Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Raise taxes whatever!

Why should a “consertative” raise taxes when they can just run up RECORD debts and claim that the economy is great as a result of said tax cuts. They know that eventually Democrats will be back in charge and they will do the responsible thing and raise taxs up to a reasonible level. Then, and this is the best part, the next election cycle they can campaign about “tax and spend” libreals who can’t get their hands on your money fast enough, and claim how the gop is the more fiscally responsible of the parties.

See it all makes sense “spend and lend” is more responsible than “tax and spend”. If you have no idea where you will get the money to pay back the debt you own China it’s ok. Asking the top 10% of americans to do their part now thats just dumb and it makes no sense.

It’s been said before….

“There you go again.”

Comrades, please stop shouting. Your tired old mantra does not work any more. It has been proven several times in my lifetime (I’m 48) that “supply-side nonsense” works very well. It worked when JFK used it and when Ronald Reagan used it and it is working now. Receipts to the Federal Treasury have increased since the Bush tax cuts (that means the Federal Government has more money, for Paul and Jeff). The last Democrat to use tax increases to increase the Treasury, decreased it instead. Clinton took an economy growing faster than any in history and succeeded in slowing it, slowing it and eventually got it to shift into reverse. We had a recesion the last 6 months of Clinton’s term. We have now outgrown that damage and are increasing incomes, creating jobs and employing more people than ever. Currently the top 1% of wage earners (not rich fat cats doing nothing)pay over 34% of all income taxes paid. I’d say that’s doing more than their share. Also remember that cutting taxes on capital gains benefits everyone who sells a house or invests in the stock or bond markets and that’s now approximatly 52% of all US workers.

yeah yeah yeah, if it’s not one thing it’s another, those damn evil republicans, doing everything for the benefit of the rich. You guys kill me. Now while I will agree that the federal spending has been out of control, the cutting of taxes on people who have an income over $250 does not increase the taxes on the poor. I mean where in the hell do you get these whack ideas? Ask any good economis, and they will tell you the direct benefits of decreasing the taxes. Decreasing taxes helps to boost the economy. How you ask? Because people have more diposable income which they can spend on goods. Now what do they pay when they buy goods?? Sales tax right? Right. More importantly, what happens when you increase demand? You must increase supply, and how do you increase supply, you increase your production capabilities, and how do you do that, you hire more workers. Now, getting to your cleverly picked statistic about real wage decrease. That stat is crap and you know it, it shows one needle in the haystick, I would wager that a deccrease in real wages is not prevalent in all industries, secondly, how was this percentage reached, did they take the total number of workers and divide them by the monies paid out? Or did they take the total number of workers at a set payscale compared to last year? Either way the number can still be skewed. For example, if they took the average payouts/#ofemployees and compared this year to last year, there could be a simple explanation for that. If they had to hire more workers this year to meet increased demands, that would mean that they would have an increase in workers earning the lowest wage they pay right? So if you increase the the number of workers that are paid the lowest amount, it is simple math that it would bring down your average real world wage.
I mean come on you gotta come with something better than this

And again a typical democrat leaving out important info that is contrary to their point.

from that NYT article
“For workers, however, the report shows that the rise in energy costs has wiped away any advantage they received in the form of higher wages, at least for a time. Before adjusting for inflation, hourly compensation rose 3.7 percent.

Compared with the third quarter of 2004, productivity in the most recent quarter grew at a rate of 3.1 percent, real hourly compensation rose 1.2 percent and unit labor costs were up 1.8 percent.”

Key here is before inflation caused by increases in oil prices etc. hourly compensation rose 3.7%. Now while why can get into the evils of the oil companies, Bush cannot control (unbeknown to democrats) hurricanes, and inflation does rise when you have an economy that is on fire. The fed has responded to inflation by not increaseing the fed rate to slow down inflation.

What I fail to see is how you think that these tax cuts increased taxes for the working class. All I saw was the typical Liberial spin. There is NO proof that cuting taxes anywhere automaticly raises taxes on the working class.
Did the bill specificlly raise taxes on the working class? NO.
All the left is concerned with is punishing sucess. Sucess flys in the face of Liberials and their idea that everyone is to stupid to make it without BIG BROTHERS help.

Maybe no democrats can invest in any dividend paying or capital gain generating investments so the tax cuts are not for them.

Taxes such as gas tax, cigarette tax and other sales taxes are the ones that you should be screaming about as these are very unfair when you compare the % to income earned, or is that just a republican view point.

Andrew,
Supply side economics is far from proven. Money does not simply disappear when it is taxed. Redistribution can retarget spending more efficiently and effectively than the individual. Individual spending can provide an efficient, effective market solution, but in a society, it occurs without conscious direction.
Government spending can consciously direct money; like private spending, innovation and unexpected benefits can also happen.

For example, goverment spending on the space program provided innumerable benefits. Yet that program could never have been initiated by individuals in the market. The only reason it occurred was through the conscious decision of government, funded by taxes- indeed, rather high levels of taxation.

By the same token, government can use taxation to address Global Warming. If allowed to be addressed by a market solution, market-driven actions could take place too late to matter. Waiting decades for the marketplace to address it might be disastrously inefficient, if temperatures spiral out of control, or are so high they cannot be brought down for decades.

Mr Brown said on Dec 9, “What I fail to see is how tax cuts increased taxes on the working class” I think he knows, but just in case he is not joking. Cutting taxes will increase the defficit and the National debt. Mr Brown, why do people of your political view measure sucess with dollar signs? “Punishing sucess”? Does anyone know if Martin Luther king Jr., or Abe Lincoln were wealthy? They were sucessful. If lowering taxes works so well, lower the effective tax rate to 0.001%. If your theory is true, money will come rolling in! Why wasn’t this done before? The fact is tax cuts worked to increase tax revenue one time. JFK lowered the top rates from a war time high of 90% to 70%. The tax cuts in the 1980’s raised the deficit. Total revenue to the goverment increased because Social Security taxes were increased. That increase was signed by the 40th President. Please remember “you are entitled to yopur own opinion, but not your own facts”. We all remember who said that. Hint for the ditto heads (RR).

