Posted by Tina
According to a New York Post article, the French high court is smarter than the average American democrat politician:
PARIS — Embattled French President Francois Hollande suffered a fresh setback Saturday when France’s highest court threw out a plan to tax the ultrawealthy at a 75 percent rate, saying it was unfair.
In a stinging rebuke to one of Socialist Hollande’s flagship campaign promises, the constitutional council ruled Saturday that the way the highly contentious tax was designed was unconstitutional. It was intended to hit incomes over €1 million ($1.32 million)
All I can say is bravo!
In Obumble’s world, it doesn’t matter how much anyone is taxed, as long as he can continue to spend without limits . .
That’s known as killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Those that can, will move themselves or their businesses away from onerous taxation and taking jobs with them. Example: Right here in Taxifornia.
J you are so right.
I’ve been wondering how many small businesses are owned by people my age who will just decide it’s not worth it to stay in business and will retire. It would leave a lot of openings for young entrepreneurs but how many will think it worth the risk in this lousy environment?
I can see how a 75% tax would be unfair and counter-productive, even on people making $1 million a year.
Tina, can you tell me which congressional Democrat in the U.S. has proposed a 75% tax rate on any tax bracket?
I assume that this is our Chris given the acerbic tone.
I have not implied that any democrat has proposed a 75% tax.
The word FAIR has been used by nearly every Congressional democrat as a means to raise tax rates on the rich, however, and in my opinion with startling ignorance!
Try defending once again how making the rich pay more is fair when they already carry an UNFAIR tax burden compared to others while also providing the means for ALL government revenues and, when not under government regulatory and taxing oppression, a thriving economy and JOBS!
Go ahead, and state the ignorant, and highly inaccurate democrat definition of FAIR for our readership one more time.
After four years of a sick and dying economy under the Obama syndicate it should be quite clear that democrats haven’t the slightest notion of what is fair or what it takes to create the opportunity for any American to have a “shot”…not to mention a future free from oppressive government DEBT and all the other horror that will be visited upon America under democrat control.
Tina: “I assume that this is our Chris”
You’d think by now I’d be able to type my own name…my bad. 😉
“given the acerbic tone.”
My comment was not at all acerbic. I agreed with some of what you wrote and asked a legitimate question. Do you really consider that “harsh or severe?”
“I have not implied that any democrat has proposed a 75% tax.”
But you did, when you wrote:
“According to a New York Post article, the French high court is smarter than the average American democrat politician:”
That only makes sense if the average American Democrat politician thinks a 75% tax on millionaires is a good idea. Since no major Democrat politican has proposed that–at least, not for the last few decades, since the top tax rate was actually much higher than this at one time–your comment doesn’t make logical sense. But maybe it’s not designed to; maybe you were going for a simple emotional appeal, and hoping that your readers wouldn’t think too hard about what you said.
“Try defending once again how making the rich pay more is fair when they already carry an UNFAIR tax burden compared to others”
You believe that the tax burden on the top 2% is unfair. This despite the facts that their tax burden is lower than it’s ever been, and that they are more prosperous than at any time in our country’s history, especially when compared to other tax brackets.
While it’s true that, as a group, the top 2% of the country pays a large percentage of our nation’s taxes, it is also true that they own a large percentage of our nation’s wealth.
You are correct that it is not fair for the bottom 50% of earners to pay so little in taxes. However, you misdiagnose the root of that unfairness, and how to solve it. Raising rates on lower-income earners, or lowering them on high-income earners, won’t do anything to solve the problem. The reason the botton 50% pays so little as a group is that we cannot afford to pay more, because our incomes are not high enough. Two big reasons for that are the increase in outsourcing, and the fact that the minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation. Lowering tax rates on the rich won’t do anything to solve those problems.
But on an individual level, the rich are paying less in taxes than ever before, and raking in record profits. Contrary to conservative dogma, this has not translated into job growth.
“while also providing the means for ALL government revenues and, when not under government regulatory and taxing oppression, a thriving economy and JOBS!”
But they are not under “taxing oppression,” because as previously stated, their taxes are lower than ever, and the top 2% is the only group whose prosperity has increased during the last decade. If they were being “oppressed,” that could not be so. And yet, despite their success, they are NOT creating a thriving economy and jobs. Your thesis here is proven wrong by even a cursory look at reality.
In fact, both the CBO and the CRS recently found that, contra Heritage, reducing tax rates on the rich does not lead to economic growth or job creation, but only increases income equality. (“No duh,” replied the nation’s poor.) Republicans tried to suppress the CRS study because they didn’t like its conclusions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/business/questions-raised-on-withdrawal-of-congressional-research-services-report-on-tax-rates.html?_r=0
http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/11/08/cbo-joins-crs-in-finding-almost-no-economic-impact-from-letting-high-end-bush-era-tax-rates-expire/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/11/02/non-partisan-congressional-tax-report-debunks-core-conservative-economic-theory-gop-suppresses-study/
There is simply no evidence that lowering tax rates on the rich will prompt them to create more American jobs or pay their workers more. They can already afford to do that, and they are choosing not to.
One has to have a serious case of cognitive dissonance to believe that low taxes on the rich lead to job creation in this economic environment. When you know that taxes on the top 2% are lower than ever, that the rich are doing better than ever, and that we are facing one of the largest unemployment crises in our history, there is no logical way to fit those sqaure facts into the round hole that is supply-side economics. It is pure delusion to believe that the main problem in this economy is that the rich are not able to keep enough of their money.
“Go ahead, and state the ignorant, and highly inaccurate democrat definition of FAIR for our readership one more time.”
I’ve never given a definition of “fair,” because it’s a tough word to define when it comes to this issue. But I do think it is perfectly reasonable in a recession to collect more revenue from the one group of citizens who have prospered in said recession, especially when said group’s prosperity is not translating to success for any other group of citizens. I think that’s fair.
“Do you really consider that ‘harsh or severe’?”
No, merely asking a question is perfectly fine.
Asking a question that does not pertain to the French court’s decision in terms of tax fairness or unconstitutionality and suggests something was said that wasn’t said is a bit acrimonious, biting, churlish, mordacious…take your pick.
“But I do think it is perfectly reasonable in a recession to collect more revenue from the one group of citizens who have prospered in said recession…”
Reasonable by what standard…particularly what Constitutional standard?
“…especially when said group’s prosperity is not translating to success for any other group of citizens. I think that’s fair.”
So you believe that people succeed only to ensure prosperity for others?
Do you also think the money we earn is the property of the state?
Do you think the state has the right to take as much as they like of what we earn?
What mechanism is there to restrain them from spending without caution, care, common sense…like drunken sailors if fairness is the only criterion?
If it is okay for the state to take property from one class based on fairness what’s to prevent them from taking all property from every class?
If fairness is the standard what is to stop the politicians from deciding that no one may earn more than $50K a year and anything above that IS the states property?
In short do you believe in property rights or freedom?
“That only makes sense if the average American Democrat politician thinks a 75% tax on millionaires is a good idea.”
Funny, to me it made sense simply because the court ruled that placing a high tax on the wealthy was unfair and unconstitutional!
“You believe that the tax burden on the top 2% is unfair.”
NO! I believe it is unconstitutional. I believe it is stupid, as is the entire tax code. I believe that raising taxes in a recession doesn’t work and won’t bring in the revenue that is hoped for because people will alter their behavior. The market and the economy are not static; it is ignorant to assume that people will make business decisions without taking the larger tax burden into account.
“This despite the facts that their tax burden is lower than it’s ever been, and that they are more prosperous than at any time in our country’s history…”
Who is “more prosperous”? Big banks and corporations are holding onto cash but that isn’t a sign of prosperity:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704312104575298652567988246.html
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49519419/Companies_Are_Sitting_on_More_Cash_Than_Ever_Before
Our government, and those who chose to reinstate the Obama administration, have taken a hostile posture against business and the economy. That is not the way to create prosperity or a growing, thriving economy! If you want to turn those dollars loose you have to be willing to create a safer environment in which to risk.
That money is the private property of American citizens and investors. It does not represent a communal stash to be directed and invested as a few Washington DC politicians see fit.
“… or lowering them on high-income earners, won’t do anything to solve the problem.”
WRONG!!! Lowering taxes during a recession (nonrecovery) is the ONLY thing that will solve the problem and bring more revenue to government. However, even though lowering rates has worked in the past under presidents of both parties never before have we been also faced with Obamacare plus Dodd/Frank and the convoluted, harsh regulatory burden they place on business and banking. Obama and the Democrats have created a nightmare and their solution is sleeping pills that bring on more night terrors.
“But on an individual level, the rich are paying less in taxes than ever before…”
If they are, and I’m not certain I buy that, it’s because the economy STINKS! 1.5% growth STINKS! We need the economy to hum along at at least 4%…6% would be great and 8% fantastic. You will NEVER get their by increasing taxes and the size of government…NEVER!
“If they were being “oppressed,” that could not be so. And yet, despite their success, they are NOT creating a thriving economy and jobs. Your thesis here is proven wrong by even a cursory look at reality.”
You look at this from your inexperienced meager reality. Oppression for rich people, business, and investors takes the form of restraint and extremely high risk. You may think that’s nothing compared to poverty and you would be right…but big deal. It may not be the same type of experience but it is, nonetheless, a limiting environment. Any person in the situation that business is in today would hold back, would attempt to survive and hold on until prospects look better. Its basic survival mixed with hope that in future there will be better opportunities for everyone.
“There is simply no evidence that lowering tax rates on the rich will prompt them to create more American jobs or pay their workers more.”
Chris you need to understand something. Business has ZERO responsibility to make sure you make the kind of money you want to make. they have a product. It costs X to build. They have work that needs to be performed and based on what they can sell the product for, what their expenses are, and a reasonable profit they offer those jobs to others. There is a limit to what they can pay. When demands for pay eats too far into the profit business must look for ways to lower their costs. YOU don’t have to take any job. People take jobs under their own choice and for their own purposes. IF the economy is thriving your chances of finding work that pays well are greater. If you want more then it is up to YOU to find a way of earning more.
Secondly there is a mountain of evidence that lowering rates brings more revenue to government…A MOUNTAIN! The NYT is NOT conservative friendly but somehow they published Jack Kemp back in 1996:
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/11/opinion/lower-taxes-higher-revenues.html
It isn’t the number Chris…IT IS THE ENVIRONMENT! People in business need incentive to make profit before they will risk their cash to create greater opportunity for themselves and others.
“They can already afford to do that, and they are choosing not to.”
Why are they choosing not to? WHY? Do you really think they are enjoying not being able to do what they are in business to do? Do you really think they enjoy the uncertainty that this administration’s policies have caused? If you really believe that millions of investors and business people are some big collective scrooge then you are truly a sad individual caught up in a bitter, negative, progressive ideology.
I saved this for last:
“It is pure delusion to believe that the main problem in this economy is that the rich are not able to keep enough of their money.”
That would be delusional. You are an idiot! (…said with the utmost hope that there is still a reasoning human being remaining in that progressive outer shell.)
I don’t believe that the rich WANT TO KEEP their money. I believe they WANT TO INVEST AND PUT THEIR MONEY TO GOOD USE! They WANT TO MAKE MONEY! They don’t care if the amount of money they give to government is greater as long as the government makes it possible for them to profit at the same time. Right now government is threatening to take every dime in profits and make it very difficult to expand and hire…that is INSANE! A lower tax rate on a much bigger profit makes everyone happy…yes?
Think! Read this article:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/
Learn your heritage too or resign yourself to a future of shared misery with limited opportunity and a great loss of personal freedom and security.
Here is another mountain of evidence regarding the Reagan record and lowering tax rates to increase revenue to government:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/03/the-real-reagan-economic-record
<
Tina: “Reasonable by what standard…”
By the standard of shared sacrifice. A standard that says those who are doing well have a societal obligation to chip in a little extra to help those who are struggling. Your parents’ generation understood this standard; during WWII, everyone made sacrifices, and our economy grew because of it.
“particularly what Constitutional standard?”
The 16th Amendment, as well as the “general welfare” clause.
“So you believe that people succeed only to ensure prosperity for others?”
No. It is your theory that the better off the wealthy are, the better off everyone will be. I am merely pointing out that this theory has not been borne out by reality.
People succeed to ensure prosperity for themselves. There is nothing wrong with that. However, there is something wrong when one group in society is prospering partly as a result of another group’s suffering. When corporations outsource jobs, they are benefitting from unemployment here at home. When they exploit tax loopholes, they have an unfair advantage over the average American who is expected to pay all of his taxes on his meager income. When big, deregulated banks make bad deals with home owners, the risk falls mostly on the home owner, not the bank, who will be bailed out. When the world’s largest corporation doesn’t keep wages consistent with inflation and threatens workers who discuss unionizing, that depresses wages for all lower-to-middle-class workers.
I could go on, but you see my point. The rich have benefitted largely from innovation, creativity and job creation. I am not denying that. However, they have also benefitted in part from exploitation of workers both within this country and without, from deregulation, and from tax loopholes. That needs to stop.
I don’t think it has to be this way. I think corporations can benefit from a thriving economy in which jobs are brought home and workers are paid more. This leads to higher demand, more customers, and happier, more loyal and dedicated employees. But as history shows, corporate leaders are not going to take that risk on their own when they see it as more profitable to outsource and pay low wages. We need to take the incentive out of these practices and provide penalties against them. Lowering their tax rates and giving them more tax breaks has proven ineffective at de-incentivizing these practices. It simply rewards them for bad behavior. We must attack the root of the problem.
“Do you also think the money we earn is the property of the state?”
I’m confused by the framing of the question. Are you asking me if I believe taxation is legal? I believe the government has the responsibility to take a percentage of income from citizens who can afford to pay it, in order to pay for running the government. Government costs money, and that money comes from its citizens. That’s just an unfortunate fact of civil society. Luckily for us, in a democratically elected government, the people get a say in how much money the government may take from them.
I don’t see where radical anti-taxation statements such as yours above get us, practically speaking. I don’t even think you believe them; you just like to use hyperbole to make your opponents’ reasonable, mainstream positions look somehow sinister.
“Do you think the state has the right to take as much as they like of what we earn?”
No, and again, I find this line of questioning disingenuous, especially since you were born and raised at a time when the state took much, much more of a percentage of what we earn than it does now. The rate I am asking for is much smaller than the rate on the top 2% was when you were a child. It is also much smaller than the rate on the top 2% for most of Reagan’s two terms in office. So you have no grounds for assuming I think the state can take as much as it wants. And again, we have representation. The state can only take what we as a people will tolerate. And unfortunately for your political party, more than two thirds of Americans want higher taxes on the rich:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-10/cain-pulls-even-with-romney-on-economy-for-republican-supporters-in-poll.html
Even a majority of Republicans, at 53%, say they want higher taxes on those making more than $250k/yr. So really, it is your party’s politicians who are out of touch with what the people–and even the average members of their own party–want on taxation.
“What mechanism is there to restrain them from spending without caution, care, common sense like drunken sailors …”
Seriously? Have you not noticed how slow and ineffective Congress is, and how much bickering has had to be done, in order to convince one side to let a temporary tax cut on the top 2% expire, even though it was supposed to expire two years ago? I hardly think the current debate gives us much reason to worry that Congress will just start raising taxes willy-nilly, with absolutely nothing stopping them. There will always be an opposition, for better or worse, to tax increases. Always has been, always will be. We’re simply experiencing a particularly stubborn, unreasonable and petulant opposition at the moment.
I mean, Grover Norquist admitted on the Daily Show that he came up with his “no new taxes forever” pledge when he was twelve years old. And he has gotten a majority of Republican congressmen to sign this pledge saying that they will never raise taxes, under any circumstances. That’s not reasonable, Tina.
“if fairness is the only criterion?”
But no one, except you, has said fairness is the only criterion. Effectiveness must of course be the main objective. And the Bush tax cuts, at least on high-income earners, simply have not been effective. Contrary to the claims of Jack Kemp and Heritage, tax cuts do not always lead to higher revenue, and in the case of the past decade, actually led to LOWER revenue and a higher deficit. From Fact Check:
“The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been – even if they spur some economic growth. And federal revenues actually declined at the beginning of this decade before rebounding. The growth in the past three years that McCain refers to brings revenues back in line with the 40-year historical average as a percentage of gross domestic product.”
