The GOP's New Tax Cut Hypocrisy

"In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%"

In my opinion the 20% that own 85% of the wealth should pay 85% of the taxes

@MbunaMaineiac - the top 10% pay 80% of the taxes. The bottom 50% pay zero federal taxes.

Grow up! At best your rhetoric is tiresome, infantile and boring. It's the same old slop you neo con's have been preaching for 30 years now. That got us in the mess we are in. Use your brain and think up some new arguments. The old ones aren't serving you well anymore.

tumbleweed
No you didnt.... Did you just attempt to Alinsky Holly?

Cut it out Loser, that doenst work Radical, The Identify,personalize, demonize, destory.... Not working Radical...LOL

AMEN!!
Beinart is a total Obama brown-noser.

An income tax that is fair is a dream. As long as votes are bought no tax will be equal.

Reagan so structured the tax in '82 that our combined salaries had to be figured to support my very expensive career as a college teacher. Thus my out-of-whack expenses had to be borne against two salaries.

With no turbotax, this was a nightmare.

The only class war is that made bt the rich on the middle and poor.

You are almost right... you just didn't say "Conservatives" when you talked about those who love double-speak. Let me see if I understand your inane logic: Deficit spending that is used to give enormous tax cuts to the 2% or so of the very richest Americans is fine and dandy. Deficit spending that is used to ensure that the unemployed during a deep and seemingly endless recession get a pittance so they can put food on their table and/or take their kids to a doctor when they're sick is going to economically handicap us for fututure generations. Deficits either matter or they don't. You can't have it both ways... well, you can, but your grandkids can't because they will have to pay for your ridiculous dishonesty. The Bush tax cuts were a terrible idea when they were first proposed and they remain a terrible idea today. We, as a nation, have nothing.... NOTHING... to show for them, but a staggering structural deficit that makes it more and more difficult to do even the basic things we need to do as a nation. I am no fan of any of our current president's spending initiatives, not because they aren't good ideas whose time has come, but because we are flat effing broke thanks to the Bushies. Heck even the boob Reagan understood that part of "starving the beast" was actually.... um.... well... trying to starve the beast. In other words, using the unnecessary deficits as an excuse to DECREASE the budget not INCREASE it like the Bushies did.... and, no, I am talking about war spending even if that played a part. Bush never once included his war spending in the regular budget process. Instead, he chose to make them "emergency appropriations" so his minions could accuse anybody who voted no of "failure to support the troops". Being president is darn easy if you can do it without conscience or moral concern. Unfortunately, you also have to be a sociopath to do that, and, to date, GWB is the only sociopath to ever be elected president of the United States.

Holly
Your write posts as if you are an airhead or maybe a vacuum-head. Are you a psycho-political analyst of some wierd stipe? You seem to know a lot about what Liberals like, dislike, etc but you are never right, never subtle, never even on the subject at hand. You just want to say something and all you can think of is to mount your usual attack on people of the left. Grow up and move on.

Yet another wareagle stupidity. Get your head off of FOX, they are LYING TO YOU.

Romer said no such thing. Post the statement and a link, you wingnut charlatan.

You are so right, Buddha-san. It's nice that the wealthy have think tanks and lobbyists and bloggers to shill for them. They can sit around and brainstorm and focus group their new ideas that simplify complex notions for those who vote against their own interest in the name of freedom and liberty and "get the govt out of our lives"(until you need it). Econ101, I will see your Bernanke and raise you a Geitner, who said that we should stop the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, since we can all share the pain of this recession and show the world (China and our other overlords) we are serious about taking care of our debt. Voodoo economics pushed by the GOP since Reagan is just that--Voodoo. And the wealthy haven't helped the economy since they tend to save instead of spend their tax cuts. Why don't we have think tanks and focus groups to come up with ways for big business to start hiring and spending the trillions they have on their books and watch the economy really flourish. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

bosatu

Pleeeease! Are you saying the Democrates are any different?Stop your Alinsky attack Ad will you Radical?

The Carter years, or as the terminally vapid call them, the wonder years. Who does not aspire to return to double-digit unemployment AND inflation, gas lines, interest rates in excess of 20%, a president blaming the citizens, and an Olympic boycott. For all your meanderings through history, look at hte present and a president who makes all his predecessors look miserly, all the while looking for additional ways of ratcheting spending even further.

bosatu

You state your facts without ever putting anything in context. Here are a few facts you forgot to mention. No matter who is president this country is moving through a transition. Manufacturing is not the big industry it once was. The Republicans didn't kill manufacturing. You want to blame someone, blame the unions (that Obama supports) that demanded such high wages for their members that they drove manufacturing jobs overseas. Those jobs are what helped create a large middle class. Those jobs are not coming back. Period. All the money Obama spent on the stimulus package did not stimulate. Unemployment is still dangerously high. You call those two wars unnecessary and yet a majority of Congress, including a majority of Democrats voted for both those wars. As for wealth distribution why do you think you are entitled to someone else's wealth? They worked for it. Why do you deserve a piece of it? They pay more than their fair share of taxes and now you want more money from them? Why don't you pay more? No one is stopping you from becoming successful...except you. If you can't pull that off don't try to punish those who have.

