Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Dude, it's not class envy. It comes down to the rich in our country keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer, while the middle-class is being eliminated.
There's a problem in the system. I understand the rich are only going to keep fighting for their best interests. That doesn't make it right, or in the best interest of America as whole.
American Progressives are easily duped and poorly educated.
Republican-conservatives are easily duped and uneducated about capitalism and economics in general, you monkeys actually believe that rewarding the rich so called "job-creators" who create no jobs actually benefits the working class, poor and the economy. Rewarding incompetence and greed doesn't equal good capitalism.
News Hounds: Sarah Palin Brings A Cheat Sheet And Hand Notes And She Still Gets The Facts Wrong
Palin says that eliminating Bush's tax cuts for the top 2% of the rich would result in a tax increase of 3.8 trillion dollars, which is just lies and monkey speak for protecting the interests and money of the rich, peer-reviewed unbiased research from Pew indicates that extending the Bush tax cuts would sharply *INCREASE* the federal debt. Thats means that all of the Bush tax cuts needs to be eliminated, not extended. I take the research of the Pew over any rightwing, Republican trash that Palin was fed and is feeding to the American people. Link to Pew Report:
Pew Report: Permanent Extensions of Tax Cuts Would Sharply Increase National Debt - The Pew Charitable Trusts
Palin is arguing for adding to the deficit.
And you're contention is that by taxing the fuck outta 2% of the population the debt will be eliminated? Are you high?
Imbeciles.
I find your title interesting...
"Fiscally irresponsible right".......
Correct me if I am wrong....but isnt it those that SUPPORT government intervention the ones that were fiscally IRRESPONSIBLE?
Like those that signed mortgage agreements they could not afford and then called themselves victims?
Like those that signed credit card agreements and when they could not pay the bill called themselves victims?
Like those that gambled their money in the market in the hopes that their money would make easy money for them but when it didnt, they called themselves victims?
News Hounds: Sarah Palin Brings A Cheat Sheet And Hand Notes And She Still Gets The Facts Wrong
Palin says that eliminating Bush's tax cuts for the top 2% of the rich would result in a tax increase of 3.8 trillion dollars, which is just lies and monkey speak for protecting the interests and money of the rich, peer-reviewed unbiased research from Pew indicates that extending the Bush tax cuts would sharply *INCREASE* the federal debt. Thats means that all of the Bush tax cuts needs to be eliminated, not extended. I take the research of the Pew over any rightwing, Republican trash that Palin was fed and is feeding to the American people. Link to Pew Report:
Pew Report: Permanent Extensions of Tax Cuts Would Sharply Increase National Debt - The Pew Charitable Trusts
Palin is arguing for adding to the deficit.
And you're contention is that by taxing the fuck outta 2% of the population the debt will be eliminated? Are you high?
Imbeciles.
Even worse than that.....
And when that 2% decides not to hire as they will take home less if they expand, they will then be called greedy for doing the fiscally responsible thing.
Why does the government tax junk food, beer, cigarettes, and gasoline?
Is it to help the poor pay less in taxes? Is to help discourage us from doing unhealthy things to our bodies or the environment?
The government has become a monster, a beast, so hungry for more and more of our money.
We must not look at it as rich against poor. It's all of us who are getting hosed by uncle Sam.
I find your title interesting...
"Fiscally irresponsible right".......
Correct me if I am wrong....but isnt it those that SUPPORT government intervention the ones that were fiscally IRRESPONSIBLE?
Like those that signed mortgage agreements they could not afford and then called themselves victims?
Like those that signed credit card agreements and when they could not pay the bill called themselves victims?
Like those that gambled their money in the market in the hopes that their money would make easy money for them but when it didnt, they called themselves victims?
"I went to a dinner party early in August and met a financial executive who worked at one of Wall Streets top investment firms. He acknowledged to me that the people shoveling out those sub-prime loans KNEW many of the borrowers couldnt afford to pay back.
They knew what misery theyd cause, but that didnt stop them.
I asked: So, what happened to due diligence? one of the market disciplines that these bankers are always preaching?
He shrugged, indicating that there was $o much to be made that normal safeguards and standards were pushed to the side or forgotten."
The tax on the top 2% would simply be rolled back to where it was during the Clinton Administration, around 38.5%, ironically a time of prosperity.
And you're contention is that by taxing the fuck outta 2% of the population the debt will be eliminated? Are you high?
Imbeciles.