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html
Ruth Marcus argues with Heritage over cherry-picking data at the Washington Post:
“Some readers have pointed out, entirely accurately, that the gross amount of tax revenue rose in the aftermath of the tax cuts, although there was some decline through 2004. The government took in $2 trillion in 2000; $2.6 trillion in 2007. (I’m using Riedl’s preferred high-point year here.) This increase barely keeps up with inflation.
More important, to get back to McConnell’s assertion about the absence of evidence that the tax cuts “actually diminished revenue,” the point is: compared to what? The only logical benchmark is whether the tax cuts diminished revenue compared to what they would have been in the absence of any change, and here the answer is indisputable: the tax cuts did their intended job of returning money to taxpayers. The government took in less than it would have otherwise.
How do I know? Brian Riedl said so. Riedl found that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were responsible for “just 14 percent of the swing from the projected cumulative $5.6 trillion surplus for 2002-2011 to an actual $6.1 trillion deficit.”
How much is just 14 percent? Riedl did the math so I don’t have to: $1.7 trillion. Throw in other tax costs — primarily the annual patching of the Alternative Minimum Tax, made more expensive by the existence of the Bush tax cuts — and you get another $400 billion. Throw in the extra interest payments caused by the increased debt — a cost Riedl conveniently omitted — and you have $377 billion more.”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/08/cherry-picking_season.html
This economics professor cites various studies (including one conducted by herself and her husband) showing that the incentivizing effect of lowering tax rates is negligible:
“AT least since Calvin Coolidge, politicians have trumpeted the supply-side benefits of cutting marginal income tax rates. Lower rates will unleash economic growth and the cuts will largely pay for themselves — or so it’s often said. Yet careful studies find little evidence of such effects. Perhaps it’s time to reform tax policy based on facts, not worn-out assumptions…”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/business/marginal-tax-rates-and-wishful-thinking-economic-view.html?_r=0
Business Insider conducted an in-depth analysis of tax policy over the past century, and found the following:
–Today’s government spending levels are indeed too high, at least relative to the average level of tax revenue the government has generated over the past 60 years. Unless Americans are willing to radically increase the amount of taxes they pay relative to GDP, government spending must be cut.
–Today’s income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.
–Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%–and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.
–Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy–brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now).
Periods of very low tax rates have been followed by periods with very high tax rates, and vice versa. So history suggests that tax rates will soon start going up.
http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates?op=1#ixzz2GkvdABJu
From CBS News:
“A review of data from the White House Office of Management and Budget shows that tax revenues did not consistently increase after the Bush tax cuts went into effect.
In FY 2001, tax revenue in dollars was $1,991.1 billion. For FY 2002 – the first budget of the Bush administration, which went into effect after President George W. Bush signed tax cuts into law in June 2001 – revenue dropped to $1,853.1 billion.
Bush signed two more tax cuts into law over the next two years. In FY 2003, revenue dropped further, to $1,782.3 billion – about a 10-percent reduction from two years earlier.
This drop in tax revenue occurred even as economic activity – the nation’s GDP – was continually rising, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data.
Revenues then increased for four years – from $1,880.1 billion in FY 2004 to $2,568 billion in FY 2007 – before sliding to $2,524 billion in FY 2008, and then dropping further to $2,105 billion in FY 2009 as the recession exploded.
Source Data: White House Office of Management and Budget – Historical Tables
As a percentage of gross domestic product, the amount of tax revenues as a part of the economy has also varied widely, though it is still less today than in FY2001, when it represented 19.5% of GDP. It has dipped from as low as 16.1% in FY2004, to as high as 18.5% in FY2007, before finishing out FY 2009 at 14.9% – its lowest level since 1950 (14.4%).
It is true when Sen. Sessions said spending has increased every year from FY2001 – the last year the government spent less than it took in.
In FY2001 spending was $1,862.8 billion; by FY2009 spending was at $3,517.7 billion – more than $1.4 billion more than what was collected in taxes.
Analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice claims that the Bush era tax cuts resulted in $1,918.9 billion in lower revenue from FY2001 through FY2009, and that the total cost if implementing the cuts (including interest payments on debt) was $2,141 billion.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-20078242.html
Citizens for Tax Justice also debunks Heritage’s claim that lower tax rates incentivize rich employers to create more jobs:
“Second, there is no reason whatsoever for a business person to create jobs just because his or her taxes are low. A business owner does not pay taxes on the part of business revenue that goes towards paying compensation to employees. Business owners are only taxed on what they take home after they’ve paid their employees and their other expenses. That means that a married couple with a business would need to take home over $250,000 in profits (meaning they take home more than that after paying their business expenses) before they would lose part of their Bush income tax cuts under Obama’s proposal. (And even then they would only pay the higher, pre-Bush tax rates on the portion of their net income exceeding $250,000).
If a business owner can profit by selling the goods or services produced by an additional employee, it makes sense to make that hire regardless of what the tax rate will be on that profit. If the choice is between profiting and paying taxes on the profit or passing up the opportunity to profit entirely, no reasonable person would choose the latter option.
Conversely, if hiring an additional employee will not result in a profit, then there is no reason to make the hire, no matter how low taxes are or how much cash the owner has available.
Anti-tax lawmakers and commentators sometimes claim that business owners will save their after-tax income to make investments that will expand their company and lead to more hiring, and that higher taxes make this impossible. This is generally wrong because large businesses typically borrow to make such investments, and any business that is truly a “small business” can use a provision (known as “section 179 expensing”) that allows them to deduct the entire cost of making those capital investments. President Obama is asking Congress to raise the limits on this tax break so that more small businesses can benefit from it.”
http://www.ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/archive/2012/07/why_the_heritage_foundation_is.php
Tina: “If it is okay for the state to take property from one class based on fairness what’s to prevent them from taking all property from every class?”
Again, this line of questioning is disingenuous and gets us nowhere. It implies that you don’t believe in taxation at all, which isn’t true. You’re making a parody of your own position.
“Funny, to me it made sense simply because the court ruled that placing a high tax on the wealthy was unfair and unconstitutional!”
But that’s exactly the kind of unthinking response I took issue with. You can’t just conflate a 75% tax rate with a 39% tax rate like that. The court did not rule that “a high tax on the wealthy” was unconstitutional. They ruled that this *specific* tax was unconstitutional. You are misrepresenting their ruling in a really obvious and unintelligent way.
“NO! I believe it is unconstitutional.”
Well, you’re obviously wrong about that. The progressive income tax is completely constitutional.
“I believe that raising taxes in a recession doesn’t work and won’t bring in the revenue that is hoped for because people will alter their behavior.”
See the many links above that disprove your theory.
“Who is “more prosperous”? Big banks and corporations are holding onto cash but that isn’t a sign of prosperity:”
I call that greed, Tina. I call it irresponsible and unpatriotic. It is ridiculous to me that these banks and corporations, in a climate where they are seeing record profits, are not investing their money back into the economy, and whining that they need even more preferential treatment from the government so that they can make even higher profits. To use a metaphor, they are holding this country hostage. They are threatening workers and the middle class that if their excessive demands are not met, they will pack up their bags and “go Galt.” They are acting like spoiled, entitled babies.
“WRONG!!! Lowering taxes during a recession (nonrecovery) is the ONLY thing that will solve the problem and bring more revenue to government.”
Again, see above. Heritage is one of the only major groups pushing this myth. Every independent study and fact-checking agency contradicts them. Do you have an explanation for that, other than “liberal conspiracy?”
Have you ever wondered why Heritage has never reached a conclusion which didn’t support a policy it was already lobbying for? Heritage exists to make Republicans happy, Tina. And it constantly cherry-picks data and twists evidence in order to meet that purpose. They take a contrarian position on nearly every economic issue, even to the point of arguing that income inequality is good for the economy (seriously, they actually said that), and making the case that poor people are not really poor because they own refrigerators. Heritage does not care about the poor; they are corporate tools who care only about further lining the pockets of the rich.
“Chris you need to understand something. Business has ZERO responsibility to make sure you make the kind of money you want to make.”
Of course businesses have a responsiblity to their employees. It is immoral to argue otherwise.
“YOU don’t have to take any job.”
False, impractical, and completely out of touch with the working man.
“Secondly there is a mountain of evidence that lowering rates brings more revenue to government…A MOUNTAIN!”
Again, see above. The CBO, the CRS, the Tax Foundation, and several other agencies and studies all dispute this so-called “mountain,” which comes almost exclusively from biased political think tanks and their agenda-driven twisting of data. I thought you were concerned about agenda-driven studies, Tina? Do you really believe anyone at Heritage has ever sought out to do a study without a preconceived conclusion in mind? Or is it OK because you happen to share their bias?
“The NYT is NOT conservative friendly but somehow they published Jack Kemp back in 1996:”
If you read the NYT regularly you would know that it is not that uncommon for them to publish editorials from conservatives.
Furthermore, as the above articles I cited show, Kemp was wrong. The evidence now points in the other direction. Also, I have to say, anyone who points to the 1920s as an economic period which we should emulate should not be taken seriously. As pointed out above, the lowered tax rates on the rich during that period led to a “sugar high” which was doomed to result in rampant inequality and, in the end, led to the Great Depression. As Business Insider points out:
“The next year–1925–the tax cuts continued. The top rate was slashed to 25%, down from 73% just two years earlier. The highest wage earners–those who made $100,000 and up–got to keep a vastly larger share of their income than they had only a few years previously.
And what happened to the economy? For a few years, from 1925-1929, the economy and stock market boomed. The decade became known as the “roaring 20s.” Inequality–the difference in wealth between the top earners and everyone else–also soared to unprecedented levels. Then the bottom fell out.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates?op=1#ixzz2GlDXcXvR
“Why are they choosing not to? WHY?”
Because they believe it’s more profitable not to hire American workers.
“Right now government is threatening to take every dime in profits”
Please do not lie. Doing so weakens your entire argument.
“A standard that says those who are doing well have a societal obligation to chip in a little extra to help those who are struggling.”
Chris those who are doing well are already “chipping in” a LOT “extra”. Has it occurred to you that your standard is incredibly elastic? Has it occurred to you that no matter how much is chipped in it is never enough to suit them. Has it occurred to you that this rhetoric is just a political tactic to keep you ignorant and supportive? Don’t bother answering, obviously it has not.
The size of our nation’s ever growing budget and debt suggest that it is not an unwillingness to “chip in” that is the problem but a long-term, grossly irresponsible spending problem in DC that is the problem.
“…during WWII, everyone made sacrifices, and our economy grew because of it.”
WWII followed on the heels of a depression made deep and long by FDR’s progressive policies. While America’s men went to war (at least they had a job now), those they left home were hired to build the tools of war (still a better deal than having no work). They had already been living in hard times and were used to making due with very little. It wasn’t shared sacrifice…it was a shared effort. Calling it a sacrifice is demeaning to what was accomplished. Sure people did without and suffered as anyone would expect during a world war but it wasn’t sacrifice that made the economy grow. It was the opportunity to work and build things! Once the war was won all of that effort went to rebuilding Europe and establishing America as the land of opportunity once again. Kennedy knew the power behind a thriving economy was in the private sector putting the creativity and spirit of the people to work…which is why he lowered taxes and established an atmosphere that made individuals excited about new ideas and putting their savings at risk. The situation we are in now is not the same. We are not in the midst of a world war (thank God).
“It is your theory that the better off the wealthy are, the better off everyone will be. I am merely pointing out that this theory has not been borne out by reality.”
Excuse me? First of all your statement regardinbg my theory is wrong. It reflects what you think not what I think.
The US is the most prosperous nation on earth! The people who live in so-called poverty, by world standards of poverty, are living like kings in America! The minimum wage as it stands today is, once again by world standards, a great deal more than a “living wage”.
America has funded the major defense for the free world.
America has given more in terms of money, life saving innovation, and charity than any other country.
Of course everyone is better off because of the STANDARDS of freedom and capitalism. You have to set aside all of the class envy crap if you are ever going to understand the standard which has been shown to work and work better than any other system ever devised.
“…there is something wrong when one group in society is prospering partly as a result of another group’s suffering.”
Chris, for God’s sake! You live in a free country man. People come to this country with NOTHING, not even the language, and manage to do well for themselves without depending on government OR the wealth of other individuals. Now how do you suppose that happens? You have the advantage of a free education through the 12th grade. You have also had the benefit of help to get a college education. You also have a brain. Try to use it for something other than a depository for progressive propaganda.
I would love to do a temporary exchange with the people in…oh, say Venezuela! We’d send “folks” who think like Chris does down there and in excange bring some “folks” who prefer freedom up here…they would prosper in this system and feel liberated by the opportunity. Meanwhile Chris could get a taste of where his porgressive ideas will lead.
We have bred a bunch of weak, helpless, sissified and dishonorable (for their willingness to give government power to overburden the private sector and take from others for redistribution) citizens who don’t appreciate freedom. It shames me and my entire generation.
“When they exploit tax loopholes, they have an unfair advantage over the average American who is expected to pay all of his taxes on his meager income.”
Exploit has a new definition, I see. Exploit in progressive speak means following the laws that have been written by our elected officials to file income tax. (But you are a good little comrade for buying the bumper sticker class warfare propaganda line.)
Individuals who file also take advantage of tax breaks given to them…it’s how the system works Chris, it’s how progressives like you set it up.
Any wealthy person’s tax filing, or any corporation’s tax filing, has zero affect on the average American. It does not diminish the creative process, the energy, the will, or the freedom for finding a path to prosperity. If people think they have to wait for someone else to make things happen them, they are playing a losing game. This is more bumper sticker class warfare (union) propaganda. It is a lie.
“When big, deregulated banks make bad deals with home owners, the risk falls mostly on the home owner, not the bank, who will be bailed out.”
This was a problem of government, all government, but particularly progressive government that creates STUPID regulation and simultaneously ignores regulations that would discover and punish criminal or irregular activity. It was further a failure of bureaucratic regulators to do their jobs. It was a failure of crooked politicians to listen to voices warning of dangers. If big banks should be be blamed then surely it would be smart to note the corporatism involved and the politicians involved in this heinous arrangement – Bill Clinton and members of his administration that made millions…Barney Frank and his roomy who made millions and Chris Dodd and others who should also be on the list for their personal gains and advantages.
It’s time for the party of big government control and planning to take responsibility (and BLAME) for the mess that their manipulation of markets and self-serving policies have made. And it’s time for you, Chris, to grow up and place responsibility and blame where they have been earned.
“When the world’s largest corporation doesn’t keep wages consistent with inflation and threatens workers who discuss unionizing, that depresses wages for all lower-to-middle-class workers.”
More distortions built on historic ignorance (and self-serving interest).
Historically, union demands pushed businesses to relocate when they became unsustainable. Public sector unions have done the same to state budgets. Work has a value. When work is compensated for decades in excess of the value pressure is brought to bear on the ability to sustain the company. It’s a nice thought that CEO pay is too high and that is the problem but lowering CEO pay would not change the unsustainable circumstance that unions created. A CEO’s big salary and bonus is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall burden of wages, healthcare and pension for all workers. (Not that I don’t think CEO pay should be reconsidered by company boards) Also, union pressure drives prices up which also cause inflation in prices that hurt everyone. When their demands are outrageous they screw themselves and everyone else in the process. THAT IS WHY COMPANIES, AND SMART WORKERS, WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SYNDICATE MENTALITY OF THE UNIONS. Your theory is just more progressive hogwash based on partial information and distortion of facts!
“I could go on, but you see my point.”
No Chris, what I see is a kid that doesn’t know what he is talking about who is all puffed up by a bunch of class envy progressive lies and power grabbing crap.
“I think corporations can benefit from a thriving economy in which jobs are brought home and workers are paid more.”
And you don’t have a clue how to make it happen and you won’t listen to those who do.
“We must attack the root of the problem.”
The root of the problem must first be acknowledged…so far you are way off base because you assume the basic evil resides in business rather than government.
