.

"Short version: they [the tax cuts for the wealthy] pay for themselves." -- Lorie

Well, with a federal deficit of a quarter of a trillion dollars under Bush and the Republicans, a deficit that taxpayers have to pay interest on, these tax cuts don't seem to be doing quite enough now, huh, Lorie??

You do no comparison of how... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You do no comparison of how much is coming in vs. how much the tax cuts cost, so you can hardly claim "they pay for themselves".

Also, it is hardly a surprise that corporate tax receipts are setting new records. Taxes paid are directly related to profits. Here's an idea... let's give more money to the oil companies. Then they'll post super-duper-record profits, generating huge tax receipts for the government! Woo-hoo, the government will pay for itself!

Lorie,Did the tax ... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Lorie,

Did the tax cuts contribute to the increased revenues? Or did increased/record government deficit spending result in increased revenues?

Provide evidence for your answer or just admit I may have a valid point.

Look at the graph and look ... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Look at the graph and look at the effects of Reagan and Bush 1&2's policies on the debt.

Do you really believe the Republicans are fiscally responsible?

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

The last two times the republican policies got a good foot hold we had 2 serious depressions. When are you people gonna learn that their policies are nothing but Robber Barren policies good for a few and bad for many and for the country as a whole? Do we need to repeat a republican led depression .....AGAIN...just because you all have never lived through one yourselves?

There are many factors that... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

There are many factors that contribute to increased revenue, but it has been proven time and time again that when tax rates are cut, the economy is stimulated and revenue increases. How many times does it have to happen for those on the left to acknowledge it? If revenue was down all the Bush haters would be blaming it on his tax cuts. But when it is up they say it is because of everything else in the world, but the tax cuts, and that, by the way, increased revenue is a bad thing.

This is not the only quarter tax revenue has been up -- this is just the highest one day tax revenue in the history of the freaking country.

Muirgeo, what two depressions are you talking about? I am 40 years old and I have never lived through a "depression." I have been through a few recessions, though, the most recent came as Clinton was leaving office. What a nice little present he left his successor. The worst economy I have any memory of was during the Carter years, but I don't think even that was considered a depression, but I may be wrong. It was the closest I have ever seen to one.

The last two times the r... (Below threshold)
Clay:

The last two times the republican policies got a good foot hold we had 2 serious depressions.

What's funny is that you guys are actually serious when you say crap like this.

Clay tell me who was in cha... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Clay tell me who was in charge the years prior to the great depression of 1929 and the depression of 1893? Were their policies Lazze faire?

So why do you think it's funny when I point out these facts?

Muirgeo, you are an idiot, ... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Muirgeo, you are an idiot, STFU.

There are many factors that... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

There are many factors that contribute to increased revenue, but it has been proven time and time again that when tax rates are cut, the economy is stimulated and revenue increases. How many times does it have to happen for those on the left to acknowledge it?

Posted by: Lorie

Saying revenues increased is a big differences from saying the tax cuts paid for themselves.

Look again and explain the increases in debt to GDP with Bush, Reagan and W's tax cuts and compare it to the DECREASE in debt to GDP after the Clinton TAX INCREASES.

Is this consistent with the point you are trying to make? Be honest?

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html


No doubt the Democrats got out of control with the top tax brackets during the end of their reign but again look at how the debt to GDP went consistently down under the Democratic party from highs caused by the Republicans Great Depression and post WW2 debt.


I think your theory is flawed.


In summary: Tax cuts can stimulat the economy, government spending can stimulate the economy but there is NO, NONE, ZILCHO evidence that tax cuts "Pay for themselves"....in fact I understand you are a mom of 2. You kids are paying for your so-called tax cut. Right now they each owe about $30,000 to the national debt.....Now tell me why you want the Repubs to change the rules and give wealthy people a huge Estate tax cut? So we can push off the difference to your kids? Trade the estate tax for an even bigger Birth tax? Is that really fair? Do you want your kids to owe $40,000 isted of $30,000?

Income re-distribution DOES NOT occur via taxation policy....it comes in Pre-tax dollars through the power and influence of the weathy meddling to their favor salaries and monies owed to the working class not to mention via corporate welfare.


Muirgeo, you are an idiot, ... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Muirgeo, you are an idiot, STFU.

Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III


Dorf,


In other words you have no reasonable reply and you want the facts and me to just go away because the hurt your feelings...sucks to be you ...I'm guessing...

So tax cuts grow the econom... (Below threshold)
bill:

So tax cuts grow the economy, and taxpayers pay more in taxes on increased earnings, who would have ever thought that.

@ muirgeoIn oth... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

@ muirgeo

In other words you have no reasonable reply and you want the facts and me to just go away because the hurt your feelings...sucks to be you ...I'm guessing...

As a lib, you want the gov't to pay for and run your life and you probably don't even realize it. You don't support capitalist ideals. Period. You hate the rich, but especially those who've worked hard to get there. You're somehow bitter about wealth. Tax cuts stimulate the economy, stupid, and the Treasury's record take on Friday is clear and simple proof. You refuse to understand this basic stimulus to our economy. Ragshaft III was just asking you to understand but you don't listen, son. I say, I say, you don't listen, BOY!

muirgeo,'the weathy ... (Below threshold)
Imhotep:

muirgeo,
'the weathy meddling to their favor salaries and monies owed to the working class'

I OWE my employees NOTHING!

You truly don't understand the capitalism/free market, so please continue posting on this thread for my entertainment. My stomach hurts, I'm laughing so hard AT YOU!

muirgeo suffers from feelin... (Below threshold)

muirgeo suffers from feelings of economic inadequacy. He probably means "recessions," not "depressions," and there have been several of those since the Great Depression. For example, Jimmy Carter oversaw one in the 1970's that featured the "triple doubles" of double-digit inflation rates, unemployment, and interest rates, and nearly triggered another depression. Reagan had one as his economic plan finally took form, and it corrected itself. Bush I had his when the junk bond market finally collapsed. And another hit in 2000 under Clinton when the dot-com boom finally became the long-predicted dot-bomb and the accounting scandals of the 1990's came to light. 9/11 helped THAT one along quite nicely.