wreagle:
There you go again, wreagle. Playing fast and loose with the truth. You know as much about American history as Sara palin, and have her research skills to match. The fact of the matter is that under President Carter, unemployment NEVER rose above 6.7%, whereas under spend and spend Ronnie, who increased the national debt during his rule by 189%, unemployment reached 10.8%, a post war record.

bransmo,
that is simply a lie re: Carter and unemployment. No other way to put it, a lie. Unemployment topped double digits and so did inflation.

Let's deal with the facts.

Before Bush tax cut. 200 billion surplus.

After Bush tax cut. 1.3 trillion deficit. 10 million jobs lost.

Only a stuptarded person would argue that the Bush tax cuts worked.

HollyK64:

Your post is the essence of silliness. Of course the economy is going through transition. All economies do it. This is the essence of progress - think progressive. Indeed, the conservative point of view these days is to do anything possible, not only to stop this transition, but to return to the failed policies of just a few short years ago. (I use the term conservative knowing full well that the term is abused by the crazies who now control the G.O.P. They are not true conservatives. They are ignorant fearmongers.)

You want context. Let's talk about that union thing. What the hell is it with people like you who think unions negotiated contracts all by themselves? For Christ's sake negotiations require two parties at a minimum. GM executives destroyed that company by giving in to demands that jeopardized that company's future. Your bias is so skewed you cannot understand that the unions were very successful. The capitalists were a miserable failure. If you have some other explanation for the failure of big business, I'd sure like to hear it.

Not all the money from the stimulus has yet been spent. The President and his advisers made a terrible mistake by putting a number on their expected outcome for several reasons. First, the economy is going through a transition that very few even begin to recognize and even fewer want to talk about. Time does not permit a full explanation, but employment figures refer to PAID employment, and even at that they are skewed.

It has been both fiscal and monetary policy that have kept employment at such high levels. The flip side of 10% unemployment means that 90% are employed. Oh yeah? Doing what? Shuffling paper, baby sitting (some times referred to as teaching), staffing a legal system that is a miserable failure, fighting unwinnable drug wars and the list goes on and on and on. How many jobs would be lost if parents actually did THEIR unpaid work - parenting? You want to fix the deficit. Do away with all deductions related to breeding. No exemptions. No child care credit. Put that in your pipe and smoke it the next time you bitch about putting financial burdens on future generations. The current system has them in effect paying for their own baby sitting. It's that debt thing, Holly.

Let's talk about wealth re-distribution for a minute. Property tax, sales tax, income tax, all kinds of taxes fund roads, just as one instance. Do you really think Wal-Mart with its enormous fleet of trucks is paying a proportionate amount of the cost of the roads they MUST have to make their profits. Of course not. That is merely one example, and the list goes on and on and on, and if you'd break free of your ideology for a few minutes, you would see why the rich should pay vastly more in tax.

Go look up Lance Reventlow, just one name among many that comes to mind, and tell me about his hard work and his fortune.

I am sick of right wing talking points that have no basis in fact.

Your last line is classic. You tell us that no one is stopping us from being successful except ourselves. Really? Then why the drumbeat telling us that it's government that keeps business people from investing?

How about some consistency here? Oh yeah, and some facts, too.

Warman
You are throwing around some wrong headed notions. Here from SSAUS: Inflation and unemployment

Year Inflation Rate
(percent) Unemployment
Rate (percent)
1973 6.2 4.8
1974 11.0 5.5
1975 9.1 8.3
1976 5.8 7.6
1977 6.5 6.9
1978 7.7 6.0
1979 11.3 5.8
1980 13.5 7.0

Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States

Unemployment and very high interest began when paul Volker, who then ran the Federal Reserve, beginning in 1975 and who later raised interest rates up to 20% and put a slew of people out of work. It broke the back of inflation and saved Reagan's presidency.

Hollyk64

I have not the time to sift through your usual pretence at contextual analysis, snort, which is nothing but childish tu quoque sniping at the brilliant analysis of boatsu and AlanD2 and David Walker on all these threads that you haunt. If you really believe that the rich pay more than their fair share you are out of kilter with even the moderates of the Republican party. Go read the Investor's Review- link provided by TDB above- and save yourself from more ridicule. What is it with you and 'famous rich people' . I know you live in LA and you boasted about all the rich people you know. You ranted about the women after famous men for money. You sympathised with Polanski for being harshly dealt with (what!) for raping a child. ...There is some kind of virus there that you have caught : I think it may be called the DRAFTS. That would be, in case you don't have a medical dictionary to hand, the Delusional Rich and Famous Totalitarian Stalker. Why totalitarian? Well, we like to be relevant, sorry, I do... Totalitarian refers to your need for a small politburo of rich and sleazies at the top of the pile dictating terms and conditions for the mass of the hard working and indentured middle class. I'm not sure what the antidote is. I would recommend you keep reading left-wing postings and try to keep your mouth closed to allow you brain to engage. Of course , you are not sectioned yet. There has been no introduction of silken cords or a straitjacket. You would be advised to take some remedial action now. Reading intelligent and considered analysis may help . The clock is ticking.... Your future mental health is in your hands.

