OK, I'm all ears.

[Mariner]

analysis I could find concerning wealthy people's support for Bush, by a Hamilton college professor. It's a short, easy read:

http://www.inequality.org/klinkner.htm

Mariner.

 

[drowe]

......almost everyone has ignored the group that may have made the biggest difference: wealthy voters…...By contrast, Bush improved his performance with voters at the upper end of the income ladder. Among those making less than $50,000, Bush actually lost ground, as his performance fell from 21 percent in 2000 to 20 percent in 2004……

So if I make over 50K annually, I am a wealthy voter? Pulling $25/hr hardly constitutes a billionaire or the massive wealthy "support base".

Mariner, if Klinker (and thanks for showing me the article by the way) quoted the figure of $500K as the low end of the “income ladder” it would be a more compelling account in which to back the claim of the Republicans as the party of the wealthy and “buying legislation” to satisfy their agenda. I make over 50K, most of my co-workers and all my bosses make more than I do and none of us have ever exercised any “efforts to influence public policy through private donation”, I have bills too.

The website in which Klinker’s article is posted seems to howl at the fact that not everyone in the country makes the same amount of money. The redistribution of wealth is an ideal that conflicts with and cannot not work in a free market economy, I think I read that somewhere in the Communist Manifesto

 

[Mariner]

I'm sorry I've gotten on your nerves so much. You're right--I misunderstood your posting from the IRS. The 10% figure I quoted is supposedly an average of what people who live on unearned wealth actually pay in taxes. They take advantage of all sorts of loopholes and complications in the laws in order to achieve that figure. I've seen it quoted many times, including, I believe, in the Wall Street Journal. If I see it again in a conservative publication I'll quote you the source.

Drowe, yes, I've not yet been able to find the numbers for wealthier people voting for Bush.

A question for both of you: if a rising tide is supposed to lift all boats, and if reducing taxation on wealth and on high income is supposed to create a rising tide, then how come child poverty in this country has risen rather than falling ever since we began cutting the highest tax rates in the 70s? Could you raise a family on the minimum wage in your neighborhood? What's the conservative answer to this problem?

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'm sorry I've gotten on your nerves so much. You're right--I misunderstood your posting from the IRS. The 10% figure I quoted is supposedly an average of what people who live on unearned wealth actually pay in taxes. They take advantage of all sorts of loopholes and complications in the laws in order to achieve that figure. I've seen it quoted many times, including, I believe, in the Wall Street Journal. If I see it again in a conservative publication I'll quote you the source.

Drowe, yes, I've not yet been able to find the numbers for wealthier people voting for Bush.

A question for both of you: if a rising tide is supposed to lift all boats, and if reducing taxation on wealth and on high income is supposed to create a rising tide, then how come child poverty in this country has risen rather than falling ever since we began cutting the highest tax rates in the 70s? Could you raise a family on the minimum wage in your neighborhood? What's the conservative answer to this problem?

Mariner.

How does one attain unearned wealth? Are you talking about inheritance? That money has already been taxed. Taxing it twice is unfair. Funny how you call it unearned wealth, to hide what your actually talking about. Quit being a deceptive piece of doo.

 

[freeandfun1]

I'm sorry I've gotten on your nerves so much. You're right--I misunderstood your posting from the IRS. The 10% figure I quoted is supposedly an average of what people who live on unearned wealth actually pay in taxes. They take advantage of all sorts of loopholes and complications in the laws in order to achieve that figure. I've seen it quoted many times, including, I believe, in the Wall Street Journal. If I see it again in a conservative publication I'll quote you the source.

Drowe, yes, I've not yet been able to find the numbers for wealthier people voting for Bush.

A question for both of you: if a rising tide is supposed to lift all boats, and if reducing taxation on wealth and on high income is supposed to create a rising tide, then how come child poverty in this country has risen rather than falling ever since we began cutting the highest tax rates in the 70s? Could you raise a family on the minimum wage in your neighborhood? What's the conservative answer to this problem?

Mariner.

Illegal aliens might have a lot to do with the number of children living in poverty.

Look, all I know is that I WAS VERY POOR and I worked hard, even had some minimum wages jobs in my life, and I made it. There is no excuse for hard work. Period.

 

[Mariner]

make up only a small fraction of the population, and a small fraction of children in poverty. I found an interesting site on this subject, which I'll start as a new thread.