But no, muirgeo, we have not had another DEPRESSION, no matter how much you stamp your feet and blame Bush for everything. Sorry...

J.

Muirgeo, you hit one over t... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Muirgeo, you hit one over the fence and like a pee wee ball team the democrats can't take losing an argument or a game.

The depression of the 30's was brought on by an administration exactly like Slick Willie's, everything on cruise control (the roaring twenties) and the criminals infected every industry that could be ripped off in the 20's and 90's. How many CEO/CFO's from the lying/stealing nineties have already been convicted and a lot more are waiting trial and they will be convicted.

The democrats like to forget the nineties screwups like Algore running around flinging his arms in the air along with a bunch of BS hyping Worldcom. How many million working Americans lost their entire life savings and retirement accounts to Algore's criminal friends?

They were even foolish enough to try and link President Bush with Ken Lay evem with the known fact Lay spent a lot of nights during the 90's sleeping in the white house. I still wonder which Clinton he was sleeping with, one or both since they have been involved in criminal rip-offs of the citizens long before they left Ark. I guess NY needed to import a smart criminal as Senator since they evidently don't have any smart people at all. Since actions speak louder than words, your (NY) actions make the words correct.

I OWE my employees NOTHING!... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

I OWE my employees NOTHING!

You truly don't understand the capitalism/free market, so please continue posting on this thread for my entertainment. My stomach hurts, I'm laughing so hard AT YOU!

Posted by: Imhotep

Sorry dude you got it wrong. Your employees owe YOU nothing. If they have worked for you you owe them at least minimum wage and whatever other stipulations in their contract and those mandated by the federal, state and local governments say you owe them.....JACK!

So tax cuts grow the econom... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

So tax cuts grow the economy, and taxpayers pay more in taxes on increased earnings, who would have ever thought that.

Posted by: bil


Bill based on this brilliant deduction I guess you would support lowering the tax rate to 1% across the board? or maybe 0.001% because every-time you cut taxes revenue goes up right?

"As a lib, you want the gov... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

"As a lib, you want the gov't to pay for and run your life and you probably don't even realize it." Posted by: Red Fog

NOPE. I want a government to represent people over corporations..how's about you?

"You don't support capitalist ideals." Posted by: Red Fog

I absolutely DO support capitalism. But I put Democracy above capitalism...how bout you? Sounds to me you support neither capitalism nor democracy....apparently you prefer to meld you government and your markets.That is to say you support corporatism. That's sad..What do you want to be a serf when you grow up?? Here's you..... http://www.shiromi.com/images/diary/20040601-serf.gif

" You hate the rich, but especially those who've worked hard to get there." Posted by: Red Fog

Not at all. But I do hate those who have abused our democracy and our laws to get rich and those who have gotten rich from corporate welfare.


" You're somehow bitter about wealth. "

Posted by: Red Fog


I am bitter that corporate productivity has gone up like 40% while the middle class and the poor have seen no increase or even decreased purchasing power. Meanwhile the income of the top 0.1% has skyrocketed 300% or more. That's wrong! It didn't occur because the top 0.1% are working harder .....it occurred because they our taking advantage of al sorts of policies that decrease the power of the worker and increase their own power and incomes.

So with Lee away, the muirg... (Below threshold)
jack oneil:

So with Lee away, the muirgeo troll will play. Nice, thanks for my dose of why Republicans will continue to win at the polls.

As to why he OWES his employees nothing, they work, he pays for their work. See, he PAYS, that means he owes them nothing. In fact, he created the job they now enjoy so I think its fair to say they owe him a bit for hiring them and giving them the opportunity.

Take that to the bank jackass troll.

"it occurred because they o... (Below threshold)
jack oneil:

"it occurred because they our taking advantage of al sorts of policies that decrease the power of the worker and increase their own power and incomes"

Seriously, how can the mods allow this drivel to continue. You need to start policing this crap, there are plenty of sites for this person to go and hang out at.

He's not dissenting, he disagrees with everything and adds no value beyond making us glad he votes for the other team. Just put an end to it already please.

muirgeo suffers from feelin... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

muirgeo suffers from feelings of economic inadequacy. He probably means "recessions," not "depressions," and there have been several of those since the Great Depression.

Posted by: Jay Tea


Jay Tea,

I clearly stated the last two Depressions 1883 and 1929 both post Republican rule and very similar to the current policies.

Now would you care to NOT avoid the subject and explain why the last two DEPRESSIONS followed years of Lazze Faire Republican rule? Ummmmmm?

Everyone is missing the fac... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Everyone is missing the fact that old "mun-go" and his kind think that the goverment should take care of them from birth to death. They are to lazy to try to make it on their own. By the way "mun-go" do you have any ides what the % of our debt is to the GNP. (get ready for a long post with lots of links-makes him look "smart")

"Look at the graph and look... (Below threshold)
George:

"Look at the graph and look at the effects of Reagan and Bush 1&2's policies on the debt."

Didn't they have Democratic congresses? Who passes the budget?

Note when the budget almost got balanced: when Republicans took over Congress.

There are only two excuses for deficit spending: recession and war. Bush had both.

Of course, it's not like the Republicans can do no wrong. They have certainly spent way too much now and are well overdue for some major adjustments.

See, he PAYS, that means he... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

See, he PAYS, that means he owes them nothing.
Take that to the bank jackass troll.

Posted by: jack oneil

Darn Jack I thought maybe you could bring some challenging debate to the board for me...oh well.

Did you really say something as stupid as,"...See, he PAYS, that means he owes them nothing."?????

OK well hopefully your next post will be a little more challenging and a little less "Dumb as Dirt".

"it occurred because they o... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

"it occurred because they our taking advantage of al sorts of policies that decrease the power of the worker and increase their own power and incomes"

Seriously, how can the mods allow this drivel to continue. You need to start policing this crap, there are plenty of sites for this person to go and hang out at.

He's not dissenting, he disagrees with everything and adds no value beyond making us glad he votes for the other team. Just put an end to it already please.