Companies must follow the law. The law should be simple and difficult to manipulate or ignore. Congress establishes the law. When politicians make “arrangements” with corporations, when they make the laws complex, when they use the law to advance causes, when they write regulation to favor campaign contributors and unions, real evil infects the fabric of the nation. When regulators fail, when the government prints money and keeps interest rates artificially low more trouble comes our way. When lawmakers create more programs and bigger government so that it is even expensive that acts like a huge drag on the whole economy and every class suffers. When unions demand too much these problems are exacerbated. These are the problems and the process that is KILLING the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Limited government and simplified tax rules and regulations would solve a plethora of our nation’s problems. The question is how do we get there when half of the nation is ignorant, dependent, and willing to feed the big government machine (as long as someone else pays)?
“Government costs money, and that money comes from its citizens. That’s just an unfortunate fact of civil society.”
Just an unfortunate fact of a civilized society?
The big FAT government that progressive policies has produced is not only expensive it is corrupt in that it is grossly irresponsible with the people’s money. This big progressive government costs a lot of money because it’s out of control, oppressive to the private sector, and arrogant to boot. This isn’t the natural order in civil society; civil society would expect better accounting, better planning, smarter oversight and MUCH GREATER WISDOM from elected officials.
Government has become a criminal operation at best…that’s not civil!
“No, and again, I find this line of questioning disingenuous, especially since you were born and raised at a time when the state took much, much more of a percentage of what we earn than it does now.”
I can’t seem to make you understand that unless we do something to stop the growth of government you will not have a future. It is that simple. The question was meant to make you think outside that carefully constructed progressive box. Just as it’s easier to make money when you have big money it is much easier to create debt when you have big debt. Our government is paying a lot of interest on the debt every single day. Imagine what will happen when interest rates begin to rise…and they will. What will be the source of revenue for government as that debt grows exponentially? Or should I say who will pay? Do you really think the rich have enough? The government will have to come after you my friend. That is why the theory that big government works best and the theory that higher taxes is a good solution to our economic problems is s*#t.
“So you have no grounds for assuming I think the state can take as much as it wants”
The grounds are your entire line of thinking…I just follow it to its logical conclusion. We are fast approaching critical mass and the rich don’t have enough money in their entire fortunes to make a dent in the problem. YOUR FAVORED PARTY JUST SUGGESTED THE FOLLOWING AS A SERIOUS SOLUTION:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2013/01/cbo-on-fiscal-cliff-deal-.html
Do you have even the slightest idea how insane that is? It’s a complete joke. Republicans are only slightly less insane…they don’t get it either, apparently, or they just know that the ignorant will go along with the fairytale that Obama/Reid feed them so they refuse to be bold and stand on proven principles out of fear.
“And unfortunately for your political party, more than two thirds of Americans want higher taxes on the rich…”
It’s also true that a sizable portion (41%) of Obama voters in the last election believe spending cuts are the best way to get control of deficit spending:
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=AFB97D18-DF86-41DC-9953-717381AA05A8
So much for governance based on polls rather than sound principles and the well being of the entire nation.
“Seriously? Have you not noticed how slow and ineffective Congress is…”
Seriously? Have you not noticed what 60 years of progressive nipping, bit by slow and ineffective bit, has done to the size of our government, our debt, our unsustainable programs, our impossible taxation and regulatory law…and the deep growing poverty that is following acceleration of this process?
It depends on ones perspective. I happen to have the benefit of the long view.
“There will always be an opposition, for better or worse, to tax increases. Always has been, always will be.
Ahhh, but things have “transformed” dramatically in the last four years. The EPA, HHS, and the National Labor Board have all been given powers outside of the congressional process. Obama has taken to issuing executive orders that bypass the congressional process. The Supreme Court just made the most horrific decision regarding the health care law anyone could have imagined so the sense that it can be counted on to stop power grabbing by the king of fundamental transformation has been greatly diminished.
You have no idea what is possible…and in your blessedly ignorant state you can afford to be carefree and positive under this syndicate that calls itself an American administration and yet seeks to “fundamentally transform” the way America works.
“And he has gotten a majority of Republican congressmen to sign this pledge saying that they will never raise taxes, under any circumstances. That’s not reasonable, Tina.”
This said by a person who apparently finds $16.4 trillion in debt reasonable. Or, the definition of a cut in spending as a decrease in the amount of spending increase.
It all depends on the context. If you believe that government has promised what it can’t deliver without creating deleterious debt and blunting the economic opportunity for all citizens it is not at all unreasonable to demand a no new tax pledge. The pledge could be rescinded if the government ever made a concerted effort to reform programs, cut the size of government, and simplify the tax and regulatory codes.
YOUR PARTY has no intention of ever doing any of that and in fact intends to create an even bigger government with even more control. It is unreasonable that a person born in a free country would find this reasonable! And yet there you are smiling like an idiot asking them to put huge burdens on your own future and limit the opportunity for those without jobs to ever work again.
“But no one, except you, has said fairness is the only criterion.”
Oh please! Tax fairness is the platform that your candidate won on! Tax the rich and tax fairness were hammered again and again. He certainly didn’t run on his record.
“Effectiveness must of course be the main objective. And the Bush tax cuts, at least on high-income earners, simply have not been effective.”
That is not true, Chris. You need a broader perspective which the following will give you and the truth about the rich’s tax payments after the Bush tax cuts (I have emboldened the key points):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123215327787492291.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/02/22/after-bush-tax-cuts-payments-by-wealthy-actually-increased/
Why? Because business was thriving and jobs were available so more people were working and fewer were depending on government help (as they are now in great numbers)…and the wealthy paid the lions share.
As to inflation the fed is keeping inflation low artificially. It’s another bubble that will likely burst according to some anylists. The Obama administration has also taken food and gasoline out of the mix when they report on inflation. This is deceptive:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/09/news/economy/obama_inflation_threat.fortune/index.htm
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/01/real-inflation-at-8/
Chris the average American that worked in the private sector and lived through the expansion of the eighties under Reagan will never be convinced that tax incentives for business and creating a positive atmosphere for business didn’t lead to incredible growth and opportunity because we experienced it…we saw it happen.
We also saw the economy and opportunity shrink under the horrible policies of Carter. We lived both. Statistics can be cherry picked and bent to prove anything. Experience is another matter. I am a business owner. I can tell you for a fact that higher tax rates do not give me hope for a better future or spur me to expand and grow. Worse than a small increase in tax rates is the added tax and regulatory burden of Obamacare, and Dodd Frank for smaller banks, and the knowledge, also from past experience, that government NEVER gets smaller and always demands more. Even when they pretend cuts it is merely that they increase spending less than they would have…they still spend more.
I am taking a page from the late great William F. Buckley, standing athwart history yelling stop! that is my position.
“The progressive income tax is completely constitutional.”
It has been accepted that’s for sure but is it just? Andrew Schwartz at American Thinker asks, “Is it just for the government to protect a greater proportion of property of one class than that of another?”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/is_a_progressive_tax_constitutional.html
The question of the constitutionality of the progressive tax does not go unchallenged. Most Americans are too poorly educated to be aware that they have alternatives that might work better for all…and be more just.
“I call that greed, Tina. I call it irresponsible and unpatriotic.”
You have never been in that position. You are simply repeating talking points. The president said that Bush spending and debt was unpatriotic and irresponsible. Now he has turned that same language on business (making them the evil target) and at the same time it is he who is spending and creating debt irresponsibly and faster than any other president in our history. That’s unpatriotic and, IMHO, typical of a gangster mentality.
What possible reason does any person have, never mind any business person, to spend more, risk more, go into debt, or take on more burden (create jobs) under an administration like this? All Americans are holding back; it is pure survival instinct.
“It is ridiculous to me that these banks and corporations, in a climate where they are seeing record profits, are not investing their money back into the economy…”
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/27/111113/strong-corporate-profits-amid.html
Expressing concern for the future of business the prospects for creating employment and tax policy is not “whining”, Chris.
“Of course businesses have a responsiblity to their employees. It is immoral to argue otherwise.”
They do not have a responsibility to “make sure you make the kind of money you want to make.” That is up to YOU, the individual.
“False, impractical, and completely out of touch with the working man.”
Spoken like a boy who expects money and opportunity to be handed to him. You shouldn’t have to start in the work force at the existing minimum wage because you’re special. You should be able to coerce higher wages if you do take that entry level job because you’re smarter than the people that make these decisions for the business given your amazing intellect and experience in such matters. Every worker should be able to coerce their employers to pay higher wages whether or not they produce more. You are entitled. You deserve more just because you’re you. And God forbid you should ever have to put YOUR resources at risk only to have government swallow up large portions of it because the government decided to change the tax law. That did happen to me the very first year my company made a good profit and it made me literally sick to my stomach to write out that fat check.
Government didn’t sweat for that money…it didn’t sacrifice…and it sure didn’t give a damn what my circumstances were or had been. Government does not care it just takes. Tax laws…especially changing tax laws screw up everything for businesses trying to plan for the future and there is nothing we can do about it. You are the typical a##hole without the least bit of experience who thinks he knows everything that votes these a##holes in and that makes you just as culpable for what is happening.
What business needs is certainty!
Progressive have no idea the havoc they wreak in the everyday lives of business people and they DO NOT CARE.
What are you willing to give? All I hear from you is arguments for taking more from others and making sure your life is peachy. What are you prepared to sacrifice? Has it ever occurred to you to put your ass on the line, go into debt and attempt to create a business…no you have a nice safe government job planned out for yourself with a union to force higher pay and unsustainable benefits that hurt every tax payer. Progressive tax and regulation policy will kill that dream too eventually and you are too dumb to realize it.
And by the way, any person with the slightest bit of curiosity and integrity would know that the Heritage Foundation references ALL of their work. (See the little numbers at the ends of sentences?) Their references include the same organizations your experts cite: CBO, IRS, Tax Foundation, Labor Board, Census Data, etc. Your feckless attempts to discredit their excellent work only shows your own ignorance and bias.
Respond if you like; I will not. I am fed up with your silly defense of the worst economy built and sustained by the worse policies this nation has ever seen and the stupid demand that raising taxes on the wealthy will make any damn difference at all. It’s all bulls#*t that doesn’t begin in any way to address the problems we face. It is a distraction…a ruse.
Our readers should take a look at this article by PJ Media that hits both parties hard about tax rates and government spending:
http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2012/12/30/the-fiscal-cliff-for-fun-and-profit/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
A couple of excerpts to intrigue you:
Perhaps this is the real source of our rancor with each other? Here’s another:
Tina: “And by the way, any person with the slightest bit of curiosity and integrity would know that the Heritage Foundation references ALL of their work. (See the little numbers at the ends of sentences?) Their references include the same organizations your experts cite: CBO, IRS, Tax Foundation, Labor Board, Census Data, etc.”
I’m well aware that Heritage cites it’s sources. And yet, somehow, the Heritage Foundation always manages to reach the exact opposite conclusions of the non-partisan organizations you mention. There are many examples of Heritage blatantly lying about what its sources have found. Here’s one from Fact Check:
“Misrepresenting CBO
The Heritage Foundation report, dated Jan. 19, 2011, says the penalty on employers that don’t provide coverage — those with more than 50 employees will be fined — will “likely” lead to “lower profits for many businesses, lower wages for millions of workers, increased unemployment, and higher prices for many goods and services.” Other experts agree that added costs borne by businesses will be passed along to employees or consumers. How much of an effect would this have on jobs? Heritage answers that by committing a similar error we’ve seen from many Republicans — offering a misleading interpretation of a Congressional Budget Office report.
The Heritage report says: “The CBO predicts that [the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act] will reduce the amount of labor being used in the economy by approximately one-half of 1 percent. This equates to about 700,000 additional Americans being unemployed.” But CBO didn’t say that 700,000 Americans would be without jobs unwillingly, as that statement implies. Instead, it said there would be a reduction in the amount of labor supplied by workers — many of whom would decide to retire earlier than they normally would, or work fewer hours or fewer jobs, because of the subsidies provided by the law, and greater security for those buying their own coverage outside the workplace. In fact, this frees up jobs for those who are looking for work.”
Heritage also misrepresented an economic paper about the economic effects of climate change, according to the economists who wrote the paper:
“Just how far gone are the folks at the Heritage Foundation?
Earlier this week they celebrated a new study that explores the economic impacts of global warming and concludes that “higher temperatures reduce agricultural output in poor countries” and “lead to reductions in industrial output, aggregate investment, scientific research, and political stability.”
Why break out the party hats?
It’s because they think that if they can persuade the public that global warming won’t harm us here in the U.S., Congress will be less likely to do something about it. So they were quick to proclaim the happy news that “Study Shows Global Warming Will Not Hurt U.S. Economy.”
Better those poor suckers than us, eh guys?
Still, seems like if you are going document your lack of concern for 80% of the world’s population, you might want to not do it with a piece that also proves your lack of concern for the truth. As the pieces at WonkRoom and DeSmogBlog make clear.
Overlooked or ignored by the Heritage Foundation is that the paper does not draw the conclusions the think-tank claims. The paper’s authors do not say that global warming will not cause economic harm the United States. The authors do not say wealthy nations are off the hook.
Dr. Frank Ackerman of Tufts University had already pointed this out in a response to a US News and World Report commentary on January 4, saying:
“What the paper DOESN’T tell us is that rich countries will be immune to the very different, and greater, climate stresses of the current century.” (See for yourself, read the conclusion on page 24 and 25.)
In fact, Ackerman says, “the rich world won’t be unscathed in the future, just because it was little harmed by late-twentieth century temperature fluctuations.
For that matter, the paper’s authors aren’t “actual scientists” as the Heritage Foundation boasts — they are economists. But forcefully arguing your point without any basis in fact seems to be somewhat of a pastime over there.
So what do the study’s authors say about their findings? They say their findings “reject claims that climate does not influence national production” for one. Other worrisome findings from the conclusion include the statements “adaptation may not undo these [economic] effects in the medium term” and “future climate change may substantially widen income gaps between rich and poor countries.”
Apparently, the Heritage Foundation can at least take some comfort from that. But next time they should try getting their facts straight before spouting off in a blatant attempt to mislead the public and policymakers.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pete-paltman/heritage-foundation-tortu_b_157489.html
Referencing a source isn’t impressive when you are completely misrepresenting the concliusions of said source.
I have already shown you that the CBO, the CRS, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all agree that the Bush tax cuts did not lead to increases in revenue. Why should I believe a partisan think tank which has proven deceptive in the past over all of these groups?
“Your feckless attempts to discredit their excellent work only shows your own ignorance and bias.”
And your defense of this dishonest group shows, once again, that you live in an impenetrable information bubble.
There’s no way for me to respond to everything you wrote. :/
Tina, the McClatchy article you cite strengthens my argument about the rich benefitting in part from the struggles of the poor and working classes. Worker productivity is up, but compensation and hiring are not. The article states:
“Regalia and other analysts think several factors are behind the strong profits, which seem to contradict other indicators of an underperforming economy, especially the 8.9 percent unemployment rate. These factors include record low interest rates since late 2008, muted demand for borrowing by companies and a surge in productivity that has allowed companies to do more with the same number of workers or fewer.
Profits aren’t rising solely because companies are making and selling more widgets to keep up with customer demand, which would be the case in a healthy, booming economy. Instead, they’re more profitable because it now costs less to make the same widget, often because there are far fewer workers needed to make it.
“We’ve been able to generate record profits on very, very low volume and very weak economic growth,” Regalia said.
That’s not to say things aren’t improving. Over the past six months, the economy has gathered steam, and demand is picking up — from factory orders for parts needed in assembly, to a rebound in automotive manufacturing, to consumer purchases rising.
That’s a healthy growth trend, but the bigger part of the story remains workforce reductions, technological advances, low lending costs and minimal borrowing. All have combined to give companies unusual control over their balance sheets, and thus their profits.
“If you are looking at where profits are coming from … cost control, strong capital discipline, strong control over the balance sheet, that’s why you’ve seen this extraordinary recovery in profits, even though top-line growth hasn’t been spectacular,” said Aaron Smith, a senior economist at forecaster Moody’s Analytics.
Another factor in today’s strong corporate profits also might mask how sluggish the U.S. recovery has been — the growing percentage of profits from foreign sales by U.S. corporations.
That number climbed steadily over the past decade and peaked at 45.3 percent in 2008. That underscores how globalization has made it harder to define winners and losers. Americans are wrestling with high unemployment, but overseas sales have boosted U.S. corporate profits. That, in turn, lifts the stock market, which lifts the wealth of workers with 401(k) retirement plans and company shareholders alike.