It seems to me that this Blog must be mis-labled. Most of the commentary has been from the “haves” who will go to any length to rationalize why it was good to give over 85% or this tax cut to those who earn over $200,000 per year.

HELLO - Earth to Republivan Geeks who spout their BS on a Democrats & Liberal web blog. Take your trickle-down crap and go peddle it somewhere else - perhaps in the Camen Islands, where many of your buddies are busy hiding their booty!

Why is sitting on your butt in a penthouse suite and doing nothing but collecting didvidend checks so pure? And working your ass off at Wal-Mart for $6.50 an hour so dishonorable? Why are these two situations even comparable? When people who earn over $500,000 per year get a -40% tax break, and people who work for a living get a -2% tax break you don’t dare to call what just happened in Washington FAIR! Children are the ones who will suffer most from these tax cuts - because Republicans are using the excuse to Cut benefits to the poor as a reason to vote for Budget Cuts while at the same time increasing the Deficit by handing tax breaks to the top 4% of the wealthiest taxpayers - whose tax cut checks alone will amount to over $50,000 for millionaires, while workers will get a break equivilent to one tank of gas. To hell with all the widows and orphans! Cut their Medicare, chop off the funds for Child Support enforcement, stop giving school lunches to kids who must attend school on empty stomachs!

Shame on you bastards!

Yes dems it is true the sky is falling!! The sky is falling!!

phx8 you defeat your own arguement. I am sorry but is it not private money that is currently funding reaserch in to space travel, to the point where you and I may one day be able to buy a space ticket? And as far as supply side economics goes ask an good economists about cutting taxes and it’s effects on boosting the economy. I mean are you guys so blind to see that the tax cut has had an effect on the economy right now. It also had an effect when Regan went into office, how easily you all forget. Increased taxes decrease spending and growth. Increasing taxes can lead to a recession. If any of you are in college, ask your econ profeesor about the effects of tax increase/decrease on the economy. The simple facts are, if you give a 10% tax break to someone who makes over 200,000 a year versus giving someone who makes only 20,000 a year which person do you think will have the biggest effect on driving the economy with there left over money?? The fact is that you guys have so much hatred for the republicans that you allow it to fog up your common sense abilities.

Also cutting taxes does not increase the national defecit. Increased government spending increases the national defecit. And yes Bush is spending too much, which is pissing off the republican base. And Rush O’Hannity you are straight up worng, you need to do your research better. Tax cuts have continuously proven to increase tax revenue. Again, when people have more money to spend they will buy more consumbales, reinvest in thier businesses, and see growth in that business (which is taxed). In the 80’s the arms race is the number one driving factor to an increase in the national defecit not tax cuts. Personally, I would like to see the Fair tax plan go through. No more income tax for anybody, all tax revenues are made off of sales tax, spending, etc. That to me is the most fair tax plan around. Most people that are sitting in a penthouse collecting that kind of money have worked their asses of to get to that position in life. And for all those bleeding heart dems that cry about how the poor are mistreated, how much of your annual salary do you give to non-profit organizations that help the poor?? Hypocrits! And here is another intresting tidbit for you. In Bush’s bill addressing monies for the poor he earmarked a record amount roughly 390 Billion dollars, Clinton only earmarked a mere 250 billion. So go cry about how Bush hates the poor to somebody else. The fact of the matter is that throwing money at poverty doesn’t work. They have to take some ownership for their situation in life, and choose to do something on thier own to better themselves.

phx8,

Redistribution can retarget spending more efficiently and effectively than the individual.

The really sad part about this statement is that you truly believe it. If the government knows how to spend your money more “efficiently and effectively”, then shouldn’t you give it all to them? (this has been tried BTW)

You assume that people are too dumb to know how to spend it “properly”.

Some of us do not think that way.

Andrew,
“… Is it not private money that is currently funding reaserch in to space travel, to the point where you and I may one day be able to buy a space ticket?”

How long do you think that will take? A long time, of course. Wh? Private investors lack the enormous amounts of capital necessary to start up a space program. The rewards are enormous- but as the old saying goes, it takes money to make money.

Your respect for “good economists” is touching. In the late 70s some respected economists thought inflation had a purely psychological origin. In 1987 the Fed, in conjuction with several of the largest brokerages, intervened in the stock market to prevent a new phenomenon called “program trading” from driving the market down to 0. That’s not a typo. Zero. Explain that one with supply side economics!

But truly, I’m being somewhat obtuse, because I do believe fiscal stimulus is the right move for the government during a downturn. Fiscal stimulus can take the form of tax cuts as well as increased spending.

The problem I have with Bush twofold:
First, tax cuts targeted towards the wealthy are not an efficient method of stimulating an economy; tax cuts targeted towards the poor result in immediate spending, rather than saving, and that’s the idea of tax cuts in the first place. Tax cuts favoring large corporations might be helpful, except that large corporations have invested outside the US, and outsourced the jobs. The result? Very good numbers for companies, but very poor numbers for jobs and wages. Corporations do great. People do poorly.

Second, fiscal stimulus needs to be followed by fiscal restraint. The Fed uses monetary policy for stimulus when it lowers the Federal Funds rate. By the same token, when the economy recovers, the Fed acts responsibly, and raises the rate.
The Bush administration, however, continues pushing additional tax cuts, although we’re clearly in a recovery; in addition, Republicans continue spending like drunken Democrats. Bush has yet to veto even one spending bill! Targeted tax cuts provide a stimulus to accelerate recovery from an economic downturn. However, the stimulus does not generate revenues faster than the deficits incurred by fiscual stimulus. Failure to target the cuts results in a slow recovery, such as the one we have witnessed.