Posted by: jack onei

Ewe too bad. This post is even worse then your first one. Plus it needs translation. Allow me....

jack,

"Seriously, how can the mods allow this drivel to continue. You need to start policing this crap, there are plenty of sites for this person to go and hang out at."

What jack really means,

" I'm taking an intellectual beating and my Rush Limbaugh programmed brain doesn't know WHAT to do...waahhhhhh...make him go away...bawahhhhhhh!!!"

jack,

"He's not dissenting, he disagrees with everything and adds no value beyond making us glad he votes for the other team. Just put an end to it already please."

What jack really means,

"sniffle sniffle...baWAAAAHHH...I can't refute one single point of his....my Sean Hannity ROM brain is froze....please make him go bye bye...please some one...make the bad fact filled liberal democratic meanie go away...waHHHHHHHHH!"

I feel good. I made my fai... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

I feel good. I made my fair contribution on September 15th.

You guys need to give up. When you are dealing with an idiot like muirgeo, you can never win the argument. Such people always take the most irrational position possible and refuse to budge no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary. They'll look for any and every litle way to score any points at all even if those points have nothing at all to do with the meat of the argument.

Nimrods.

Sorry dude you got it wrong... (Below threshold)
Imhotep:

Sorry dude you got it wrong. Your employees owe YOU nothing. If they have worked for you you owe them at least minimum wage and whatever other stipulations in their contract and those mandated by the federal, state and local governments say you owe them.....JACK!

Posted by: muirgeo


muirgeo (JACK),

How do you know I don't pay them minimum wage? I happen to pay what the market bares, I know your head just exploded with that notion, but it's true. I am "not wed to my employees", if they F up they're gone.

Again, I OWE THEM NOTHING! You are an IDIOT and know nothing about small business! Please!

Sorry dude you got it wr... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Sorry dude you got it wrong. Your employees owe YOU nothing. If they have worked for you you owe them at least minimum wage and whatever other stipulations in their contract and those mandated by the federal, state and local governments say you owe them.....JACK!

1. The top three money eaters in the Federal Budget are Repayment of the Debt, Human Services (like, Welfare, etc) and Defence. Defence comes in third place. Deficits started back in 1954 and ballooned in the 60s thanks to the Great Society programs. (LBJ, remember him?)

2. Employees are owed what they are worth (minimum wage being just that---the minimum. An employee who thinks they own nothing is soon an ex-employee. Anything more depends on their output, and stipulations in contracts are agreed to by both parties. As far as federal costs...I hope you realise that your employer pays half of the SocSec money that you earn. You are paying thte other half...think how much more you would have if you weren't required to pay into the wonderful Ponzi scheme and you would dictate your own retirment funds. And think how much LESS you would be making if you were required to pay ALL of it (as self-employed people have to.) Not to mention costs of insurance, pension funds, Unemployment compensation...your employer pays quite alot just to have you around. Stop complaining, and be glad you have a job.


I clearly stated the last two Depressions 1883 and 1929 both post Republican rule and very similar to the current policies.
Now would you care to NOT avoid the subject and explain why the last two DEPRESSIONS followed years of Lazze Faire Republican rule? Ummmmmm?

1. First of all, if you are going to be fancy and use french, SPELL IT CORRECTLY. It is "laissez-faire"

The Great Depression's main trigger was the Stock Market, and it's playing fast-and-loose with the credit margins.

Secondly, which "depression" in 1883 are you refereing to? The Long Depression (which started 10 years before), whose origins started in Europe from the Vienna Stock Exchange, or the panic of 1893, again becuase of European withdrawls from the US Reading Railroad, causing the stock market to crash. And even those weren't as severe as the Great Depression.

The common factor in all of these involve the stock markets, not who is in government at the time, and note these depressions were world-wide, not just limited to the United States. Even Bolshevik/Communist Russia suffered as well.

But, often it is a series of events which trigger such depressions.

Furthermore, if you even understand the concept of laissez-faire, which it sounds like you don't, you will note that our economy (mnd most economies) are not purely laissez-faire anymore anyway...there is a HELL OF A LOT of interference in the free market by government these days.

Too much of anything is ultimatly bad...a pure, laissez-faire capitalist economy is as bad as a pure socialistic communistic welfare-state economy (ask the Swedes, who just threw out their 90-year old ruling socialist party out of power because of the STAGGERING upto 90% tax rates. The opposition ran on reducing this burden by--wait for it--tax cuts.)

I am a student of history, including economic---so, don't try to impress us with fancy terms if you don't know what is behind them, let alone, know how to spell them.

muirgeo and company moan ab... (Below threshold)
cubanbob:

muirgeo and company moan about tax cuts for the wealthy? why? unless they are in the the 20 per cent who actually pay nearly all the income taxes (over 80% of the federal individual tax collection)what difference does it make to them? they ain't paying the taxes or the interest on the debt. muirgeo your just a freeloader who gets to vote on spending other people's money. stop being an ingrate and be thankful that a relative few are still willing to subsidize you.

Bill based on this brill... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Bill based on this brilliant deduction I guess you would support lowering the tax rate to 1% across the board? or maybe 0.001% because every-time you cut taxes revenue goes up right?

Well, a 1% rate wouldn't support paying back the debt, let alone the bloated social programmes that the Great Societs foisted upon us. You realise at one time we had no income tax, and when we did, the top rate was like 3%?

Now, as far as the general idea of a flat tax? Yep, I'm for it.

1. Reduces the incentive of companies to find loop-holes and out of country tax-shelters..The money stays in the country

2. The extra abundance of money gets reinvested into the companies, they expand, they hire more workers, the expansion allows new construction, etc...more employment, more job, more income for workers.

3. Workers pay lower taxes, they keep more of their money. Employers can offer more money to employees because they aren't having to subsidise Social security, etc.

4. More money means more spending, more money into the economy, more goods bought, higher demands, more goods produced, higher production--more jobs, etc.