Mauiboy

This was fun. Thanks. Oh, and also bang on the money.

angel

Do you understand what capitalism is? I don't think you do. If you prevent the private sector from expanding (which high taxes do) there will be less money to go around. Fewer jobs. I also don't buy your conclusion that poverty is to blame for lack of education. I know too many people who grew up in poor circumstances and yet found ways to learn and are now thriving. You don't have to go to the best schools to be the brightest star.

alan,
that the "rich" got more money from the tax cuts is like saying people in Florida get more sun than those in Oregon. No shit. When you are making, let's say $250K, a cut of 8% means a lot more money than if you were making $75K. Thanks, however, for giving voice to the liberal belief that the tax code is cudgel to be used for social engineering and that people really aren't entitled to what they earn.

You folks continue to live in your zero-sum world, with meaningless stats about whose income went up and whose didn't. It is not the role of govt to determine income; that is your job. The fact is, the tax cuts impacted people far below the six figure range AND they shifted more of the tax burden to the top earners. Time and again we hear how the top 5% or so pay more than half of all income taxes, and I have yet to hear a liberal refute that or even attempt to.

The further fallacy is that tax cuts "cost" anyone. It's not the govt's money; it belongs to those who earned it, and other than folks named Kennedy and Rockefeller, high-income folks did earn it. Lastly, when you toss out things from the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, known left-leaning organizations, the rest of us can come up with competing stats from either the Cato Institute or Heritage Foundation to refute your claims.

And this doesn't even address the low 15% rate paid by the very richest of the rich, the various money managers who pay cap gains rate rather than the income tax rate. As Buffett has famously said, he pays taxes at a lower rate than his housecleaner. Why hasn't that loophole been closed long ago? These money "wizards" aren't going to go into another line of work, making a mere million/year, if they have to pay 39% on $1 billion as opposed to 15%.

@AlanD2, Glad to see your usual drivel from left wing mouthpieces....Simple facts: everybody who gets paid a dividend, interest payment, or experienced a capital gain benefited from the Bush tax cuts, including millions of seniors living on a fixed income who can no longer work full-time. 47% of American wage earners pay no federal income tax whatsoever. The top 1% of all taxpayers pay 39% of all federal income taxes up 2% from 2000 when President Bush took office. The top 25% pay 86% and the top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes. It should be obvious that the problem we have is that 47% of wage earners pay nothing while 53% pay everything. The 47% who pay nothing also receive the vast majority of the benefit from government spending. It is such hypocrisy that liberals argue we can't cut spending because it will increase the risk of deepening the Obama depression but raising taxes won't when nearly every economist, even the Keynesians, say you shouldn't raise taxes in a depression. Warren Buffett says raising taxes now is a bad move. The only person with any financial acumen saying we should raise taxes is Timmy Geitner, an self-admitted tax cheat who as Head of the New York Federal Reserve lead the 2008-2009 financial meltdown.

Alan

Calling on the top five percent earners to pick up fifty percent of the tab for the rest of the country is grossly unfair. Liberals ignore that fact. Try to imagine this. A man is at a restaurant having dinner with his family. When the bill is placed on the table he sees that he's not only being charged for his meal but also for fifty percent of the people dining there that night. On top of that injustice the fifty percent getting the free food are hurling insults at him and demanding that he pay for their rent, transportation etc. Does that sound fair to you? Yet that is exactly what Liberals are arguing in favor of with tax increases. Funny how Liberals think they're against injustice in this country until injustice gets them a free ride and then suddenly they're all for it.

Alan the Paid Obama Hack

Thats all I have to say about your post...

Hey everyone who thinks working and providing for your selves is the way to go in a freeworld.
AlanD2 says and I quote "I will rely on Government thank you very much"
Thats the problem we have in this country today-------To many AlanD2's

Great posting! Another point that tends to get lost is that money has been proven to "trickle up" to a far greater extent than it trickles down; a tax cut for the lower and middle class benefits not only that class, but those above it, since it is far more likely to be spent on tangible goods and services. Whether it's unfair or just plain mean to tax a guy who trades paper for a living at a higher rate than a guy who works in a paper mill, the fact is that the paper trader benefits at some point from every dollar left in the hands of the mill worker; it'll either go into a retirement plan that he manages, or it'll be spent on tangible goods and services sold by companies that he has money invested in.

Wareagle claims: "... AND they shifted more of the tax burden to the top earners."