“In the 80’s the arms race is the number one driving factor to an increase in the national defecit not tax cuts.”

You know perfectly well there are two sides to the equation, revenues and expenses. Reagan chose to increase spending and decrease revenues (taxes). The results were a predicably huge deficit & national debt.

“The fact of the matter is that throwing money at poverty doesn’t work.”

Oh my. Opposed to charity, alms, that kind of thing, are you?

Discerner,
“If the government knows how to spend your money more “efficiently and effectively”, then shouldn’t you give it all to them?”

Don’t be silly. We’re talking about situations which require societal cooperation on a large scale, projects which require enormous amounts of capital, and other situations where the government can benefit from economies of scale; The military, transportation, addressing Global Warming issues, and so on.

You assume that people are too dumb to know how to spend it “properly”.

Let me think. Veblen’s ‘conspicuous consumption.’ Pet Rocks. Nah, not going there. Discerner, I’m in too good a mood to contemplate the extent of people’s folly. Of course we’re free, and we treasure individualism in this country. That does not preclude cooperation.

I am returning to this blog after some time off to find that little has changed. Stephen and the other liberals and progressives who post regularly still allow themselves to get drawn into debates with people who reflexively reject any evidence that contradicts their ideological obsessions.

Frankly, reading Andrew’s fevered denunciations of anyone who questions supply-side economics - a concept that I am convinced he does not even understand - or Ron Brown’s semi-literate fumings against “liberials”, or Jim’s or Cliff’s anythings wastes my time. However, reading RESPONSES to these postings ALSO wastes my time.

I have decided to read and to respond to only those postings that look at problems and potential solutions without falling back on ideological hackery. I know that some of what is posted on this board is inflammatory, but only if you don’t learn to ignore it and get on with the real business at hand.

If I have said anything to insult those on the Right who have been busily posting their breathless, fact-free little postings, I really couldn’t care less.

Robert, glad to see that you’ve come off your lofty perch long enough to make condescending remarks about fact-free posts… in a completely fact-free post of your own. You haven’t offered one substantial criticism of Andrew’s considerably substantial remarks, and frankly his grasp of supply side economics is by all evidence far greater than your own (something you don’t even bother to demonstrate).

Perhaps the Daily Kos is more to your liking? You won’t find any conservatives there sullying leftist orthodoxy with facts—it’s an utterly pristine socialist paradise floating blissfully in cyberspace.

I swear to God I am an affluent liberal who is wondering what in this sick world is going on with the American people that they support the current administration and their lackeys. Afterall, they voted the neoCONs BACK into office after all the craB they pulled last term. There are no surprises to be found here.

I say we informed progressives should just sit on our hands and let the GOP get us out of this mess. My gut feel is that 4 or 8 more years of this and there will be a People’s Revolution in America. I’m going to hide my cash and start working manual labor jobs so when the p*ssed off populace wants to start the re-education camps I will escape their notice. If the GOP think far left liberals are wackos, wait till the conservative working class catches on to the fact that they’ve been taken to the cleaners - lock, stock, and barrel.

I hope it doesn’t come to this, but the wealthy GOPcrats in the American Government have really taken us down a dark path in a few short years. They’ve plundered the larder and pickpocketed the poor. Surely they pray that there is no God. Oh well,… God help us all.

Rick, when you’re stashing your cash in preparation for the “People’s Revolution,” may I suggest that you consult a stock broker about first about where to stash it? The Clinton recession is now over, and the Bush economy is booming. You stand to make a pile if you stash your money in the right places.

PHX8,

You said “We’re talking about situations which require societal cooperation on a large scale, projects which require enormous amounts of capital, and other situations where the government can benefit from economies of scale; The military, transportation, addressing Global Warming issues, and so on.”

What you are talking about, I think, is the importance of society as a whole investing part of its current wealth in its future. We know what happens when businesses fail to invest in their future ability to compete - including their ability to attract and retain research and production talent. They start to wither and die. That is what happened to the American steel industry in the 60s and 70s and to the railroads much earlier.

From this standpoint, a tax policy that encourages and rewards actual investment, not speculation, in competitive enterprise makes sense. If the wealthy benefit from tax cuts that reward productive investment instead of financial speculation, I don’t mind a bit.

However, that is not what we have seen since the Reagan Administration. Rather than encourage and reward investment, Rightist economic policy encourages short-term financial speculation and actually DIScourages investments that take time to deliver a sure return. It is no wonder that people like Warren Buffett have no respect for tax-cut ideologues.

I have never understood trickle down economics. How does putting more money in the hands of the wealthy help the economy? Why wait for the money to “trickle” down? Wouldn’t it be quicker to just put the money in the hands of lower wage earners to start with? Most live paycheck to paycheck, so any tax cuts would be put back into the economy almost immediately. Corporations would then be more willing to reinvest it because of increased spending and demand. It could be called trickle up economics.

The Clinton recession is now over, and the Bush economy is booming. You stand to make a pile if you stash your money in the right places.

This is a good point. I have some investments. I put a certain amount of my pay, what I can afford, into them. If I recieved a tax cut I would increase the amount going into my investments. Wealthy corporations would still get the money, it just wouldn’t be in the form of a tax cut. Plus, that would hopefully increase my returns. Isn’t this a win-win or am I way off base?

JayJay,
I’m a Republican and I think supply-side economics is a pig-in-a-poke. The trickle-down philosophy is predicated on an economic leach field that allows the benefits to perk downward to those less well-endowed financially. However, greed prevents these benefits from perking down. That’s why we have an economy which allows CEOs to get $100,000 performance bonuses for laying off workers. That’s why we have an economy which values unearned income over earned income. We used to be a nation of steelworkers, ironworkers, and autoworkers. Now we’re a nation of stockbrokers, mortgage brokers, and usurers. Here in Alaska we’re facing a impending shortage of construction workers, yet another payday loan shark called Money Mart just opened its doors. Makes me want to puke. The Republican establishment is no longer conservative. They’ve been hijacked by neo-conservatives who trace their political ancestry back to Leon Trotsky (Irving Kristol, the father of modern neo-conservativism, used to be a Communist). They didn’t like Trotsky’s ideology, but they sure love his methods.