Remember that bit about Sweden and their very high tax rate? Unemployement rates show about 5%...however, at least a third of the employement in the country is by the government. If you subtract the massive subsidies from the welfare states, such as Early retirement, Sick Leave, Stuent Stipends, the actual figures are closer to 20%.
http://truckandbarter.com/mt/archives/2005/06/how_high_is_tot.html

France? Once you hire someone, it's almost impossible to fire them if they underperform. So much of a hassle that companies hold off hiring new employees...the working population is older, and the young have few opportunites-especially minorities/immigrants--like from certain middle-eastern countries. Unemployment rate is in mid-teens.

Even Russia---the former land of everyone gets a job, and the government will tell you exactly what job you are going to do, has introduced a flat tax rate. Greece is deciding on trying one.

It's not a panacea, but I think a level tax rate is worth a go. It's certainly better than having to spend 6 hours on a bloody tax form each year.

muirgeo and company moan... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

muirgeo and company moan about tax cuts for the wealthy? why? unless they are in the the 20 per cent who actually pay nearly all the income taxes (over 80% of the federal individual tax collection)what difference does it make to them?

Actually, the 50% pay almost 96% of the taxes, and of that 50%, 1% of that pay some 36% of the 96%

IRS Spreadsheet:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03in05tr.xls

they ain't paying the t... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

they ain't paying the taxes or the interest on the debt.

Indeed. In fact, if you (murge-whatever your name is) feel the goverment isn't getting enough money, perhaps you would be willing to not collect your IRS tax return this year? Perhaps send it back to IRS and tell them to give it to Congress to spend. (You realize that an IRS tax return is basically a free loan to the government--they overestimate your withdrawls on your paycheque, and they don't pay you interest on that overage.

So, do your part pal...give up your tax return! And, while you are at it, forgo collecting your social security (if there is any left by then) when you retire...return it all. Don't itemize your tax return...you don't need to keep your money! Hey, get a better paying job, and push yourself up into a higher tax bracket, and you can send even MORE MONEY back from your tax return. If you lose your job, don't go to unemployement compensation--that's for pussies! Take it like a man! You on the dole means less tax dollars in the government coffers.

Do your part...for America.

Now, as far as the general ... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Now, as far as the general idea of a flat tax? Yep, I'm for it.

1. Reduces the incentive of companies to find loop-holes and out of country tax-shelters..The money stays in the country

Posted by: James Cloninger

Yes you are for a flat tax James as are most Republican voters. And if done fairly I think most Democratic voters would support it as well.

So now the question to be asked is why have we not heard one bit about a flat tax from this completely Republican controlled government......????

If you understand the answer to that then you understand the BIG PICTURE I'm trying to get at when some one tries to tell me that the Republican leadership gives a crap about what's best for the people compared to what's best for multinational corporations and the wealthy elite.

Actually, the 50% pay almos... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Actually, the 50% pay almost 96% of the taxes, and of that 50%, 1% of that pay some 36% of the 96%

IRS Spreadsheet:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03in05tr.xls

Posted by: James Cloninger


See I don't look at it from the end of who pays the most taxes. Because from that perspective the average working man would love to pay more taxes if it meant he had more income.


Wealth redistribution occurs via inequitable income compensation not via taxation.

Example:
Big industry pushes for WTO, and China's most Favored Nation status. The American people oppose this. Money wins out over democracy. Big business now can make American workers compete with Chinese communist workers....CEO's incomes go from 50x that of the worker to 400X that of the worker.....the rest is history and America is moves steps and steps towards becoming a nation more like Mexico....that's wrong...that's not free or fair markets...it's UNAMERICAN and pro-Corporatism.....

Yes you are for a flat t... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Yes you are for a flat tax James as are most Republican voters. And if done fairly I think most Democratic voters would support it as well.
So now the question to be asked is why have we not heard one bit about a flat tax from this completely Republican controlled government......????

I never heard about a flat-tax when it was completely Democrat-controlled either. You have an explanation for that? And Jerry Brown and Steve Forbes have both posited flat-tax proposals.

Sen Brownback(R-KS) has put in a proposal for a flat-tax.

The main issue would be finding a rate that would be reasonable for everyone, yet would still fund the necessary expenditures of the government.

That would require cuts in spending still, esp the amounts of pork our fair congresscritters (I'm looking at you Trent Lott and you Robert "Everything in the damn state has my name on it" Byrd) love to send back home. Health and Human services will have to cut quite a bit of it's bloat out (SSI payments for drug abusers and drunks come to mind)

If a flat-tax rate were implemented, it is still going to take some time (at least 5 years) before we see the benefits of increased productivity and investments from the newly released income.

But, don't point your fingers at this administration, when previous administrations (under Democratic control) did no better at this issue.

Indeed. In fact, if you (mu... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Indeed. In fact, if you (murge-whatever your name is) feel the goverment isn't getting enough money, perhaps you would be willing to not collect your IRS tax return this year? Perhaps send it back to IRS and tell them to give it to Congress to spend.

Do your part...for America.

Posted by: James Cloninger

No James this is my plan for the debt. Since most of it occurred under Republican administrations people who vote Republican should be required to pay for it next April.

So 60 million of you voting owe $6 trillion in Republican debt...that's $100,000 you each owe.

You support this/these Presidents right? So why shouldn't you have to pay up?

See I don't look at it f... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

See I don't look at it from the end of who pays the most taxes. Because from that perspective the average working man would love to pay more taxes if it meant he had more income.

No, the average working man would love to earn more money and keep it.

Wealth redistribution

It is not the government's job to distribute wealth. The government is not a charity.

Big industry pushes for WTO, and China's most Favored Nation status. The American people oppose this. Money wins out over democracy. Big business now can make American workers compete with Chinese communist workers....CEO's incomes go from 50x that of the worker to 400X that of the worker.....the rest is history and America is moves steps and steps towards becoming a nation more like Mexico....that's wrong...that's not free or fair markets...it's UNAMERICAN and pro-Corporatism....

1. The American People for the most part don't give two shits about China's MFN status, to be honest...hell, some of them would be hard pressed to find China on a map.

2. American workers compete with workers all over the world. Global economy. Indian workers compete with Chinese workers, Japanese workers compete with Indian, etc. American unions have hamstrung companies so much, they are going bankrupt, moving overseas or closing up.