“Earnings from abroad have become more important to U.S. companies. That trend has been in place for a couple of decades now, but really in the past decade we’ve seen the share of earnings coming from abroad as a share of the total increase rather dramatically,” said Smith.
Whatever the reasons, there’s no getting around the fact that profits are super-sized.
“The profits recovery during the past two years is among the best, if not the best, ever. Profitable companies expand. They hire workers, buy equipment, and build more plants and offices. Capital spending on equipment has been recovering along with profits. It is up 18.6 percent over the past six quarters. Employment gains have been lackluster, but are picking up,” Ed Yardeni, a veteran market analyst, wrote in a recent upbeat note to investors.
For now, the question on the minds of most Americans remains — when do increases in corporate profits actually translate into hiring? Traditionally, profits lead hiring in an economic recovery.
“Normally, profits lead by a couple of quarters both job creation and capital spending. They’ve been leading this time. We’ve had job growth, but it just hasn’t been as much as we might like,” said Richard Rippe, an economist with ISI Group Inc., who added that employment and capital spending are both up. “It looks like the normal dynamics are working, but it would be good if they were working a little more decisively.”
Another explanation for strong corporate profits has been growth in productivity, or hourly output per worker. The Labor Department reported on March 3 that annual average productivity rose by 3.9 percent in 2010. Aside from that strong productivity growth, unit labor costs fell during the same period by 1.5 percent. That reflects that worker compensation didn’t keep pace with rising output. Put another way, businesses produced more than compensation rose.
Normally, companies can squeeze only so much out of workers before they must hire more of them or fall behind competitors. Many economists thought hiring would have picked up by now as productivity rose, yet job creation continues to lag.
There’s plenty of anecdotal evidence from surveys that consumers and businesses remain cautious, especially given concerns about Europe’s debt crisis, conflict in the oil-rich Middle East and the crippling disaster in Japan, the world’s third-largest economy.
The recent climb in oil and gasoline prices, now approaching $4 a gallon in some areas, is holding back consumer spending on other goods and renewed business activity. Fresh evidence of falling consumer confidence came Friday when the ThomsonReuters/University of Michigan survey of consumer sentiment for March dropped to its lowest level in five months. Coupled with the protracted slide in home prices, Americans aren’t ready to loosen the purse strings.
The Federal Reserve on Thursday released results of an unusual follow-up survey on family finances. Given the economic shock from the Great Recession, Fed researchers wanted a better read of the impact on family balance sheets from 2007 to 2009. Its conclusions weren’t surprising — those with more financial assets saw a larger hit to their wealth. But survey respondents across all income levels expressed a need for more precautionary savings.
“The data show signs that families’ behavior may act in some ways as a brake on reviving the economy in the short run,” the Fed report concluded.
Cautious customers don’t bode well for business activity. That helps underscore how other factors explain how corporations are so profitable amid today’s sluggish growth.
“Part of this is business being much more lean and mean. It’s hard for me to imagine that this is going to work in reverse,” Smith said.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/27/111113/strong-corporate-profits-amid.html#storylink=cpy
Given this information, it makes no sense to say we need to loosen regulations or lower taxes on the rich. The rich are doing fine, yet their success is not trickling down, thus disproving supply-side economics.
Tina, your argument rests on the premise that the rich are the best job creators, and therefore in crafting tax and regulation policies we should focus on the rich and be as generous as possible to them, even though they are already doing well, so that they will invest more and create more jobs. This makes theoretical sense. But it also sounds suspicious when coupled with your dismissive (to the point of rudeness) attitude toward the concerns of the middle class and the poor, as demonstrated by your comments about minimum wage workers (specifically me) above.
But it’s common knowledge that the key to a healthy economy is a thriving middle class. Henry Blodget explains how consumers are the real job creators in one of the best articles I have read on the subject:
“But aren’t the huge pots of gold taken home by “the 1%” supposed to “trickle down” to the middle class and thus benefit everyone? Isn’t that the way it’s supposed to work?
Yes, that’s the way it’s supposed to work.
Unfortunately, that’s not the way it actually works.
And Hanauer explains why.
Hanauer himself takes home more than $10 million a year of income. On this income, he says, he pays an 11% tax rate. (Presumably, most of Hanauer’s income is dividends and long-term capital gains, which carry a tax rate of 15%. And then he probably has some tax shelters that knock the rate down the rest of the way).
With the more than $9 million a year Hanauer keeps, he buys lots of stuff. But, importantly, he doesn’t buy as much stuff as would be bought if that $9 million were instead earned by 9,000 middle-class Americans each taking home an extra $1,000 a year.
Why not?
Because, despite Hanauer’s impressive lifestyle — his family owns a plane — most of the $9+ million just goes straight into the bank (where it either sits and earns interest or gets invested in companies that ultimately need strong demand to sell products and create jobs). For a specific example, Hanauer points out that his family owns 3 cars, not the 3,000 that might be bought if his $9+ million were taken home by a few thousand families.
If that $9+ million had gone to 9,000 families instead of Hanauer, it would almost certainly have been pumped right back into the economy via consumption (i.e., demand). And, in so doing, it would have created more jobs.
Hanauer estimates that, if most American families were taking home the same share of the national income that they were taking home 30 years ago, every family would have another $10,000 of disposable income to spend.
That, Hanauer points out, would have a huge impact on demand — and, thereby job creation.
It’s time we stopped mouthing the fiction that “rich people create the jobs.”
Rich people don’t create the jobs.
Our economy creates jobs.
We’re all in this together. And until we return to more reasonable tax policies that help the 99% instead of just the 1%, our economy is going to go nowhere.
http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-economic-plan-jobs-2012-8#ixzz2GqmvNQfU
Chris: “I’m well aware that Heritage cites it’s sources. And yet, somehow, the Heritage Foundation always manages to reach the exact opposite conclusions of the non-partisan organizations you mention.”
NO Chris it does not. The links you cited (Citizens for Tax Justice, CBS News, Business Insider, Washington Post, New York Times, Factcheck.org) mined information from the same sources as Heritage to prove their positions. In one article 2001 was chosen as a start point. It is common knowledge that 2001 was a terrible year and we had no real recovery until after the 2003 Bush Tax cuts. By including the stats from 2001, 2002 the result from the tax philosophy is skewed.
Statistics can be used to prove anything.
Go ahead and site whatever you want but please don’t attempt to pull the wool over our readers eyes with specious claims that Heritage is dishonest.
“your argument rests on the premise that the rich are the best job creators, and therefore in crafting tax and regulation policies we should focus on the rich and be as generous as possible to them, even though they are already doing well, so that they will invest more and create more jobs.”
No Chris…that is your bias. That is what you think I am saying. You are unwilling to hear what I am saying. It isn’t about the rich getting more. It is about the private sector economy being supported in providing good jobs and increasing the tax base.
Your unwillingness to understand why that is important makes this conversation a complete waste of my time.
Your unwillingness to see that the current administration doesn’t really care about the less fortunate, as is evidenced by this stupidly inadequate legislation, but only about having money to spend is unfortunate and will hurt your future and the futures of my grandchildren; that has earned my complete disdain.
Four years later and what have we got:
The recession ended in February 2009, however:
Unemployment was above 8 percent for 42 months
Long-term unemployment has increased from 2.7 million to 5.2 million, with reliable estimates of the total number of unemployed people in American at 23 million once those who have completely given up looking for work are factored in.
Middle-class income is down by just over $4,000 per year while gas prices have increased by 106 percent, from $1.85 for a gallon of regular to $3.82.
Home values are down by 11 percent
Worker health insurance costs are up by 23 percent
Many Americans have lost their health insurance as a result of Obamacare.
The federal debt has increased by more than half and is now over $16 trillion. \
The debt per person has increased by over $16,000.
College tuition is up by 25 percent.
The number of Americans living in poverty has gone from 39.8 million to 46.2 million.
47 million of our family, friends, and neighbors are now receiving food stamps.
Our corporate tax rate is the highest in the world.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/economics/item/12925-us-economic-freedom-plummets-to-18th-place-globally-study-shows
This is a dismal recovery record. The legislation written by the Democrat controlled Senate with an emphasis on tax increases on the rich will not raise enough revenue to pay the interest on our debt for more than a week.
The Obama administration and the Democrat Controlled Senate think political games are more important than JOBS.
Go ahead and post all of the articles you can find to prop this administration up…the reality on the ground suggests he’s not doing our country any good.
Tina, so far your comments have not addressed the findings of the CBO and the CRS that lowering taxes on the rich do not lead to increased revenues. You have also not addressed the article I posted about why the middle class, not the wealthy, are the true job creators, thus our policies should focus directly on putting more cash in the hands of the average consumer rather than the wealthiest citizens. Would you like to address this now?
Tina: “NO Chris it does not.”
But I just showed you two examples of them doing exactly that. One is an example of the Heritage Foundation misrepresenting the findings of the CBO. If you have a defense of these specific instances, make it; you can’t just say “No it doesn’t,” just because you say so.
“The links you cited (Citizens for Tax Justice, CBS News, Business Insider, Washington Post, New York Times, Factcheck.org) mined information from the same sources as Heritage to prove their positions.”
And unlike Heritage, these organizations accurately reported the findings of those sources.
“In one article 2001 was chosen as a start point. It is common knowledge that 2001 was a terrible year and we had no real recovery until after the 2003 Bush Tax cuts. By including the stats from 2001, 2002 the result from the tax philosophy is skewed.”
Which article are you referring to? If their analysis is flawed I would like to take another look at it with your accusation in mind. What reason did they give for starting with the year 2001?
“Statistics can be used to prove anything.”
And yet you consistently choose to believe partisan groups’ portrayal of statistics over non-partisan groups! That makes no sense to me. If you are worried about people manipulating data to serve an agenda, you should be especially skeptical of partisan groups’ use of statistics, even if they belong to your political party.
All of the non-partisan sources I have cited say that Heritage is the group misusing statistics, and that lowering tax rates on the rich does not lead to higher revenues or economic growth.
I’ll ask again: what makes Heritage, a partisan think tank, more reliable than non-partisan groups such as the CBO and the CRS? Why do you trust Heritage’s statistics over these more objective sources? Is it really just because they are a Republican group?
“Go ahead and site whatever you want but please don’t attempt to pull the wool over our readers eyes with specious claims that Heritage is dishonest.”
But you haven’t made any substantive counter-argument against these so-called “specious claims,” except to point out that Heritage includes citations, as if that is the highest standard of academic integrity. You haven’t responded to any of the specific instances of misrepresentation by Heritage that I have pointed out.
“No Chris…that is your bias. That is what you think I am saying.”
Tina, what I provided was a perfectly accurate summary of supply-side economics. I even said that it makes some theoretical sense. I am sorry if my accurate description offends you in some way (I don’t see how it could, because it’s exactly what you’ve been arguing for years), but I would suggest that whatever flaws you are perceiving are inherent to the theory itself, not to my description of it.
“It isn’t about the rich getting more. It is about the private sector economy being supported in providing good jobs and increasing the tax base.”
But you believe the way to do that…is to craft tax and regulation policy in a way that is generous to the rich. You believe that if the rich get more, than everyone will eventually get more, because the rich create jobs and invest. You can’t possibly be denying this now, can you? Have you forsaken Ronald Reagan? 😉
“Your unwillingness to see that the current administration doesn’t really care about the less fortunate,”
You can’t expect me to take this seriously from you when you constantly pooh-pooh the concerns of the American poor, as you did yesterday when you wrote, “The people who live in so-called poverty, by world standards of poverty, are living like kings in America! The minimum wage as it stands today is, once again by world standards, a great deal more than a “living wage”.”
The only time I have ever seen you express the slightest concern for the poor is when you blame poverty on Obama or the Democrats. Whenever I bring the subject up, you make dismissive arguments such as the above. And yet you constantly ask me to put myself in the shoes of the “oppressed” businessmen and corporate leaders who allegedly are seeing the fruits of their labor stolen by the government and redistributed to the undeserving poor, even though their profits are *higher than ever.* All of your sympathy is saved for employers and the upper class; you have none to spare for employees or the unemployed. Your response to them is “get a(nother) job.” Unless, of course, it’s a union job; then they are being “forced” to join a union against their will.
Your positions are simply not consistent with one another. You claim that no one is forced to take a job they don’t want out of one side of your mouth, and then you say that workers are being forced to take union jobs out of the other. And then you blame Obama’s policies for unemployment, even though according to you, all of those unemployed people can get a job any time they want to!
Cognitive dissonance. It’s the only explanation.
You also support organizations such as the Heritage Foundation which routinely dismiss income inequality and other issues facing the poor, even arguing that the poor are doing well because most of us have luxuries such as refrigerators, TVs and microwaves. You supported an elitist presidential candidate who got caught telling his rich buddies about how he thinks half the country, the half who can’t afford to pay income taxes, are simply lazy and irresponsible, rather than trying to figure out *why* we can’t afford to pay income taxes. You support a radio blowhard who says that poor kids should go dumpster diving for food instead of getting free lunches at school. And yet, when I argue that maybe it’s the top 2% who have it too easy in this country, rather than those living below the poverty line, you accuse *me* of class warfare. That is backwards and immoral.
I mean, what kind of Randian elitist writes poor-bashing Mr. Burns-speak like the below:
“Spoken like a boy who expects money and opportunity to be handed to him. You shouldn’t have to start in the work force at the existing minimum wage because you’re special. You should be able to coerce higher wages if you do take that entry level job because you’re smarter than the people that make these decisions for the business given your amazing intellect and experience in such matters. Every worker should be able to coerce their employers to pay higher wages whether or not they produce more. You are entitled. You deserve more just because you’re you. And God forbid you should ever have to put YOUR resources at risk only to have government swallow up large portions of it because the government decided to change the tax law.”
This says way more about you than it says about me, Tina, and what it says isn’t pretty. I never implied that I should get a higher minimum wage because I am special, and you know that. I argued that EVERY minimum wage worker should get a pay increase equivalent to what the minimum wage was in *1968*. Which just so happens to be the year that Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated while advocating for an even *higher* minimum wage. And you think this reasonable, moderate and well-supported position–that the minimum wage should have stayed consistent with inflation–makes me some kind of bearded Marxist hippie.
I already showed you statistics that prove worker productivity has gone up while wages have not, so your statement that “Every worker should be able to coerce their employers to pay higher wages whether or not they produce more” is deeply ignorant. You are completely out of touch with the working man, and you immerse yourself in an information bubble which doesn’t tell you the truth of how our wages have fallen while our productivity has increased. You support a system in which corporations and the top 2% make all the rules, and the rest of us should shut our damn mouths and be grateful for whatever scraps we get from the table. We already have a corporatocracy, and you want to make that system stronger. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, “F— that noise.”
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/85041-i-hope-that-we-shall-crush-in-its-birth-the?auto_login_attempted=true
Those interested in information regarding CBO scoring and the history of lowering taxes rates to increase prosperity for Americans and revenues to government will find the following of use as rebuttal to Chris.
The rest of you can move on.
First, some food for thought to set up what follows:
In the past Democrats have been very weak on two issues, the economy and defense. The Obama presidency is determined to destroy the Republican record on both issues with the intention of creating permanent progressive democrat power in Washington.
Democrats want to plan our futures and our business. They want control of our lives. They don’t care whether debt grows or budgets are balanced. They don’t care about interest payments. All they know is they will always need more money to spend. They engage in the discussion only for purposes of gaining political POWER.
Regarding the economy, the theory that tax rates increase revenues and produce robust economies must be discredited against a mountain of evidence that lowering tax rates works. This evidence has been produced under both republican and democrat presidents and congresses.
Since government power and control that requires big budgets and revenues is the progressive democrats ideal they are turning themselves into pretzels in an attempt to rewrite history and take the issue from conservative Republicans.
Progressives and conservatives have a fundamental disagreement: Progressive democrats want power, control, and money in Washington DC and conservative republicans believe that power resides with the people, that government that is closest to home works best, and that the federal government should be lean and limited in scope. We have come a long way away from the conservative ideal through bipartisan agreements that have gradually increased government power and control. The result is less opportunity for individuals to earn and save and a greater demand for the money we earn to be transferred to government coffers. The wealthy will always do better that others. The poor suffer most in a bad economy which is what democrat economic policies produce. John Kennedy and Bill Clinton, both democrats, were successful when they adopted a policy of lowering tax rates. Revenues and the economy grew.