True enough, Carl. Discussing supply-side economics and fiscal stimulus is irrelevant with the Bush adminstration. Bush advocates tax cuts and obscene spending regardless of circumstances.

Why?

Because the Neocons are about power. They are about accumulating power by any means available. It’s all politics, politics for power, and power to reward friends.

Down economy in 2002? Upcoming elections? Invade Iraq!

Need votes? Cut taxes! Spend more!

And when it comes to rewarding cronies, no industry contains more ‘friends’ than energy, especially Big Oil.

It’s just sad when the wingnuts trot out something like this: “If the Bush administration is all about oil, then how come gas prices are so high?” The poor bastards. As if Bush were representing them. As if he were representing their interests.

The poor, dumb bastards. During the Clinton administration, 23 million jobs were created in 8 years. During the Bush administration, 1.4 million jobs have been created in 5 years. We’re talking jobs. Not corporate profit. Not taxation on wages made. Jobs. Yet some sad wingnut will blame today’s situation on Clinton, as if somehow, we just haven’t given the Bush administration a chance!

Get real. We’re well into the recovery. This is it, folks. Believe it or not, these are the good times. Should be some decent economic numbers for a few more months.

But the bill is coming due for all the debts incurred. Cutting taxes and increasing spending while simultaneously dropping $5 bill a month in Iraq won’t fly.

The harbinger of the fall will come with an inverted yield curve. Watch the curve.

The trickle-down philosophy is predicated on an economic leach field that allows the benefits to perk downward to those less well-endowed financially. However, greed prevents these benefits from perking down.

This would only be true if those making a lot of money sewed it up in their mattresses or buried it in their back yard. That’s not how “greed” works, however. Greed actually means that you use your money to make more money, something that stimulates the economy. Take Bill Gates, for example. Is his money sitting somewhere in a giant pile? No, it’s in the bank and other investments, meaning that it’s available to you and me to use to start a business, build a house or go to college.

It’s the difference between consumption and investment. Trickle down economics (investment economics) is analogous to a carpenter who buys a hammer and an electrical drill. So called trickle-down (consumption economics) is when the same carepenter buys a plasma television. Both consumption and investment are necessary and help to spur the economy, but what does more to create wealth and help the economy in the long run—the carpenter with the plasma tv or the carpenter with a hammer and drill?

every single one of you is caught up in the two party scam that has been running american government for the better part of our young history.

one party takes power for awhile and panders to its constituency until the paltry percentage of americans who actually vote get riled up enough to think about a change…..then bam, before any real solution or alternative can gain ground, we simple switch which party runs the congress or the white house for an election and the cycle continues.

the real question to ask yourself is this:
am i just one more sheep in the great american flock being bred, lied to, and slowly led to the slaughter?

the real answer:
YES! yes I am.

wake up america, you’ve gotten fat, lazy, and dumb.
your freedoms are slipping away right before your eyes.

Sanger,

I really don’t that much about economics. It seems to me that some pencil pushing bueracrats have made it much more complicated then it needs to be. In your analogous about the carpenter, the carpenter who buys the plasma tv helps the economy more. You can buy a hammer and drill for $20 or less at walmart. That plasma tv costs thousands. But like I said I really don’t know how the complexities of the economy work, so I could be wrong.

All I know of the economy is from experiance. I veiw the Democrat economy supioror to the Republican economy, based solely on expericance. Reagan and Bush I were years of layoffs. Clinton years were years of new job opprotunities, overtime became plentiful, and wages grew. Bush II, has reverted to the years of layoffs, stangnant or reduced wages and loss of much overtime opprotunities. These are all based on personal experiance only, and have nothing to do with what the numbers crunchers have to say about it. And I do not buy, nor do I think most average American buy, the notion of lag time. Some policies may take years to pan out, but for the most part I think the typical lag time is 6 months at best.

Carl, phx8 and JayJay,

I read your posts and thought you made good points.

You might find this interesting. The Pew Reseach Institute publishes a yearly study called Mapping the Political Landscape. The 2005 study, which was published in February, describes eligible voters as belonging to 9 different political typologies.

According to Pew’s findings in 2004, 9% of the general public and 11% of registered voters belong to a type called Enterprisers. These are George Bush’s core economic base voters, people who are totally committed to tax cuts and the shrinking of government with no regard for any other reality.

Social Conservatives are another key group within the – until now – reliable Bush Base and account for 11% of the general public and 13% of registered voters. Here is how the study describes them:

“Social Conservatives agree with Enterprisers on most issues, but they tend to be critical of business and supportive of government regulation to protect the public good and the environment. They also express deep concerns about the growing number of immigrants in America. This largely female group includes many white evangelical Christians, and nearly half of Social Conservatives live in the South.”

What is interesting about Social Conservatives is that, while those who get the most publicity and have the most influence within the Republican Party lean toward theocratic fascism, many others do not. The latter believe in a Social Gospel and are highly critical of the business practices that Enterprisers embrace with total zeal. This is already causing strains within the Social Conservatives ranks and between them and Enterprisers

Since the 2005 study came out, the alliance among Enterprisers, Social Conservatives and the Center-Right groups in the Republican coalition seems to be fraying. From every analysis and poll I have seen, Iraq is a big part of this. But the accelerating defection of those on the Center-Right is also a result of their recognizing the true nature of their allies – and being scared and disgusted by what they recognize.

Bush and his cronies may be holding on to the Enterprisers – as we see on this forum – but every other group of Republicans – including Social Conservatives – is either losing faith or refusing to hold their noses any longer.

At the same time as the Republican Party is losing the support of the Center-Right, we are not effectively gaining their support. I think that is because we are still locked into complaining more than re-establishing our credibility as a governing party. That calls for a platform that everyone across the Center can support, but one that the national Democratic Party has yet to articulate.