3.CEO's incomes go from 50x that of the worker to 400X that of the worker Well, if you can increase company productivity and profit margins by 400%, then bully for the CEO. Got a complaint, talk to the shareholders of the company (and lots of Americans hold such shares, outright or as part of a retirement fund)

4....the rest is history People who use such phrases as this are usually leaving a lot out of their hypothesis...and that is what your paragraph is...a hypothesis. Which is fine, but I want more sources and background on it before I can make a further debate on it.

Are you suggesting China should not compete? Should we employ stiff tarrifs (as say, Japan does with imported rice) and isolate our market? That restricts free trade even more drastically, and since it being a Global economy will result in an far more dire trade situation that what you perceive.

You know this similar argument has been heard before during the 80s...except it was the Japanese and their auto companies who were the baddies.

Most American conservatives... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Most American conservatives take it as an article of faith that the less governmental involvement in affairs of the market and pocketbook the better. The rich do not, whatever they might say--for much of their wealth comes from the "power and preferment of government." So writes Kevin Phillips.....From Wealth and Democracy


And that is the reason government spending will continue out of control and the reason we will never see a flat tax.....the wealthy controlling class has too much to lose.

And yes the Democrats are not much better but that's the way the power elite want it. They want Republican and Democratic voters divided and fighting against each other...because if we ever banded together or just actually held are own parties accountable by regularly "cleaning house" when they perform poorly the wealthy ruling class would lose some of its power and wealth as fair taxes and laws were enacted by decree of, by and for the people.


Oh and as for me and my wife our gross income was about $225,000 in 2006 and the value of our 2 properties is about $1.2 million and about $500,000 in retirement funds to date. So don't worry bout us...I don't....I'm just worried about my country.

No James this is my plan... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

No James this is my plan for the debt. Since most of it occurred under Republican administrations people who vote Republican should be required to pay for it next April.
So 60 million of you voting owe $6 trillion in Republican debt...that's $100,000 you each owe.
You support this/these Presidents right? So why shouldn't you have to pay up?

You labour under the false assumption (of many) that I'm a Republican. In fact, I have never joined any political party, and have cross-voted a number of times in the past.

Further, the national debt has been racking up for the past 40+ years, of which the Congress (the ones who decide where that money is spent) had been controlled by Democrats. Why don't you ask them what Entitlement programs they plan to cut to reduce the debt?

I point you to the following chart:
http://www.toptips.com/debt_history.htm

Note, the only time the debt had gone down was during Eisenhower's term (gasp--a Republican!)--it was also the last time Congress (until 1996) the Republicans held control of at least one House in Congress.

There was no reduction in debt during Carter's run, Reagans's run, Bush Sr or Clinton's run. I don't expect it go down after Bush Jr either, or (god forbid at this time, at least) another Democrat president.

The better goal is to reduce the deficits instead, but again, the Entitlements (which take up the second most amount of money in government, with defense running third) need to take a trimming.

You want less defense spending? Fine, then you better start making some drastic cuts in Entitlements. Defense was slashed severely during the 1970s (and to an extent in the 1990s--and boy did we pay for that!), yet Entitlements continue to grow...and grow...and grow...and grow.

Oh and as for me and my ... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Oh and as for me and my wife our gross income was about $225,000 in 2006 and the value of our 2 properties is about $1.2 million and about $500,000 in retirement funds to date. So don't worry bout us...I don't....I'm just worried about my country.

Then you go right ahead and pay the upper tax rates, if you want...or do you hire an accountant for tax time? And if so, why?

As for me, I'm doing rather comfortably myself, but I'd rather keep as much of my hard-earned money as possible.

muirgeo gibbered:<... (Below threshold)

muirgeo gibbered:

No James this is my plan for the debt. Since most of it occurred under Republican administrations people who vote Republican should be required to pay for it next April.

How about this as a counterproposal:
Since most of the entitlement programs were passed by Democrats, people who vote Democratic should be required to pay for them next April.

Another problem with the idiot muirgeo's theory: presidents don't write the budget. The Constitution specifies that all spending bills MUST originate in the House. So should his idea be implemented based on who you voted for as your Representative?

Perhaps the moron muirgeo would take the entire ballot and weigh each person's obligation based on how they voted overall. For example, in 2004 I had four major races on my ballot: president, Senator, Representative, and Governor. I voted for two Democrats and two Republicans. What would my burden be?

Finally, the imbecile muirgeo overlooks one major fundamental flaw with his plan: we use the Australian ballot, and by law are guaranteed secrecy of the vote. Think exit polling is screwed up now? When there's a financial incentive for people to claim to vote for one party (or, rather, deny that they voted for the other one), we'll have 99% people saying they voted for whichever party that means they'll pay less in taxes.

The twit muirgeo is the classic example of the ultrapartisan shithead. EVERYTHING gets focused through his prism of "Republicans bad." He is simply incapable of weighing any issue on its own merits; he simply sees which side the Republicans tend to line up on, and mindlessly takes the converse opinion.

It's schmucks like him that reinforce the wisdom of my decision to stay an independent voter, not a member of either party.

J.

Muirgeo.. May I suggest you... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Muirgeo.. May I suggest you spend some time reading the article at this fellows blog and some time digesting what he's written. I think anyone who is able to leave their partisianship at the door will find it educational.

http://optimist123.com

muirgeo,You've emb... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

muirgeo,

You've embraced MSM portrayal of corporate corruption as widespread. Silly you. You want a bigger and more lib gov't which is somehow more productive and honest than the free market, right? To you, being worked to death, literally, in a Soviet gulag is better than working for those fat cats in corporate America. Can't have it both ways. No free rides unless you're a U.S. gov't employee .... are you a meter maid, muirgeo?

muir, FDR's policies direct... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

muir, FDR's policies directly led to the length and severity of the Great Depression.

If he was not President, the Depression would neither have lasted nearly as long nor been nearly as lengthy.

Unemployment wouldn't have averaged 14% for EIGHT YEARS of his tenure as President and only drop below 10 when the war started.