The CBO exists to offer legislators a guide. They are given a set of facts and figures. They produce what can only be described as a guess. The guess does not take into consideration changes in behaviors, changes in circumstances over time, or natural disasters all of which can affect the validity of their numbers.
http://blumshapiro.com/kbarticle/cbo-revenue-scoring-the-mystery-behind-tax-legislation
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/07/27/cbo-obamacare-will-spend-more-tax-more-and-reduce-the-deficit-less-than-we-previously-thought/
The following information has been reported by many sources:
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutmyths.htm
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=310
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/07/CALIFORNIA-STATE-BUDGET-GOES-OFF-THE-CLIFF
As I said progressive democrats want to control and spend. In order to do that they need power and credibility on the economy.
Have they fooled you into thinking that raising taxes on investors will cause them to invest more?Don’t be fooled by this smoke and mirrors dance. You are living the reality of progressive economic policies. From the bust housing bubble to the long high unemployment situation progressive policy is at work.
SPENDING AND INCREASING THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM.
SPENDING AND INCREASING THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM. Yep, you just can’t say it enough…and then maybe some day people will get it? -Jack
Tina: “The CBO exists to offer legislators a guide. They are given a set of facts and figures. They produce what can only be described as a guess. The guess does not take into consideration changes in behaviors, changes in circumstances over time, or natural disasters all of which can affect the validity of their numbers.”
First of all, the CBO does take into account a wide variety in factors and possibilities in making their analyses. They do not use “dynamic scoring,” which includes potential macroeconomic effects, and there are good reasons for that, namely that these effects are usually very unpredictable:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3598
Second of all, taking issue with the CBO over “static” v. “dynamic” analysis would make sense if they were simply predicting that a future decrease in taxes would not lead to higher revenue. But that’s not all they’ve done; they’ve studied the last several decades of tax rates, and found that in those decades, there has been little correlation between tax rates and revenues.
And it’s not just the CBO. It’s also the Congressional Research Service, the White House Office of Budget and Management, the U.S. Treasury Department, and the Joint Committe on Taxation. If you want me to believe that the Heritage Foundation’s analysis is more reliable than all five of these non-partisan/bipartisan agencies, you will have to make a more compelling case then the one you’re currently making.
The only sources you offered in your last comment either cited Heritage as their only source, or were from discredited conspiracy theory websites such as Discover the Networks and Breitbart. Again, I do not understand why I am expected to trust these aggressively ideological sites over five independent organizations.
Even a former Bush advisor who now works for the conservative American Enterprise Institute admits that the Bush tax cut did not lead to higher revenue:
““Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts,” Alan D. Viard of the conservative American Enterprise Institute told the Washington Post last October. Viard, who worked in the Treasury Department’s Office of Tax Analysis and the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers under President Bush, told FactCheck.org that “nobody can absolutely prove that.” Proof would require time travel and a reversal of tax policy. “But among economists, there’s no dispute.””
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html
Fact Check goes on to detail why increases in federal revenue should not necessarily be attributed to lower tax rates:
“Federal revenue normally increases every year. In fact, revenues have declined in only five years since 1962. The 35 percent growth between 2003 and 2006 is significant – the last major growth in revenue was between 1997 and 2000, when the economy was booming and federal receipts rose 28.2 percent. But the recent three-year period also comes after three years of decreases, a drop Viard attributes to the 2001 tax cuts and the start of a recession that same year.
The Office of Management and Budget describes the rebound in the past few years as a return to the historical average. As a percentage of GDP, federal receipts are now 18.4 percent of GDP (in line with the 40-year historical average of 18.3 percent).
McCain also told the Economic Club of Memphis on April 16: “If the federal government can’t be funded with current revenues, which are growing at historic rates, then the government is too big and is growing too fast.”
The percentage growth since 2003 may be historic, but the government’s coffers are no more flush with funds as a percentage of the economy than they have been on average for 40 years. In our judgment, McCain’s statements give a false impression about the impact of the tax cuts.”
It seems likely that Heritage has taken the normal yearly rise in federal revenue and wrongly attributed it to lower tax rates.
George Mankiw, economic advisor to both President Bush and Mitt Romney, and the author of the most widely used college economics textbook, also says that tax cuts don’t lead to higher revenue:
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/07/on-charlatons-and-cranks.html
Thank you Tina.
You did a wonderful job rebuking this clueless kids.
Good luck to your business, and stay strong. For the sake of our country and our children, don’t give up the fight.
Hey, Thank you David! I won’t give up the fight but I can’t guarantee I won’t get frustrated from time to time or blow my virtual top.
Thanks for adding your two cents worth and come on back. We need to add as much weight to our position as we can.
David, Tina has so far done a terrible job of explaining why we should trust biased analysis from the ultra-partisan Heritage Foundation over five highly respected non-partisan agencies which have looked at the exact same data and come to opposite conclusions.
You and Tina believe Heritage’s findings over those of the CBO, the CRS, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, the Treasury Department, the Tax Policy Center, the Center of Budget Policies and Priorities, and Bush advisors George Mankiw and Alan Viard, simply because you want to.
Tina herself admits that you can use statistics to justify anything and questions “agenda-driven studies” (by which she means studies that support liberal positions), but never questions the obvious bias of the Heritage Foundation. Let me just say that there is a lot of money in telling rich people exactly what they want to hear, and that is why Heritage exists.
Chris this is the proof in the pudding. If the spinners that you cite were telling the truth in their analysis this nation would by now be seeing a growing and vibrant economy with low unemployment under Obamas great leadership Just the opposite has happened.
Statisitic’s can be manipulated to prove anything but the reality is that after four years of leadership using solutions like extended unemployment benefits, cash for clunkers, payroll tax holidays, investment in education, increased control of industry and banks, money printing and growing the size of government here we sit. Only an obstinate, indoctrinated, sycophant would fail to see that it isn’t working.
The thing is democrats cannot defend this record. They cannot accurately defend their ideas and policies. The only thing left is to attempt to malign and destroy those ideas they oppose that have worked under both parties in the passed.
The real questions for Americans are:
1. Do you care about jobs and the opportunity for people to both have and create jobs more than you care about having this government in control of every single aspect and problem in your life?
2. Is the enormous debt that is being foisted on to future generations a serious problem with very serious consequences?
3. Is it important to you that the dollars in your pocket actually have worth?
4. Do you enjoy and prefer living in a free country?
If you answered yes to any of these questions then the drivel that Chris and his ilk are peddling should be of great concern to you because they create the opposite of freedom, value, manageable debt, and JOBS and OPPORTUNITY.
Tina: “Chris this is the proof in the pudding. If the spinners that you cite”
So the CBO, the CRS, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House Council on Economic Affairs, the Treasury Department, the Tax Policy Center, the CBPP, and two different Bush advisers (one who advised Romney in the last election) are all just “spinners” for Obama now? And Heritage never spins?
You really have no standards for evaluating credibility other than “are they saying what I want to hear?”
“were telling the truth in their analysis this nation would by now be seeing a growing and vibrant economy with low unemployment under Obamas great leadership”
No. That you are saying this reveals that you have not been paying one whit of attention to what any of these organizations have actually said.
NONE of these organizations have predicted the rosy strawman you make above. We are coming off of one of the worst recessions ever. That is a fact.
And the specific policy we are discussing was enacted by BUSH, Tina. Your claim is that lowering tax rates on the rich increases revenue. THIS CLEARLY DID NOT HAPPEN, even according to two of Bush’s economic advisers.
If your policy worked as Heritage says it is supposed to, we would not be seeing the problems you mention above. The entire theory of supply-side economics rests on the premise that when rich people make a lot of money, their success will “trickle down” to the rest of us. And yet in reality, we have record corporate profits and no trickle down. We have higher income inequality and record unemployment. Under your theory, this should be LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Supply-side economics has been completely discredited, and so has Heritage. Deal with it.
That’s just a fact, Tina. Accept it.
Here is yet another group of economists who agree that lowering taxes does not raise revenues:
“There’s an old joke that if you laid all the economists in the world end to end, they wouldn’t reach a conclusion. Well, not quite. A panel of prominent economists recently came to a decisive conclusion: Despite a widely held notion to the contrary in powerful circles, tax cuts cost revenue.
First, let’s be clear that we’re not talking about a biased group of economists. The IGM economic experts panel, run by the Initiative on Global Markets at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, was created to explore the extent to which economists agree or disagree on major public policy issues, and it includes Democrats, Republicans, and independents as well as older and younger scholars. The panel is surveyed regularly, each time on a different topic.
When asked recently about the proposition, “A cut in federal income tax rates in the U.S. right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut,” none of the panel’s 40 economists agreed. When responses were weighted by the confidence respondents expressed in their answers, 96 percent disagreed and 4 percent were uncertain.
The economists were asked a second question, about whether cutting income taxes right now would lead to higher gross domestic product in five years. Here, 43 percent agreed it would, 48 percent were uncertain, and 9 percent disagreed (on a confidence-weighted basis).
So, putting these results together with those I reported last week on economic stimulus from the same panel, we can conclude that there is widespread agreement among expert economists that, in a weak economy, a stimulus package of both tax cuts and more spending will increase growth and reduce unemployment, that there is much less agreement about whether tax cuts alone will do so, and there is very strong agreement that tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
None of this suggests that economists are united in their policy recommendations. On the stimulus, for example, three fifths of the IGM panel (when responses were weighted by each expert’s confidence) thought the overall benefits of the stimulus would turn out to be worth the costs, but a quarter was uncertain. On taxes, nearly half were uncertain that rate cuts would raise GDP.
The panel was not asked about specific tax and spending measures. However, in its analysis of policies to boost economic growth and employment in a weak economy, the Congressional Budget Office shows that different tax and spending policies vary in how well they promote growth and employment per dollar of budgetary cost. In general, policies that put money in the pockets of people who will spend it, such as unemployment insurance and food stamps or tax cuts for low- and moderate-income households, are much more cost-effective than tax cuts for high-income taxpayers or for reducing businesses’ income taxes. Government purchases of goods and services are highly effective once the spending gets into the economy.
The financial crisis and Great Recession have prompted many debates within the economics profession, and economists’ policy advice is influenced by their views on the proper size and role of government and how important issues of fairness and inequality should be in designing policies. But, as the IGM surveys make clear, politicians who argue that spending increases always have to be offset but that tax cuts never do are arguing a position that flies in the face of the best economic thinking.”
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/06/29/economists-agree-tax-cuts-cost-revenue—
Is this bipartisan group of economists just another bunch of “spinners” for Obama, Tina?
This article points to outlandish charts from Heritage predicting the positive effects of the Bush tax cuts. These positive effects never occured.
“As Congress attempts to negotiate a way to cut the budget deficit and avoid a fiscal cliff, it’s worth remembering that one sticking point of the negotiations was supposed to eliminate the deficit problem entirely: the Bush tax cuts. On April 27, 2001, the conservative Heritage Foundation published the above chart, forecasting the effects of then-President George W. Bush’s then-proposed tax cuts — a chart that is, in retrospect, pretty hilarious. Pass the Bush tax cuts, the conservative non-profit predicted, and the future would be awesome. The tax cuts would so stimulate the economy that the government would start bringing in extra money starting in 2008. Alas, in real life, the Bush tax cuts led to huge budget deficits, and 2008 was, as you may also remember, the year of the financial crisis. Republicans continue to say they are open to raising revenue, but they want to do it without raising tax rates. “I’m willing to generate revenue,” Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sunday. “It’s fair to ask my party to put revenue on the table. We’re below historic averages… I will not raise tax rates to do it.” Whatever the reason for holding onto this technicality — that limiting deductions and closing loopholes is not the same thing as raising taxes — it is not based on recent evidence of what effect the Bush tax rates have on the economy.”
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/11/how-awesome-bush-tax-cuts-were-supposed-be-werent/59298/
Chris: “are all just “spinners” for Obama now”
People like you who use what those entities have said to suggest that lowering tax rates will not work and have never worked are spinners. People like you who claim the ridiculous assertion that The Heritage Foundation “has been discredited” are spinners.
Bush, Reagan, Clinton, Kennedy, even Johnson lowered tax rates and the result was a much improved economy and increased revenue to government. Just the opposite has happened under Obama’s policies. Clearly there is a better way to improve the conditions that we now live under and Obama and the central planners of his administration WILL NOT consider that better way because it doesn’t fit their agenda. They want the country dependent on government. They want one party government. They want absolute power and control over every aspect of our lives.
You can post all the spin you like Chris. You cannot defend four years of 8% unemployment and sluggish growth. You cannot defend the fact that our national debt has risen like wildfire under Obama policies. Back in March of 2012 CBS reported the following:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/
Obama ran originally saying that Bush’s debt was unpatriotic and irresponsible. Instead of owning his record like a man he continues to blame Bush or make excuses. The fact remains his policies have not put people back to work or sparked a vibrant economy.
“That you are saying this reveals that you have not been paying one whit of attention to what any of these organizations have actually said.”
That you have not noticed that the rhetoric does not match the reality of our circumstance or the historical record reveals that you are an ideologue and sycophant who is unwilling to learn.
Here’s an article from CATO that illustrates how lefty economist spin the facts and how taking information out of context can “prove” whatever you want it to prove:
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obamas-trillion-dollar-taxcut-fraud
I suggest you read the entire article; you might just learn something.
Any article that has to preface it’s remarks by saying, “First, let’s be clear that we’re not talking about a biased group of economists,’ has probably put together a fairly biased group or has chosen to cherry pick from the group to draw conclusions.
The nation has made an horrific mistake in electing this administration for another four years. Forbes explained, prior to the election, why Romney’s plan for the economy and jobs would work and exactly how spin is used for political purposes to misrepresent the facts.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/10/10/explaining-the-math-behind-mitt-romneys-middle-class-tax-cut/Mitt
Flawed assumptions? Perhaps…or it could just be they work for the administration in the same way that the antique media does.
Here’s another CATO article from 2003 on the Reagan tax cuts:
http://www.yourobserver.com/news/east-county/Opinion/1005201114492/My-View-Facts-are-in-Tax-cuts-raise-revenue
RATE OF ECONOMIC GROWTH WAS 50% HIGHER?
Holy guacamole Batman…we could sure use growth in the private sector like that today!
That’s right Robin, but the progressive party doesn’t want private sector growth. They want big government power and control in a single party system!
But gee won’t that fundamentally transform our free nation?
You got it kid.
Now what are you going to do about it?.
Chris: “People like you who use what those entities have said to suggest that lowering tax rates will not work and have never worked are spinners.”
I never said that this has “never” worked. I said that it won’t work now. And that’s exactly what every organization I have cited said. So I am not “spinning,” I am accurately describing the projections of the most respected economists in the country.
“Bush, Reagan, Clinton, Kennedy, even Johnson lowered tax rates and the result was a much improved economy and increased revenue to government.”
The Bush tax cuts did not lead to higher revenue. In fact, from 2001-2003, government revenue fell dramatically.
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/does-lowering-taxes-increase-government-revenue
As the Tax Foundation points out, revenue did rise after 2003, but it is not clear that this should be attributed to the Bush tax cuts:
“At least from a basic analysis like this one, it’s impossible to know for sure if revenue would have been higher had Clinton-era tax rates been kept, but a growing economy is the norm, and the general trend in the long term, clearly visible in the graph, is for revenues to rise as per capita GDP goes up. Furthermore, revenue did not start to rise until after the Bush tax cuts were fully phased-in; during the period when tax rates were falling (from 2001 to 2003), revenue went down. The correlation visible on the graph is striking.
It’s unfortunate, therefore, to see prominent public figures like Romney making such an argument – an argument that hardly any economists take seriously. Given current budget realities, it amounts to little more than wishful thinking, and makes life harder for reformers who are serious about the deficit. Proposing tough options like spending cuts or tax increases, necessary to solve our long-term budget problem, becomes harder when people
believe there’s an easy fix.”
The Tax Foundation is in general very favorable toward the Bush tax cuts, and goes on to say that there are other reasons to support them. The Tax Foundation also has ties to many conservative organizations and has been accused by some of having a conservative bias. And they are telling you that the argument you’re making here is not only wrong, but embarassing. Are they now spinning for Obama to?