Even worse than that.....
And when that 2% decides not to hire as they will take home less if they expand, they will then be called greedy for doing the fiscally responsible thing.
Oh that is such crap. The millionnaires and billionnaires and the companies they own are doing just fine, thank you very much. It's the small businesses, under 100 people, the ones that cannot survive without letters of credit that are hurting because the Wall Street goliaths aren't willing to invest in anything but themselves. A 4% tax increase can easily be absorbed by the top 2%.
GREED remains firmly in place.
The tax on the top 2% would simply be rolled back to where it was during the Clinton Administration, around 38.5%, ironically a time of prosperity.
Are you arguing cause and effect here?
"There were times when prudent governments issued debt only to finance wars. However, during the global economic depression of the 1930s, an English academic, John Maynard Keynes, came forward with a revolutionary idea.
During times of economic trouble, governments should borrow and spend to boost industrial activity, he suggested.
In most capitalist countries, governments took up this idea, but conveniently ignored Mr Keynes second piece of advice: they were supposed to pay back the debt, when the economy was nicely chugging along."
(If you can manage to get "conservatives'" hooks out-of-it.)
So the Republican-conservative far righters have presented no real justification for extending the Bush tax cuts? That being the case, why do the Republicans keep fighting to extend them?
Why does the government tax junk food, beer, cigarettes, and gasoline?
Is it to help the poor pay less in taxes? Is to help discourage us from doing unhealthy things to our bodies or the environment?
The government has become a monster, a beast, so hungry for more and more of our money.
We must not look at it as rich against poor. It's all of us who are getting hosed by uncle Sam.
Uncle Sam hasn't raised your taxes on anything other than cigarettes for the past five years. Look to your own state government for the increase in taxes and fees, my dear.
The lack of knowledge on this subject never ceases to shock me.
Me: It comes down to the rich in our country keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer, while the middle-class is being eliminated.
So you believe that statement to be a fallacy? Prove me wrong. It's a statistical fact.
Prove your statistical fact.
83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets.
The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nations wealth.
Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008.
The top 1 percent of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.
or the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011.
This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour.
Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years.
Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.
The top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income.
So the Republican-conservative far righters have presented no real justification for extending the Bush tax cuts? That being the case, why do the Republicans keep fighting to extend them?
Here is a 2007 analysis of the effect of the Bush tax cuts. The Republicans were making the same arguments then as they are now. They didn't work then, and they won't work now.
Published on OMB Watch (OMB Watch | Promoting open government, accountability, and citizen participation since 1983)
Bush Administration Contradicts Itself on Tax Cuts
By mlewis
Created 02/13/07
The President's Fiscal Year 2008 budget proposal has become a vehicle for advocating that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts be made permanent. GOP congressional leaders and administration spokespeople are justifying the tax cuts by playing the "health of the economy" card. Arguments in favor of making the tax cuts permanent range from the tempered:
"We think it's absolutely critical that they be extended in 2010, when they otherwise would expire. Why? Because they have contributed to this growing economy," -Rob Portman [1], Office of Management and Budget Director
To the misleading:
"Raising taxes . . . won't help balance the budget it will slow the economic growth that is creating the new jobs of tomorrow and increasing revenue to the federal government Keeping our economy strong and promoting fiscal responsibility will get the job done. Raising taxes won't." -House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner [2], (R-OH)
To the absurd:
"Current pro-growth policies have fueled the sustained economic expansion that has created over seven million new jobs, boosted federal revenues, driven down the deficit, and put us on a path to balancing the budget." -Rep. Paul Ryan [3], (R-WI), Ranking Member, House Budget Committee
Much of this rhetoric rests on the belief that not only do tax cuts promote long-term economic growth, but that they also generate revenues as well as release them. This position, however, is contradicted by a 2006 Treasury Department study [4] that measured the "dynamic" impact of the of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.
Below are a few generalized talking points paired with the Treasury report's refutation:
Talking Point: The Bush tax cuts will generate significant economic growth over the long run.
Treasury Report: Even under optimal circumstances, there will be hardly any long-term economic growth due to the tax cuts.
The report found that the tax cuts generated only a marginal 0.7 percent of economic growth in the long run. Each year, for example, the tax cuts may increase GDP by less than half of a tenth of a percent, or 0.04 percent, when the economy is predicted to grow by nearly 100 times as much (or about three percent). And that's assuming the tax cuts are offset by cuts in spending or tax increases elsewhere, so they will not increase the deficit. This has not happened in the five years since the cuts have been passed and is not likely to happen if they are fully extended. (See Page 2 of the report)
Talking Point: Tax cuts will boost federal revenues.