As you know, many people work very hard and yet (often because of learning disability or low IQ) cannot enter the middle class. Our current tax structure marginalizes them, and Bush's tax proposals would push them down deeper. When they go down, their children--who are all of our future and responsibility--go with them.

I too have worked very hard in my life--I was in residency training until age 31, and spent unbelievable numbers of weekends in the hospital enviously peering out at the normal people roller-blading, jogging, and sailing by. I do not in any way denigrate the conservative emphasis on work.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

make up only a small fraction of the population, and a small fraction of children in poverty. I found an interesting site on this subject, which I'll start as a new thread.

As you know, many people work very hard and yet (often because of learning disability or low IQ) cannot enter the middle class. Our current tax structure marginalizes them, and Bush's tax proposals would push them down deeper. When they go down, their children--who are all of our future and responsibility--go with them.

I too have worked very hard in my life--I was in residency training until age 31, and spent unbelievable numbers of weekends in the hospital enviously peering out at the normal people roller-blading, jogging, and sailing by. I do not in any way denigrate the conservative emphasis on work.

Mariner.

Bush's tax structure pushes no one down.

The government will receive MORE in revenue if we keep these tax cuts and grow the economy. Of course the %gdp under firm lib control might diminish; i know that's what the totalitarian left fears.

 

[drowe]

A question for both of you: if a rising tide is supposed to lift all boats, and if reducing taxation on wealth and on high income is supposed to create a rising tide, then how come child poverty in this country has risen rather than falling ever since we began cutting the highest tax rates in the 70s? Could you raise a family on the minimum wage in your neighborhood? What's the conservative answer to this problem?

Mariner.

Mariner, Are you familiar with The Laffer Curve? If you aren’t do a search and look into it. The Laffer Curve illustrates how lower taxes “raises the tide” from a somewhat mathematical viewpoint. You ask about child poverty rising, well there are dozens of explanations as to why this may be, but truthfully I don’t know. Perhaps the underlying reasons may be lack of personal responsibility and dependence on the government in the midst of welfare programs drying up.

Lack of personal responsibility tops my list because I’ve seen it up close. My wife and I met a young woman through a friend of ours. She is twenty-one years old, has two kids and at the time was unemployed with no aspirations to be. Her estranged husband/boyfriend/whoever was arrested for DUI and failed to appear in court and is now in jail for that, being a dead-beat dad and spousal abuse as well (total loser). After hearing her story she admittedly told us that she was irresponsible in high school. She used the word "they" interchangeably between the city, county, state and federal governments for whatever assistance she was on. My wife and I gave her advice, only when she asked for it though. I explained the importance of making her own way. Her response was, she couldn’t support her kids on minimum wage and expect her child support from the bozo. My response was (and still is) minimum wage jobs are not occupations meant for raising families, but rather for high school kids and college students. I also explained that about 60% of all jobs are not advertised in the paper. I recommended going to the bigger companies in town, wear a smile and ask if they’re hiring. She ended up getting a job as a cleaner where I work; she now makes about $5.00 above minimum wage. She is also using the company’s tuition assistance program to go to school to get her high school diploma and her degree through the community college here. Heck, I’m proud of her and I know she has much more pride in herself now too.

I told you that so I could tell you this. Her dad hates my wife and I, he feels like we have corrupted her in some way. We couldn’t believe it when he called our house to explain that he was her father, we were not her parents and we should take care of our own kid (he has a point, but I would still have preferred a thank you). We asked her why her dad was upset with us and she explained to us that her dad told her that her government assistance would help her get by until she found a man to take care of her and her kids. She didn’t take his advice and it upset him. As it turns out her father is a proud welfare recipient himself.

I believe this is learned behavior and I’m sure there are other moms and dads like this out there too.

My conservative answer is: learning personal responsibility.

 

[freeandfun1]

Mariner, Are you familiar with The Laffer Curve? If you aren’t do a search and look into it. The Laffer Curve illustrates how lower taxes “raises the tide” from a somewhat mathematical viewpoint. You ask about child poverty rising, well there are dozens of explanations as to why this may be, but truthfully I don’t know. Perhaps the underlying reasons may be lack of personal responsibility and dependence on the government in the midst of welfare programs drying up.