Another Bush adviser, Andrew Samwick, wrote a “New Year’s Plea” to his own administration in 2007 begging them to stop saying that the tax cuts spurred revenue and payed for themselves:
“To anyone in the Administration who may read this blog, I have one small wish for the new year. Please stop your boss from writing or saying the following:
It is also a fact that our tax cuts have fueled robust economic growth and record revenues.
You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.
If I’m wrong, show me the evidence … and tell me why the tax cuts were so small given their effects on revenues.”
http://voxbaby.blogspot.com/2007/01/new-years-plea.html
Samwick was Bush’s chief economist at one time. Was he spinning for Obama then too? Is everyone who disagrees with you part of the liberal conspiracy?
“Just the opposite has happened under Obama’s policies.”
But “Obama’s policies,” at least up until last week, included extending all of the Bush tax cuts! So if anything, you are proving my point: lowering tax rates did not spur increases in revenues.
“You cannot defend four years of 8% unemployment and sluggish growth.”
I don’t have to. We are recovering from the worst recession in history, which started under George W. Bush. No one could have expected magic.
“You cannot defend the fact that our national debt has risen like wildfire under Obama policies.”
That I actually can defend. Emergency spending is necessary to spur recovery from a recession. The biggest problem in our economy right now is lack of demand. That problem can only be addressed by more consumer spending. That means programs for the poor have to be strengthened during a recession, not scaled back. Austerity measures have not worked for Europe, and have in fact made many of their problems even worse:
Ben Cohen: Double-Dip Recession in UK Proves Austerity Doesn’t Work
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-cohen/double-dip-recession-in-uk_b_1474354.html
Nobel Winner Stiglitz Warns Job-Killing Austerity Measures Hurt Economies
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-13/nobel-winner-stiglitz-warns-job-killing-austerity-measures-hurt-economies.html
IT’S OFFICIAL: AUSTERITY ECONOMICS DOESN’T WORK
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/austerity-economics-doesnt-work.html
Bailouts and Austerity Measures Aren’t Working: Is This the Euro’s Last Stand?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2100210,00.html#ixzz2HDj9VRM5
Europe Isn’t Working:
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/31/europe-isnt-working/
Austerity does not lead to growth, says UN body
http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2012/10/austerity-does-not-lead-to-growth-says-un-trade-body/
Austerity measures don’t work for individuals, businesses, or governments
http://oohlah.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/austerity-measures-dont-work-for-individuals-businesses-or-governments/
The most pressing problem to the average American right now is not the debt, Tina. It’s how they will pay their bills. Focusing on lowering the debt and the deficit now will make our immediate problems worse and could lead us into another recession.
The critiques of the Tax Policy Center’s analysis of Romney’s plan are very weak. The TPC’s analysis was actually very generous to Romney’s plan, as most fact-checkers have reported:
“Given what the report actually said, have any of the studies responding to it debunked its conclusions? Not really. If anything, they highlight the priorities that Romney is going to have to compromise on to get tax reform done.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/27/wonkblogs-comprehensive-guide-to-the-debate-over-romneys-tax-plan/
“Ever since the Tax Policy Center exposed the plain fact that Romney’s proposal to render a 20% cut in marginal income tax rates “revenue neutral” with unspecified tax loophole closures without raising taxes on the middle class is mathematically impossible, GOP apologists have taken serial attempts to square the circle and fill in the blanks that Romney refuses to fill in.
First, the Wall Street Journal editorial board attempted a laughable debunk, which relied mainly on assuming that the rate cut would stimulate fantastic growth rates– the old voodoo economics assumption. As I pointed out at the time, the TPC had already granted Romney the most generous “dynamic scoring” (projections building in the assumption that the plan would spur growth) that any reality-based economist would grant.
Next, the respected Martin Feldstein weighed in, demonstrating that a tight cap on deductions for anyone earning over $100,000 per year would make a revenue-neutral 20% rate cap mathematically possible — just barely, and again greasing the calculation with highly optimistic dynamic scoring assumptions. Such a cap would massively raise taxes on those earning $100-$200k per year — and would be politically impossible, as Ezra Klein pointed out, in part because it would violate promises in the Republican National Platform. More to the point, Romney waved away the proffered aid by insisting that he would not raise taxes on anyone earning less than $200k per year.
Now, here cometh Alex Brill of the American Enterprise Institute, taking three more dubious whacks at TPC assumptions…”
http://xpostfactoid.blogspot.com/2012/10/from-aei-one-more-weak-whack-at-tpcs.html
I have to quote one of the articles about austerity I cited, as it is so illuminating:
“…As one would have expected on the basis of the textbooks, the American economy, while hardly racing ahead, has fared considerably better than its British counterpart. Between 2010 and 2012, G.D.P. growth here has averaged about 2.1 per cent. For the U.K., the figure is 0.9 per cent. What may be more surprising—at least to those of you who have been listening to the deficit hawks—is that the United States, while sticking with Keynesian stimulus policies, has also managed to bring down the size of its deficit, relative to G.D.P., almost as rapidly as hairshirt Britain has. Back in 2009, at the depths of the recession, both countries had double-digit deficits. Today, the U.S. deficit stands at about seven per cent of G.D.P., and the British deficit is about five per cent of G.D.P. But with the U.S. growing faster than the U.K,. the gap is set to close. Next year, according to the latest forecasts from the Congressional Budget Office and the O.B.R., the U.S. deficit will be considerably smaller than the U.K. deficit: four per cent of G.D.P. compared to six per cent.
Let’s go over that one more time. Having adopted the policies of Keynes in response to a calamitous recession, the United States has grown more than twice as fast during the past three years as Britain, which adopted the economics of Hoover (and Paul Ryan). Meanwhile, the gaping hole in the two countries’ budgets has declined at roughly the same rate, and next year the U.S. will be in better fiscal shape than its old ally.”
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/austerity-economics-doesnt-work.html#ixzz2HDnQ3EdU
One more thing.
Tina: “Any article that has to preface it’s remarks by saying, “First, let’s be clear that we’re not talking about a biased group of economists,’ has probably put together a fairly biased group or has chosen to cherry pick from the group to draw conclusions.”
Had you read past that sentence, you would have seen that the panel in question, the IGM, is composed of Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The reason the IGM exists is to find out how much consensus there is among economists from diverse backgrounds. The whole POINT is to eliminate bias.
http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel
Your accusations of liberal bias become more ridiculous as your targets become more conservative. And still, you refuse to acknowledge the plain-as-day bias of the Heritage Foundation and CATO. As usual, bias is OK as long as it’s *your* bias.
Chris: “I never said that this has “never” worked.”
I believe the intent of all of this is to discredit tax cutting policy. Keynes was discredited in the eighties with Reagan’s success. The Democrat Party has been left behind on economic policy ever since and they would like very much to change that. But this won’t do it. It doesn’t matter what the economists you cite think when the result for the average American in the last four years has been continuing high unemployment, a stagnant economy, inflation in food and gasoline prices, and stuck or declining wages:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/11/03/number-of-the-week-stagnant-wage-growth/
Economic growth has been paltry…who cares if it’s been better than in the UK by a fraction! The UK is not exactly a model of economic vibrancy.
None of your economists have said that a different approach wouldn’t produce a better result. That is my argument. After four years of failure it is nuts to defend the policies of this administration.
You are a particular disappointment, Chris, since you were very quick to bash Bush’s record which was disappointing to everyone, including republicans, in terms of spending but was head and shoulders ahead of Obama in terms of opportunity and growth. Not only has Obama managed to spend too much he has done it without creating a thriving economy to support it. The only reason he has gotten away with it is because the media, and the band of supposedly non-biased economists, won’t criticize his performance.
A bad economic record can be defended. You will never convince me that the defense is not either political or a reaction born of fear of being called racist.
When American companies must compete with companies in the world that have a lower tax burden business in America will not be supported and jobs will not be forthcoming. The elite companies, the really bif guys can adjust…they will make most of their profits from overseas sales. Small American companies will be hindered. That is just plain stupid policy.
If Obama’s intent was to keep deficit spending down so as to begin to eliminate debt his actions and his budgets would reflect that. They don’t! The Obama progressive syndicate doesn’t care about debt or deficit spending. Obama cares about power, fundamental transformation and redistribution of wealth. He doesn’t care that his economic record actually stinks because he knows his supporters and the media will cover for him.
You act like you have taken the high road. Instead you have swallowed the cover story hook, line and sinker…and to what end? What we get because of this mangling of the record and defense of failure is another four years of this failed policy…only now there will be no restraints on the President.
THIS NATION NEEDS STRONG GROWTH IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR!
Quoting CATO again:
The record shows the Reagan policy worked to produce strong growth. Obama’s record shows just the opposite. It is insane to continue going down a tunnel where the is insufficient to support and sustain the people!
A few matter of clarification from the distinguished Dr. Sowell:
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2012/12/04/revenue-was-up-under-bush-tax-cuts.html
Go ahead, insist that Dr. Thomas Sowell has been “totally discredited”…I could use A good belly laugh this morning.
For some reason Chris finds it necessary to disparage certain sources of information. I would think if he was confident in the conclusions of his own sources he would not need make a point of their superiority by claiming mi9ne have been discredited. The question immediately arises, “Discredited by whom and to what purpose?”
Since Chris continues in this vein I think it only fitting that I should report about the good work and intention of The Heritage Foundation, an organization that cares deeply about America and our American heritage. The Heritage Foundation webpage says this about its work:
http://www.heritage.org/about
This organization does analysis. Other organizations also do analysis. Conclusions from various organizations are often at odds. I believe our readers are both smart and perceptive and so I leave it to our readers to consider the various findings presented at Post Scripts and draw their own conclusions.
“For some reason Chris finds it necessary to disparage certain sources of information.”
Tina, you have accused the organizations I have cited of pro-Obama bias while providing *zero evidence* of this alleged bias.
I have accurately pointed out that Heritage and CATO are biased in favor of Republicans, which is not an open question–they are both conservative think tanks.
So we are both “disparaging certain sources of information.” The difference is that I have provided facts to back up my critiques of your sources, whereas you have not provided *any* justification for disparaging the following organizations:
The CBO (non-partisan)
The CRS (non-partisan)
The White House Office of Budget and Management (appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, so most likely partisan)
The U.S. Treasury Department (same as above)
The Joint Committe on Taxation (bipartisan)
The IGM (bipartisan)
George Mankiw (former Bush adviser)
Alan D. Viard of the AEI (former Bush adviser who now works for a right-of-center think tank)
Andrew Samwick (former chief economic adviser to Bush)
The Tax Foundation (right-of-center think tank)
That’s ten sources, Tina, which you have broadly tried to “disparage” as biased toward Obama…even though four of them have a well-known Republican bias! You’ve given no reason for these accusations other than saying “You will never convince me…” Of course I can’t convince you; your position isn’t based on facts, it’s based on faith.
Again, I’ve only “disparaged” two sources with a noted conservative bias. You’ve disparaged ten sources, only two of which are biased toward the left, four of which are biased toward the right and still disagree with you, two of which are non-partisan, and two of which are bipartisan. The weight of the evidence is on my side, Tina.
The 80s were a very different time. Most economists attribute the so-called “Reagan recovery” more to the Fed’s lowering of interest rates than to tax policy. In addition, the top marginal rate when Reagan took office was 70%, almost three times higher than it was when Obama took office. It makes sense to lower taxes when they are punitively high, not when they are historically low.
The following article is by Bruce Bartlett, who was an adviser to both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He argues that while Reagan’s tax policy was stimulative to the economy, it actually lost revenue. He also argues that a similar tax policy would not work under today’s economic conditions. An exerpt:
“Today, by contrast, income tax rates are at a historical low – the top tax rate is just 35 percent and revenues are less than 15 percent gross domestic product versus 19.6 percent in 1981. The average federal income tax rate on a median family is less than 5 percent and its marginal rate is 15 percent. Inflation is nonexistent and the federal funds rate is close to zero.
Therefore, there is no possibility of replicating the experience of the early 1980s because economic and financial conditions now are virtually 180 degrees opposite from what they were then.
Making economic policy is not like making cookies and you can’t use a cookie-cutter approach. Policies need to be crafted to the circumstances. I believe Reagan’s policies were appropriate to the economic conditions of the early 1980s. Today’s economic problems require a very different set of policies.”
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2343/why-reagan-tax-cut-worked-1981-and-why-it-wouldn%E2%80%99t-work-today
Tina, do you really believe Bruce Bartlett (along with the Tax Foundation and the three former Bush advisers I cited, one of whom advised candidate Mitt Romney) is only coming to this conclusion because he is afraid of being accused of racism if he disagrees with President Obama’s economic policy?
Tina: “The Obama progressive syndicate doesn’t care about debt or deficit spending.”
To be fair, neither did Cheney; and according to him, neither did Reagan.
“Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.” –Dick Cheney
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/reagan-proved-deficits-dont-matter-quote-deficits-dont-matter-ronald-reagan/question-2009907/
Chris: “You have accused the organizations I have cited of pro-Obama bias while providing *zero evidence* of this alleged bias.”
I have never said your sources were “totally discredited”. I have pointed out that statistics can be used to prove any position. I have pointed out that pro Obama supporters will use statistics to try to spin the Presidents record as positive and working. I have the opinion that some of these are on board in the progressive big government plan to discredit Reagan and his tax policy. They’ve been waging this war on Reagan for 30 years.
“your position isn’t based on facts, it’s based on faith.”
We both know that is BS, Chris. Heritage uses the same sources as those that have been cited in information you post. As I said data can be used to prove any position.
What cannot be denied is Obama’s Keynesian motivated policies and their failure to improve the economy following the end of the recession in 2009. What cannot be denied without lying is the BOOMING economy that followed Reagan policies.
Game playing with statistics is not exactly a soothing balm for the realities of low unemployment, a sluggish economy, and continuous threats against business.
Democrats have attempted to trash supply side economics for a long time. If you don’t believe me just Google anything having to do with the economy or Reagan and you will find post after post after nauseating negative post.
But if one is willing to be persistent, it is easy to find opinion that matches the real world experience we had during the Reagan BOOM:
http://pithocrates.com/tag/reagan-tax-cuts/
George Gilder (in unabashed opinion) points out that policy peddlers should stop attempt at solving problems and look to pursuing opportunities, as Reagan did:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444914904577621083163383966.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/310082/reagan-praised-entrepreneurs-recovery-larry-kudlow
Yes, unlike President Obama, Ronald Reagan praised and uplifted small business entrepreneurs both in words and in policies. In fact his encouragement excited not only the American people but an entire world of entrepreneurs. Small business startups were amazing under Reagan:
http://www.rootforamerica.com/webroot/blog/waynes-economic-plan/
As Obama and his ilk continue to deny the REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE of the Reagan policy/years in Cuba, Raoul Castro is taking a page from the Reagan playbook:
YES…the small business entrepreneur is the America that was unleashed under Reagan’s leadership and praise:
http://roguepolitics.com/blog/2012/12/19/will-john-boehner-give-obama-the-head-of-small-business-on-a-platter/
http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/tag/ronald-reagan/
Ronald Reagan in 1986:
http://www.success.com/articles/854-from-the-archives-ronald-reagan
Ahhh, what a difference when the leader of the nation actually believes in the heritage of the nation and promotes the aspirations and dreams of the people both in policy and in rhetoric! Compare to Obama who attempted to encourage but just could help himself as he included in his remarks, “if you have a business you didn’t build that…”
So what about the Keynesian policies Obama and the Democrats favor…what about the track record on these policies?
This fella has an interesting take as a starting point:
http://pithocrates.com/tag/reagan-tax-cuts/
Sounds familiar doesn’t it. Under Carter the American experience was exploding prices at the super market and in clothing stores…INFLATION was making buying power disintegrate by the hour. Interest rates were very high making home buying and business loans expensive if not impossible. Even Carter referred to it as malaise and told us to put on a sweater against the cold in our homes due to high energy prices.
Instead of learning from the experience under Carter the current bunch of clowns under Obama has decided they can beat inflation by keeping interest rates artificially low…and they are causing another bubble that will inevitably burst. And under the fabulously terrible Obama Keynes plan we have high and lasting unemployment, rising prices for food and energy (except the private enterprise miracle of natural gas over which Obama has little control), sluggish growth and debt piling up faster than peanut shells on Friday night at the local pub.