I would like to see people in this forum start discussing how we in the Center-Left and Center can find common ground with the Center-Right. They are the true conservatives who believe that government should be minimalist, efficient, and even handed, who believe that one generation does not have the right to impoverish the next, and who do NOT believe that the Bill of Rights belongs only to those who think, vote and pray like them.

Tax cuts only benefit the economy when they are given to middle income workers. They do nothing to boost the economy when they are given to the wealthiest people in the country. I like the thinking give the person making over $100,000,000 a year a tax break so that he will have extra money to buy things. I also like how the wealthy are always talking about a flat tax for everyone. Okay lets give them a flat tax, but not just on income tax but on everything. Make them pay Social Security taxes on 100% of there income. The fact is that when you include payroll taxes in with income taxes once someone makes over $85,000 a year the more they make the more, percentage wise, their tax burden goes down & if the person in question makes most of their money off of capital gains or dividends then their tax burden is even less. If you include money that the wealthy put in off shore accounts then the rate goes even lower.

The republicans on this site are so full of baloney on this one. I’ll just sit idly back and watch ‘em twirl and spin themselves more nonsensically on The Bush Reinvention of Trickle down economics which is by no means the same.

Can any republicans tell me why this isn’t the same thing as Reagan, Carter, and Kennedy’s economic policy??? No because you don’t know.

And I’ll leave ‘em just that ignorant about it.

Wrong answer, Jay. The plasma television may cost 4 grand, but once it’s at home it sits there and depreciates. Without the hammer and drill, the carpenter is useless and probably can’t even make payments on his spakin’ new boob tube. But with the hammer and drill, the carpenter can make a good living and get far more return off the investment purchase than the consumer product.

Get a bunch of carpenters together, and you have a business. The business makes money. Then people have places to live, shop, and go to school.

Now think of this on a larger scale—this choice between investment and consumption. Who hires the carpenters? Who invests money to develop real estate? Who starts businesses which provide such jobs? Consumption is one important part of the economic process, but first you need investment.

High tax rates (under the mistaken belief that you’re distributing money downward for consumption) stifles investment, and in the end nobody wins.

Sanger,
“High tax rates (under the mistaken belief that you’re distributing money downward for consumption) stifles investment, and in the end nobody wins.”

Depends. If the money disappears in graft and corruption, then yes, nobody wins except the politicians. However, if the government invests that money in the country’s infrastructure, everyone wins big time. The best of both worlds, redistribution to encourage consumption along with consciously directed capital investment, will occur.

By the way- one of the spin-offs of the Duke Cunningham investigation… Turns out the Dukester’s connected with Abramoff, and they are connected with an enormous scam done at taxpayer expense.

Numerous fake defense companies receive contracts from corrupt congressman. The defense companies are just fronts; they turn around and give the money to the Republican party.

I would like to see people in this forum start discussing how we in the Center-Left and Center can find common ground with the Center-Right.

Agreed, Robert. There are plenty of people who are still rooting and hoping for success in Iraq even while distaining the deceit used to entangle us there, the utterly irresponsible way the deficits are being handled, and the deep and growing corruption of today’s political system.

It’s time for an actual American political renaissance that puts all people on either extreme deep in a corner where they can hatchet one another to pieces over such crucial issues as “holiday trees” or taking God out of the pledge of allegiance.

The adults need to get together and elect people who are anti-extremism and non-ideological, who grab the best political ideas and put them into practice whatever their origins. The politicians need to tackle tough issues such as deficit spending and healthcare costs while finding common ground with people across the aisle.

The Age of the Moderation. It’s not sexy but it sounds very appealing given where we’ve been in recent years.

WOW!!!! I cannot believe how the stupid the republican supporters are, that great tax cut didn’t do a dammned thing, now you pay more for food, gas, and everything else. There is no money to fix highways or take care of our schools. There are more people now than ever holding down two and three jobs, just to make it. That great $8.00 dollars more i get every two weeks is just great now that i pay double for everything else.
The supporters of this idiotic president are just plain morons, and i don’t care whose feelings i hurt by saying this, you need to wake up. (Idiots)

Rush O’hannity

Mr Brown, why do people of your political view measure sucess with dollar signs?

Financial sucess is measured in dollar signs. There is other kinds of sucess but here we’re talking about financal sucess.

“Punishing sucess�

Yes, The liberials want to punish financial sucess. Why I don’t know unless they’re jelous because the aren’t.

Does anyone know if Martin Luther king Jr., or Abe Lincoln were wealthy? They were sucessful.

Both men were sucessful. Most likely not financially though. But they were sucessful.

sanger,

Ok,if you say so. You didn’t say he was an unemployed carpenter. If he’s unemployeed he must not be a very good carpenter, so maybe he does need that TV first, so he can watch some New Yankee Workshop with Nahm, and get better. Heck, why not just follow Bush’s lead, charge it and get the Plasma TV, the hammer and the drill. Shoot, while your running up debt anyways you might as well buy everything you need for your shop, state of the art, real cutting edge stuff, heck even hire all the help you need and charge their wages to your line of credit. Don’t forget to throw in a little extra so you can wine and dine the lumberyard owners so you can get chummy and do each other favors. Then just sit back and wait for the money roll in. I’ll bet you’ll have that debt payed down in no time. No more than 127 years anyways.

I still don’t get how giving the wealthy tax cuts helps anything. I understand that investment is important, but this kind of investment is kinda like that Alaskan bridge to nowhere. Put lots of money into something that will benefit very few people. Doesn’t make sense to me.

Phx you have now lost all credibility with me…you have no clue what you are talking about period. For example, last year alone 2.3million jobs were created under Bush. Lie more please! Secondly the Space race by private citizens has already been held and won, I believe it was won by the dude that owns Virgin records. He and one other inviidual have built space crafts and put them in orbit. They are in the process of building the space plane to give everyday people a ride in space.

And again I love all these people that make the claims but have nothing to support their opinoins…These false defense contracters you speak of, I don’t recall hearing anything on any news about that. I do recall hearing about a scumbag republican politician in CAlifornia that got caught taking bribes from a company (don’t remeber if it was a defense contractor or not), but he is going to jail where he deserves to be. But if you think for a moment there is not more republicans and democrats doing the samething you are sadly mistaken. This guy just happened to get caught doing it.

S or whatever your name is, do you even understand the tax code as it is now. Cause who ever told you that is how it works is sadly mistaken. For example, My dad who makes over 250,000 a year pays almost $.50 of every dollar he makes in taxes. I dunno how much you make but I am sure if you break it down it is not near that amount of each dollar you earn going to taxes. Secondly, never believe percentages, percentages(statistics) can easily be toyed with to show any type of desired results. Believe the actual numbers.

Novenge, lol that is a typical stance for someone to take that has no clue about what they are talking about.

Reed, I agree with you whole heartedly, we need moderation period.

I can’t beleive that some of you still deny the history of economics. Reducing taxes has shown over and over throuhgtout history as a way to increase economic growth, which in turn increase jobs.

As for the oil industry, do I think we are being priced gouged, alittle yeah. But you also have to consider how the oil industry works. The price their stock accoridng to batch pricing. I am not gonna break it all the way down, but basically the price the oil they sell on the latest price they paid for it.

Yes, The liberials want to punish financial sucess. Why I don’t know unless they’re jelous because the aren’t.

You know why? I’ll tell ya. Just a decade ago the auto industry was smokin’ hot. They were taking in billions in profits. Now they are all boo hoo, last year we made a billion and this year we only made half a billion, we’re losing money! (But what happened to all that money from the auto boom?) Since, we are losing money let’s screw the people who made us wealthy in the first place, the working class. We are going to pink slip a lot of you, and the rest will take a pay & benefits decrease. This “restructuring” (he he!) is going to cause a lot of administrative work so we are going to give our CEO a huge bonus and bump up his pay by a mere 40 billion for getting us through this tough time. Oh, and BTW, President Bush is going to cut our tax burden, and to pay for it he is going to cut your welfare. But don’t worry, the kindness of strangers should get ya through these tough times. Good luck, and don’t let the door hit you in the ass!

And this is not just happening in the auto industry. Look at Kmart. They screwed their workers royaly. They cut deep at the working class and then just after coming out of bankruptcy they bought Sears! Say what???

Trust me these people who are losing their livelyhood are not Jealous. They are just sick and tired of spending years making other people wealthy, then having those same people screw ‘em in the ass.

So I say these large wealthy corporations should have to pay even more in taxes to pay for the workers who toe the company line only to get screwed over in the end.

My dad who makes over 250,000 a year pays almost $.50 of every dollar he makes in taxes.

Andrew,

OMG, I would be ecstatic to bring home $125,000 a year, I wouldn’t even care about that 50% tax!

Andrew,
“Phx you have now lost all credibility with me…you have no clue what you are talking about period. For example, last year alone 2.3million jobs were created under Bush. Lie more please!”

You owe me an apology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

Andrew and phx8,

The information on jobs created can be tricky and so is subject to a lot of misinterpretation. Probably the best source is to go directly to the BLS data. A lot of the data gets mixed up because the U.S. lost so many jobs during 2001, 2002, and the first part of 2003. Then we started to enjoy some net job growth. In 2004, about 2.2 million jobs were indeed created, but phx8 is probably looking at the total jobs created during the era of the Bush Administration, which indeed has been an era of anemic job creation compared to past eras of economic recovery.

Andrew, you write, “Reducing taxes has shown over and over throuhgtout history as a way to increase economic growth, which in turn increase jobs.”

I think you’re right that tax cuts can usually serve as a good fiscal stimulus, but they’re never a silver bullet, as the BLS data show in regard to job creation. Tax cuts only work well over the long term if deficits are controlled amid necessary government spending. These days, even our quite Republican Fed Reserve chairman says we’re fast approaching a period of serious danger as debt becomes a very large share of annual GDP. So, tax cuts are neither good nor bad by themselves; they’re only good or bad in a larger economic context, IMO.

Reed,
Correct. I was quite specific. I wrote:
“During the Clinton administration, 23 million jobs were created in 8 years. During the Bush administration, 1.4 million jobs have been created in 5 years.”

Andrew gave the job numbers from last year, and suggeted that I had lied. Totally out of line. It’s a little like saying my favorite basketball team outscored the opposition 24-22 in the fourth quarter, while ignoring the final score of a lopsided loss.

Furthermore, we’re not even discussing the nature of the jobs created. For example, over one million of the jobs created by the Bush administration are government jobs.

Pardon me for being short, Reed, but I get tired of posting links and citing statistics, just to counter another Republican parroting unverified talking points, or pretending statistics from one year accurately represent the overall performance of the Bush administration.

Reed,
As for the BLS site, I find it difficult to use. Economics are hard enough to discuss without bludgeoning people into unconsciousness with numbers.

I get tired of posting links and citing statistics, just to counter another Republican parroting unverified talking points, or pretending statistics from one year accurately represent the overall performance of the Bush administration.

phx8,

Amen. There is so much right wing spin out there it’s dizzying. I’m not saying there is no spin from the left, but the spin from the right is an epidemic. So many times I have seen unsubstantiated claims, and ignorance based “facts”. You can present and cite credible sources to counter unsubstantiated spin in one post and have the exact same talking point brought up in another, sometimes by the same person. It’s like they are hoping if they keep writing it, it will be true, and you won’t be able to keep up or just give up trying to set the facts straight.

