DEMOCRATS ... How Do You Explain This ??

[Guest alan greenspan]

My reply to your liberal Idiocy other than to ask why you don't just send in extra if you don't think you pay enough would be to say.

STFU!!!!!!

 

 

I KNOW IT'S HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND 3RD GRADE ECONOMICS. DON'T WORRY, SOMEONE WILL EXPLAIN IT TO YOU. MAYBE MR. BUSH COULD EXPLAIN IT TO YOU. HE'S A TAX EXPERT.

[b4unoit]

 

 

Fool Taxpayers, Hide Taxes Behind New Name 'Dues'

 

Well, it's April 15th and we all know what that means. It's tax day, the day when we must pay tribute to the Lords in Washington. And on that day, The New York Times published a new spendaholic, high taxing idea to fool America's taxpayers into accepting more tax by pretending it is something else. Stuffed with bad historic interpretation, Republican slamming, and typical old style Stalinist rhetorical games-playing this editorial by Richard Conniff whimsically dreams the dreamy, dream that we aren't taxed enough and how we might fool Americans into paying more by just using a different name for them. To whit they aren't to be called taxes anymore. They're to be called "dues."

 

Conniff begins his uninformed rant against people who stand against high taxes by implying that we are even unpatriotic if we don't support confiscatory taxation and that our politicians are just too weak spinned to properly lead us to higher taxes despite public opinion.

 

The word “tax” was never pretty. But it has lately become the ugliest word in the English language, right up there with its evil twin, “death.” Even in time of war, ostensibly patriotic politicians blithely pledge to slay any tax that rears its ghastly head. Public officials dodge work they know desperately needs doing because of the possibility that it may cause an increase in taxes.

 

 

Conniff's is a rather uninformed view of how the concept of taxes has been treated by politicians throughout American history, sadly. He says that taxes have "lately" become an "ugly word," yet that is not the truth at all. Taxes have been a hot button issue since before the day Bostonians threw the tea in the harbor, so the claim that only "lately" have they become something politicians wish to avoid is simply misinformed.

 

And, even more ridiculously, Conniff imagines that the only way things get done is by more taxes. He completely rejects out of hand with his editorial the concept that wasteful spending be cut and ways of making the budget more efficient be investigated because he wastes not a word on the subject.

 

Then Conniff gets into the Republican bashing.

 

It’s time to take a page from the conservative playbook, the one where they reframe the debate by changing the language -- for instance, calling the “estate tax” a “death tax,” or making equal rights for same-sex partners a “protection of marriage” issue. I propose we stop saying “taxes” and start calling them “dues.”

 

 

I see. So, only Republicans use verbiage and subterfuge to change the debate, fooling people into accepting a concept despite the truth of the matter? Are we to believe that Conniff believes Democrats and leftists have never done any of that? Aside from the long, long history of rhetorical revisionism that the left is famous for -- such as Social Security being presented as an "insurance program" when it is, in reality, just a plain old tax -- which side has recently begun to call themselves "progressives" instead of "liberals"? How about how the left calls killing babies in the womb "pro choice"? For that matter, on this very subject, the left has already tried to change the name we call taxes. The left is famous for calling taxes "contributions."

 

And then Conniff tries to call Republicans "Orwellian."

 

Yes, this is a little sneaky. Some conservatives may even call it Orwellian, and they ought to know.

 

 

Hilarious for its lack of introspection in light of the self-loathing currently indulged in by Barack "the Bitter" and his pal Jeremiah "damn America" Wright, isn't it? The whole "candidate of change" is nothing but Orwellian in that we are being asked to accept Obama's rhetoric despite the truth under it only to be branded an un-American, racist if we do not.

 

But, Conniff, ever the socialist-minded worker drone, makes the appeal for "group identity" to fool the people into accepting his new terminology.

 

But the word “dues” also plays into the psychology of group identity, and that can work to the benefit of conservatives and liberals alike. Consider that “tax” comes from the Latin for “appraise” with punitive overtones of “censure” or “fault,” as if wage-earners have done something wrong by their labors. “Dues,” in contrast, is rooted in social obligation and duty.

 

 

See, the thing is, even anti-taxers rarely if ever make that claim that no taxes should be raised. Anti-high taxers are all about the Flat Tax or the Fair Tax, but almost no one is stupid enough, anti-social enough, or so totally unaware of how important taxes are that they'd call for no taxes to be raised by government. So, Conniff's seeming claim that people need some more "group identity" to accept the concept of taxes is ridiculous.

 

Conniff's next paragraph begins with the following line: "'Look,' I said to a conservative friend..." Now, if anyone believes that Conniff even knows a conservative, much less calls one a friend, well, I have some swampland to sell you. But, he follows that with a bit of unexplained, illogic and it seems to be the crux of his entire argument.

 

..."simply saying 'hard earned' every time you say 'tax dollars' doesn't make bureaucrats think twice before spending. But spending other peoples' dues, now that’s not so easy."

 

 

Why Conniff imagines that politicians would find it harder to spend other peoples' "dues" any more than they find it hard to spend everyone's taxes goes unexplained by the writer. But he seems to imagine that this is just a fact that needs no explanation.

 

Conniff sums up his ruminations with the nub of his socialist approach to what government is for and how we, the people, should view it.

 

So this will be an uphill struggle. But we need language to remind us that this is our government, and that we thrive because of the schools and transit systems and 10,000 other services that exist only because we have joined together. Instead of denouncing taxes, politicians would do better to appeal to the patriotic corners of our hearts that warm to phrases like "we the people." "Taxation" is a throwback to the time when kings picked our pockets. "Paying my dues," a phrase popularized in the jazz music world, is language by which we can stand together as Americans.

 

 

The claim that we "thrive" because of government is 180 degrees out of phase. We thrive because of the efforts of the people of this country in the private sector. Government does NOT make us "thrive." In fact, government more often gets in the way of our thriving by overburdening regulations and high taxes. In our system government is viewed as being limited, but Conniff would have that view turned on its head to the extent that government is to be viewed as the only way to prosperity.