So you either didn't read my post or don't believe it when it said: "Once the financing is included, the 2001 and 2003 "tax cuts" are best seen as net tax cuts for about 20-25 percent of households [ the rich ], financed by net tax increases or benefit reductions for the remaining 75-80 percent of the population [ middle-class and the poor ]."

So tax cuts for the rich and tax increases for the poor shifts more tax burden to the rich? Perhaps in your universe, Wareagle.

dalelama, I see you joined Wareagle in not reading or not understanding my post.

My condolences either way.

Holly, before you start feeling sorry for those unfortunate rich people, you should know your facts: "15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America"

* The gap between the top 0.01% of Americans and everyone else hasn't been this bad in over 80 years.

* The effective federal tax rate on the top 0.01% of Americans has dropped by 50% since 1970.

* The poorest half of America owns only 2.5% of country's wealth. The top 10% owns 71.5%. The top 1% owns 33.8%.

* The top 1% of Americans owns 50.9% of America's stocks and bonds. The top 10% owns 90.3%. The bottom half owns 0.5%.

* Since 1980, the share of capital income earned by the top 1% has grown by 50%, while that earned by the bottom 80% has dropped by 50%.

* Since 1990, the average worker's pay has gone up 4%. Corporate profit is up 107%, the S&P 500 is up 141%, and CEO pay is up 298%.

* Real average hourly earnings for Americans has not increased in over 40 years.

* Since 1979, the top 1% have seen their share of America's income more than double. The bottom 90% have seen their portion shrink.

* The probability of an average American getting rich has gone down by two-thirds since 1945.

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-wealth-inequality-2010-7

(Remove any spaces if you copy and paste this link.)

timeisnow the troll barks again...

ZTHEZS, our government is a lot more trustworthy than our financial institutions.

As many unfortunate Americans found out in the stock market crash of 2008.

AlanD2
Yep good old trudtworthy reliable Government.
1.Medicare broke
2. Social security broke
3 Post office broke
If the federal had to earn a profit, it would have folded 100 yers ago. But no they can print money, they borrow till there is no country willing to lend it to us. They can tax the hell out of the people that have worked and scrached out a living.
Government cannot run a business.
Why can't you people understand that?
They can only delay the inevitable--bankruptcy.
Our Government is run by greedy crooked self serving liars, adulters, killers,tax cheats, bigots, thieves. How can a group of the likes of these people do anything for anyone. The scum keeps coming up, now Rangel is squirming to get a deal and he will get one. Kerry cheating his state out of a half million. Thats only the latest two pieces of dirt. Repubs. have their scum also. Tell me great minds that post on TDB how do we get out of the slim when we keep voting these losers back into office, and voting for people because they can read a teleprompter and promise to bring peace and harmony to all mankind. A chicken in every pot yea right. 14 million people and climbing, out of work. Our leader says we must keep moving forward and not looking back, he says we must reelect Polosi, Reid two of the most hated people in America. The two that are in charge of a Democrat congress that has the worst approval rating in the history of the world. We look forward and not back only when the leader finds in convienent to go back and blame someone else.

ZTHEZS: No problem. Raise taxes and everything's fine again.

Alan

All your posts here add up to the same thing. You think you are entitled to an equal ownership position in this country even though you've contributed less. You complain about the people who own most of the wealth in this country as if they woke up on christmas morning and found that wealth under their xmas tree...a gift from santa. They worked to accumulate that wealth. No one stopped you from joining a corporation and rising to the top...except you.

david walker.

Where to begin with you and your distorted facts? For starters you say "capitalists were a miserable failure". Really? Is that why China has adopted capitalist principles as has every other super power? Secondly, when talking about the economy going through a transition I was referring to going from an economy with a strong base in manufacturing to an economy that relies on other countries to fulfill those jobs. I wasn't talking about the daily or even yearly flux in the market. Finally I find your hatred for Wal-Mart, not to mention your hatred for child breeders to be proof that you're emotionally off-balance. Your call to "do away with all deductions related to breeding" was tipping your hand a little there, giving us a glimpse of your inner demons. The real icing on your bitter cake was mentioning Lance Reventlow as an example of why the rich should be taxed more. I get that you don't like the fact that this particular guy inherited a lot of money and didn't have to work for his life style. Yeah that happens. Some people inherit money. But somebody in their family had to work hard to create it and if that person wanted to pass down their wealth to their family that's their right. Just because some people inherit money doesn't mean increasing taxes is fair and it certainly doesn't mean that increasing taxes will help the economy. In fact many economists predict quite the opposite. I think any sane person reading your message will conclude that you are full of anger and jealousy. Those are the emotions driving your train, not reason, sanity or a desire to see this country move forward.

Holly, did you actually bother to read my posts?

Or are you in complete denial of reality?