Lack of personal responsibility tops my list because I’ve seen it up close. My wife and I met a young woman through a friend of ours. She is twenty-one years old, has two kids and at the time was unemployed with no aspirations to be. Her estranged husband/boyfriend/whoever was arrested for DUI and failed to appear in court and is now in jail for that, being a dead-beat dad and spousal abuse as well (total loser). After hearing her story she admittedly told us that she was irresponsible in high school. She used the word "they" interchangeably between the city, county, state and federal governments for whatever assistance she was on. My wife and I gave her advice, only when she asked for it though. I explained the importance of making her own way. Her response was, she couldn’t support her kids on minimum wage and expect her child support from the bozo. My response was (and still is) minimum wage jobs are not occupations meant for raising families, but rather for high school kids and college students. I also explained that about 60% of all jobs are not advertised in the paper. I recommended going to the bigger companies in town, wear a smile and ask if they’re hiring. She ended up getting a job as a cleaner where I work; she now makes about $5.00 above minimum wage. She is also using the company’s tuition assistance program to go to school to get her high school diploma and her degree through the community college here. Heck, I’m proud of her and I know she has much more pride in herself now too.

I told you that so I could tell you this. Her dad hates my wife and I, he feels like we have corrupted her in some way. We couldn’t believe it when he called our house to explain that he was her father, we were not her parents and we should take care of our own kid (he has a point, but I would still have preferred a thank you). We asked her why her dad was upset with us and she explained to us that her dad told her that her government assistance would help her get by until she found a man to take care of her and her kids. She didn’t take his advice and it upset him. As it turns out her father is a proud welfare recipient himself.

I believe this is learned behavior and I’m sure there are other moms and dads like this out there too.

My conservative answer is: learning personal responsibility.[/QUOTE]

Very nicely put.

 

[Mariner]

Congratulations on helping that young woman.

In my work I also often help people get off welfare. I do not disagree that there are times it can become a poisonous trap. But personal welfare in this country is now miniscule.

Perhaps minimum wage jobs are really meant for people other than teenagers (though around here, teens demand twice the minimum wage just to babysit), but the fact is that vast numbers of people are working one or two minimum wage jobs in an effort to raise families. These peoples' kids are often impoverished--and we know from reams of research that parental socioeconomic status is the number one predictor of success in life.

Right Wing--sorry, you're right, Bush proposes tax cuts and credits for poor people. However, he also talks about simplifiying the tax code, which some people consider a code phrase for shifting taxation to consumption or flattening the code, both of which would increase the burden on poor people. And he does not support raising the minimum wage or any kind of large scale program to fix the health insurance crisis. He has also been against extending unemployment benefits, etc. The new jobs being created in the Bush economy too often pay less and lack the benefits that were included in the "old days." The brunt of this falls on children, and it's all happening while corporate profits have risen considerably. If wages do not also rise when corporate profits rise (which is what has happened in the past three years), then the Laffer curve doesn' work: some boats get left behind, and they're full of kids.

Mariner.

 

[ajwps]

This is my first post on this forum. I'm a certified Cambridge liberal. Among other things, that means I'm empathetic, so I care what you think. I'm wondering if some of you would take the trouble to explain to me how Bush policy works. My understanding so far is that Bush's own 2001, 2002, and 2003 projections for economic and job performance have turned out woefully untrue. As a reasonable summary of my concerns, here's a New York Times piece from a couple of days ago: ECONOMIC VIEW
Taxes and Consequences: The Second Term Begins By DANIEL ALTMAN
Published: November 7, 2004
RESIDENT BUSH began his first term with projections for $5.6 trillion in budget surpluses. Though he will start his second term facing at least $2.3 trillion in deficits, according to the Congressional Budget Office, his tax-cutting ambitions are even greater.

I love this kind of 'zero-sum-gain' that the Democrats claim as proof that George Bush has driven a postive $5.6 trillion dollar budget surplus into the red $2.3 trillion dollar deficit.

First of all that $5.6 trillion dollar budget surplus was really voodo-economics. That sum failed to take into account the real deficit in Social Security Fund and treasury debt in bonds. The debt Clinton left Bush was something around $100 trillion dollars in red ink.

Today, economists say the fairest way to measure deficits over time is to compare them with the size of the economy, the gross domestic product. The projected deficit this year (2004), 4.2% of GDP, which is not the biggest in recent history.

Democrats tell the old wives tale that if you have $100 dollars in deficit and $90 dollars in taxes, you have a negative $10 dollar DEFICIT.