FDR was, easily, the worst domestic policy President we had last century. A bigger opponent of liberty has not been in the WH, nor a bigger economic dunce.
-=Mike

It is not the government's ... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

It is not the government's job to distribute wealth. The government is not a charity.

Posted by: James Cloninger

See this is the part you don't get. The government is specifically setting up laws and taxation policies that re-distribute income to those already with wealth and power.

Either you are ignorant of this happening or you are just denying the facts.

Do you understand that while CEO compensation over the last 5 years has skyrocketed by some 40-50 % CEO's in defense industry's have seen their compensations increase by 400%.
Meanwhile in spite of significant gains in productivity middle class purchasing power is stagnant or even falling.

Another problem with the id... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Another problem with the idiot muirgeo's theory: presidents don't write the budget. The Constitution specifies that all spending bills MUST originate in the House. So should his idea be implemented based on who you voted for as your Representative?

Posted by: Jay Tea

2 problems here Jay. The President has veto power....Bush apparently doesn't know this.

Since 1995 the House has been controlled by the Republicans. During that time the debt rose $3.5 trillion dollars....so what was your point?

FDR was, easily, the... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:


FDR was, easily, the worst domestic policy President we had last century. A bigger opponent of liberty has not been in the WH, nor a bigger economic dunce.
-=Mike

Posted by: MikeSC


Mike during the 50's and 60's we had a golden age. The middle class was as strong as ever. A single income could support the whole family. Life expectancy rose dramatically. Poverty diminished. Elders had social security. The debt to GDP fell consistently. A kid could actually pay his way through most collages with a basic job.

So now what did Rush tell you was wrong with FDR????

It's schmucks like him that... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

It's schmucks like him that reinforce the wisdom of my decision to stay an independent voter, not a member of either party.

J.

Posted by: Jay Tea


Yep Jay independents like me and you need to stick together. We are the ones who decides who gets in office....assuming fair voting machines.

George

As for me, I'm doing rather... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

As for me, I'm doing rather comfortably myself, but I'd rather keep as much of my hard-earned money as possible.

Posted by: James Cloninger


Me too that's why I don't want them giving my tax dollars to War Profiteers, Robber Barrons and Revolving Door Politico-lobbyist.

If you think this administration has done well with your money your NUTS.

http://www.academycomputerservice.com/economics/charts.htm


And based simply on this graph I think we need some Democratic oversight.

I may lean more Democratic at this point seeing how the Republican leadership has totally lost its way but I would never want the Democrats to have full power of all 3 branches either. Needs to be balance with the system set up as it is.

Who's paying for this war w... (Below threshold)
Robert:

Who's paying for this war with Iraq we are not having?

Oh and as for me and my ... (Below threshold)
scsiwuzzy:

Oh and as for me and my wife our gross income was about $225,000 in 2006 and the value of our 2 properties is about $1.2 million and about $500,000 in retirement funds to date.

Why do libs always have to bring up that they are wealthy? While championing the "little guy"?

Keep your liberal guilt to yourself, nuir. If you want to pay more in taxes, go ahead. Or donate to the causes that move you. But keep you hands off of my wallet. Esp since it is smaller than yours.

muirgeo I really doubt some... (Below threshold)
cubanbob:

muirgeo I really doubt someone with your venom actually earns what you claim you do. looks like you are suffering from a severe case of class envy.
if we follow your logic that republicans are on the hook for portion of the national debt that you would apportion to them, then we ought to balance bill democrats/socialists for the services that debt paid for.
if the ceo makes 300 times what the janitor makes, so what? there are a lot more qualified janitors than ceo's. there is no socialist clause in the constitution. it's not the government's role to redistribute wealth and it's not it's role to tell me on what and who's goods I have to purchase.
perhaps it's time to abolish the secret vote and tax people on the way they vote, putting your money where your mouth is. vote left, pay left rates. funny thing, who would of ever thought that Reagan and Bush are the most successful socialist politicians in our history. together they have taken half the country effectively off the income tax roles yet reaping the benefit of the other halves's taxes to the non payers.

"Jimmy Carter oversaw one i... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"Jimmy Carter oversaw one in the 1970's that featured the "triple doubles" of double-digit inflation rates, unemployment, and interest rates..." -- Jay Tea

Let this provide yet another example to the reader for being cautious about believing what Jay Tea writes. The unemployment rate NEVER hit double digits during the Carter years, the highest it ever got was 7.8 percent in July, 1980.

The unemployment rate did however hit double digits during the Reagan presidency, reaching as high as 10.8 percent during November and December of 1982, and staying double-digits for ten months in a row.

The source for my information comes from www.bls.gov , a good place for Jay Tea to visit, rather than rely on his jaded memory.

tell me who was in charg... (Below threshold)
Clay:

tell me who was in charge the years prior to the great depression of 1929 and the depression of 1893?

I lost a house and 2 jobs during the disastrous presidency that was Jimmy Carter's. Unemployment remained high at 7.5 percent; and volatile interest rates reached a high of 20 percent. Fortunately, I was a young man without a family of my own, so I came through okay. My father, as millions of other Americans, never recovered. Now you have the temerity to refer to depressions that occurred before my birth, while ignoring an economic fiasco that affected more people living today. And that, friends, represents the intellectual and moral bankruptcy that is liberalism. Every last one of them gleefully performs a'la Lewinsky at the crotches of their gods and will not acknowledge the least imperfection in them. Go ahead. Swallow, bitches.

I'm changing your name to "muerto - from the neck up".

"The American People for th... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"The American People for the most part don't give two shits about China's MFN status, to be honest...hell, some of them would be hard pressed to find China on a map." -- James Cloninger

Thank you, James, for providing an excellent reason why the government needs to spend more on education.