Warman
Your sense of what taxes do and don't do is off the reservation. Don't all taxes contribute to social engineering to at least some degree? Can you name any country in which taxes are not so used? No you can't. And can you name an Industrial country anywhere with lower tax rates than the U.S.? No you can't. Every Industrial country in the world uses taxes to limit income inequalities - all of them my friend. The U.S., you will be happy to know, is at the very bottom and tolerates rates of poverty-even homelessness- than make many other countries look askance at us. Your dream state of very low taxes, all citizens at the same low, low rate would be a fucking disaster, a hell hole without educated people where the royal rich live behind bullet proof walls to protect themselves against the other 96% who live off the scraps. "It belongs to those who earn it..." That is your mantra as silly and naive as it is. They earned it off the backs and the sweat of a lot of other people and infrastructure others paid for and they manage a system they control, for their benefit and which perpetuates their wealth. But these are ideas you will never understand or accept despite the evidence. Do your self a favor. Take a European trip, spend time seeing the kinds of societies these people have create. Not perfect but much fairer, more inclusive, much higher quality of life. Great, livable cities, with fantastic public transportation, universal public health, generous benefit for families with new babies, free education. The average European is far more worldly, educated and traveled than the average American. You could learn much and it would benefit your understanding of the world.

Chuckv

You said it all, quite simply.... I suppose Obama is not the right man after all, or is he...
It amazes me how the GOP through the media is manipulating public opinion... and nobody seems to notice. And if one notices he will be discredited to the full extent of a corrupted law.
PITY, that.

Because your economic prescriptive is so deeply flawed we have no idea where to begin. No matter what the economy's doing, we need to cut taxes? Tax cuts will reduce the deficit? Tax cuts are sufficiently stimulative to offset the loss in revenue that they automatically, de facto entail? Good luck with that. There is exactly zero support for your position. Do it your way, and we will run this country into the ground.

Tell you what. You get to be Secretary of the Treasury of Fantasyland. The rest of us will be over here in the real world, trying to solve its problems.

I think Bruce Bartlett said it best, personally, in a recent piece in the Economist: "The Republicans don't have any credibility whatsoever. They squandered whatever they had when they enacted a massive UNFUNDED expansion of Medicare in 2003. Yet they had the nerve to complain about Obama's health plan, WHICH WAS FULLY PAID FOR according to the Congressional Budget Office. The word "chutzpah" is insufficient to describe how utterly indefensible the Republican position is, intellectually."

(I would have called it 'bankrupt,' personally, but 'indefensible' works too.)

A satisfying read for the adults among us. (Monetarists need not apply.)

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/07/bruce_bartlett _deficit_economy_and_vat

You also forgot the recent Republican recipe for ruining the govt and the economy: Run up huge deficits during good economic times, when deficit spending is not needed (Bush years), and then oppose deficit spending during bad economic times when it is critically necessary (the post-Bush collapse). That way you can be doubly wrong.

All the Democrats want to do is "Take from the Have and give it to the Have Not's" Its cult, you can find their plan of attack which Obama is currently showing us by his, take over's, bail outs, growing Government, Obamacare.
Taxing the Rich and making them the enemy is right out of the book Rules for Radicals, by Saul Alinsky, Rule #13 Identify, personalize, Demonize, destroy...
Socialism at its finest!

Chuckkv:

Following through on yourConservative economic logic and when I extend it to no taxes at all, it'll be boom boom time. Yeah, why can't Democrats understand that no taxes is even better. How come you're so much smarter than all economists?

Chuck

Tax cuts won't create jobs. You are being played by the democrats. They're hoping they can create an even wider schism in this country which we'll work for them politically. If the Democrats were interested in bringing down the deficit, they wouldn't have wasted billions on the stimulus package that was a colossal failure.

Chucky:

It is not as simple and tailored as "do not understand basic economics". There is more going on than textbook economics. There is a worldwide economic crisis which many Americans either don't know about, don't want to know about, know about but dismiss it, or think it shouldn't apply to them.

Whilst so many people of so many different opinions politically battle each other to submit their solution to America's economic woe, they exclude from their minds that the best fix-it solution won't work well unless the world is in reasonable economic harmony. No one country can excell and succeed on its own unless it has an abundance of cheap labor like productive China and India.

The nature of economics (humans, actually) is that there can never be indefinite or sustained growth because that gets pushed over the edge by lack of focus, greed, in particular, and other factors. Then we have to pause, suffer a bit and then it self corrects (with a bit of help).

So if Americans can pause and stop being so inward looking, they'll understand that we are part of a world that affects us and not heap blame on POTUS. That's a cowardly or convenient cop out. It would be cummulatively helpful if each of us could do whatever we can to help our country in whatever small way. Be patient and better times will return. Then, at some time, whosoever is President, the cycle will repeat itself. Note that we will not be top dog indefinitely. The world continues to change. Think world, not just U.S.A. and will be better equipped to succeed.

The more we mature, the more patient we become, the less partisan we are, the wiser we become, the more sustainably successful we will be. Nothing else will work.