Scholarly attempts to LIE about both of these realities frankly make me sick, especially when I think about all of the people who want to work and can’t find a good job…all of the young people who not only can’t find a job but see little hope in a future filled with massive debt…all of the dreamers who wished for a business of their own, a home of their own…or even a new car!
The do-gooders brigade in the White House (they call it a redistribution team) has managed to profoundly add to the numbers of people in poverty and living on food stamps. If that insult isn’t enough to the sensibilities of the average American they then pretend that their policies are working…that they are doing all of this to give everyone a “fair shot”. They appease the growing numbers of the poor by promising to stick it to the rich but so far the fair shot is a permanent invitation to live in poverty.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/11/02/the-consequences-of-obamas-debt/
It’s your future Chris. NO PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE NATION HAS BEEN THIS IRRESPONSIBLE.
Economic conditions are never exactly the same. Tax policies enacted throughout our history by both democrats and republicans are consistent in their results under varying conditions. What it amounts to is when money is allowed to work in the private sector (low tax rates that are attuned to prevailing conditions, i.e. competitive corporate rates) creates a vibrant economy and jobs. Money taken from the private sector to create growing government, subsidies, corporatism, and giveaway programs blunts the economy and stifles opportunity/jobs for the people.
The Cheney quote, without context, is difficult to defend. I do know they were made when he was talking about raising taxes on the wealthy. I also know Cheney is a very smart man who was the target of the Saul Alinsky personal destruction game that is so common. They seek to destroy those who speak well and know what they are talking about. They tried it with Reagan but he was a great and sincere communicator and the people loved him…it didn’t work. So far I haven’t been able to find Cheney’s remarks in full to clarify them.
The biggest problem with deficit spending in the Obama administration is that he has increased the ratio of debt to GDP by quite a bit compared to his predecessors:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesglassman/2012/07/11/the-facts-about-budget-deficits-how-the-presidents-truly-rank/
Also, I found this on a lefty site that shows they cherry pick Keynes who warned:
http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2010/05/17/james-galbraith-on-deficits-dick-cheney-of-the-far-left/
That is exactly what is happening today, and the disastrous results are what has all of us looking over the cliff in perilous anticipation of the future.
The same people that bashed Bush into the ground for deficits and debt are now ignoring Obama’s record and praising the policies that have had disastrous results while attempting to discredit policies that historically, improved the economy. It’s a shell game.
You got it Tina…it’s the debt ratio, that’s the key to this whole thing and right now that ratio is dangerously high.
I only have time to respond to one thing right now. From the “Root for America” link you cited:
“That tax cut benefited and motivated the groups that produce virtually all of the jobs and tax revenues in America — small business owners and taxpayers. These are the very groups that President Obama chooses to punish, instead of reward. Obama redistributes money from taxpayers and small business owners to his voters”
This is not mere opinion; this is a lie.
President Obama has only raised taxes on the top 2% of small business owners and taxpayers. To say that he has “punished” small business owners and taxpayers as a group, when in fact 98% of them have had their taxes either stay the same or decrease due to the payroll tax cut, is despicably deceptive.
When you post lies, Tina, it hurts your credibility. It also hurts your credibility when you post incredibly classist, poor-bashing garbage. The author then goes on to disparage “Obama voters,” by which he clearly means the poor:
“who create virtually nothing, pay almost no taxes, create no jobs, and ask for handouts and entitlements from cradle to grave. In short, Obama’s voters are bankrupting this once great country.”
This is class warfare, Tina! Not that you’d notice. To you, class warfare is something that only affects rich people. Not only are you perfectly fine with your fellow conservatives demeaning the poor by essentially calling them lazy parasites–you actually think doing so is *admirable.* It disgusts me. But keep at it. You will only drive more people away from your elitist, poor-bashing party.
Bobby Jindal actually had a good point when he said after the election, “If we want people to like us, we have to like them first.” Your party is driving voters away in droves because you keep insulting them in the worst ways possible. If you want to have a viable party focused on ideas, you have to stop enabling rhetoric like the above. You have to stop supporting haters like Hannity, who compared welfare recipients to zoo animals last week, or Limbaugh, who said yesterday that acceptance of homosexuality will lead to pedophilia. Or you can keep bitching about Saul Alinsky, a guy who has been dead for 40 years and whom most people have never heard of. Your choice.
Chris: “President Obama has only raised taxes on the top 2% of small business owners and taxpayers. To say that he has “punished” small business owners and taxpayers as a group, when in fact 98% of them have had their taxes either stay the same or decrease due to the payroll tax cut, is despicably deceptive.”
Stealth taxes are just as harmful. Obamacare has caused higher costs for insurance not lowered them as promised. Taxes on medical devices are harming small business producers in that field. High energy costs affect the bottom line of all business including small business. Investors that are now taxed at higher rates will not invest as much in the private economy and will not spend as much in the private economy…hotels, restaurants, wine dealers, etc.
When you focus on a single item and fail to see the big picture you hurt your credibility!
“It also hurts your credibility when you post incredibly classist, poor-bashing garbage. The author then goes on to disparage “Obama voters,” by which he clearly means the poor”
Bull#H*#!!! Your sensitivity about the poor clouds your judgement. Jeanine Gerofalo is an Obama supporter! She and all of Obamas corporate and movie industry supporters could hardly be labeled as poor.
This president gives the poor crumbs and offers them NO HOPE to significantly improve their lives. They have a college education and they’re flipping hamburgers. More people on govt programs puts downward pressure on the poor, especially those most in need or legitimately disabled.
As for your advice I have only one thing to say…YOU FIRST! Go gove advice to those who have taken name calling, and false accusations to an all time low decide to change their ways there is no reward down the civil tunnel. You can start with the President!
Until your party decides to quit playing like a bunch of mobsters, until your party quits labeling people as racist indiscriminately, until your party takes you advice and shows a little respect for the opposition you can take your insincere advice and shove it.
Chris: “President Obama has only raised taxes on the top 2% of small business owners and taxpayers.”
Chris, your claim that Obama only raised taxes on the top 2% of small business owners didn’t seem right, so I went looking for the actual percentage of small businesses this tax will impact.
According to the below articles the range goes from 28% – 50% and doesn’t include the other new job killing taxes small businesses are being forced to pay.
From The Daily Caller:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/10/obama-tax-hike-would-affect-1-2-million-small-businesses/#ixzz2HKDvYyOQ
“Under Obama’s proposal, the highest income tax rates will go from 35 percent and 33 percent to 39.6 percent and 36 percent, respectively. This rate increase would negatively affect 1.2 million — 28 percent — small businesses filing under the individual income tax code that make over $200,000.
A 2011 Treasury Department study found that 30 million — 88 percent — of small business tax filers are people who do side jobs, like computer technicians, academics or experts writing studies or giving lectures, and even people selling goods on eBay. These “businesses” don’t actually hire workers.
Only 4.3 million small business filers employed workers. Of those 4.3 million small businesses, 1.2 million — 28 percent — earned over $200,000, meaning that a large share would be hit by Obama’s proposed tax increases.
Those 1.2 million small businesses earned nearly all — 91 percent — of flow-through business income in 2007, the most recent year data is available.
“So they’re the ones earning all the income, meaning they’re the ones doing all the hiring,” Dubay said. “So [Obama’s] tax increase is tailored directly to slam small business job creators.”
From US News:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/07/13/obamas-tax-hike-plan-punishes-small-businesses
“Small business owners are often unfairly grouped with the extremely affluent because of the way they file their taxes. Due to their size, most small businesses file as sole proprietors or partnerships—in fact, approximately 85 percent of small businesses file income taxes as individuals. This means that, while a small business owner’s personal income may seem large, the majority of the money is actually funneled directly back into the business.
By targeting these individuals, President Obama is not only increasing taxes for nearly half of America’s small businesses, he is also making it harder for the middle class to be able to find the jobs they so desperately need.”
From The American:
http://www.american.com/archive/2012/october/obamas-big-tax-increases-on-small-business
“President Obama has touted his treatment of small businesses repeatedly over the course of the campaign, and last week’s presidential debate was no exception. “I also lowered taxes for small businesses 18 times. And what I want to do is continue the tax rate — the tax cuts that we put into place for small businesses and families,” argued Obama.
While in the strictest sense it is true that the president has lowered taxes for small businesses 18 times, this does not accurately reflect the totality of his small-business tax policy. In fact, on net, the president’s policy proposals will inflict significant harm on small businesses.
First, to the 18 times. Note how the president corrected himself after he accidentally mentioned tax rates. There is a clear reason for this: his “tax cuts” for small businesses have not been across-the-board marginal rate cuts, but instead have been targeted and often temporary deductions, tax credits, and subsidies. (It’s easier to cut taxes 18 times if your cuts are temporary.)
Of the 18, only 10 of them are still in place. Half of these 10 are extensions of programs first enacted by President George W. Bush or even before his time in office. (I assume that these are not “the failed policies of the past” to which the president does not want to return.)
So we started with 18, but now we’re down to 5. Estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the U.S. Treasury Department suggest that the sum total of the tax breaks created by the remaining five will amount to at most $3 billion in 2013.
When the president says that he wants to continue the tax cuts that he has put in place for small businesses, presumably this $3 billion is what he is referring to.
But it is important to remember that taxes can go up and down. Let’s take the president at his word and assume that the $3 billion-per-year cuts stay in place. Is this the totality of the president’s tax policy proposals for small businesses?
Every time Obama touts his small-business tax policies, what he is really announcing is that if reelected, he will destroy 200,000 American jobs in 2013 alone.
Nope. In addition to keeping the $3 billion in cuts, the president has proposed and even enacted several tax increases for 2013 that would apply to small businesses that are organized as pass-through entities, firms that have their income taxed at the individual, not the corporate level — for example, partnerships and S corporations. (The overwhelming majority of small businesses are organized as pass-through entities.)
Specifically, the president has proposed the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, which will increase taxes by 4.6 percentage points on incomes above $250,000. Obama will increase taxes by a further 3.8 percentage points on these same incomes through the Unearned Income Medicare Contribution. (Is it unearned because “you didn’t build that”?) And we shouldn’t forget the reimplementation of the Pease provision, also scheduled for January 1, which adds an additional 1 percentage point to the effective tax rate for these businesses.
It should come as no surprise that these tax increases dwarf the $3 billion in tax decreases that the president has brought small businesses.
According to a report by the Joint Committee on Taxation, approximately $690 billion of business income will be reported on tax returns subject to the marginal rate increases. A very conservative estimate based on IRS figures of the distribution of partnership and S-Corp income shows that only about 80 percent of this income is actually subject to the highest marginal rate, which puts the size of the tax hike at around 9.4 percent of 80 percent of $690 billion, or about $52 billion.
That $52 billion is much more than the sum of all tax breaks, which was about $3 billion. So it’s quite a stretch for the president to argue that he wants to cut taxes for small businesses. In fact, he wants to raise taxes on small businesses by an order of magnitude.
What does this mean for the affected firms? On average, an additional tax bill of $48,000. That’s a stunning increase.”
Tina, literally every source you cited in your attempt to prove that tax cuts increased revenue came from right-leaning, partisan sources. Do you really not see a problem with this? Why have you not been able to find any non-partisan analysis of the tax cuts which support your position that they led to higher revenues?
You have not answered any of the questions I posed to you. Why do so many advisers for Republican presidents, including Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett, say that the tax cuts did not increase revenue, and would not do so in the future either? Why does the right-leaning Tax Foundation, which supports the Bush tax cuts, say that they did not increase revenue? Why are they telling you to stop making this argument? Do you believe these Republican individuals and organizations are secretly in the tank for Obama?
I have also asked you repeatedly why you choose to believe analysis from partisan agencies over non-partisan ones. If statistics can be used to prove anything, shouldn’t you trust non-partisan organizations over those who are clearly driven by a political agenda?
These are serious questions. Please answer them. Ignoring them makes your position look very weak.
You also continue to try and direct the subject away from the question of whether lowering tax rates increases revenue, and onto other economic problems under President Obama. But this does nothing to help your position; if anything, it strengthens my argument, since the Bush tax cuts on higher income earners have been in place for almost the entirety of Obama’s time in office! Your arguments make no sense.
Tina: “Obamacare has caused higher costs for insurance not lowered them as promised.”
According to the Washington Post, the law did cause premiums to raise by about 5% due to requiring increases in benefits. However, the law also requires insurance companies to refund customers if the company does not spend at least 80% of payments on medical care. This actually added up to a 1% decrease in premiums for the average family:
“3. The Affordable Care Act has contributed to the rise in premiums, especially in the individual market. One thing the Affordable Care Act did right away was make health insurance benefit packages more robust. It required insurance companies to cover preventive care at no cost, for example, and allowed parents to keep their kids on their plans up to age 26.
Those changes are not, however, free for insurance companies. Insurers have to factor in those young adults and the provision of preventive services into the overall premium cost for their policies. Consulting firm Aon Hewitt says that, in the large employer market, where benefit packages were pretty robust, this was a really small change. But in the individual market, where coverage tended to be skimpier, adding in those additional benefits caused insurance premiums to increase by just under 5 percent.
4. The Affordable Care Act has returned more than $1 billion in premiums to consumers in the form of insurance rebates. The health care law requires insurance companies to spend at least 80 percent of subscriber dollars on medical care. If they spend less than that, the difference must be made up in a rebate to insurance subscribers.
In 2011, the year that provision went into effect, health insurers sent out $1.1 billion in rebates to 12.8 million American households. They averaged $151 per household, with Vermont seeing the highest rebates (their average check was $807 in the individual market). Using the numbers from the Commonwealth Fund above, that would work out to a 1 percent decrease in premiums for the average family.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/06/five-facts-about-obamacare-and-health-premiums/
This article shows that rising health care costs are mostly due to factors other than Obamacare:
http://www.ctmirror.org/story/17298/health-insurance-rate-increases-driven-rising-costs-not-affordable-care-act
“Taxes on medical devices are harming small business producers in that field.”
That’s not true. You are ignoring the huge increase in demand the medical device industry will see as a result of expanded health coverage.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3684
http://www.offthechartsblog.org/more-bogus-economics-from-the-medical-device-industry/
“Investors that are now taxed at higher rates will not invest as much in the private economy and will not spend as much in the private economy…hotels, restaurants, wine dealers, etc.”
That’s also not true, according to the CRS, the CBO…and most of the other sources I have cited so far showing no connection between lower tax rates on the wealthy and economic growth.
As I have explained previously, rich investors do not have as much of an effect on the economy as the millions of average consumers. You are still focusing on those at the top to determine what is best for our economy, while ignoring the fact that lack of demand is the primary cause of our current woes. This focus on the rich is exactly the cause of our current regressive system.
To fix our problems, we need to focus on policies that will directly strengthen the middle class. Trickle-down policies don’t do this; that’s why we have seen such an increase in income inequality since the ’80s. There has been a lot of growth at the top but very little for the middle class and the poor. Purchasing power is way down, as is the minimum wage when adjusted for inflation. These are not coincidences. Robert Reich explains in the New York Times:
“When so much income goes to the top, the middle class doesn’t have enough purchasing power to keep the economy going without sinking ever more deeply into debt — which, as we’ve seen, ends badly. An economy so dependent on the spending of a few is also prone to great booms and busts. The rich splurge and speculate when their savings are doing well. But when the values of their assets tumble, they pull back. That can lead to wild gyrations. Sound familiar?
The economy won’t really bounce back until America’s surge toward inequality is reversed. Even if by some miracle President Obama gets support for a second big stimulus while Ben S. Bernanke’s Fed keeps interest rates near zero, neither will do the trick without a middle class capable of spending. Pump-priming works only when a well contains enough water.
Look back over the last hundred years and you’ll see the pattern. During periods when the very rich took home a much smaller proportion of total income — as in the Great Prosperity between 1947 and 1977 — the nation as a whole grew faster and median wages surged. We created a virtuous cycle in which an ever growing middle class had the ability to consume more goods and services, which created more and better jobs, thereby stoking demand. The rising tide did in fact lift all boats.