"but it has been proven tim... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"but it has been proven time and time again that when tax rates are cut, the economy is stimulated and revenue increases." -- Lorie Byrd

Ah, the Laffer curve argument again, an argument whose "reasoning" is beloved by conservatives everywhere: the notion that the best way to for the federal government to gain money is to deprive itself of money. Well, let's suppose you buy into this Laffer curve stuff (which I don't). Even then, unless you believe that by cutting taxes 99.9 percent the government would wind up as a quadrillionaire, you must concede that it's possible for a proposed tax cut to be simply too much. Well, then, couldn't the Bush tax cuts be too excessive?? Most likely the ten Nobel Laureates in Economics who supported Kerry in the last election would say that they were, favoring instead a smaller tax cut (as Clinton left a federal-budget surplus) that would have gone primarily to the middle class.

And now we're stuck with a quarter-of-a-trillion dollar deficit.

Thanks a lot, conservatives.

Herman unless your in the t... (Below threshold)
cubanbob:

Herman unless your in the top 20 per cent your not stuck with paying for anything. Your just not sufficiently brazen to admit that your problem with the national debt is that to the extent my taxes that are paying for it is funds that aren't being used to provide you with even more benefits. Would you be happy if spending were cut enough to provide a surplus and apply the surplus to debt reduction?

"If he [FDR] was not Presid... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"If he [FDR] was not President, the Depression would neither have lasted nearly as long nor been nearly as lengthy."

"Unemployment wouldn't have averaged 14% for EIGHT YEARS of his tenure as President and only drop below 10 when the war started."

And what exactly was the unemployment rate under FDR's Republican predecessor??? Got an answer, Mike? Well???

Hoover's strategy for dealing with the Great Depression was to do nothing. Not surprisingly, nothing came as a result. The American electorate didn't appreciate Hoover's strategy, and so in the 1932 election he was trounced.

Under FDR, the unemployment rate went down over time. And the American public re-elected FDR by large margins in both 1936 and 1940.

Now you might argue that doing nothing would have been the wisest strategy for an incoming president in 1933, but let's just say that the American people at the time had seen what years of doing nothing had accomplished, and had come to believe in Shakespeare's maxim: "nothing will come of nothing." They couldn't afford to take any chances, Mike; do you blame them?

Thank you, James, for pr... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Thank you, James, for providing an excellent reason why the government needs to spend more on education.

No, it's an excellent reason to hire teachers who are more interested in teaching than tenure or salary perks. Shit, how much money you think we throw at education now? It hasn't done much good.

"Herman unless your in the ... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"Herman unless your in the top 20 per cent your not stuck with paying for anything. Your just not sufficiently brazen to admit that your problem with the national debt is that to the extent my taxes that are paying for it is funds that aren't being used to provide you with even more benefits."

Warren Buffett, the 2nd-wealthiest individual in the world, has denounced the Bush tax cuts as "voodoo" and as "welfare" for the rich. So while you might assume about me, cubanbob, that I'm personally receiving all kinds of "benefits," (of which I'm unaware), you surely must see that opposition to the tax cuts can be based on the idea that they are bad for the economy.

perhaps it's time to abolis... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

perhaps it's time to abolish the secret vote and tax people on the way they vote, putting your money where your mouth is. vote left, pay left rates.


Posted by: cubanbob


That's the whole point you fool. The deficit spending is almost all from republican Presidents and the recent Republican control government has spent $3.5 Trillion more then it collected...GOT IT? Dim bulb...that's a fact that doesn't jive with you BS.

"Jimmy Carter oversaw one i... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

"Jimmy Carter oversaw one in the 1970's that featured the "triple doubles" of double-digit inflation rates, unemployment, and interest rates..." -- Jay Tea

Let this provide yet another example to the reader for being cautious about believing what Jay Tea writes. The unemployment rate NEVER hit double digits during the Carter years, the highest it ever got was 7.8 percent in July, 1980.

Posted by: Herman

Likewise Carter walked into a post vietnam economy not much of his own making.

Would you be happy if spend... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Would you be happy if spending were cut enough to provide a surplus and apply the surplus to debt reduction?

Posted by: cubanbob


I would have LOVED for the Bush and the Republican Congress to deeply cut into Medicare, Social Security Benifits and Education funding.......they'd of been OUT ON THEIR ASSES in 2004 had they done so because most Americans support those programs.

Instead this Administration takes the most cowardly way. Tax cuts mostly for the rich and increased deficit spending mostly going to corporate welfare.

AND BOZO'S like you think you got a tax cut when in fact all that happened was that Bush and you borrowed money to make rich welfare sluts richer and so YOUR KIDS can pay back the debt....DERN FOOL!!!!

You don't deserve democracy....go find yourself somewheres were you can Serf for an already established Monarchy.....we threw those Kings and Queens out long ago and you're ready to let them back....ding dong!

No, it's an excellent reaso... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

No, it's an excellent reason to hire teachers who are more interested in teaching than tenure or salary perks. Shit, how much money you think we throw at education now? It hasn't done much good.

Posted by: James Cloninger

We spend far less per student then it cost to send them to a private school. What did we get for it????Are you kidding? Aren't we the worlds only superpower? Don't we contribute disproportionately to the worlds innovation and technological advancement.

Now the system is crumbling as we fritter our money away to corporations and useless wars and to people who don't like our biased teaching agenda about a world older then 6,000 years.

muirgeo were you born an id... (Below threshold)
cubanbob:

muirgeo were you born an idiot or is this a recent affliction? why is it the only solution to government deficits is raising taxes? why not cut spending for a change? first public schools are largely financed by local property taxes not federal taxes, so what has that have to do with federal income taxes. Social security and medicare as per fdr and lbj are insurance schemes, paid for by levies on payrolls, not income taxes. personally I would prefer to end the fraud and means test this welfare scheme. you have a problem with that?
being the owner of my business and having paid nearly 170 thousand in ss "contributions" for my "account" and with 20 years more to go in "contributions" frankly I would rather have put my money towards a better retirement plan.
Herman get a grip. under our system everybody "benefits" equally from government services and spending that is why taxes are not a la carte.

muirgeo were you born an id... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

muirgeo were you born an idiot or is this a recent affliction? why is it the only solution to government deficits is raising taxes? why not cut spending for a change?