 

Lastly, his allusion as to how the Jazz world uses "paying dues" is completely misinformed. Jazzmen don’t use "paying my dues" as a term to describe a duty cheerfully done. They use the term to describe the pain and agony of life that they'd gone through to get to where they are. Now, I somehow doubt that our pal Mr. Conniff means to portray his "dues" as a pain that cannot be avoided. After all, he is looking to make people cheerfully throw away their hard earned money on useless government programs to prove their "patriotism."

 

Conniff and the New York Times really have some gall to plead for bloated bureaucracy on the very day that the tax man wields his scythe across the wallets of Americans everywhere. It does, however, fully inform us of the socialist direction from which the Times approaches the necessary evils of taxes. More is better and don't ask to hold the government accountable, rather, ask that the people just pay more without complaint.

 

But one thing is certain. It places The New York Times on the opposite side of the coin from our Founding Fathers and our hundreds of years of tax aversion all at the expense of the health of our private economy.

 

So here's to the bloated big government of which Richard Conniff and The New York Times are so enamored. May both forever remain in the minority and may their "dues" never be settled.

 

And one final thing. If, Mr. Conniff, you should feel so horribly under taxed, you are most certainly invited to pay more of your own free will. That's the freedom we enjoy as Americans. Just don't ask everyone else to pay more because YOU think they should.

 

 

 

 

[Guest RepuG]

My reply to your liberal Idiocy other than to ask why you don't just send in extra if you don't think you pay enough would be to say.

STFU!!!!!!

 

 

That is your reply? You are not the brightest bulb are you? I'll wait for the STFU because you can not respond with a logical or sane reply.

 

[Guest alan greenspan]

Fool Taxpayers, Hide Taxes Behind New Name 'Dues'

 

Well, it's April 15th and we all know what that means. It's tax day, the day when we must pay tribute to the Lords in Washington. And on that day, The New York Times published a new spendaholic, high taxing idea to fool America's taxpayers into accepting more tax by pretending it is something else. Stuffed with bad historic interpretation, Republican slamming, and typical old style Stalinist rhetorical games-playing this editorial by Richard Conniff whimsically dreams the dreamy, dream that we aren't taxed enough and how we might fool Americans into paying more by just using a different name for them. To whit they aren't to be called taxes anymore. They're to be called "dues."

 

Conniff begins his uninformed rant against people who stand against high taxes by implying that we are even unpatriotic if we don't support confiscatory taxation and that our politicians are just too weak spinned to properly lead us to higher taxes despite public opinion.

 

The word “tax” was never pretty. But it has lately become the ugliest word in the English language, right up there with its evil twin, “death.” Even in time of war, ostensibly patriotic politicians blithely pledge to slay any tax that rears its ghastly head. Public officials dodge work they know desperately needs doing because of the possibility that it may cause an increase in taxes.

 

 

Conniff's is a rather uninformed view of how the concept of taxes has been treated by politicians throughout American history, sadly. He says that taxes have "lately" become an "ugly word," yet that is not the truth at all. Taxes have been a hot button issue since before the day Bostonians threw the tea in the harbor, so the claim that only "lately" have they become something politicians wish to avoid is simply misinformed.

 

And, even more ridiculously, Conniff imagines that the only way things get done is by more taxes. He completely rejects out of hand with his editorial the concept that wasteful spending be cut and ways of making the budget more efficient be investigated because he wastes not a word on the subject.

 

Then Conniff gets into the Republican bashing.

 

It’s time to take a page from the conservative playbook, the one where they reframe the debate by changing the language -- for instance, calling the “estate tax” a “death tax,” or making equal rights for same-sex partners a “protection of marriage” issue. I propose we stop saying “taxes” and start calling them “dues.”

 

 

I see. So, only Republicans use verbiage and subterfuge to change the debate, fooling people into accepting a concept despite the truth of the matter? Are we to believe that Conniff believes Democrats and leftists have never done any of that? Aside from the long, long history of rhetorical revisionism that the left is famous for -- such as Social Security being presented as an "insurance program" when it is, in reality, just a plain old tax -- which side has recently begun to call themselves "progressives" instead of "liberals"? How about how the left calls killing babies in the womb "pro choice"? For that matter, on this very subject, the left has already tried to change the name we call taxes. The left is famous for calling taxes "contributions."

 

And then Conniff tries to call Republicans "Orwellian."

 

Yes, this is a little sneaky. Some conservatives may even call it Orwellian, and they ought to know.

 

 

Hilarious for its lack of introspection in light of the self-loathing currently indulged in by Barack "the Bitter" and his pal Jeremiah "damn America" Wright, isn't it? The whole "candidate of change" is nothing but Orwellian in that we are being asked to accept Obama's rhetoric despite the truth under it only to be branded an un-American, racist if we do not.

 

But, Conniff, ever the socialist-minded worker drone, makes the appeal for "group identity" to fool the people into accepting his new terminology.

 

But the word “dues” also plays into the psychology of group identity, and that can work to the benefit of conservatives and liberals alike. Consider that “tax” comes from the Latin for “appraise” with punitive overtones of “censure” or “fault,” as if wage-earners have done something wrong by their labors. “Dues,” in contrast, is rooted in social obligation and duty.

 

 

See, the thing is, even anti-taxers rarely if ever make that claim that no taxes should be raised. Anti-high taxers are all about the Flat Tax or the Fair Tax, but almost no one is stupid enough, anti-social enough, or so totally unaware of how important taxes are that they'd call for no taxes to be raised by government. So, Conniff's seeming claim that people need some more "group identity" to accept the concept of taxes is ridiculous.

 

Conniff's next paragraph begins with the following line: "'Look,' I said to a conservative friend..." Now, if anyone believes that Conniff even knows a conservative, much less calls one a friend, well, I have some swampland to sell you. But, he follows that with a bit of unexplained, illogic and it seems to be the crux of his entire argument.

 

..."simply saying 'hard earned' every time you say 'tax dollars' doesn't make bureaucrats think twice before spending. But spending other peoples' dues, now that’s not so easy."

 

 

Why Conniff imagines that politicians would find it harder to spend other peoples' "dues" any more than they find it hard to spend everyone's taxes goes unexplained by the writer. But he seems to imagine that this is just a fact that needs no explanation.

 

Conniff sums up his ruminations with the nub of his socialist approach to what government is for and how we, the people, should view it.

 

So this will be an uphill struggle. But we need language to remind us that this is our government, and that we thrive because of the schools and transit systems and 10,000 other services that exist only because we have joined together. Instead of denouncing taxes, politicians would do better to appeal to the patriotic corners of our hearts that warm to phrases like "we the people." "Taxation" is a throwback to the time when kings picked our pockets. "Paying my dues," a phrase popularized in the jazz music world, is language by which we can stand together as Americans.

 

 

The claim that we "thrive" because of government is 180 degrees out of phase. We thrive because of the efforts of the people of this country in the private sector. Government does NOT make us "thrive." In fact, government more often gets in the way of our thriving by overburdening regulations and high taxes. In our system government is viewed as being limited, but Conniff would have that view turned on its head to the extent that government is to be viewed as the only way to prosperity.

 

Lastly, his allusion as to how the Jazz world uses "paying dues" is completely misinformed. Jazzmen don’t use "paying my dues" as a term to describe a duty cheerfully done. They use the term to describe the pain and agony of life that they'd gone through to get to where they are. Now, I somehow doubt that our pal Mr. Conniff means to portray his "dues" as a pain that cannot be avoided. After all, he is looking to make people cheerfully throw away their hard earned money on useless government programs to prove their "patriotism."

 

Conniff and the New York Times really have some gall to plead for bloated bureaucracy on the very day that the tax man wields his scythe across the wallets of Americans everywhere. It does, however, fully inform us of the socialist direction from which the Times approaches the necessary evils of taxes. More is better and don't ask to hold the government accountable, rather, ask that the people just pay more without complaint.

 

But one thing is certain. It places The New York Times on the opposite side of the coin from our Founding Fathers and our hundreds of years of tax aversion all at the expense of the health of our private economy.

 

So here's to the bloated big government of which Richard Conniff and The New York Times are so enamored. May both forever remain in the minority and may their "dues" never be settled.

 

And one final thing. If, Mr. Conniff, you should feel so horribly under taxed, you are most certainly invited to pay more of your own free will. That's the freedom we enjoy as Americans. Just don't ask everyone else to pay more because YOU think they should.

 

 

 

WOW, THAT WAS INTERESTING. YOU CERTAINLY CONVINCED ME IT'S GREAT TO CUT TAXES WHEN THE DEFECIT IS AT ITS HIGHEST EVER. LET'S JUST ADD TO IT. WE WON'T END UP PAYING FOR IT ANYWAY. WHO CARES ABOUT OUR KIDS?JUST KEEP PILING IT ON AND RETARDS WILL LIKE YOU CAUSE YOU CUT TAXES. YOU'RE A SMART ONE.

[Guest RepuG]

Cite a source for your cut and paste. I can have a trained monkey write a piece as informative and insightful as that piece you cut and pasted then failed to add your thoughts or ideas.

 

Nice job. Well done! Hoooooray you!

 

[Guest Guest]

Another day in BCV Troll Land.

 

The Bushbots post long winded rants bashing libs to get them to reply so they can call them names.

 

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[b4unoit]

Cite a source for your cut and paste. I can have a trained monkey write a piece as informative and insightful as that piece you cut and pasted then failed to add your thoughts or ideas.

 

Nice job. Well done! Hoooooray you!

I think it speaks for it self it is about a editorial from one of the supposed reputable newspapers in this country, and the source you dunce if you could comprehend what you read is the New York Times.

 

 

[b4unoit]

Another day in BCV Troll Land.

 

The Bushbots post long winded rants bashing libs to get them to reply so they can call them names.

 

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Yep and then the libs post replies like this one.

 

[Guest alan greenspan]

Yep and then the libs post replies like this one.

 

 

 

YOU'RE BEING EMBARRASSED. YOU ARE A MORON BUT IT IS HARD TO WATCH.

[b4unoit]

YOU'RE BEING EMBARRASSED. YOU ARE A MORON BUT IT IS HARD TO WATCH.

Alan get back in the pasture hey somebody close the gate behind this old cow.

Give it up old man.

[tom]

I don't agree with Bush on many issues, but he has done good things, one of which was the tax cuts. The liberals in their rantings claim the tax cuts were for the rich, but I'm not rich and my return is much more now with the tax cut than it was before.

 

Unless you are liberal elite, and money doesn't matter i. e. Kennedy, Pelosi, Boxer, Fienstein, Reid etc, voting for one of the liberals will guarantee you liberals a tax increase which could be in the thousands of dollars.

 

Your hatred for Bush somehow compells you libs to do heavy damage to your pocketbook when voting for these people, which seems strange. This is just more proof the liberalism is a mental disorder.

[Guest Dribble]

THIS IS SO STUPID IT DOESN'T MERIT AN ANSWER BUT I CAN'T RESIST. IT'S PRETTY EASY TO GIVE TAX CUTS WHEN YOU ARE RUNNING THE HIGHEST DEFECIT IN OUR HISTORY. JUST ADD MORE ONTO THE PILE OUR GRANDKIDS WILL HAVE TO PAY. IDIOTS LIKE YOU DON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. CLINTON HAD A RESPONSIBLE BUDGET WITH A SURPLUS. HIS TAX RATES WERE LOW. THAT'S HOW A BUDGET WORKS, MORON. ANYONE THAT WOULD USE YOUR EXAMPLES OF TAXES IS RETARDED. I LOVE YOUR OTHER BRILLIANT POINT TOO. BECAUSE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION COSTS ALOT WE SHOULD WASTE ANOTHER HALF TRILLION (AND MANY LIVES) IN A POINTLESS WAR. I MUST ADMIT YOUR COMMENTS ARE COMICAL. STAY OUT OF THE NUMBER GAMES. YOU'RE NOT SMART ENOUGH TO GET IT. "HEY EVERYONE, PREZ BUSH LOWERED TAXES!!!!! WOW, HOW COULD HE DO THAT?? OH YEAH, ADD TO THE RECORD DEBT HE HAS CREATED". IT'S PRETTY EASY TO DO. JUST PILE IT ON. YOU GUYS ARE REALLY INTELLIGENT.

Can you believe its been how many hours now since the original post and not one person can come forward and dispute the facts presented ?? No wonder you morons have Hillary Clinton for a senator.

[tom]

That is your reply? You are not the brightest bulb are you? I'll wait for the STFU because you can not respond with a logical or sane reply.

I think the poster you responded is right. If you feel so guilty, you would certainly feel much better about yourself if you paid more to the IRS. Pay some for me too!!! I need what I get back from the feds to help offset the ever increasing taxes, surcharges, and fees the libs keep putting on us right here in Binghamton.

[Guest Spartacus]

To paraphrase what the hippy chick said earlier "Can't we just get along?"

 

Seriously, bashing folks as "libs" because they disagree with the direction this nation is going is just plain wrong.

In fact the language is dehumanizing. In the same way Raghead, Hadji, Slant, Kraut, Ivan and Charlie are.

 

You have no idea who I am, where I've been or what I've done (not that it's very exciting).

I AM NOT YOUR ENEMY. You should respect what I have to say.

 

If Rush Limbaugh is going to equate me with an islamofascist (whatever that is) because I do not agree with him then a fight is going to ensue.

 

 

@

[Guest Guest]

To paraphrase what the hippy chick said earlier "Can't we just get along?"

 

Seriously, bashing folks as "libs" because they disagree with the direction this nation is going is just plain wrong.

In fact the language is dehumanizing. In the same way Raghead, Hadji, Slant, Kraut, Ivan and Charlie are.

 

You have no idea who I am, where I've been or what I've done (not that it's very exciting).

I AM NOT YOUR ENEMY. You should respect what I have to say.

 

If Rush Limbaugh is going to equate me with an islamofascist (whatever that is) because I do not agree with him then a fight is going to ensue.

 

 

@

Did Rush Limbaugh really do that to you, or are you just paranoid ??

 

 

@

[Guest alan greenspan]

Thats funny because MPDguy and the rest of the liberals believe Clinton left with a surplus and he hooked up welfare reform and he was so great that he could control the oil prices keeping them low for all the Demos that he loves,then he was impeached for lying.

 

 

ARE YOU SAYING CLINTON DIDN'T LEAVE OFFICE WITH A HEFTY SURPLUS AND REASONABLE GAS PRICES?

[Guest Guest]

'Splain this, Bushbots:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/16/bus...e.ap/index.html

 

 

Bush shifts on climate change

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Revising his stance on global warming, President Bush proposed a new target Wednesday for stopping the growth of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.

[b4unoit]

'Splain this, Bushbots:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/16/bus...e.ap/index.html

 

 

Bush shifts on climate change

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Revising his stance on global warming, President Bush proposed a new target Wednesday for stopping the growth of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.

Another Greene wets his pants because he THINKS he saw a crack in the wall of the non hyperbolic minds of those that know man made global warming is really man made up global warming.

Try reading your article pal here I'll point out the pertinent facts for you smoothie.

 

(Revising?????) his stance on global warming, President Bush proposed a new target Wednesday for stopping the growth of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.

 

 

President Bush is calling for slowing emissions from electric power plants.

 

The president also called for putting the brakes on greenhouse gas emissions from electric power plants within 10 to 15 years. (and this sentence makes you think next he will be running around screaming the sky is burning?)

 

"To reach our 2025 goal, we will need to more rapidly slow the growth of power sector greenhouse gas emissions so that they peak within 10 to 15 years and decline thereafter," Bush said in the speech, released early by the White House.

 

"By doing so, we will reduce emission levels in the power sector well below where they were projected to be when we first announced our climate strategy in 2002. ( This is your great sea change a program HE called for 6 years ago???) There are a number of ways to achieve these reductions, but all responsible approaches depend on accelerating the development and deployment of new technologies."

 

Bush was not to outline a specific proposal, but he'll lay out a strategy for "realistic" emission reduction targets and "principles" he thinks Congress should follow in crafting global warming legislation

GOOD GRIEF.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Guest]

Another Greene wets his pants because he THINKS he saw a crack in the wall of the non hyperbolic minds of those that know man made global warming is really man made up global warming.

Try reading your article pal here I'll point out the pertinent facts for you smoothie.

 

(Revising?????) his stance on global warming, President Bush proposed a new target Wednesday for stopping the growth of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.

 

 

President Bush is calling for slowing emissions from electric power plants.

 

The president also called for putting the brakes on greenhouse gas emissions from electric power plants within 10 to 15 years. (and this sentence makes you think next he will be running around screaming the sky is burning?)

 

"To reach our 2025 goal, we will need to more rapidly slow the growth of power sector greenhouse gas emissions so that they peak within 10 to 15 years and decline thereafter," Bush said in the speech, released early by the White House.

 

"By doing so, we will reduce emission levels in the power sector well below where they were projected to be when we first announced our climate strategy in 2002. ( This is your great sea change a program HE called for 6 years ago???) There are a number of ways to achieve these reductions, but all responsible approaches depend on accelerating the development and deployment of new technologies."

 

Bush was not to outline a specific proposal, but he'll lay out a strategy for "realistic" emission reduction targets and "principles" he thinks Congress should follow in crafting global warming legislation

GOOD GRIEF.

 

He did revise it. First he said it did not exist (global warming that is) then acknowleged that it does but denied humans contributed. Now he aknowleges humans contribute to it. Just like 95% of all scientists and even your freind rush and hannity do as well.

 

[Guest Guest]

1) Consumer confidence plummet; (Must have something to do with the Bush economic incentives)

 

2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon; (Like there's regulation of the oil industry?)

 

3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase); (it was 7.2 when Clinton took office and when he left it was 4.0 and it has not been that low again under Bush)

 

4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses); (Interesting and since people voluntarily choose to invest in stocks, knowing it's a volitile market at best, then how are the democrats to blame? Of course next you will be saying it's their fault you didn't win the lottery)

 

5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars; (Possibly because most houses , at least here, are now slum apartments that aren't kept repaired and they drag down the rest of the neighborhoods value)

 

6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure. (Maybe the homeowners overextended themselves and shouldn't have gone for the $400,000 home just before their company outsourced their job overseas. Outsourcing has been supported by the Bush administration since he first got in office)

 

America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!

Remember, it's Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with what's handed to him.

(Except he can veto and what few remember is just before Clinton got in office, the republicans pushed theough the line item veto cause they were sure Bush sr would get reelected) So bush jr can pick and choose what to veto.

 

 

Part 2:

 

Taxes...Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these statistics enlightening and amazing.

Taxes under Clinton Taxes under Bush 2008

 

Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500

Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500

Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750

Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000

Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750

Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250

 

(Wish I had the persentage of income rates showing that the percentage for the very rich falling constantly under Bush)

 

Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates (Demopcrats are tax and spend but taxing at least helps pay for the spending. Bush has been spend and spend and spend and spend with no thought of how to pay for it.)

 

PART 3:

You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much? Read this:

Boy, am I confused. I have been hammered with the propaganda that it is the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us. I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.

I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them.

 

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.

 

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

 

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.

 

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!

 

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.

 

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.

 

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.

 

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.

 

9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.

 

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US.

 

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border; also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.

 

12. The National Policy Institute, "estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period."

 

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin.

 

14. "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States."

 

The total cost is a whopping $338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR. Are we THAT stupid?

 

(Dont forget that when the republicans controlled all aspects of the government they never lifted a finger to change any of those programs but left them there to be used in the next election platform.)

 

(Irag is now costing us 144 billion dollars a year by itself. with 4000 americans dead that comes to more than 10 million per death, when is it enough?

[b4unoit]

He did revise it. First he said it did not exist (global warming that is) then acknowleged that it does but denied humans contributed. Now he aknowleges humans contribute to it. Just like 95% of all scientists and even your freind rush and hannity do as well.

Hey einstein there is a world of difference between GLOBAL WARMING And MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING. You see for thousands of years the earth has gone through heating and cooling it is called a cycle. But What you global warming freaks want to do is lay it at the feet of man and make your cause be the excuse to straddle tax payers with more burden for a cause that the sun will cure not man kind. And 95% of scientist and meteorologist don't think it is man mad global warming so just stop repeating that lie.

 

[Guest McCain Man]

Seriously.

 

Members and guests here need to stick to local issues, "best whatever", favorite cars, hottest gas station attendants etc. Stay away from anything that really matters because the threads just disintegrate into Rush talking points and other forms of garden fertilizer. Most people here don't have a clue as to what they're talking about and it all boils down to waiting for some idiot to post something in large bold font as if that makes them "right."

 

Us Guys have noticed a marked decline in threads like this anyway so that's a good thing. Maybe if we can all just stick to "fun issues" we can get the readership back up to where it used to be.

[Guest alan greenspan]

Seriously.

 

Members and guests here need to stick to local issues, "best whatever", favorite cars, hottest gas station attendants etc. Stay away from anything that really matters because the threads just disintegrate into Rush talking points and other forms of garden fertilizer. Most people here don't have a clue as to what they're talking about and it all boils down to waiting for some idiot to post something in large bold font as if that makes them "right."

 

Us Guys have noticed a marked decline in threads like this anyway so that's a good thing. Maybe if we can all just stick to "fun issues" we can get the readership back up to where it used to be.

 

 

 

YEAH, THIS IS ROCKET SCIENCE.

[Guest aln greenspan]

THIS IS SO STUPID IT DOESN'T MERIT AN ANSWER BUT I CAN'T RESIST. IT'S PRETTY EASY TO GIVE TAX CUTS WHEN YOU ARE RUNNING THE HIGHEST DEFECIT IN OUR HISTORY. JUST ADD MORE ONTO THE PILE OUR GRANDKIDS WILL HAVE TO PAY. IDIOTS LIKE YOU DON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. CLINTON HAD A RESPONSIBLE BUDGET WITH A SURPLUS. HIS TAX RATES WERE LOW. THAT'S HOW A BUDGET WORKS, MORON. ANYONE THAT WOULD USE YOUR EXAMPLES OF TAXES IS RETARDED. I LOVE YOUR OTHER BRILLIANT POINT TOO. BECAUSE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION COSTS ALOT WE SHOULD WASTE ANOTHER HALF TRILLION (AND MANY LIVES) IN A POINTLESS WAR. I MUST ADMIT YOUR COMMENTS ARE COMICAL. STAY OUT OF THE NUMBER GAMES. YOU'RE NOT SMART ENOUGH TO GET IT. "HEY EVERYONE, PREZ BUSH LOWERED TAXES!!!!! WOW, HOW COULD HE DO THAT?? OH YEAH, ADD TO THE RECORD DEBT HE HAS CREATED". IT'S PRETTY EASY TO DO. JUST PILE IT ON. YOU GUYS ARE REALLY INTELLIGENT.

 

 

 

nobody has disputed this post. it's impossible to. i'm glad Tom is happy he got his tax cuts. maybe he can explain to his kids why anyone can cut taxes. it just adds to the defecit they will have to pay. please someone dispute one word. i dare you.

 

 

@

[b4unoit]

nobody has disputed this post. it's impossible to. i'm glad Tom is happy he got his tax cuts. maybe he can explain to his kids why anyone can cut taxes. it just adds to the defecit they will have to pay. please someone dispute one word. i dare you.

Yes you old cow if you insist but it might be more than one word.

 

Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.

Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

 

Tax revenues in 2006 were 18.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), which is actually above the 20-year, 40-year, and 60-year historical aver­ages.[1] The inflation-adjusted 20 percent tax revenue increase between 2004 and 2006 represents the largest two-year revenue surge since 1965–1967.[2] Claims that Americans are undertaxed by historical standards are patently false.

 

Some critics of President George W. Bush's tax policies concede that tax revenues exceed the his­torical average yet assert that revenues are histori­cally low for economies in the fourth year of an expansion. Setting aside that some of these tax pol­icies are partly responsible for that economic expan­sion, the numbers simply do not support this claim. Comparing tax revenues in the fourth fiscal year after the end of each of the past three recessions shows nearly equal tax revenues of:

 

18.4 percent of GDP in 1987,

18.5 percent of GDP in 1995, and

18.4 percent of GDP in 2006.[3]

While revenues as a percentage of GDP have not fully returned to pre-recession levels (20.9 percent in 2000), it is now clear that the pre-recession level was a major historical anomaly caused by a tempo­rary stock market bubble.

 

Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.

Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

 

Critics tirelessly contend that America's swing from budget surpluses in 1998–2001 to a $247 bil­lion budget deficit in 2006 resulted chiefly from the "irresponsible" Bush tax cuts. This argument ignores the historic spending increases that pushed federal spending up from 18.5 percent of GDP in 2001 to 20.2 percent in 2006.[4]

 

The best way to measure the swing from surplus to deficit is by comparing the pre–tax cut budget baseline of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) with what actually happened. While the January 2000 baseline projected a 2006 budget surplus of $325 billion, the final 2006 numbers showed a $247 billion deficit—a net drop of $572 billion. This drop occurred because spending was $514 bil­lion above projected levels, and revenues were $58 billion below (even after $188 billion in tax cuts). In other words, 90 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit resulted from higher-than-projected spending, and only 10 percent resulted from lower-than-projected revenues.[5] (See Chart 1.)

 

 

 

Furthermore, tax revenues in 2006 were actually above the levels projected before the 2003 tax cuts. Immediately before the 2003 tax cuts, the CBO pro­jected a 2006 budget deficit of $57 billion, yet the final 2006 budget deficit was $247 billion. The $190 billion deficit increase resulted from federal spend­ing that was $237 billion more than projected. Rev­enues were actually $47 billion above the projection, even after $75 billion in tax cuts enacted after the baseline was calculated.[6] By that standard, new spending was responsible for 125 percent of the higher 2006 budget deficit, and expanding revenues actually offset 25 percent of the new spending.

 

The 2006 tax revenues were not substantially far from levels projected before the Bush tax cuts. Despite estimates that the tax cuts would reduce 2006 revenues by $188 billion, they came in just $58 billion below the pre–tax cut revenue level pro­jected in January 2000.[7]

 

The difference is even more dramatic with the pro-growth 2003 tax cuts. The CBO calculated that the post-March 2003 tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion, yet 2006 revenues came in $47 billion above the pre–tax cut baseline released in March 2003. This is not a coincidence. Tax cuts clearly played a significant role in the economy's performing better than expected and recovering much of the lost revenue.

 

Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.

Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.

 

Attempts to debunk solid theories often involve first mischaracterizing them as straw men. Critics often erroneously define supply-side economics as the belief that all tax cuts pay for themselves. They then cite tax cuts that have not fully paid for them­selves as conclusive proof that supply-side econom­ics has failed.

 

However, supply-side economics never con­tended that all tax cuts pay for themselves. Rather the Laffer Curve[8] (upon which much of the supply-side theory is based) merely formalizes the com­mon-sense observations that:

 

Tax revenues depend on the tax base as well as the tax rate;

Raising tax rates discourages the taxed behavior and therefore shrinks the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue gains; and

Lowering tax rates encourages the taxed behav­ior and expands the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue loss.

If policymakers intend cigarette taxes to discour­age smoking, they should also expect high invest­ment taxes to discourage investment and income taxes to discourage work. Lowering taxes encour­ages people to engage in the given behavior, which expands the base and replenishes some of the lost revenue. This is the "feedback effect" of a tax cut.

 

Whether or not a tax cut recovers 100 percent of the lost revenue depends on the tax rate's location on the Laffer Curve. Each tax has a revenue-maxi­mizing rate at which future tax increases will reduce revenue. (This is the peak of the Laffer Curve.) Only when tax rates are above that level will reducing the tax rate actually increase revenue. Otherwise, it will replenish only a portion of the lost revenue.

 

How much feedback revenue a given tax cut will generate depends on the degree to which tax­payers adjust their behavior. Cutting sales and property tax rates generally induces smaller feed­back effects because taxpayers do not respond by substantially expanding their purchases or home-buying. Income taxes have a higher feedback effect. Nobel Prize-winning economist Ed Prescott has shown a strong cross-national link between lower income tax rates and higher work hours.[9] Investment taxes have the highest feedback effects because investors quickly move to avoid higher-taxed investments. Not surprisingly, history shows that higher investment taxes deeply curtail investment and consequently raise little (if any) new revenue.

 

Yet, using the standard set by some, even a hypothetical tax cut that provides real tax relief to millions of families and entrepreneurs and creates enough new income to recover 95 percent of the estimated revenue loss would be considered a "failure" of supply-side economics and thus merit a full repeal.

 

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

 

As previously stated, whether a tax cut pays for itself depends on how much people alter their behavior in response to the policy. Investors have been shown to be the most sensitive to tax pol­icy, because capital gains tax cuts encourage enough new investment to more than offset the lower tax rate.