What you have had is American's being taxed heavily while the government spends that tax money mostly on worthless projects that do noting but take us further into debt.

Now the government is spending more money than ever on jobs and products from US companies to create more jobs for Americans and more tax money from people who are now working instead of being on the dole. (welfare).

George Bush has not only begun decreasing the real national debt as a smaller percent of the GDP but is creating real jobs (not government porkbarreling) which is being reflected in a rising stock market, more disposable income for ordinary wage earners and money for corporations to create more jobs for US citizens who buy more products with their increased income and more tax money rolling into the federal coffers.

This fact is the Democrats worst nightmare.

If you think that the US has more child poverty and death than places like Somalia or any other third world dictatorship, guess again.

After the Democrat run 40 year government control, America has now elected a president that is using the democratic process to really bring prosperity back to the USA.

 

[Mariner]

1. You wrote:

"What you have had is American's being taxed heavily while the government spends that tax money mostly on worthless projects that do noting but take us further into debt.

Now the government is spending more money than ever on jobs and products from US companies to create more jobs for Americans and more tax money from people who are now working instead of being on the dole. (welfare)."

Where is your evidence for this? If you take a look at the all-Republican budgets of the Bush years, you will find that pork-barrel spending has reached its highest level in history under Bush, who has never vetoed a spending bill, no matter how larded with pork it is. Government has grown under Bush even if you subtract 9/11, two wars, and homeland security.

2. I agree with you that the 5.6 trillion surplus was an estimate that disregarded the social security trust fund shortfall (the number I've seen for it is $75 trillion total). Congress played that shell game throughout the 80s and 90s, raiding social security in order to make the budget look more balanced. Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton are all responsible for this. Bush II has continued to play that game. (Remember when Gore suggested placing social security surpluses beyond the reach of Congress? He was laughed at by Republicans for his "lock box.")

There is no way you can propose that Bush has not created enormous new deficits which only ADD to the previous burden of deficit and shortfalls, both. He has decreased taxes WITHOUT decreasing spending. The borrowed money, 1 trillion dollars during the first Bush term, has come (92%) from foreigners. In other words we give away our financial independence.

Clinton was far more fiscally conservative than Bush. He regularly vetoed spending and argued with Congress about pork. Even the conservative editorial page of the Wall Street Journal has taken Bush to task recently for his "non-leadership" on this issue.

3. When did I say we had more child poverty than Somalia? I said we have more--way more--than Europe, because they choose there to re-invest a significant proportion of their GDP in their people. We're an outlier among the industrial countries.

Mariner.

 

[freeandfun1]

1. You wrote:

"What you have had is American's being taxed heavily while the government spends that tax money mostly on worthless projects that do noting but take us further into debt.

Now the government is spending more money than ever on jobs and products from US companies to create more jobs for Americans and more tax money from people who are now working instead of being on the dole. (welfare)."

Where is your evidence for this? If you take a look at the all-Republican budgets of the Bush years, you will find that pork-barrel spending has reached its highest level in history under Bush, who has never vetoed a spending bill, no matter how larded with pork it is. Government has grown under Bush even if you subtract 9/11, two wars, and homeland security.

2. I agree with you that the 5.6 trillion surplus was an estimate that disregarded the social security trust fund shortfall (the number I've seen for it is $75 trillion total). Congress played that shell game throughout the 80s and 90s, raiding social security in order to make the budget look more balanced. Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton are all responsible for this. Bush II has continued to play that game. (Remember when Gore suggested placing social security surpluses beyond the reach of Congress? He was laughed at by Republicans for his "lock box.")

There is no way you can propose that Bush has not created enormous new deficits which only ADD to the previous burden of deficit and shortfalls, both. He has decreased taxes WITHOUT decreasing spending. The borrowed money, 1 trillion dollars during the first Bush term, has come (92%) from foreigners. In other words we give away our financial independence.

Clinton was far more fiscally conservative than Bush. He regularly vetoed spending and argued with Congress about pork. Even the conservative editorial page of the Wall Street Journal has taken Bush to task recently for his "non-leadership" on this issue.

3. When did I say we had more child poverty than Somalia? I said we have more--way more--than Europe, because they choose there to re-invest a significant proportion of their GDP in their people. We're an outlier among the industrial countries.

Mariner.

It is a proved fact that every time we decrease taxes, we increase tax revenues. GW is just trying a newer version of supply-side economics and it looks as if it is working again, just as it did under Reagan.

A country our size will most likely always have debt. Either to debtor nations or to the People, but either way, there will be debt. As pointed out, the % of GDP is the indicator to keep an eye on.

 

[ajwps]

1. You wrote:

"What you have had is American's being taxed heavily while the government spends that tax money mostly on worthless projects that do noting but take us further into debt.

Now the government is spending more money than ever on jobs and products from US companies to create more jobs for Americans and more tax money from people who are now working instead of being on the dole. (welfare)."

Where is your evidence for this?

Even with the rising (artificial) cost of fuel, take a look at this buying religious season. Ordinary people are out there spending big once again in the retail market, increased house and large purchases are up, the stock market is rising and Greenspan is raising interest rates to halt inflation from increased buying pressure. In other words, all Americans (not class-warfare rhetoric) understand that they are again keeping more of their own hard earned money and the government is now spending hoarded money on contracts with companies that create jobs and livings for Americans. Ordinary people are no longer afraid of pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps without becoming one of the hated and taxed rich by the Democrats as real people make their own familes lives better. LOOK AROUND YOURSELF.... AND SEE

If you take a look at the all-Republican budgets of the Bush years, you will find that pork-barrel spending has reached its highest level in history under Bush, who has never vetoed a spending bill, no matter how larded with pork it is. Government has grown under Bush even if you subtract 9/11, two wars, and homeland security.

Agreed. Bush has no control over porkbarreling spending by legislators buying votes by bringing home the bacon to their own constituencies. Spending bills not vetoed by Bush are not bad. Why do you fear government spending on things like contracts to American industries that make war materials, rebuild Iraq and its infrastructure, spending on new innovative medical technologies to improve American's lives and spending on public work projects to improve America's highways, education, real law enforcement and buying products and services from American industries which creates jobs and prosperity to America.

2. I agree with you that the 5.6 trillion surplus was an estimate that disregarded the social security trust fund shortfall (the number I've seen for it is $75 trillion total). Congress played that shell game throughout the 80s and 90s, raiding social security in order to make the budget look more balanced. Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton are all responsible for this. Bush II has continued to play that game. (Remember when Gore suggested placing social security surpluses beyond the reach of Congress? He was laughed at by Republicans for his "lock box.")

You really make me laugh. That Social Security shell game began with Franklin Delano Roosevelt and every Congress since his day. FDR, our first socialist president, created something worthwhile but did it ass-backwards. He decided to create Social Security for people who could not save for themselves but instead of putting those forced savings from Americans in their own personal annuity accounts, he wrote the law which placed these funds directly into the general account and put IOUs (treasury notes) in the Social Security Fund. The biggest Ponsi Scheme in the world. It now takes four working people to fund one social security recipient. In a few years it will take one working American to fund four retired baby-boomers social security benefits. Thank you Mr. Roosevelt.

Al Gore suggested a thing called a 'lock box' for social security. Something like closing the barn after the cow is out. If George Bush gets his way, at least a part of those social security funds will be held in the name of the payer in the form of a guaranteed annuity so that the money will really be there when they retire. But watch out for Congress does not wish to lose control of stolen money from American workers to buy votes for their re-elections into those golden parachute jobs.

There is no way you can propose that Bush has not created enormous new deficits which only ADD to the previous burden of deficit and shortfalls, both. He has decreased taxes WITHOUT decreasing spending. The borrowed money, 1 trillion dollars during the first Bush term, has come (92%) from foreigners. In other words we give away our financial independence.

You are truly naive. Again with the zero-sum-gain theory of the Democrat party. Why do you think that foreign capital flows into the United States even though the Euro is now stronger than the dollar? Do you think that this occurs because of this 'immense' spending deficit? No, America is the only stable market in the world not to mention that America has the greatest center of capital in the world. Which even overrides the Saudi oil fortunes by a country mile. That money from foreigners is not borrowed (except for US treasury notes), it is brought here for America's security and is used to buy American property, buildings, businesses and industry. Would foreign money be coming in if we were in such bad shape here in the USA?

If America was in jeopardy, the money would definitely be flowing out of American banks and selling of foreign interests would be big time news. Sorry but that old Democrat tale just doesn't hold water.