Posted by: cubanbob

Good question. Why not discuss this with the Republicans who are spending out of control?

muirgeo your point being wh... (Below threshold)
cubanbob:

muirgeo your point being what? democrats cutting spending? I wish we had real republicans instead of rino but the democrat/marxist alternative is even worse.
Herman I am amazed you fell for Warren Buffet's bullshit. Your confusing revenue with income. Not all dollars are taxed the same. Ask that sanctimonious oracle if he wouldn't mind if all his revenue were taxed at the ordinary income tax rate that the top end paid under Clinton. Then watch him disassemble and squirm. It's easy to be noble when a rather large part of your revenue is tax free, tax deferred or exempt or subject to the capital gains rate of 15% instead of the much higher combined federal/state rate. Another super rich hypocrite passing himself off as a man of the people.

Mike during the 50's and... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Mike during the 50's and 60's we had a golden age. The middle class was as strong as ever. A single income could support the whole family. Life expectancy rose dramatically. Poverty diminished. Elders had social security. The debt to GDP fell consistently. A kid could actually pay his way through most collages with a basic job.

1) You have no right, whatsoever, to any Social Security benefits. Don't fool yourself.

2) Just because things went well in the 1950's does not excuse FDR's record.

Unemployment rate between 1934 and 1941? An AVERAGE of 14%.

Blacks lost jobs more than anybody else, thanks to the labor laws and forced unionization.

FDR used the public works programs almost exclusively (studies indicate that roughly 80% of the public funding under FDR can be attributed to politics) as a means of assuring his re-election.

He drove up prices, ignorantly believing that
higher wages would stop a depression.

He made owning gold illegal. Why? Because he believed rising gold prices CAUSED an increase in the prices for other goods, which is a patently moronic theory.

He made charging a rate for a service lower than the mandated gov't rate a crime (one drycleaner was in jail for 3 months for pressing a suit for 5 cents less than the gov't-mandated rate).

He produced farm policies that only benefitted rich farmers and led to increased hunger.

The TVA actually RETARDED growth in the Tennessee Valley Area and produced one of the bigger boondoggles in the gov't.

He used executive orders more than any President since. Hell, He used them more than all of the following ones COMBINED.

Thank you, James, for providing an excellent reason why the government needs to spend more on education.

If spending a shitload doesn't produce a worthy result --- perhaps the system is the problem.

Why can't the poor have the same rights that Democratic pols hold for themselves?

And what exactly was the unemployment rate under FDR's Republican predecessor??? Got an answer, Mike? Well???

Let's discuss FDR's disastrous performance, as nobody holds Hoover up as a great President.

Hoover's strategy for dealing with the Great Depression was to do nothing.

Factually inaccurate. Several of his ideas were actually lifted directly by FDR. Hoover tried to shore up S & L's to allow for more mortgages and more home ownership. He tried to increase public spending.

Under FDR, the unemployment rate went down over time. And the American public re-elected FDR by large margins in both 1936 and 1940.

Actually, it didn't appreciably diminish. The only "new" jobs were jobs by the federal gov't, which is not a terribly good way to improve an economy. He attacked business like few Presidents ever have and, thus, had one of the worst economic records in history.

Actually, he had the single worst. When you can't drop unemployment below 14% FOR EIGHT YEARS --- you've failed miserably.

Now you might argue that doing nothing would have been the wisest strategy for an incoming president in 1933, but let's just say that the American people at the time had seen what years of doing nothing had accomplished, and had come to believe in Shakespeare's maxim: "nothing will come of nothing." They couldn't afford to take any chances, Mike; do you blame them?

And what they got, instead, was a megalomaniac who decided that he should be the king. If you were starving, but didn't vote for him, he didn't care about you. If you lived in a "safe" location for him --- namely the South --- you didn't get squat. The money went to swing states. He openly bought votes, which is thoroughly loathesome. He had no clue about economics, lied to the American people time and time again (when he said they'd only re-open "solvent" banks, he blatantly lied. Most of them weren't actually solvent for almost 2 years). He ruled by fiat and made such things as owning gold a crime.

Warren Buffett, the 2nd-wealthiest individual in the world, has denounced the Bush tax cuts as "voodoo" and as "welfare" for the rich.

Buffett's "legendary" wisdom is smoke & mirrors and little else. I'd listen to a lottery winner as often as I'd listen to him for financial advice.

Likewise Carter walked into a post vietnam economy not much of his own making.

Yet mentioning Clinton's intel failure or the horrid economy he left Bush is just verboten.

Apparently, history only impacts Democrats.

I would have LOVED for the Bush and the Republican Congress to deeply cut into Medicare, Social Security Benifits and Education funding.......they'd of been OUT ON THEIR ASSES in 2004 had they done so because most Americans support those programs.

It's also the only way we become fiscally solvent, so obviously your concern about the deficit is a sham.

We spend far less per student then it cost to send them to a private school. What did we get for it????Are you kidding? Aren't we the worlds only superpower? Don't we contribute disproportionately to the worlds innovation and technological advancement.

Thanks immigration. If you look at tests involving public school students, we're a laughingstock.
-=Mike

I for one don't care how we... (Below threshold)
Jack Doss:

I for one don't care how we "pay" for the tax cuts --- because the issue isn't "How to have tax cuts AND keep spending money" --- the issue is A) Whose money is it? Let's give it back to them --- and B) Once we do that --- whatever we are left with is our spending limit. If that means shit gets cut --- cut it.

Because the real issue libe... (Below threshold)
Jack Doss:

Because the real issue liberals (not all, but many) have is this: If a rich man loans a poor man his car --- and at the end of the year wants it back --- liberals see this as TWO government programs. 1) Give the poor guy the car -- and 2) Give the rich man the car. When in reality this is ONE program (poor guy gets the car) and a discontinuation of a program (ie TAX CUT) --- RETURNING the rich man's car to him. There is a huge fundamental "BLUE SKY vs GREEN SKY" difference here --- one of us sees it...the other doesn't. The benefit "conservatives" have here is WE DON'T CARE IF YOU AGREE WITH US. It's best if you do...because then we all agree the sky is BLUE. But we don't really care if you don't see that --- your seeing it doesn't make it so. Conservatives might suck in many ways --- but they see the blue sky when it comes to taxes.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy