Posted by Tina
Part II
The idea that taxes affect economic growth has become politically contentious and the subject of much debate in the press and among advocacy groups. That is in part because there are competing theories about what drives economic growth. Some subscribe to Keynesian, demand-side factors, others Neo-classical, supply-side factors, while yet others subscribe to some mixture of the two or something entirely unique. The facts, historical and geographical variation in key parameters for example, should shed light on the debate. However, the economy is sufficiently complex that virtually any theory can find some support in the data.
For instance, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has found support for the theory that taxes have no effect on economic growth by looking at the U.S. experience since World War II and the dramatic variation in the statutory top marginal rate on individual income.[1] They find the fastest economic growth occurred in the 1950s when the top rate was more than ninety percent.[2] However, their study ignores the most basic problems with this sort of statistical analysis, including: the variation in the tax base to which the individual income tax applies; the variation in other taxes, particularly the corporate tax; the short-term versus long-term effects of tax policy; and reverse causality, whereby economic growth affects tax rates. These problems are all well known in the academic literature and have been dealt with in various ways, making the CRS study unpublishable in any peer-reviewed academic journal.[3]
So what does the academic literature say about the empirical relationship between taxes and economic growth? While there are a variety of methods and data sources, the results consistently point to significant negative effects of taxes on economic growth even after controlling for various other factors such as government spending, business cycle conditions, and monetary policy. In this review of the literature, I find twenty-six such studies going back to 1983, and all but three of those studies, and every study in the last fifteen years, find a negative effect of taxes on growth. Of those studies that distinguish between types of taxes, corporate income taxes are found to be most harmful, followed by personal income taxes, consumption taxes and property taxes.
These results support the Neo-classical view that income and wealth must first be produced and then consumed, meaning that taxes on the factors of production, i.e., capital and labor, are particularly disruptive of wealth creation. Corporate and shareholder taxes reduce the incentive to invest and to build capital. Less investment means fewer productive workers and correspondingly lower wages. Taxes on income and wages reduce the incentive to work. Progressive income taxes, where higher income is taxed at higher rates, reduce the returns to education, since high incomes are associated with high levels of education, and so reduce the incentive to build human capital. Progressive taxation also reduces investment, risk taking, and entrepreneurial activity since a disproportionately large share of these activities is done by high income earners.[4]
Some of these items are long-term mechanisms, particularly human and physical capital formation. Most of these empirical studies focus on the long-term effects, over a period of five years or more, but many investigate short-term dynamics as well. The evidence for short-term, demand-side effects of tax policy is less robust and less compelling, perhaps owing to the difficulty of disentangling short-term factors and matching events. However, there is some evidence that longer-term, supply-side effects occur sooner than previously thought, such as within the first few years of a policy change.
In any case, the lesson from the studies conducted is that long-term economic growth is to a significant degree a function of tax policy. Our current economic doldrums are the result of many factors, but having the highest corporate rate in the industrialized world does not help. Nor does the prospect of higher taxes on shareholders and workers. If we intend to spur investment, we should lower taxes on the earnings of capital. If we intend to increase employment, we should lower taxes on workers and the businesses that hire them.
The Manhatten Institute:
There is good reason to believe that higher rates on capital gains and dividend income would have negative effects on the U.S. economy by reducing the overall level of U.S. investment and by driving such investment to overseas markets. Higher tax rates would reduce economic activity and, thus, economic growth, by reducing available financing for private companies, innovators, and small firms just getting started.
Here are a series of reasons why this would be the case:
1) Taxes on U.S. investment would be higher compared to taxes abroad, so some investment capital is likely to move offshore. This would occur both because of the rate increase itself and because it would build on a system which already taxes capital gains at a rate higher than the international average. The statutory corporate tax rate is 35 percent, although effective tax rates vary by firm, depending on the amount of plant and equipment purchased, among other factors. The tax is taken out of gains distributed to shareholders. A 20 percent effective corporate tax rate on top of a 15 percent individual tax rate means the capital is taxed at 32 percent. Table 1 shows corporate tax rates for a group of OECD countries. In April, Japan lowered its corporate tax rate, leaving America with the highest tax rate in the world.
2) Increased capital gains rates presume a steady appetite for risk on the part of investors, notwithstanding the prospect of decreased returns on investment capital. In other words, investments can just as easily lead to losses as gains—and higher tax rates on capital gains will inevitably discourage some percentage of investors.
3) Investors cognizant of the risk of inflation (a risk many observers agree has been increased by the Federal Reserve policy of near-zero interest rates and money supply growth) will have, in higher tax rates, yet another reason to limit new investment. Higher tax rates, unindexed, would not distinguish between that portion of a capital gain or increased dividend income attributable to inflation rather than an increase in absolute value.
More broadly, the administration’s proposals fail to recognize the complexity of the question of how much Americans should—and do—pay in taxes. This larger issue cannot be avoided in light of the additional administration proposal to raise tax rates for individual filers earning more than $200,000 and joint filers earning more than $250,000 from 33 to 36 percent, and 35 to 39.6 percent, respectively. Simply put, the idea that high income earners are paying less than those at lower income levels is not supported by the facts. (see chart)
Mercatus Center:
Put simply, tax rates do not change randomly. If they did, that’d be great for researchers because randomization is the gold standard of the scientific method. But because policy makers are not so keen to let economists experiment with the national economy, tax rates don’t change randomly. Instead, governments tend to change rates in response to changing economic conditions; they cut taxes when the economy is weak and they raise taxes when the economy is strong. This makes disentangling cause and effect quite difficult. …
…That’s why economists go to great lengths to mimic the conditions of a controlled, randomized experiment. In the case of tax studies, the best example of this is the study by Christina and David Romer. They painstakingly combed the archives of presidential speeches and government documents to identify tax changes that came about for reasons other than the condition of the economy. They found that these sorts of plausibly exogenous tax changes had quite significant macroeconomic effects. In their words:
Our results indicate that tax changes have very large effects on output. Our baseline specification implies that an exogenous tax increase of one percent of GDP lowers real GDP by almost three percent. (emphasis mine)
There’s a lot of disagreement with Leonard Burman out there Chris.
One thing that cannot be denied. If the government takes more of any persons disposable income in taxes there will be less available in the private sector. Even if you think all the tax monies would be redistributed to the poor the amount they would realize would be a lot less than was taken after paying for the bureaucracy to collect it.
Obamacare has just made that bureaucracy more expensive.
Current conditions are a result of the anti-business policies of the current administration…wake up!
AS USUAL
It took just these lines to go WTF? Seriously?
“The idea that taxes affect economic growth has become politically contentious and the subject of much debate in the press and among advocacy groups. That is in part because there are competing theories about what drives economic growth. Some subscribe to Keynesian, …STOP!
Right there……………………Propaganda at best
Can We Get Real Yet?
Epic Fail!!
Okay Mr. Know-it-All…enlighten us. What’s “real”?
What do you know?
“The idea that taxes affect economic growth has become politically contentious and the subject of much debate in the press and among advocacy groups.”
I don’t think this is the case.
Whether taxes effect economic growth does not seem to be under debate. Keynesians as well as supply-siders agree that taxes effect the economy. What the debate is over is which taxes effect the economy in positive ways, and which taxes effect them negatively.
Supply-siders seem to think that taxes have the biggest impact on the wealthiest Americans, and that any increase in the top rates will discourage investment and hiring. Keynesians don’t see much evidence for that position, but our argument is not that taxes do not affect the economy. We believe that the current low taxes on the wealthy and corporations is affecting the economy in a seriously negative way, by making it harder to collect the revenue necessary to pay off our debt and adequately fund social welfare programs. We also believe, based on the available evidence, that any negative effect of the proposed increases on top tax rates and the capital gains tax would be either nonexistent or negligible.
Ugh. “Affect,” not “effect.” Some English teacher!
Chris Keynesians argue that tax rates for the rich and corporations has been higher in the past and use that as a reason to raise them today. But they don’t talk about the changes in the world that make those past rates unworkable today. Our corporate tax rates are not competitive in the world today. In the fifties and early sixties there wasn’t much competition in the world, we were it.
The truth about higher rates is that they raise the cost of doing business. There is no way to make that reality a “good thing” for business. the left would have us believe it doesn’t matter. But most people relate it to their own budgets. When they have to pay more in taxes there is that much less for them to spend or save as they would like.
I would think that after five years of propping up the stock market with QE and placing more expenses on companies in the form of more regulations and higher fuel costs the sluggish result in the economy would cause the left to question some of their Keynesian ideas. Sadly they just look for another angle to pitch the same old policies. Historically they have not created a strong and vibrant economy or good jobs.
Wealthy people just change their investments or move if you tax them too much. I don’t blame them. They already pay most of the federal taxes. They are the ones doing the heavy lifting in charitable work, research and development, education, and medicine.
Walter Williams asks:
I hope our readers will follow the link to Dr. Williams article, which I have posted before. He breaks down the numbers from our tax structure and asks another important question at the end that everyone should consider.
The argument as I see it has to do with how rates affect economic activity and how rates affect our ability to be competitive in the world. We want people in other countries buying our goods but if we don’t have competitive corporate rates businesses won’t want to operate here.
I recommend this article as a simple way to understand the affect tax rates have on economic activity and production…it’s personal!!
The government does not manage money well. That’s why we have debt and that’s also why we have social programs that are unsustainable.
Tina: “Chris Keynesians argue that tax rates for the rich and corporations has been higher in the past and use that as a reason to raise them today. But they don’t talk about the changes in the world that make those past rates unworkable today. Our corporate tax rates are not competitive in the world today. In the fifties and early sixties there wasn’t much competition in the world, we were it.”
Tina, you’re wrong that Keynesians “don’t talk about” tax rates in relation to the rest of the world. We dispute the assertion that tax rates on U.S. corporations are higher than in other countries. Supply-siders look at the marginal rates to make this comparison, but that doesn’t tell us what corporations are actually paying. According to the Government Accountability Office, the U.S. actually has one of the lowest effective tax rates in the world.
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10393
“The truth about higher rates is that they raise the cost of doing business. There is no way to make that reality a “good thing” for business.”
Well, of course there is. If the payoff down the line brings in more of a profit than the status quo, then it might be good for businesses to raise business costs now. Keynesians argue that raising wages will sufficiently stimulate demand so that businesses can absorb the higher costs with a resulting increase in consumer spending.
“Historically they have not created a strong and vibrant economy or good jobs.”
Then how do you explain the strong correlation between high unionization rates and a vibrant middle class?
“Wealthy people just change their investments or move if you tax them too much.”
Right, which is why we are not suggesting we tax them “too much.”
“Walter Williams asks:
What standard of fairness dictates that the top 10 percent of income earners pay 71 percent of the federal income tax burden while 47 percent of Americans pay absolutely nothing?”
This is a good question.
For the answer, you have to look back to Ronald Reagan, who proposed this as part of his tax policy in 1985:
“The tax system should not be an additional burden to those who are struggling to escape from poverty; insofar as possible, those below the poverty line should be freed from taxation altogether. By raising the personal exemption, the “zero bracket amounts,” and earned income tax credit, and by expanding the credit for the blind, elderly, and disabled, the President’s proposals would:(1) assure that virtually all families at or below the poverty line would be free from taxation; and (2) assure that virtually all older, blind, or disabled Americans at or below the poverty line would be freed from taxation.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/ronald-reagan-didnt-share-the-gops-47-percent-problem/250996/
As the author above points out, the idea that the poor should be “picking up the slack” and paying more in taxes because they have “no skin in the game” is diametrically opposed to the beliefs of the GOP’s supposed champion.
The reason that 47% of Americans don’t pay income tax is because they can’t afford to.
Of course you’re right that it’s not fair that 10% of the population pays 71% of the taxes.
It’s also not healthy that 10% of the population owns 75% of the nation’s wealth!
http://money.howstuffworks.com/one-percent-control-third-of-wealth.htm
It’s ridiculous to complain about the former condition without acknowledging the latter. Tax policy springs from income distribution. Income inequality perpetuates the problems you’re describing.
Chris…the rates are higher.
I don’t want to hear about the effective rate because the number of companies that can afford to pay big attorneys to look for all the loopholes are few and the number of companies that don’t are many.
In reality the higher rate matters because it encourages those who can to invest and hold their profits in foreign countries which does nothing for America. It harms those companies that are incorporated in this country. In either case it does nothing to promote expansion or job growth. All but three states also impose corporate taxes which makes the actual tax burden even greater.
The left is not interested in how well companies do; they are only interested in how much money they can take from companies for the government to spend.
The Keynesians, the Keynesians, the Keynesians!
The Keynesians are responsible for a bumbling four years of stagnant economic growth at 1-2% with very high unemployment.
The Keynesians are responsible for the rich getting richer over the past four years while the middle class falls into poverty and adds an even greater burden to the relief programs.
The Keynesians are responsible for QE:
As they have begun to “ease” we will now begin to see the next mess from Keynesian thinkers…and the real growth for the man on the street isn’t happening!
The left is responsible for the regulation and the investment instrument that caused the housing bubble and crash and they are the same people who put so much stock in Keynes.
The left is responsible for creating the major unsustainable social programs that are causing our growing debt and require more fancy arguments that favor higher tax rates to float them. The left always says no to reforming them or privatizing them.
It is time for ALL Americans to grow up.
We need productive Americans not dependent Americans.
We need smaller government, not bigger government.
This will require people to see things as they are, not how we wish they were or want them to be.
A party that always favors taking more money from the private sector is not facing reality. A party that is always looking for ways to make people more dependent on government is a party that is not facing reality.
“The reason that 47% of Americans don’t pay income tax is because they can’t afford to.”
Many of them live as well or better than those in the lower brackets who don’t qualify for subsidies and do pay taxes!
“It’s also not healthy that 10% of the population owns 75% of the nation’s wealth!”
Wake up! The Democrat Party has been working on exactly that outcome for seventy+ years!
Over the last five they have been winning mightily!
Have the poor been encouraged to save and invest or have they been indoctrinated to be dependent on government for their basic needs and not worry about striving or being independent?
They have been discouraged from learning and creating personal wealth! They have been encouraged to be resentful rather than productive
Have the children of the poor been stuck in bad schools with bad teachers that are protected by powerful unions that are also supported by the left?
Yes, yes they have been stuck!
Have those who say redistribution isn’t the right approach been demonized over decades by the left?
Yes they have!
are alternatives to bad schools supported by the left?
NO!
Bah! You aren’t interested in what works, Chris. You are interested in promoting the policies and party that enslave most poor people to a lifetime of dependency and just getting by…the party that scams people into believing they (government) has a right to people’s earnings and profits (Their property)
I’m wasting my time…again.
“Chris…the rates are higher.”
The marginal rates are higher. The effective rates are what matters.
“I don’t want to hear about the effective rate”
This should be interesting.
“because the number of companies that can afford to pay big attorneys to look for all the loopholes are few and the number of companies that don’t are many.”
…And? Every time I have suggested a way to cut down on these loopholes, you’ve rejected. You’ve yet to name one single loophole that you actually favor closing.
“In reality the higher rate matters because it encourages those who can to invest and hold their profits in foreign countries which does nothing for America.”
Well now you’re completely contradicting yourself. First you said that the effective tax rate doesn’t matter because only a few of the richest corporations can take advantage of it. Now you’re saying that having a higher rate causes corporations to hold their profits in other countries. You realize that only a few rich corporations can afford to do that, too, right?
“The Keynesians are responsible for a bumbling four years of stagnant economic growth at 1-2% with very high unemployment. The Keynesians are responsible for the rich getting richer over the past four years while the middle class falls into poverty and adds an even greater burden to the relief programs.”
No. If Keynesian solutions had been embraced–if the min. wage had stayed consistent with inflation, if unions had stayed as strong as they were in the 50s and 60s, if we had a larger stimulus package–our economy would be doing better. Note that the CBO, which you cite yourself quite often, has embraced Keynesian solutions and believes that what we need to stimulate the economy is direct aid to the poor, not cutting taxes and regulations on the rich and corporations.
“The left is responsible for the regulation and the investment instrument that caused the housing bubble and crash and they are the same people who put so much stock in Keynes.”
I’ve shown you documented proof that this isn’t true. The vast majority of subprime loans were made by banks which were not subject to the regulation you and other conservatives complain about. You know this.
“The left is responsible for creating the major unsustainable social programs that are causing our growing debt and require more fancy arguments that favor higher tax rates to float them.”
They are sustainable. It just requires the wealthy to sacrifice a bit more. Conservatives find that suggestion anathema.
“We need productive Americans not dependent Americans.”
This is a false dichotomy, and it is class warfare rhetoric of the worst kind.
“Many of them live as well or better than those in the lower brackets who don’t qualify for subsidies and do pay taxes!”
Evidence, please.
“Have the poor been encouraged to save and invest or have they been indoctrinated to be dependent on government for their basic needs and not worry about striving or being independent?”
False dichotomy. I do not buy into your stereotypes of the poor, Tina; peddle them to someone else.
“I’m wasting my time…again.”
I agree; relying on stereotypes, generalizations and blatant contradictions for one’s argument is a waste of time. I suggest you try harder.
Chris: ” You’ve yet to name one single loophole that you actually favor closing.”
Wrong! I have advocated complete reform that would close all loopholes. Many conservatives have. Democrats always block such efforts. The left is disingenuous; they take a lot of money from these companies and every election cycle make a lot of noise but do absolutely nothing. Its just a distraction.
I did not contradict myself. You misunderstood. The high tax rate matters because it drives business out of America and puts American companies at a disadvantage. The effective rate argument doesn’t matter…it changes nothing.
Democrats look really stupid when they complain that the very loopholes they created allows for a lower affective rate…why not just get rid of the loopholes and LOWER the rate? Hint…they don’t want to get rid of loopholes…they want to campaign on raising the rates on evil corporations!
“You realize that only a few rich corporations can afford to do that, too, right?”
No $h#t Sherlock…that’s why raising rates on corporations already blunted by high energy prices, new regulations, a sluggish economy and healthcare n chaos is STUPID!
“If Keynesian solutions had been embraced–if the min. wage had stayed consistent with inflation, if unions had stayed as strong as they were in the 50s and 60s, if we had a larger stimulus package–our economy would be doing better.”
You can spout the words but you cannot tell me how any of that would stimulate economic growth. Unions would have killed the car companies had the government not stepped in and rescued their unsustainable healthcare and retirement plans. They put US car companies at a competitive disadvantage with emerging Japanese companies because the cost of meeting union demands was so excessive. Do you really imagine that greedy unions placed in companies of all kinds all over America would have a different result? Imagine the cost of fast food (given the jobs aren’t eliminated with use of machines) when its employees have spent several years demanding MORE for the same level of work. And a stimulus package? HA! You suggest that taking dollars out of the private sector in taxes, scraping off the amount it costs to process that taking and then redistributing it is stimulative. All you have done is taken money from one pocket, spent some of it on bureaucrat salaries, then put the remainder back in a different pocket. It stimulates nothing but the recipient and then only if he is viable Solyndra wasn’t! Stimulating a few businesses isn’t stimulating the entire economy; to do that you have to set free those who risk, invest their own money, and innovate!
“Note that the CBO, which you cite yourself quite often, has embraced Keynesian solutions and believes that what we need to stimulate the economy is direct aid to the poor…”
Please provide the context for this determination. CBO advises on what it is asked given certain parameters.
CBO has also said raising taxes on the rich hurts the economy:
CBO also said if the debt was not addressed, stimulus spending would be a “drag” on future economic growth. the Keynesians have exploded debt to over $17 trillion…brilliant!
“The vast majority of subprime loans were made by banks which were not subject to the regulation you and other conservatives complain about.”
Conservatives complain about? Are you insane? By what standard does making millions of bad loans make sense? How does the bundling of these bad loans create anything but a tower without stability and grounding? It had to come tumbling down! The number of bad loans that were bundled and sold to Fannie Mae poisoned the pool! Your argument is irrelevant to the problem. Bad loans made and bundled over many years without oversight and in complete disregard for the inevitable caused the crash. Bad loans were possible only because of the stupid regulations lowered the standards for granting loans. That this was instituted for political reasons is criminal.
“They are sustainable. It just requires the wealthy to sacrifice”
Oh my God! You really do not know what you are saying, do you? From each according to his means to each according to his need…sound familiar?
Just because you use the word sacrifice doesn’t mean it makes it ethical! The people you are talking about already pay most of the taxes. They contribute to society, as we have discussed before, in many other ways including providing jobs when they are allowed to invest without being stomped on by greedy redistribution elitist Marx radicals like those running the country now.
“This is a false dichotomy, and it is class warfare rhetoric of the worst kind.”
So the concept of Americans, able and capable to produce and care for themselves, is just completely foreign to you?
Wow. The wager of class division scores once again for the Marxists. And you pretend to care about the poor! Liar! You care about the state! You care about the programs! You care about being on the side that says it cares and steals from one american to buy the votes of another!
“Evidence, please.”
CATO:
The lefts conclusion isn’t that government is too generous with other peoples money, therefore creating greater dependency, but that we should raise the min wage…ignoring the fact that JOBS would be eliminated, particularly for the young,, the inexperienced and the poor, and the cost of goods and services would be forced higher. Ultimately the raise would mean no change in terms of buying power.
“False dichotomy. I do not buy into your stereotypes of the poor, Tina; peddle them to someone else.”
Answer the question. Express your learned opinion. Poor people used to save money out of pure common sense. The Marxist big daddy model you favor gives them reason not to care about saving or there future. You make permanent adolescents of too many citizens by keeping them locked in to the rely on your communitarian government model!
“I suggest you try harder.”
Good. We’re done.
Tina, you need to calm down and stop yelling. You are practically foaming at the mouth over “greedy redistribution elitist Marx radicals.” When you start using nouns as adjectives, that’s when you know it’s time to step away from the computer for a while.
Obamanomics is really working sooooo well we’ve hit a 35 year low only matched by Jimmy Carter. How many more people will lose their jobs before those who voted for this idiot wake up and realize this doesn’t work for the poor and middle class, only the rich benefit?
Labor Force Participation in 2013 Lowest in 35 Years:
(CNSNews.com) – The average annual labor force participation rate hit a 35-year-low of 63.2 percent in the United States in 2013, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The last time the average annual labor force participation rate was that low was in in 1978, when it was also 63.2 percent. Jimmy Carter was president then.
The BLS bases its employment statistics on the civilian noninstitutional population, which consists of all people in the United States 16 or older who are not on active duty in the military or in an institution such as a prison, nursing home or mental hospital. The labor force participation rate is the percentage of people in the civilian noninstitutional population who either had a job or who actively sought one in the previous four weeks.
See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/labor-force-participation-2013-lowest-35-years?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Marketing&utm_term=Facebook&utm_content=socialflow&utm_campaign=labor-force#sthash.GvN5eVia.dpuf
Remember, we told everyone this would happen if we elected this guy…actually any of the liberals these days are pretty much the same, policy wise.
Let’s hope this ushers in a new era…just like the last time!
LOL
Putin is a conservative
Dewey don’t laugh, but I have heard many on your (left) side wish Putin was our president!
LOL
And Dewey’s an idiot,
Hahahahahahahaha
Harry Reid: Worst person ever?
03/06/14
This audio compilation will have you questioning whether or not Harry Reid is the worst human being on the face of the earth.
http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=31449415
Peggy name callin your best?
Epic Fail!
Glen Beck is no more than a paid troll. Who writes his paycheck? LOL
I think Putie and his American friends take that title
http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blogs/why-are-american-conservatives-praising-pretender-putin
what is the difference between T Party beliefs and Putie? Not much and the Tea Party bankroller’s father learned the oil biz from Stalin…….no coincidence
Post Scripts
1. I have no side, I do not like either Party
2. The left does not like dictators nor do they like killing people cause they are different. The fox news Propaganda method of “I’ve heard” “Some people say” will not work….lol the left hates Putie, Conservatives love Putie to the point they are making secret deals with him.
It is very obvious facts are not allowed here and hate is a cherished value here
The Tea Party is treading on Democracy and Americans will win in the end.
Chico can do better than this hate
Dewey for a man who has “no side” you sure line up well with the radicals on the left.
This is an open forum. You are free to post any “facts” that you want to post, including the “facts” you seem to think are missing.
If you don’t like FOX you don’t have to watch or listen. However, if you don’t watch then your opinion rings hollow. Mud slinging of the worst kind.
We don’t hate here Dewey…unless you want to talk about the guy who seems to really hate the Tea Party and the Koch brothers. You know, the guy who thinks he’s much smarter than everyone he ever meets?
By the way have you heard the Democrats are running against the Koch’s this year…they didn’t get that idea from you did they?
Nah…you aren’t affiliated with the Democrats…even though you defend them all the time. Why is that, by the way?
Bet you can’t name three ways the Tea Party is “treading” on Democracy.
I’m bored…does it show?
Dewey you criticized the content of this post and so I asked the following:
You have yet to say anything about the affect of taxes on the economy and the difference between the Keynesian approach and the supply side approach.
We’re still waiting for a few “facts”.
Or is this another epic fail for the Dewpster?
Hate? Radical left is a statement of love?
And Dewey’s an idiot,…that is so much luv Peggy thank you!
Dewpster…Ah I can feel the love! Who wrote the name calling post?
1) Darrel Issa’s fake dog and pony show yesterday. Cummings had a right to speak. Issa knew the 5th would be used. Dictatorship to hide the fact there was a procedure to get the answers. Issa knows he is dead wrong and is playing for media.
2) Tea Party supporting a foreign company using eminent domain against Americans in their country to build a foreign pipeline Canadians said no to …to transport low grade tar sands to Houston for export. And create abt 40 perm jobs! what a farce!
Tea Party knows full well that oil is Canadian not ours. Tea Party knows full well it is for Koch profit, it is guaranteed to leak and the clean up will be transferred to the landowner simply by accusing them of wrong doing, tying it up in court until landowner is broke and losses the land.
read those contracts!
Build a pipeline through your land!
Tea Party knows taxpayers will have to pay for the water damage.
3) Tea Party forcing their religious beliefs on women. Tea Party has old white men tell women they can not use the pill? Freedom for who?
Tea Party trying to get rid of all public assets by privatizing them to wall street.
Tea Party Invoking Marshall Law, throwing out elected officials appointing a Dictator with unilateral power with Gov….
Tea Party wanting to cut all public safety nets including social security and vets benefits to divert those funds to tax cuts for global corporations
Tea Party wants the TPP which threatens the sovernighty of this nation, want to fight Obama? No not on something real like TPP!
Tea Party treads on me daily.
I do not want Clinton, Bush, Christie, any Koch Tea Party Candidate…….But darn right you may very well force my vote 2016 to a Dem to stop the tyranny of the Tea Party
I do not buy you have no clue, I see the hypocrisy in the writing.
Flip Flop….Remember gloating at the Ted Cruz shutdown that cost taxpayers? Remember a couple weeks later writing it’s all Obama’s fault!
Obama is not my fav. I fight him daily, on real Issues! The prewritten TP Propaganda is debunked daily.
Bottom Line Americans are uniting and the Independent Party is growing…tired of these lies
http://www.alternet.org/story/147911/5_ways_the_tea_party_agenda_screws_tea_party_supporters/
How about wells fargo pay some income tax before ya give them another tax break
Citizens United has allowed foreign money in our elections! The Banks will pick our candidates! Then they use social issues to divide when the fact is the next prez will do many of the same things no matter who it is!
Independents vote the lesser of 2 evil, we will have a candidate 1 day….
But I will say you try to tell people what the left thinks…LOL Epic Fail….How about let the left speak? Cause I talk to all and I can assure you….Epic Fail!
Start with ending tax cuts to companies that move Jobs overseas! That a good loophole to close?
Radical is a word. It has meaning. Left is a word. It has meaning. Both convey my opinion. Emotions like hate or love have nothing to do with it.
“Dewpster…Ah I can feel the love!”
You should…the awarding of a nickname, at least in America, is a sign of acceptance and friendship in many circles.
Your own nasty remarks about the Tea party and the Koch brothers seem incredibly hateful and in many cases not just expressions of opinion or disagreement but downright nasty lies….you don’t even acknowledge their rights as citizens.
The problem with those loopholes is that Democrats don’t want them closed. Every conservative plan to simplify the tax code and eliminate loopholes has been defeated by democrats and their buddies in media.
Where is the independents plan to simplify the tax code? How about your big idea…got one?
Dewey: “Cummings had a right to speak.”
Ah, poor Mr. C got his feelings hurt when he had his speech/tirade cut off. Poor baby now knows how all of those Tea Party and other conservative groups felt/feel having their right to speak cut off. Mr. C was screaming, he’s a US senator like he’s a bigger deal than the individuals he represents. “I’M A US SENATOR!!!”
Big wow. hahahaha
I’m glad Issa cut him off, as he should have. The meeting was adjourned. He had no question/s to ask. He just wanted to rant, attack Issa and the process and repeat his denials that all of the emails from Lerner connected her directly to the targeting of the groups.
Prove me wrong Dewey and I’ll tell you you’re not an idiot. Keep attacking the good people who believe in the Tea Party movement will only continue to prove you are one.
LOL Peggy, Issa had to apologize
That was pure dictatorship and Issa broke the rules.
It was a dog and pony show on the tax payers dime for Issa to get election tape.
The ranking member of a committee gets to speak….they are checking the books to see if that has ever ever been done before.
Cummings was going to suggest a proper…ya know what that is? Did Fox explain it to ya?
Issa knew the 5th would be taken. It is against procedure to shut down the hearing without letting others speak. The proper would have allowed the lawyer to answer and the reason they take the 5th is because it opens up any question such as did you sleep with xyz.
So Tea Party again shows truth and Democracy is against their doctrine.
Bottom line why not call the republican who started the investigations at the IRS? Oh no! Bottom line he already said the White House had nothing to do with it.
Tea Party wants to allow donors to hide behind 501 4 (c)’s.
The regulation does not follow the actual fed law on the books…but oh no! do not mention that
Exactly what does the Tea Party do for the social welfare of people? Oh that’s right corporations are the people, humans are in the way !
Do you even know what the actual law says? “exclusively for social welfare”
Politics is not non profit for any party
In 1959 someone changed IRS regulation against the actual law….that is where the scandal starts!
Democracy will win
TP? thugs I say pure Thugs
Good People? Where? I go to meetings and I record them, building my case….
You are wrong read the house committee rules, learn what a proper is and you will see why ISSA did not want it suggested……
Repeating Fox News a foreign owned GOP propaganda machine is not proof
The house rules and books supersede
You are glad? Democracy and procedure is not important?
Truth? THE WHITE HOUSE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT
The Republican heading the investigations was fired…..
But I say he was just doing his job……The republican should have not been fired
Federal law trumps a regulation that is against the law
Why is it ok for foreign election money to hide their names? Cause they fund the Tea Party to overthrow Democracy?
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/11/26/the-history-of-the-501c4-exemption/
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/05/real-scandal-tea-party-irs-tax-code
Good Americans do not want to overthrow Democracy for corporate rule otherwise known as the F word
Your own nasty remarks about the Tea party and the Koch brothers seem incredibly hateful and in many cases not just expressions of opinion or disagreement but downright nasty lies….you don’t even acknowledge their rights as citizens.
my remarks are facts not opinion, If the Tea Party says and does it is fact!
Rights? who denies you rights? You deny others their rights. A woman and family making their own medical decisions? What gives Tea Party a right to dictate to them? Every case is different and the father and mother have the right to make a decision with the doctor involved not have a dictator governor make blanket laws.
Why not be proud of your politicians and stand up for their dictatorship, selling off public assets, privatizing our roads to foreign companies? Why do you hide?
Marshall law & throwing out elected officials? That is dictatorship! Allowing Upton to steal a public beach to build a PGA golf course?
Where is the outrage on Christie? Ya know Citizens United has turned Congress into a 24/7 dialing for donors and a clearing house for corporations to end the middle class? Both Dem and Rep!
Where are the jobs? Look at where your clothes were made.
If I am an idiot the one calling the names is a traitor to the United States of America!
I’ll take Koch propaganda by retired fed security officer for $10,000 Alex
Sorry Dewey but you are not posting facts when you say the Tea Party is interested in Dictatorship. You are not being truthful when you say the Tea Party is dictating to women. The Tea party is about excessive taxation and government stepping on the constitutional rights of all Americans.
Take this ridiculous statement for instance:
“Tea Party wants to allow donors to hide behind 501 4 (c)’s.”
A. The Tea Party didn’t invent the 501c4 and the IRS status has been used for decades by the left without anyone making a peep about it including the IRS. They have “hidden” their big contributors for decades and it was never considered a problem.
The truth about all of this is that the Democrat Party has enjoyed a political advantage, Citizens United cancelled out that advantage, so now the left and BIG UNION is doing the Saul Alinsky shuffle to change the rules and demonize and block participation by right leaning nonprofits. If there is tyranny going on it exists on the left and has for many decades.
Conservative women have no interest in dictating to other women. They do have an interest in protecting the rights of unborn children and they do have an interest in protecting the religious rights of all Americans.
The feminists have been all about dictating to women, often using the same Saul Alinsky tactics to bully women who prefer to be homemakers. Leftist and feminists are not only interested in dictating to women but are willing to force people of religious conscience to do something that is against their religious principles.
Religious freedom is fundamental to America and will not be set aside to bend to the will of women, or men who support them, who can get inexpensive birth control at WalMart and other sources and can choose to work at a nonreligious school or hospital if they don’t agree with the policy of the religious school. These women are free and have options. Lawsuits or tyrannical laws are dramas used to create division and chaos for political reasons. “Women’s health issues” is an activist hammer used by the left to garner votes.
“Every case is different and the father and mother have the right to make a decision with the doctor involved not have a dictator governor make blanket laws”
I actually agree with you! This is how it was in America before Roe v Wade made abortion a birth control option. So the problem is government has dictated already. Now government is trying to force people of religious conscience to break their religious convictions…that’s not right.
Your knowledge of American freedoms is sorely lacking and your position and POV shows it!
“You are glad? Democracy and procedure is not important?”
Oh please. Rep. Cummings had a chance to ask questions earlier in the hearing just like everyone else on the panel. The meeting had been adjourned because the purpose for the meeting was to hear Lerner’s testimony and ask questions and she took the fifth…game over for that day.
Save the sanctimonious outrage. Barney Frank has disallowed Republicans to speak on many occasions. Henry Waxman once threatened to have a Republican removed from the chamber if he wouldn’t stop talking. Rules? Get back to me when the Democrats decide to play the games of politics or legislating by the rules! This happens all the time to both parties.
Speaker Boehner said Rep. Issa was withing his rights to end the meeting.
“Why not be proud of your politicians and stand up for their dictatorship, selling off public assets, privatizing our roads to foreign companies? Why do you hide?”
This may come as a surprise to you but in America private property is a basic, fundamental right. It is not against the law for foreigners to own property in America and as long as they are willing to pay the associated taxes and fees no one will bother them. Americans also own in foreign countries. Where have you gotten the idea that the government should own everything? this is a foreign concept. Countries like Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea believe in publicly owned business and property. This is America and our republic vests power in the people!
“Where are the jobs? Look at where your clothes were made.”
How did unions play a part in driving those jobs overseas? They got greedy and priced themselves out of the marketplace. They supported the tax and spend Democrats who are fond of making taxes and regulations very expensive for American companies. Lately the Democrats have taken it a step further and created high fuel costs. It hasn’t helped that younger Americans are not as interested in those jobs as they once were.
Now you tell me what Republican policies sent jobs overseas. Don’t try to say trade agreements because I can show you that trade has been good for Americans making American products that are shipped overseas…trade is good for all countries. Besides what do you have against creating opportunity for people in other countries? It’s not like there is a shortage of work, well, at least when government gets the heck out of the way and allows people to invest and produce and grow the economy.
Tea Party treads on you daily? How? I hear a lot of yelling and screaming bu so far all they have done is talk…just like you are doing here. what’s the problem…you can’t stand it that people don’t agree with you?
Too bad! This is America…we’re allowed to do that here.
I agree that corporations should not run America but I do believe they should have the same right to affect elections that big nonprofits like Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and Earth First have. These are giant activist organization with millions of dollars in donations and they have used their nonprofit status to play in politics for decades. The nonprofit Planned Parenthood has done the same thing. This is an associate organization in an international organization, run like a corporation and worth billions. Their political participation has never been questioned and no one has accused them of dictating or running the country.
The way I see it your ideology and union preference make you just as opinionated and just as representative of powerful entities as the corporate heads. If you belong to a union it may be more than the Tea Party has. Most Tea Party people are local, without national ties, and they aren’t aligned with any individual corporation the way the left is aligned with powerful unions and big nonprofits like Planned Parenthood. How many foreign donations are filtered through Planned Parenthood from their sister organizations around the world? We have no way to determine that, do we? some of your complaints have legitimacy but your information isn’t always inclusive or accurate.
I want smaller federal government. the smaller the government the less need for lobbyists and activists. I want a simplified tax code; that eliminates loopholes and the need for lobbyists. I think they call that freedom and individual rights! I don’t know why you come here to bang the table against the good people on Post Scripts…we are for freedom, individual rights, and power vested in the people.