Phx wikipedia is a horrible reference. Now while I don’t claim to be an expert on interpreting all the data. According to wiki GW only created 120,000 thousand jobs. Now that is a freaking joke that doesn’t even support your claim. Anyway, I did some searching and was able to find a better resource. Anyway read this and pay attention to about the middle of the article.

http://www.jobwatch.org/email/jobwatch_20050708.html

According to this since 2001 thru 2005 full-time jobs have increased by a total of 2.6 million. Part-time jobs have increased by 1.2 million, for a grand total of 3.8 million new jobs created since Bush took over. Now while this is not great compared to over post recession job recoveries, it is better than what you are making it out to be, with signs that it will continue to grow.

And I bet if you busted you ass working 60-70 hours a week it would not make you very happy to only be bringing home half of your pay check. But see again to me it is easy for those that don’t make that kind of money to say BOO rich people, but I bet it would be a different story if the shoe was on your foot. I myself am not making good money right now, but I know that through continued hard work and putting my time in I will get to where I want to be finanacially. And, no I don’t think that is fair that when I am the one that puts in the hard work and effort to better myself, that I am penalized for making more money, by being taxed more. But again that is why I think we should go to a fait tax plan. Do away with income tax totally, and make tax revenues come from sales tax, property tax, etc. That to me seems to be a much more evenly way of ditributing taxes. Poor people won’t pay as much as rich people do because they cannot afford to buy as much consumbales, property, invetments, etc.

I rarely comment on blogs anymore, so this is for the conservative/republican/right readers of this. Don’t waste your time responding to the lunacy of those on the left. Ignorance rarely shows reason in these folks who quote the New York Times and other ultra-left rags of the news media. Just reading their posts will confirm that even common sense escapes those who are over come with hate and spite.
In the mean time i suggest you spend your time cheering on our “right” thinking elected representatives and even the one or two on the left who display good sense. Why not show your support for such initiatives as Social Security reform which gives us ownership, investment direction and inheiritablity of our own money, rather than feeding the welfare state. After all, it’s voluntary, let the left donate their money to the government. Consider the flat tax iniative, this would surely end the “tax cuts for the rich” myth that the left loves to use. Did you know 9 of the 12 wealthiest Senators are Democrats?
By the way, if you decide to continue responding to the left, keep your antivirus in good order, you’ll need it.

The NYT is a “ultra-left rag”? You must be joking. The NYT supported your Presidents stupid war with as much false info as they could dish out. Get a clue.

This post is right on the “money”, and anyone who denies it IS a greedy pig. Workers have been getting the shaft since the almighty Reagan got in office and the assault on workers began.

Real wages have not increased since the late 70’s, and that is a fact. Yeah, maybe they go up to a point under 4%, but inflation, which is always at least 4% a year, keeps these real wages down. To deny this is to deny the facts from the US Censes Bureau and countless other studies, not one of which supports “trickle down economics.” The very same philosophy can be said about cutting the profits of corporations and giving it to the workers, who will spend more in the marketplace and increase the economy that way. But NO, that is labeled “communist”, or “socialist”. Usually by people who 1) Never took an economics class 2) Have hundreds of thousands of dollars invested 3) Are idiots and will eat whatever crap the so called “Republicans” (Neo-CONS) will give you.

Wake up America! You have not gotten a REAL raise in over 30 years!!! THAT is raising taxes on the working poor to support the top 10% of our ‘fair and balanced†country.

Chuck,

I love the way you call anyone who disagrees with your unsubstantiated post a “greedy pig”. I guess if you are unable to present facts to support your claim then name calling is your next resort. Talk about a feeble debate method.

It is interesting to note your “fact” that real wages have not increased and then in the next sentance you admit that they have.

The rest of the post is about the same level.

Mike P

Andrew,
Thanks for the link to www.jobwatch.org
Good site. Look through the articles for info on the Bush administration job performance. I’m not making things out to be worse than they really are. The Bush administration’s performance really is that bad.

Generally speaking, when people discuss jobs, they use non-farm payroll numbers. The Wikipedia article uses these. While I agree Wikipedia is not necessarily the best resource, most people accept it, and in the current case, Wikipedia’s nonfarm payroll numbers are accurate as of the time of the article.

If you’re keeping track, over nearly five years of the Bush administration, for the five-year-to-date number, 1.4 million non-farm payroll jobs have been created.

Here is a quote from the JobWatch article:
“In this month’s JobWatch we rely on the Current Population Survey (CPS), also known as the household survey. While the CPS enables accurate reporting on the unemployment rate, we note that it has limited reliability in total employment counts. Only the household survey, however, allows us to analyze the differential growth effects of the business cycle on full-time and part-time employment.”

Andrew, I’m no going to announce how much I pay in taxes. My wife and I work hard too, long hours, and we do very well, for which I am thankful. Let’s leave it at that. But I assure you, I’m aware of taxes, and it’s no abstract exercise.

Andrew,

You have lost all credibility. Anybody that writes something like this obviously doesn’t have a grasp on reality:

from Progressive Taxation Increases Growth

Again, that post is senseless. First the tax burden has not been increased on the poor. Secondly, alomst everybody below the $35000.00 a year income bracket gets their taxes back in May. Thirdly, just read what you wrote it makes no sense at all as far as boosting the economy. A rich man is taxed an extra $50,000.00 that he could have spent and used to increase the economy, versus the mere $1000.00 dollars a poor person would have to spend. That could be the crasiest arguement I have ever read.
Posted by: Andrew at December 9, 2005 06:34 PM

1) Most of the tax cuts to the rich will be paid for by cutting welfare benefits to the poor and through raising interest rates on student loans.Congressional Budget Office

2) If this is true, which it’s not, then the IRS owes me a boat load of duckets.

3) Give a rich man $50,000 dollars and he becomes $50,000 richer. Give 80% of the population $1000 dollars, many of whom live paycheck to paycheck, and that money goes back into the economy.

Mike P,

Congressional Budget Office

FedStats

While I agree Wikipedia is not necessarily the best resource, most people accept it, and in the current case, Wikipedia’s nonfarm payroll numbers are accurate as of the time of the article.