Clinton was far more fiscally conservative than Bush. He regularly vetoed spending and argued with Congress about pork. Even the conservative editorial page of the Wall Street Journal has taken Bush to task recently for his "non-leadership" on this issue.

Yeh right. Clinton was a REAL fiscal conservative alright. He passed the largest tax on Americans in modern history and in peacetime. His co-president, Hillary Clinton tried to pass the largest socialist healthcare system in our history and would have been devastating to Americans in every tax bracket. Clingon kept American's money in the goverment coffers instead of allowing people to keep their own money and live the good life to spend on their families and educations. His good fortune was the crest of the wave from his predecessor, Reagan and Bush 1 who lowered taxes and Clinton squandered America's resources and when he left office, the financial wave he had been riding was collapsing. The Wall Street Journal did take Bush to task but why is that surprising. The NY Times editorial staff is a well known left-wing biased non-journalist rag that no one believes any longer.

The Democrats had better pray that the trickle down theory of economics is better than the trickle up theory which has failed miserably for the American people vote with their pocket books and with their families security.

I think that Hillary Clinton is going to have a hard time running against her old time friend and DNC chairman Terry McCaulif.

3. When did I say we had more child poverty than Somalia? I said we have more--way more--than Europe, because they choose there to re-invest a significant proportion of their GDP in their people. We're an outlier among the industrial countries.

You did say America has more child poverty than any other country in the world. But Europe has thrown large amounts of money at child poverty but the reality is that there are more children hungry and uneducated in Europe than the USofA. Investing is no more than a code word for TAXATION of the bougeosie. America is the society that is not only envied around the world but we remain the only superpower in the world. Not only militarily but financially the most powerful country in the world.

I too spent many hours in a medical residency. But I did not look out of the window looking at ordinary citizens, simply trying to heal them.


Mariner.[/QUOTE]

 

[Mariner]

and when Clinton passed some modest tax increases on top of those that George H.W. Bush passed, what happened to the economy? It soared, which is exactly what it did when Reagan was forced to reverse his trickle-down Reaganomics (because his deficits had gotten out of control) and pass a modest tax increase in 1986.

Where do you get the idea that I think it's a zero-sum game? It's obviously not. But you're ignoring my point--increased productivity and increased corporate profit has not translated into significantly increased wages or standard or living for the average American, and the poor have done worse than anyone, children worst of all.

You're making me laugh by arguing FOR gov't spending. I thought conservatives were for small gov't! Bush has far more power over the budget than you suggest. He proposes a budget. Bush's proposals have been for the largest gov't ever. Previous presidents have negotiated with Congress rather than just rubber stamping Congressional spending. What's up with all these high-rolling Republicans anyway?

Which hoarded money are you talking about?

And you keep saying it's Democrats who are wrong and to blame, and the only ones who are upset. That's not true: many true conservatives, who believe in small government and paying your way are as upset about Bush and the Republican congress's bloated budgets as I am.

As for the recovery, it's picking up steam at last, but it's been generally anemic. Finally, you've had a couple of months under Bush that look as strong as the typical month did under Clinton.

In regard to the deficit, yes, you can best gauge its size as a percent of GDP, and by that measure these aren't the worst ever. But that does not make deficit spending good. We pay $300,000,000 in taxes that buys us nothing: it simply pays the interest on our debt. We're living on a national credit card, financed at the moment primarily by foreigners. And again, don't tell me it's only Democrats and worrywarts that care about this: I read concerns about this just as frequently in the conservative press as in the New York Times.

Bush seems to me to have chosen a simply bizarre course for our economy. It's not sustainable, and everyone knows it. At some point he'll either have to cut some programs massively or raise taxes. I'm betting that he's planning the former--and I don't think it'll fly, since people pretty much like a lot of the government that they get. They like the Coast Guard, the FDA, and not having to worry about elderly parents' nursing home costs.

His own rosiest projections (which, hypocritically assume that his own tax cuts won't be extended) are for extended deficits. And none of his rosy forecasts for the past few years has come even close to being true.

Mariner.

 

[freeandfun1]

and when Clinton passed some modest tax increases on top of those that George H.W. Bush passed, what happened to the economy? It soared

Really, most honest economists will tell you that it was Clinton's tax increases that led to the downturn in the economy. If you look at their passage and then the beginning of the downtrend in the economic condition, they are pretty parallel. However, you have already shown that you WILL not listen to reason or even facts, so why waste our time?!