Treasury Report: The U.S. government will lose around nine-tenths of the projected cost of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.
Future taxes will bring in vastly less revenue than if the tax cuts had never been passed. At most, the growth estimates within the Treasury report implied that about one tenth of the money lost to the tax cuts will be recovered from new revenues that a bigger economy would produce. Nine tenths of the revenue initially released will not return to the Treasury. On balance, tax cuts will therefore significantly reduce federal revenues, which drives up the deficit unless spending is cut. If the tax cuts are not made permanent, federal revenues will increase and the deficit will be driven down, if not erased.
Talking Point: Failing to extend the cuts will reduce economic growth in the long run.
Treasury Report: The economy will get bigger if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire and spending is not cut.
The Treasury Department's report projects an additional 0.9 percent of economic growth if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. More growth could occur because making the tax cuts permanent would build up large deficits and debt, which can be a drag on long-term economic expansion. (See Table 3, Page 23, of the report)
When asked to explain the President's comment suggesting that tax cuts pay for themselves, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow responded [5]:
MR. SNOW: But I've also heard people say, yes, we can say it's paid for. But you're asking me to play the role of economist, and as any first-year economic student will tell you, it's all about assumptions. So if you want to get into that argument, I really would suggest you talk to trained economists at the Department of Treasury or within our economic shop, and they'll be able to give you a more precise readout on it.
Perhaps the White House ought to talk to the economists at the Department of the Treasury, too. Targeted, temporary tax cuts that produce manageable deficits can stimulate the economy during a recession. But even experts in the Bush administration agree that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, if permanent, would make the economy smaller and drive down revenues. The President and his supporters should stick to the facts when they speak to the American public about the economic impact of tax cuts.
OMB Watch 1742 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009
202-234-8494 (phone) | 202-234-8584 (fax)
© 2010 | Please credit OMB Watch when redistributing this material.
Source URL: Bush Administration Contradicts Itself on Tax Cuts | OMB Watch
Links:
[1] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/02/20070205-3.html
[2] Bush Budget Projects A Surplus by 2012 - washingtonpost.com
[3] http://www.house.gov/ryan/press_releases/2007pressreleases/2507budget.htm
[4] http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/treasurydynamicanalysisreporjjuly252006.pdf
[5] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/02/20070206-6.html[/QUO
Why should we believe anything coming from the Feds??
The math is simple,you will hurt the middle class at a time that they are very vulnerable,put politics aside,it just common sense,leting people keep more of the money THEY earn is the right thing to do,the FEDS and state have beyond a shadow of dought have proven their ineptitude,why give them more just to piss it away??
Congress has the purse strings,and a 20% approval rating,would you hire a plumberto fix your sink that only get it right 20% of the time?
The deficit will not be reduced or eliminated by increasing taxes,reduced spending is the only solution,and the reductions will need to be steep.It is the only way!
June 30, 1999
"The US economy has been hard at work in the 1990s, delivering strong growth and job creation. This boom - the longest in peacetime history - has generated huge revenues, filling up the government's coffers.
Congress and the White House, meanwhile, agreed to cut back a bit on spending.
At the same time, the economy enjoyed little inflation and low interest rates, which helped paying the interest on the public debt.
All that created the current budget surplus, about $107bn this year, and the hope to cut down on debt.
The impact
Public finances in the US could now run in a virtuous circle. Paying back the debt reduces interest rate payments. This in turn makes it easier to pay back even more and so on - until the debt amounts to zero.
Once there is no debt anymore, taxes can be cut, and the government can spend its money on useful things like healthcare or education.
Interest rates are bound to come down too, as the government will not have to offer attractive rates anymore to compete with other people trying to raise money.
For the same reason, companies will find it easier to raise money, because investors will be looking for new places to invest.
Economists predict that the extra money will boost domestic saving and add to overall economic growth in the US.
Things that can go wrong
But let's return to the real world.
Mr Clinton's plans - and the official debt projections - work only if the economic situation does not change.
But what if ...
# today's fantastic growth rates collapse?
# the stockmarket falters?
# inflation rebounds and interest rates rise?
# unforeseen events force government to spend more?
# Congress or a new president opt for tax cuts instead of debt repayments?"