The Wikipedia article is based on numbers from the Congressional Budget Office. While Wikipedia has taken a hit lately in credibility, I think the CBO is pretty accurate with the numbers.

Don’t waste your time responding to the lunacy of those on the left. Ignorance rarely shows reason in these folks who quote the New York Times and other ultra-left rags of the news media.

This is the rebottle I love the best. When we use sources that refute the spin from the right, It is immediately labeled the biased “liberal media”. Kind of like everytime a judge makes a decision they disagree with they label them “activist judges”. Disagree with the Iraq war label ‘em “unpatriotic”. The best way to judge someone’s credibility is whether they use common sense and reasonable facts or just throw around labels. Is the left innocent in not using labels? No, but the right has gotten it down to a an artform.

Did you know 9 of the 12 wealthiest Senators are Democrats?

Wayne,

So what? Democrats can’t be wealthy? What would be more interesting is their voting record on these issues.

Sorry, should have been rebuttal, above.

BLS

The Wikipedia article is actually based on BLS numbers. CBO is a good source for economic matters.

Regarding the middle of the JobWatch citation to which Andrew urges us to pay attention, here is the fifth paragraph (out of eight, which I presume is close to the middle):

“In the recession which began in July 1981, the U.S. economy experienced a larger decline in full-time employment accompanied by a quicker recovery. By the 27-month point, full-time employment had recovered to its pre-recessionary level. However, the next recession in 1990 saw even slower growth, taking 34 months to regain pre-recession employment levels. Worse yet was the recovery after the 2001 recession, which took a full 40 months to recover the jobs lost since the last business cycle peak. Unfortunately, that sluggish growth is persisting far longer than it did in either of the previous two recessions. Fifty-one months after the last business cycle peak, full-time employment levels stood 7.1% (1980s), 4.2% (1990s), and 2.4% (2000s) higher than at the start of their respective recessions. If recent growth in full-time employment had matched the rate following the 1990 recession, we would have 2.1 million more people with full-time jobs today.”

Someone please help me. I am trying to find some other evidence on JobWatch or some other reasonably honest website to validate the claim that George Bush and the Republicans who control every part of the Federal Government have created hotter-than-a-firecracker growth in full-time, well-paying jobs that maintain the real incomes of middle-class Americans.

I know that there must be a pony in the middle of all this horseshit. I hope I find it before the stench kills me.

Adrienne and Others.

The two previous posts by “WAYNE”, Were not posted by me.
Just Passing Through,
As Always,
The Real Wayne

Mike P,

When I referred to the post being on the money, I was referring to the original post written by Paul Siegel. What I wrote, and what you wrote, is called a “comment”, not a post. Obviously your new to this whole post, comment, blog genre, sorry to confuse you.

People that support trickle down economics, a freeze on minimum wage, more anti-union regulations, or any other such nonsense to keep low wage and middle wage American’s income down below the rate of inflation ARE GREEDY PIGS. This is not name calling, it is simply fact. Pigs like that do this to raise their profit margin at any cost so that there stock rises at a more rapid rate. If you are one of these people, just come to terms with it man, you want more for you and less for others…your greedy.

My “unsubstantiated facts” are only from the last 3 US Census studies. Must be twisted by liberal slant right?

Saying that wages “might” go up by 4% a year only to have it be taken away by a rise in inflation of at least 4% a year is not the same as saying that American workers are getting REAL WAGE increases.

I’m sure this is hard for you to comprehend, but there is a difference between wages and real wages. You’re going to need to look it up because they won’t tell you about it on Fox News.

There are plenty who wish to point out the “great job” Bush is doing with the economy and say that his “economic voodoo” (remember, that was his father’s position) is working. Well, maybe the large companies and the rich are having a better time than ever. There are indeed more jobs, but a huge proportion of those jobs are at the bottom of the payscale. Gee, it’s wonderful that there are abundant fast food and store clerk positions available. But those who used to be in the middle class know that this is a myth, that we NEVER SAW his first tax cut and we won’t see any of any additional tax cuts. Further, he is deliberately bankrupting this country. If I ran my personal finances like Bush and the republicans run this nation’s, I’d have creditors suing me from now to kingdom come. His illegal war, based on deliberate lies to congress and false information, is bankrupting this country. Oh, by the way, it is known that the way to open a country to dictatorship is to take away all the health, education, and welfare programs and bring the people to their knees economically. They are then ready to accept ANYTHING that purports to be able to free them from the nightmares created by the vacuum in education, healthcare, and social service programs, as well as basic infrastructure programs like highway maintenance and (oh, lest we forget) things like dikes to protect lowlying cities, etc.

As pointed out by Joseph Heller, apparently it is not as much fun to be rich unless there are lots of poor people around.
Economics is not that complicated if you have ever played Monopoly. When one person gets all the money the game is over. Do you really want the game to be over?

Penny Duff sez: If I ran my personal finances like Bush and the republicans run this nation’s, I’d have creditors suing me from now to kingdom come.

HA! You wish you only had a 2.9% deficit and 4% growth per quarter.

Chances are your own deficit or debt-income ratio is well over 30%.

Would just one of you lefties ever answer the question(s) “How much is enough?” All the left does is complain. You say “the rich” but never define whose “rich” You say the “workers” but never define who is a “worker” - I know a lot of people who WORK very long hours, and make quite a bit of money, but I doubt they are “workers”. You complain that we aren’t “winning” in Iraq, but you wont ever actually define what you define as “winning”. You never stop lamenting the job losses, but I don’t know very many Lefties driving American Cars. You are incapable of being Happy. It’s your non-stop complaining/bitching/whining/no-answers of your own/desparate need to avoid any personal responsiblity/same as a three yr. olds way of looking at life—- that is going to - as shocking as this is to you- cause you to lose the White House AGAIN in 2008. Grow up and join the real world.