 

[drowe]

....when Clinton passed some modest tax increases on top of those that George H.W. Bush passed, what happened to the economy? It soared, which is exactly what it did when Reagan was forced to reverse his trickle-down Reaganomics (because his deficits had gotten out of control) and pass a modest tax increase in 1986.....

The economy soared from the artificially valued tech market...not from tax increases. We were "lucky" (and so was Clinton) to have had the tech market boom when we did. If we didn't have that crutch then, we would all be discussing other economic problems now.

Again, reference the “Laffer Curve”, also reference the “Canons of Taxation”.

Here is a good place to start:

http://www.bized.ac.uk/virtual/economy/policy/tools/income/inctaxth.htm

 

[drowe]

I’ve posted this before but it seems appropriate to re-post here.

Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics

(This is how the cookie crumbles. Please read it carefully.)

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh $7.

The eighth $12.

The ninth $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, the ten men ate dinner in the same restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But, what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal. So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.

They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The ones who get the most money back from a reduction are those who paid in the most.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D
Distinguished Professor of Economics
536 Brooks Hall
University of Georgia

 

[freeandfun1]

The economy soared from the artificially valued tech market...not from tax increases. We were "lucky" (and so was Clinton) to have had the tech market boom when we did. If we didn't have that crutch then, we would all be discussing other economic problems now.

Exactly. Just look at how many companies went from going public to filing for bankruptcy during that period. That alone is a clear sign that the jobs "created" and the economy were not in sync. Companies hired like mad and created false backorders to justify higher valuations. It finally all caught up with them, but not until after the bigwigs (McAulliffe one of them) cashed out. It was Bush that started prosecuting people for the wrongdoings that took place under Clinton. However, Mariner and the left love to ignore those facts and live under some false impression that Clinton "created" all those jobs that are now gone......along with the investments made by the little guys.

 

[Mariner]

Bush gave me $600 back last year.

But he increased the national debt by a trillion dollars in the past 4 years.

I believe the national interest payment for that debt is ~$300 billion, or $1000 dollars for each American. For my family of three, that's ~$3000 per annum. Increasing it by a sixth adds $500 to the portion of my taxes that buys me nothing. So he gives me $600 and wastes $500. Less bang for my tax buck. Every Bush tax cut that raises the deficit will be associated with this sort of drag. I'd love to get the figures and do the calculation accurately--what if we're not getting a real tax cut at all?

By the way, I've enjoyed reading the Wall Street Journal in the past two weeks. They're becoming increasingly harsh in their assessments of Bush's tax and spend policies.

From today’s editorial page: “Republicans have been patting themselves on the back since election day, but maybe they should pay some attention to the pummeling they’ve been taking in the past two weeks. Democrats have been scoring by attacking the majority GOP as the party of big, intrusive government... Individual earmarks... total 18,000 this year and add up to $22 billion.” The editorial refers to the “Appropriations Committee—aka, the College of Cardinals or the Lords of Lard,” and concludes, “With control of the House, Senate, and White House, Republicans are now going to be held accountable for Congress’s decisions. If they talk like conservatives but spend like Democrats, voters may decide to elect the real thing.”

WSJ columnist Christopher Wood asks on the same page, “For how much longer will American have the luxury of running its own independent monetary policy?” His article notes that without the willingness of foreign countries, in particular Asian countries, to buy up our debt (which he says totals “77% of the world’s total current-account deficits,” we risk losing our financial independence to the whims of the global marketplace and our creditors. “This is an administration driven by ideological supply-siders, not by fiscal conservatives,” he says.

A lead article on the Money and Investing page notes that higher gas prices mean that “Energy Costs Could Damp Holiday Sales,” and fears “a lump of coal for an economy largely driven by consumer spending...”

So if you don't believe it from me, a Cambridge liberal, maybe you'll believe it from the conservative press. Supply-side economics was tried in the early 80s. It failed. Why are we doint it again?

Mariner.

(By the way, you can't say that the Clinton economic boom was solely due to tech stock bubble. I've never read that anywhere but here. The Dow was far higher at the end of the boom than it was when Clinton took office, so even after the correction, there was a real boom. Look at the jobs added--same thing--there were still more jobs after the boom than before. Were you better off in 1992 or 2000? Are you better off now than 2000? For most people the answer to question one is yes, and for many the answer to question two is no.)