Hey Chucky, I can't figure out if your comment about tax cuts for everything is satire or serious? If it's satire, how about tax cuts for GOP erectile dysfunction? If you are serious you are not only dumb but dumber then dumb.

Chuckv- Please, please, please tell me that this posting is intended as satire! It's frightening how many people just don't get something as simple as the Laffer Curve, and I didn't get enough sleep last night to be able to tell. One point that they also don't get is that the Laffer Curve is different for people at different points on the economic ladder; the line starts to decline at a much higher net taxable rate for the wealthy than it does for the poor, because they are able to absorb a lot more before it starts cutting into their consumer spending.

I think you guys all fell for this comedic bamboozle. I see it as sarcasm, sort of a reverse psychology position. A way to highlight the Republicans one-trick strategy. Well, two-trick strategy... One is to occupy our minds with smoke-doping Hippies, flag-burning commies, cadillac-driving welfare queens, baby-killing pro-choicers, marriage-diluting gays, Nazi's, Socialists, terrorists, Hipanics, Blacks, Jews..... The list goes on and on.
Then while we are fighting these illusions, they steal the bank, sell the farm, close up shop and tank our nation.
When we finally wake up, they shout, "Tax and spend Democrats! Right there! In the bushes! Socialism!.. Ahhhhhhhhh!" And another round begins.

sangha
Well the expert (haha) economists said the stimulus would work .Hmmm
Shows what they know.

I know! Tax cuts for the Rich and trickle down economics! The tax cuts will pay for themselves, and the money will trickle down to us when the rich hire our children as gardeners and masseuesses! Oh wait, didn't we try this already?

My point exactly: If tax cuts create jobs (which is what Retadlicans keep saying, then where are the job? C'mon Conservatards, where are the jobs?

Obviously, tax cuts are a very poor investment if the objective is to create jobs; tax cuts for the wealthy are the least effective. It's the most basic of common sense that if no one is buying anything, giving a tax break to a factory owner is not going to inspire him to add another shift!

Because Conervaturds have no brains individually, only as a colective. They listen hard to their corporate masters, and then regurgitate what they're told on command. When they're questioned, they just regurgitate the same chant all over again.


See Holly, Wareagel, Timeisnow, ad nauseam.

Your posting and willingness to put the good of the country first is greatly appreciated. The fact is, and I don't understand why so many that are well off just don't seem to "get" that a strong, healthy middle class is essential in order for the wealthy to stay wealthy. This money-grabbing, short-sighted race to the bottom- forcing the working middle class to compete with those living in third world countries- is not a sustainable business model, and it's beginning to catch up with us in the form of falling salaries, falling purchasing power, and more of our net wealth being redistributed overseas.

pacific

A better question is how many more jobs will be gone if those tax cuts are lost. The answer...plenty.

Holly K64
You are barking as usual. In your last post you are claiming tax cuts won't create jobs, now you are claiming they will. You need to get back on the meds cause you are a real confused lady. And , you wee liar, Bush introduced the first stimulus package. Why do you insist on it being Obama's call? You are a deceitful, pedophile defending pervert. Erm, Hols, do you have a husband and children? We think not. Please correct if wrong . Pff.......

JohnConnughton: Your comment is right on the money (pun intended). Taking taxes for the top 2% back to the pre-Bush level of 39% is not a tax increase, it is a return to sound economics. It is obvious from our current mess that "trickle down" failed miserably for a second time (first under Reagan) and then under W.
The most significant fact in Bienart's article is by not extending the tax cuts for the rich we will be avoiding adding 2 trillion to the deficit over the next ten years, with nothing in return, other then a lot of happy hedge fund managers.

But the biggest con job ever is the Republicans and Tea Party idiots are complaining about $900 billion for health reform adding to the deficit while cheerleading for tax cuts that add two trillion. The majority of Republicans and Tea Party members are not in the 2% that will benefit from the tax cuts for the rich, but they are so brainwashed by the right wing talking points they argue, even on this site, in support of the cuts. Talk about drinking the kool aid!

John, I argue that returning the highest marginal tax rate to that during the administration of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1950s - 91% - would do a lot to reduce our deficit.

I'm sure Holly will die of shock.

Carter's economic record speaks for itself, but he no doubts you and branson carrying his water.

Would you care to translate this into English, Wareagle?

What's going to keep America strong is the creation of new jobs and new industries. That won't happen in the business climate that Obama is creating. High taxes do not lead to the exploration of new job frontiers. Whatever the down and dirty reasons for invading Iraq, we're there now and much is riding on how we exit. If we left it up to Liberals we would have beat a hasty retreat which would only have made everything, here and in Iraq...much much worse.

Indeed, kind of you to try to enlighten Holly. Not going to help, I fear. She is barking; into pedophiles and jealous of anyone who can write something coherent and free of the stain of talking points. She is incapable. But plenty sour and vicious to a point where several of us will move to get her off this site if she doesn't behave herself.