During periods when the very rich took home a larger proportion — as between 1918 and 1933, and in the Great Regression from 1981 to the present day — growth slowed, median wages stagnated and we suffered giant downturns. It’s no mere coincidence that over the last century the top earners’ share of the nation’s total income peaked in 1928 and 2007 — the two years just preceding the biggest downturns…”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opinion/sunday/jobs-will-follow-a-strengthening-of-the-middle-class.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
“Bull#H*#!!! Your sensitivity about the poor clouds your judgement.”
No, your lack of sensitivity toward the poor clouds yours. I should also point out that when you approvingly cite sources falsely claiming that poor people contribute nothing to the economy, don’t pay taxes, and ask for handouts, you are violating your own Christian morals. Jesus never spoke of the poor this way, Tina, and neither should you. But perhaps WWJD, for, you has been replaced by WWRD (What Would Reagan Do)?
“Jeanine Gerofalo is an Obama supporter! She and all of Obamas corporate and movie industry supporters could hardly be labeled as poor.”
This is one of the dumbest arguments you have ever made, and that’s saying a lot. So because Obama has rich supporters as well as poor supporters (as any president always has), it is OK for members of your party to insult the poor and claim that we are a bunch of lazy moochers? I think you know that doesn’t make any sense, Tina.
“As for your advice I have only one thing to say…YOU FIRST!”
Ah, personal responsibility!
“Go gove advice to those who have taken name calling, and false accusations to an all time low decide to change their ways there is no reward down the civil tunnel.”
So you believe that the only reason you should be civil and sensitive to the poor is so that you can get a “reward?” And if you won’t get one, there is no reason to show compassion? Again, that runs completely counter to Christian morals. You should be ashamed to have written this, Tina.
Tina, here is the actual study from the CRS in which they conclude that lowering taxes on the rich does not correlate to economic growth, but does correlate to economic inequality:
http://www.dpcc.senate.gov/files/documents/CRSTaxesandtheEconomy%20Top%20Rates.pdf
If you can identify a flaw in the study’s methodology, please let me know. So far you have not mentioned any substantive critiques of this study, or the analyses of most of the other sources I have cited; rather, you have dismissed them out of hand and countered with analyses from overtly biased organizations. You have objected to the findings, but not to the methodology. This has not been constructive.
Chris: ” literally every source you cited in your attempt to prove that tax cuts increased revenue came from right-leaning, partisan sources.”
Not if they are correct.
“Why have you not been able to find any non-partisan analysis of the tax cuts which support your position that they led to higher revenues?”
For the same reason you post only left leaning partisan sources.
The people I cite use the same sources as the people you cite and, as I pointed out before, statistics can be used to demonstrate or prove any position. You are arrogant enough to think your people are right and mine are wrong. I am experienced enough to know that your arguments don’t match up with what happened. I have to conclude that they are not only politically biased but part of the ideological effort to destroy the republican party and the fundamentally transform the nation.
I have acknowledged to you that there is disagreement over economic policy. I just can never support economic policy that results in continuing high unemployment, sluggish growth, more Americans living in poverty and on food stamps, college graduates that can’t find work and are living with their parents, booming debt, and a president and power structure that believes more massive government spending is the road to prosperity.
“Why do so many advisers for Republican presidents, including Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett, say that the tax cuts did not increase revenue, and would not do so in the future either”
I don’t know…you would have to ask them. Maybe they’re power hungry and this is the current game in town…but in any case a handful of people hardly constitutes “so many”. There are a lot of Reagan advisers and supporters that would laugh their asses off at the suggestion.
“…shouldn’t you trust non-partisan organizations over those who are clearly driven by a political agenda?”
I trust organizations, individuals and sites that articulate ideas and results that are consistent with common sense and my personal experience. I am not an economic expert so I must rely on the tools at my disposal.
You on the other hand have little experience to draw from and minimal economic training. You have witnessed four years of Obama policy that has not produced a vibrant economy. You have been informed about results of lowering taxes on the economy under presidents of both parties. The party you defend is as ideologically driven as any I’ve seen in recent memory. the articles you post are supportive of that position.
You are, in my opinion, standing in a pool of political and partisan poop and you are lecturing me about bias and partisanship! I think you should start turning your questions against your own sources. Keynes wasn’t all wrong but progressives are using what they like about his ideas and ignoring what doesn’t fit Marxist/fascist goals.
Serious matters deserve serious attention rather than the “my way or the highway” dirty tricks approach the progressives in power are waging and have been waging for four years. THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING TO ADDRESS OUR ECONOMIC PROBLEMS…NOTHING!
“You also continue to try and direct the subject away from the question…”
That is exactly right! And I will continue as long as you continue to play this “my sources are better than your sources” game because what is important is the state of the economy. ATTENTION MUST FALL ON THE LOUSY JOB THAT PROGRESSIVES IN CHARGE ARE DOING AND THE FAILURE OF THE POLICIES THEY FAVOR. The media won’t do it. Democrats won’t do it like republicans did when they joined democrats in holding republicans accountable for spending too much. I refuse to go away so you might as well get used to it.
“But this does nothing to help your position; if anything, it strengthens my argument, since the Bush tax cuts on higher income earners have been in place for almost the entirety of Obama’s time in office!”
I told you; it isn’t the money. it is the conditions. Tax cuts under Bush coming out of the .com bubble and the attack on 911 produced growth. Canada, China and Russia now have better tax structures than we do. they are competitors in the marketplace. Raising taxes on those who financially support business growth and jobs is STUPID under these conditions. The President and his progressive supporters now think that the President should have a blank check to spend on whatever he wants…an unlimited credit card. After creating $16 trillion as the new debt level after criticizing his predecessor to get elected on debt this jerk has a lot of nerve attempting to tell us spending and debt don’t matter. he has a lot of nerve spending and creating bigger government when so many people can’t even find work.
All of this should have been in the media BEFORE THE ELECTION. This guy did not deserve re-election.
THE OBAMA ECONOMY STINKS.
“Your arguments make no sense.”
Well they wouldn’t to a good little progressive that can’t get the simple concept that if you are broke you don’t go shopping for a Cadillac on credit while your kids are going without food or that taking more out of the private sector in taxes will mean there is less revenue to use to produce and hire. Or that if the government that claims it needs more tax revenue was serious about solving economic problems it would actually be actually paying down debt instead of adding to it and creating programs that will require even more revenue. These are very simple concepts. I would think at some point a smart person would wonder if they were up to something vile and not at all “fair” or doing things that will not actually lead to every American having a “shot”.
“For the same reason you post only left leaning partisan sources.”
Wow. So now you are just going to sit there and LIE about something that is right there in black and white.
I have listed my sources and explained where they fit on the partisan spectrum enough times already. Most of them are non-partisan, bipartisan, or Republican. Only a few of them are left leaning. For you to accuse them all of being left leaning at this point is absurd. The only reason you are doing so is because you don’t like what they are saying.
Anyone who points out that your impression of the president does not line up with the facts is, to you, just part of the liberal conspiracy. Your paranoia is irrational and unhealthy, and arguing with you is a waste of time. There is no amount of evidence that could possibly change your mind. I’m done.
Chris: “I have listed my sources and explained where they fit on the partisan spectrum…”
And you picked all of the ones that support your position. Saying that CBO or the Treasury Dept. are nonpartisan sources that prove your position is ludicrous since Heritage uses CBO and Treasury stats also. Make up your mind Chris…or is CBO only nonpartisan and credible when it supports your position.
You still have not attempted in any of these long arguments to defend the terrible record of the last 3-4 years. What makes you think you have credibility when it comes to the economy and you support this record?
“Your paranoia is irrational and unhealthy”
Oh do believe that what this is is paranoia! go on…I beg you. It only serves to harden the steely sense of determination I have.
“Anyone who points out that your impression of the president does not line up with the facts is, to you, just part of the liberal conspiracy.”
There is no liberal conspiracy!!!!!
There is an extreme progressive no holds barred syndicate bent on fundamentally transforming this nation.
Fundamental change is complete alteration. Fundamental change is a nation that is unrecognizable as founded.
“There is no amount of evidence that could possibly change your mind. I’m done.”
Thank God! Run along and play. We have serious things to discuss here.
Tina: “Saying that CBO or the Treasury Dept. are nonpartisan sources that prove your position is ludicrous since Heritage uses CBO and Treasury stats also. Make up your mind Chris…or is CBO only nonpartisan and credible when it supports your position.”
I no longer expect anything fruitful to come of this, but I have to point out that you are now literally arguing that a secondary source’s interpretation of a primary source is actually more reliable than the primary source itself. That’s how bizarre your arguments have become.
“There is no liberal conspiracy!!!!!
There is an extreme progressive no holds barred syndicate bent on fundamentally transforming this nation.”
This is satire, right? Please just tell me you’ve been Stephen Colbert all along, and all will be forgiven.
Chris: “I have to point out that you are now literally arguing that a secondary source’s interpretation of a primary source is actually more reliable than the primary source itself…”
Excuse me Chris but your links included: Citizens for Tax Justice, CBS News, Business Insider, Washington Post, New York Times, Factcheck.org. These are secondary sources.
Saying that these are nonpartisan is equally ludicrous.
Citizens for Tax Justice goals: “fair taxes for middle and low-income families; requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share; closing corporate tax loopholes; adequately funding important government services; reducing the federal debt; [and promoting] taxation that minimizes distortion of economic markets.”
Yep, sounds like a nonpartisan group to me!
Please just tell me you’ve been Stephen Colbert all along, and all will be forgiven.
So you think I need to seek forgiveness?
Interesting…and possibly a bit narcissistic.
“Excuse me Chris but your links included: Citizens for Tax Justice, CBS News, Business Insider, Washington Post, New York Times, Factcheck.org. These are secondary sources. Saying that these are nonpartisan is equally ludicrous.”
That’s nice, but irrelevant, since I did not say any of those sources were non-partisan. I was talking specifically about the CBO and the Treasury in my last comment. I have told you exactly which of the sources I’ve referred to are non-partisan, multiple times, and I won’t repeat myself again.
Chris wrote: “I have listed my sources and explained where they fit on the partisan spectrum enough times already. Most of them are non-partisan, bipartisan, or Republican. Only a few of them are left leaning.”
Oh I get it. Your opinion of where they fit on the political spectrum is sufficient…that explains it cause everyone knows there are no left leaning Republicans. Not only that but conservatives are considered extreme in your circles…and Obama? He thinks he’s in the middle! I seem to recall a few other times when you attempted to peddle left organizations as nonpartisan and unbiased. Of course Heritage is extreme and biased in your opinion…quelle suprise!.
The way I look at it the progressive wing of your party has been pretty much getting their way for seventy years. It’s a very long view, I know, but what I notice about it is that concessions always come from the right and bipartisan cooperation always ends in government getting bigger. Soon there will not be enough income in the entire country to fund all of those progressive programs, giveaways, and special projects.
$16.4 trillion, PLUS INTEREST, is a lot of money for the public to generate. Obama added almost $5 trillion in that number after criticizing Bush for adding to the debt…and he did it in half the time it took Bush to add about the same.
The wealthy don’t have enough money to make a dent in this debt much less fund government and if we tax them too much they will simply quit working and investing and go on vacation…retire and play golf and travel (like the Obama’s lifestyle).
WHERE WILL THE MONEY COME FROM WHEN TOO MANY OF US ARE RIDING IN THE CART AND NOT ENOUGH ARE WORKING AND PRODUCING WEALTH? We’re nearly at 50% now and with more people dropping into poverty or learning to live on food stamps and disability insurance…man it doesn’t look good for the future.
Our friends at Reason Magazine have a chart which shows CBO projections over ten years (2001-2009) compared to what actually happened. See the chart here:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/08/27/cbo-knows
CBO makes guesstimates for politicians to consider today. Their projections are not written in stone which is why they are ripe for analysis and which is why they are almost always wrong.
Treasury as a nonpartisan source? It depends on who is running the show!
Tim Geitner has been Treasury Secretary. He believes in printing money as a means to get the economy moving. How’s that worked out so far? Big corporations are making money and holding on to it because the government is creating a lot of uncertainty about the future. Costs have been driven up in healthcare and energy. Smaller corporations and small business are not doing as well and have taken the same bear in winter posture. Wages have remained static. Unemployment continues to be high. Geitner’s position is not conservative…it is Keynesian progressive…and it is not working except for the big guys.
Chris you are a hoot. All of the articles in the world will not explain away the big government record of the progressive left. The Carter years of malaise, frigid homes, and high grocery bills are well remembered by Americans of that time. Nor will analysis of CBO scoring explain that Bill Clinton’s economic success came only when republicans took the House and he did what Obama, so far, will not do…he cooperated with republicans, declared the era of big government “over”. Taxes were cut, reforms were made, and budgets balanced. The republican plan included 10 major provisions: welfare reform, rules to force Congress to live under the same laws as the rest of us, term limits, tax cuts, and budget reduction.
It is sad indeed for the American people that they lost their way under Bush. the American people mare paying dearly for their spending error and the underhanded lending/housing policies defended by Barney Frank.
We need a change in direction. The President is wrong when he says Washington does not have a spending problem. It won’t be solved by growing the size and expense of government while punishing those who generate wealth and jobs with higher taxes. Take another look at the debt clock:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Now remember that Medicare was projected to cost $9 billion a year back in 1965 when it was created. It actually cost American taxpayers $67 billion in 1990.
So much for analysis and projections!
Tina: “The wealthy don’t have enough money to make a dent in this debt much less fund government and if we tax them too much they will simply quit working and investing and go on vacation…retire and play golf and travel (like the Obama’s lifestyle).”
A good question to ask oneself before making such bizarre statements as the above is, “Has this ever happened in the history of America?” Tina knows that rich people didn’t stop working when their taxes were over 90%. Yet she still thinks that rich people will stop working if their taxes are 39%. It’s almost cute.
Chris: “”Has this ever happened in the history of America?” Tina knows that rich people didn’t stop working when their taxes were over 90%. Yet she still thinks that rich people will stop working if their taxes are 39%. ”
This shows how clueless you and most liberals are.
No, not all rich people will stop working together at the same instance, but some will. I know one gentleman who is going early retirement because a marginal rate of 60% (including obamacare, state & other tax) to him is simply not worth it.
And even if they don’t stop working, some may still change their behaviors to avoid, delay (or even default) in paying tax. This is bad as it will distort the economy.
And how do I know that? Because I am one of the “evil”, “fat cat” 250k earner “who did not build it” but that you guys just manage to rob some money from. I am not Buffett, but I have already make minor changes so that I will be paying more tax this April, but uncle sam will get less tax from me in the next few years.
Now, go try again to see whether Tina’s statement make more sense now.
BTW: You do know also that in the era of “90%” tax, almost nobody actually paid that rate, right?
david: “No, not all rich people will stop working together at the same instance, but some will. I know one gentleman who is going early retirement because a marginal rate of 60% (including obamacare, state & other tax) to him is simply not worth it.”
Shame. Maybe his retirement will give room for a more productive, less whiny citizen.
Also, 60%? Explain, please.
Look: The rich did not suddenly decide it wasn’t worth making a profit during the Clinton years simply because their taxes went up, because that would be stupid, and most rich people are not stupid. In fact, rich people did very well during this time. There is no reason to believe that a significant number of rich people will retire if their rates go back to the Clinton years.
Will some people retire as a result of higher taxes? Maybe. But it will be a small number of people. And last I checked, Republicans claimed they didn’t believe in capitulating to the whims of a minority when making our public policy.
“And how do I know that? Because I am one of the “evil”, “fat cat” 250k earner “who did not build it” but that you guys just manage to rob some money from.”
You poor martyr. I will never understand how rough it must be to make more money than 98% of the country.
“Now, go try again to see whether Tina’s statement make more sense now.”
*checks above* No, it’s still stupid.
“BTW: You do know also that in the era of “90%” tax, almost nobody actually paid that rate, right?”
As opposed to now, when there are no loopholes and every rich person and corporation pays exactly the marginal tax rate?
Chris: I have proven my point that some rich people will quit, retire or change their behavior (that in some cases, will make the overall economy less efficient, or distort the allocation of resources, …)
You can argue that is small numbers (a questionable argument without data?), but you can’t deny the above.
I know you won’t admit you are wrong. So it is up to the readers.
You may have the last words.
FYI: I am a senior software engineer (Ph.D. degree) with over 30 years of experience. Good luck finding a replacement who can solve problems that I am handling.