 

In 2003, capital gains tax rates were reduced from 20 percent and 10 percent (depending on income) to 15 percent and 5 percent. Rather than expand by 36 percent from the current $50 billion level to $68 billion in 2006 as the CBO projected before the tax cut, capital gains revenues more than doubled to $103 billion.[10] (See Chart 2.) Past cap­ital gains tax cuts have shown similar results.

 

 

 

By encouraging investment, lower capital gains taxes increase funding for the technologies, busi­nesses, ideas, and projects that make workers and the economy more productive. Such investment is vital for long-term economic growth.

 

Because investors are tax-sensitive, high capital gains tax rates are not only bad economic policy, but also bad budget policy.

 

Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.

Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.

 

The unsustainability of America's long-term bud­get path is well known. However, a common mis­perception blames the massive future budget deficits on the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. In reality, revenues will continue to increase above the histor­ical average yet be dwarfed by historic entitlement spending increases. (See Chart 3.)

 

 

 

For the past half-century, tax revenues have gen­erally stayed within 1 percentage point of 18 per­cent of GDP. The CBO projects that, even if all 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are made permanent, revenues will stillincrease from 18.4 percent of GDP today to 22.8 percent by 2050, not counting any feedback revenues from their positive economic impact. It is projected that repealing the Bush tax cuts would nudge 2050 revenues up to 23.7 percent of GDP, not counting any revenue losses from the negative economic impact of the tax hikes.[11] In effect, the Bush tax cut debate is whether revenues should increase by 4.4 percent or 5.3 percent of GDP.

 

Spending has remained around 20 percent of GDP for the past half-century. However, the coming retirement of the baby boomers will increase Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid spending by a combined 10.5 percent of GDP. Assuming that this causes large budget deficits and increased net spending on interest, federal spending could surge to 38 percent of GDP and possibly much higher.[12]

 

Overall, revenues are projected to increase from 18 percent of GDP to almost 23 percent. Spending is projected to increase from 20 percent of GDP to at least 38 percent. Even repealing all of the 2001 and 2003 cuts would merely shave the projected budget deficit of 15 percent of GDP by less than 1 percentage point, and that assumes no negative feedback from raising taxes. Clearly, the French-style spending increases, not tax policy, are the problem. Lawmakers should focus on getting entitlements under control.

 

 

Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.

Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

 

Many of those who desire additional tax revenues regularly call on Congress to raise tax rates, but tax revenues are a function of two variables: tax rates and the tax base. The tax base typically moves in the opposite direction of the tax rate, partially negating the revenue impact of tax rate changes. Accordingly, Chart 4 shows little correlation between tax rates and tax revenues. Since 1952, the highest marginal income tax rate has dropped from 92 percent to 35 percent, and tax revenues have grown in inflation-adjusted terms while remaining constant as a per­cent of GDP.

 

Chart 5 shows the nearly perfect correlation between GDP and tax revenues. Despite major fluc­tuations in income tax rates, long-term tax revenues have grown at almost exactly the same rate as GDP, remaining between 17 percent and 20 percent of GDP for 46 of the past 50 years. Table 1 shows that the top marginal income tax rate topped 90 percent during the 1950s and that revenues averaged 17.2 percent of GDP. By the 1990s, the top marginal income tax rate averaged just 36 per­cent, and tax revenues averaged 18.3 percent of GDP. Regardless of the tax rate, tax revenues have almost always come in at approximately 18 percent of GDP.[13]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since revenues move with GDP, the common-sense way to increase tax revenues is to expand the GDP. This means that pro-growth policies such as low marginal tax rates (especially on work, savings, and investment), restrained federal spending, minimal regulation, and free trade would raise more tax revenues than would be raised by self-defeating tax increases. America cannot substantially increase tax revenue with policies that reduce national income.

 

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.

Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

 

Many critics of tax cuts nonetheless support extending the increased child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and the 10 percent income tax bracket because these policies strongly benefit low-income tax families. They also support annually adjusting the alternative minimum tax exemption for inflation to prevent a massive broad-based tax increase. These critics assert that repealing the tax cuts for upper-income individuals and investors and bringing back the pre-2001 estate tax levels can raise substantial revenue. Once again, the numbers fail to support this claim.

 

In 2007, according to CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation data, the increased child tax credit, mar­riage penalty relief, 10 percent bracket, and AMT fix will have a combined budgetary effect of $114 bil­lion.[14] (See Table 2.) These policies do not have strong supply-side effects to minimize that effect.

 

By comparison, the more maligned capital gains, dividends, and estate tax cuts are projected to reduce 2007 revenues by just $36 billion even before the large and positive supply-side effects are incorporated. Thus, repealing these tax cuts would raise very little revenue and could possibly even reduce federal tax revenue. Such tax increases would certainly reduce the savings and investment vital to economic growth.

 

The individual income tax rate reductions come to $59 billion in 2007 and are not really a tax cut for the rich. All families with taxable incomes over $62,000 (and single filers over $31,000) benefit. Repealing this tax cut would reduce work incentives and raise taxes on millions of families and small businesses, thereby harming the economy and min­imizing any new revenues.

 

Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."

Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

 

Government spending does not "pump new money into the economy" because government must first tax or borrow that money out of the economy. Claims that tax cuts benefit the econ­omy by "putting money in people's pockets" rep­resent the flip side of the pump-priming fallacy. Instead, the right tax cuts help the economy by reducing government's influence on economic decisions and allowing people to respond more to market mechanisms, thereby encouraging more productive behavior.

 

 

 

The Keynesian fallacy is that government spend­ing injects new money into the economy, but the money that government spends must come from somewhere. Government must first tax or borrow that money out of the economy, so all the new spending just redistributes existing income. Simi­larly, the money for tax rebates—which are also touted as a way to inject money into the economy— must also come from somewhere, with government either spending less or borrowing more. In both cases, no new spending is added to the economy. Rather, the government has just transferred it from one group (e.g., investors) in the economy to another (e.g., consumers).

 

Some argue that certain tax cuts, such as tax rebates, can transfer money from savers to spenders and therefore increase demand. This argument assumes that the savers have been storing their sav­ings in their mattresses, thereby removing it from the economy. In reality, nearly all Americans either invest their savings, thereby financing businesses investment, or deposit the money in banks, which quickly lend it to others to spend or invest. There­fore, the money is spent by someone whether it is initially consumed or saved. Thus, tax rebates create no additional economic activity and cannot "prime the pump."

 

This does not mean tax policy cannot affect eco­nomic growth. The right tax cuts can add substan­tially to the economy's supply side of productive resources: capital and labor. Economic growth requires that businesses efficiently produce increas­ing amounts of goods and services, and increased production requires consistent business investment and a motivated, productive workforce. Yet high marginal tax rates—defined as the tax on the next dollar earned—serve as a disincentive to engage in such activities. Reducing marginal tax rates on busi­nesses and workers increases the return on work­ing, saving, and investing, thereby creating more business investment and a more productive work­force, both of which add to the economy's long-term capacity for growth.

 

Yet some propose demand-side tax cuts to "put money in people's pockets" and "get people to spend money." The 2001 tax rebates serve as an example: Washington borrowed billions from investors and then mailed that money to families in the form of $600 checks. Predictably, this simple transfer of existing wealth caused a temporary increase in consumer spending and a corresponding decrease in investment but led to no new economic growth. No new wealth was created because the tax rebate was unrelated to productive behavior. No one had to work, save, or invest more to receive a rebate. Simply redistributing existing wealth does not create new wealth.

 

In contrast, marginal tax rates were reduced throughout the 1920s, 1960s, and 1980s. In all three decades, investment increased, and higher economic growth followed. Real GDP increased by 59 percent from 1921 to 1929, by 42 percent from 1961 to 1968, and by 31 percent from 1982 to 1989.[15] More recently, the 2003 tax cuts helped to bring about strong economic growth for the past three years.

 

Policies which best support work, saving, and investment are much more effective at expanding the economy's long-term capacity for growth than those that aim to put money in consumers' pockets.

 

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.

Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

 

The 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. These policies were designed to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest, thus creating jobs and increas­ing economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts (a short enough time frame to exclude the 2001 re­cession) shows that this is exactly what hap­pened (see Table 3):

 

GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent.

 

 

Non-residential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. Since then, it has expanded for 13 consec­utive quarters.

The S&P 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32 percent over the next six quarters. Divi­dend payouts increased as well.

The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quar­ters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.

The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quar­ters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.[16]

Critics contend that the economy was already recovering and that this strong expansion would have occurred even without the tax cuts. While some growth was naturally occurring, critics do not explain why such a sudden and dramatic turn­around began at the exact moment that these pro-growth policies were enacted. They do not explain why business investment, the stock market, and job numbers suddenly turned around in spring 2003. It is no coincidence that the expansion was powered by strong investment growth, exactly as the tax cuts intended.

 

The 2003 tax cuts succeeded because of the sup­ply-side policies that critics most oppose: cuts in mar­ginal income tax rates and tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. The 2001 tax cuts that were based more on demand-side tax rebates and redistribution did not significantly increase economic growth.

 

 

Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.

Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.

 

Popular mythology also suggests that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts shifted more of the tax burden toward the poor. While high-income households did save more in actual dollars than low-income households, they did so because low-income house­holds pay so little in income taxes in the first place. The same 1 percent tax cut will save more dollars for a millionaire than it will for a middle-class worker simply because the millionaire paid more taxes before the tax cut.

 

 

 

In 2000, the top 60 percent of taxpayers paid 100 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 40 percent collectively paid no income taxes. Lawmakers writing the 2001 tax cuts faced quite a challenge in giving the bulk of the income tax savings to a population that was already paying no income taxes.

 

Rather than exclude these Americans, lawmak­ers used the tax code to subsidize them. (Some economists would say this made that group's col­lective tax burden negative.)First, lawmakers low­ered the initial tax brackets from 15 percent to 10 percent and then expanded the refundable child tax credit, which, along with the refundable earned income tax credit (EITC), reduced the typical low-income tax burden to well below zero. As a result, the U.S. Treasury now mails tax "refunds" to a large proportion of these Americans that exceed the amounts of tax that they actually paid. All in all, the number of tax filers with zero or negative income tax liability rose from 30 million to 40 million, or about 30 percent of all tax filers.[17] The remaining 70 percent of tax filers received lower income tax rates, lower investment taxes, and lower estate taxes from the 2001 legislation.

 

Consequently, from 2000 to 2004, the share of all individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40 per­cent dropped from zero percent to –4 percent, mean­ing that the average family in those quintiles received a subsidy from the IRS. (See Chart 6.) By contrast, the share paid by the top quintile of households (by income) increased from 81 percent to 85 percent.

 

Expanding the data to include all federal taxes, the share paid by the top quintile edged up from 66.6 percent in 2000 to 67.1 percent in 2004, while the bottom 40 percent's share dipped from 5.9 per­cent to 5.4 percent. Clearly, the tax cuts have led to the rich shouldering more of the income tax burden and the poor shouldering less.[18]

 

Conclusion

The 110th Congress will be serving when the first of 77 million baby boomers receive their first Social Security checks in 2008. The subsequent avalanche of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs for these baby boomers will be the greatest economic challenge of this era.

 

This should be the budgetary focus of the 110th Congress rather than repealing Bush tax cuts or allowing them to expire. Repealing the tax cuts would not significantly increase revenues. It would, however, decrease investment, reduce work incen­tives, stifle entrepreneurialism, and reduce eco­nomic growth. Lawmakers should remember that America cannot tax itself to prosperity.

 

 

@