There we go. Supply side economics explained. Without demand and the ability and confidence to buy, nothing will move. No jobs created, no multiplier effect enjoyed.
If all these bailouts had gone to people with mortgages, all the money would have made it to the bank anyway, but the value created on its way up would have helped us a lot.
The rich do not create jobs. Neither do corporations. Demand creates jobs. The rich merely create more riches for themselves.

Well said, bosatsu.

The biggest problem our economy faces today is the lack of consumer demand. This is why we really need more government stimulus spending, although we won't get it because of the party of "No" and Blue Dogs.

kena,
how long do you throw money at the widget buyers? Whose money are you throwing? And where does it come from?

wareagle,

Concur. I'm pleased to find some common sense among the vague and largely baseless utterances here.

Greenback, can't even say Bush, huh...very sad, both in your position, and perspective. (Lets see...using your logic, Obama would be O---O...sort of like all of the zeros in the debt and deficit he's creating for us...)

Nice to cherry-pick and choose your states. We weren't supposed to notice?

ID,
the whole idea was to get you to notice - the worst performing states have been prisoners of one-party rule for decades. Same goes for some of the sorriest cities in the country. It is not a coincidence.

So I guess you love paying for the tax breaks (15%) that guys like Schwartzman who made 4 billion last year gets to buy American companies and take them apart, kill the American jobs, move the manufacturing overseas and sell you a product that you though was made in the USA. OH yeah you love that payout to those kinds of parasite!

We the people need to push for the FAIR TAX, Get rid of these corrupt tax loop hole ridden laws that tax cheat Charlie Rangel wrote. Every one in this country should pay taxes. Even if it is only one dollar a year.

Spoken like a true troll, timeisnow.

I see practice makes perfect.

I agree, bosatsu. We desperately need government-financed election campaigns, with no corporations and individuals allowed to contribute.

Unfortunately, this would take a Constitutional amendment, thanks to our right-wing Supreme Court.

penny,
are you paying attention? More than half the country pays NO income tax; the burden is already tilted toward the upper earners. Those not paying do, however, receive all sorts of benefits. Perhaps this entitlement class should do its part in carrying the freight. Spend less time on name-calling, more on fact gathering. It'll make your argument much better.

No, the poor would a tax rebate equal to the percentage they spend on necessities times the applicable Fair Tax rate. Example, $35K (50%) (24%) equals tax rebate of $4,200...the numbers are just for illustrative purpose...The Fair Tax would replace all other federal taxes. This would save the economy approximately $500B in IRS related expense and capture about another $500B in tax revenue from the underground/foreign tourist sources over a ten year period. Employer costs would go down (no more FICA or Obamascare taxes), more People would be hired and economic decisions would not be muddled by tax considerations. Investment and savings would go through the roof. Unfortunately it would curtail the Democrats ability to wage class warfare through the tax code and actually help the country. Two reasons the Left will never support it.

Dalelama...
The IRS will never go away. Tax cheats will just shift their attentions to scamming this new system.

Don't believe this con, bosatsu. Like other conservative plans, it's nothing but a tax break for the wealthy. The rest of us will wind up paying for it.

bosatsu,
there are two books on it - it's called The Fair Tax and the books explain it in exhaustive detail, to the point that liberals like Alan break into hives because it removes class warfare from the equation.

bosatsu, Wareagle's "Fair Tax" is just like the "Fair and Balanced" reporting of Fox News.

grow up joanne- if you could stop watching Beck et al for 5 minutes you might have a chance...

Joanne:

Speaking of gullible, who would you like to run the country instead of Obama?

wanker

Did you just do the Alinsky dance on Joanne?

I think thats been done and we now want revenge, so you stupid @ss its time you stop watching MSNBC and get a real job so you can pay for everyones elses Obamacare, and its time you put your big fat hand back in your pocket! LOL

sangha774
That half azzed Congressman Al Franken that Minn. sent to congress would do a better job than Obama.

ZTHEZS, Franken is one of the smarted people in Congress.

You, on the other hand, are definitely "half azzed".

AlanD2
Yep Al Franken is one of the "SMARTED" alright. There are videos of him sleeping and doing his stupid droodles during Senate hearings. He is real "SMARTED".

ZTHEZS
Thanks for the laugh.

ZTHZTS

First you need to get a new name this one stinks...LOL and second That Radical needs to be impeached because him and those ACORN/inmates creeps stole that election

dalelama:

Nothing you say is working. It's like a stuck record. I'm sure you haven't noticed. Folks are a lot more intelligent (and respectful) than you give them credit.

Half a million men were slaughtered because the South seceded from America. Shall we go down that road again? Shall we be like the Soviet Empire that is now trying to win back its 'sphere of influence'? Shall we Balkanize ourselves into the states of Bob and Tony, where every house is a nation unto itself?
Getting the government to do its job correctly is one thing. Usurping federal authority for a neo-nazi agenda is quite another.
I know this only addresses one of your issues. And you can hate on Obama all you want, he has accomplished more good for America than any president in a very long time. I know you don't agree, but we cannot afford corporate Republicanism to continue bleeding us because of their unholy alliance with the devil so they can have power.

sangha
Wanna bet.But you got the part right about folks being a lot more intelligent.They finally see what an Obama nation looks like and will rectify it in 2012.

dalelama the "Urkle" troll is spouting Fox News talking points again. What a drag.

Alan the Obama Paid Hack

You Know Nothing!!!!

Am I getting your goat, timeisnow?

bosa,
first, presidents don't spend money; Congress does. Second, Reagan had a near-constant Dem majority in Congress meaning he could not unilaterally do whatever he wanted. There had to be some give and take. The tax fueled an explosion of revenue to the Treasury; Reagan upped the ante on military spending, which some might see as a good thing since it led to the downfall of hte Soviet Union. Dems got some things they wanted, too. As revenue went up, so did spending and that continued into the 90s.

The loss of manufacturing jobs has nothing to do with Reagan and everything to do with the changing ways of hte consumer. We want everything for nothing. Look at the shelves of your local big box and note where things are made. Then, note the crowd in the store. It's not an accident; folks don't care where things are made, they just want them cheap. Sam Walton built his empire on the notion of "buy American" till he found out he couldn't stay in business doing that.

As to wars, one is as close to 'won' as it is going to get. We will leave Iraq in the hands of a popularly-elected govt, an improvement from the tyrant who ran teh place before. Afghanistan is another story. Your 'no-bid' nonsense is its own talking point; the Obama WH did the same thing wiht another company but I guess that was no a problem.

Obama let the Nobel people distribute his $1.4 million peace prize money to his charities----that way Obama had no tax libility, but he wants our azz taxed. Thats right Kerry is cheating his state out of $500,000.00 in taxes.
I hope you people in Mass. remember that, come time for his reelection.

I believe that what Kerry is doing with his boat is perfectly legal. Any U.S. citizen would behave similarly.

@koyaanisqatsi, True but not every US citizen is asking me to pay them more money so they can turn around and pay others to vote for him. Again Kerry is the typical liberal politician, do what I say but not as I do. If he really cared about the poor he wouldn't be trying to pay less taxes, if he really cared about the unemployed here at home he would have bought a USA made sailboat.

You're a lying moron, which is typical of the right-winged delusions you represent. The national debt when Bushboy stole the WH in 2001 was $5 trillion. At the end of his disastrous and criminal administration it stood at $10 billion. The depraved, incompetent Bushboy had doubled the national debt due to his insane wars and his inane tax cuts for the rich.
Bushboy also left behind a $1 trillion/year deficit, which could not be reversed due to the on-going wars and the on-going tax cuts for the rich, which were exacerbated by his other legacy: a collapsed economy.
After 18 months in office the national debt stands at $12 trillion to $13 trillion. That is a $3 trillion addition (mostly due to the deficits Bushboy left behind), and not the lie about "triple" you're trying to spread, according to basic arithmetic, something which I doubt you understand.
If you right-wingers spent more time studying arithmetic and less time watching Fake News, you might lie less and become more logical. But I also doubt being "fair and balanced" interests you.

You are correct Obama spent the stimulus package paying back the people who put him office. It is a simple fact why do people go on news shows and say with a straight face "I don't know why the stimulus package didn't help at all" Even a complete fool like Keith Obamerman would have a hard time not spitting Obozo tea bag out and start laughing!

dalelama:

Thanks. Seems like you've figured it out, ya think?

@periscope, You are right I did miscalculate...let's in Bush's eight years by your own numbers increased the deficit by $5B. In 8 years (God forbid) Obama will grow the deficit at the current rate by $14B (not including more spending on health care and "stimulus" nor even further revenue shrinkage brought on by the deepening Obama depression). Gimme second, 14/5 equals 2.8. Forgive me for rounding up so the mushy liberal mind wouldn't have to understand the complexities of a decimal point. Hope you get a better grasp of basic arithmetic cockroach.

dalelama. Did you somehow forget that the 2009 budget was formulated and voted on in 2008 by the Bush Administration? Or do you think that budgets are formulated AFTER they are spent?

The entire world was in a massive economic depression brought about by laissez faire capitalism and rampant stock market manipulation.
Did farmers do this? Did factory workers? Socialists? No, the rich did it. They speculated, they cheated, they stole. They did everything that they could to grab as big a piece of the planetary pie as they could.
That is what has been happening again in the Republican years since Reagan. That party found its golden goose... a Faustian bargain with the devil. Sell America out and you can have power. Keep America occupied with hippies, and commies, and gays, and Latino's.... Don't allow an honest conversation to happen. Keep shouting and pointing to one enemy after another so we don't notice you pocketing our wealth.