PDA

View Full Version : Some more of those ole GOP Christian Values


Secretariat
12-08-2005, 04:30 PM
In one month, The House has passed the following bills:

1. Cut Medicaid benefits for the "poorest" of Americans.
2. "Raised their own congressional salaries"
3. "Cuts taxes for the wealthiest" of Americans maintaining the Capital Gains Cut, and defeating a Democratic alternative that asked for those making over 500,000 to not get their cuts. Defeated the alternative along party lines.

The Party of Christian Values strikes again.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051208/ap_on_go_co/congress_taxes

GaryG
12-08-2005, 04:43 PM
Sec, I know you are not a brain surgeon, but since when are all Christians Republicans? You are not going to drag Christianity into partisan politics. Here is one for you: a) Most blacks are Christians b) Most blacks are Democrats. Therefore what Sec?

Steve 'StatMan'
12-08-2005, 05:06 PM
In one month, The House has passed the following bills:
2. "Raised their own congressional salaries"


I saw nothing in this article about item number 2. If this did happen, which I am hoping didn't, what was the vote along party lines, as you're obviously taking another shot at the Republicans (gee, alert the media!) Surely you don't mean to suggest that only the congressional salaries of Republicans are going up, and the rest we either not approved, or they graciously declined the money.

JustRalph
12-08-2005, 06:08 PM
We are marching through the Dems like Sherman! This is what happens when you lose elections Sec. You get stomped on when it comes to legislation. Get used to it...........more to come! :D

Bobby
12-08-2005, 08:13 PM
The party of Lincoln . . .

Tom
12-08-2005, 11:03 PM
Yeah, Bobby - it was democrats who went to war to preserve slavery. The party of the people!

Bobby
12-09-2005, 12:27 AM
Yeah, Bobby - it was democrats who went to war to preserve slavery. The party of the people!

I mean it in much more modern dayterms :)

Dave Schwartz
12-09-2005, 12:27 AM
Get this, Sec, 'cause it's important.

When you think of "them and us" you should be thinking about them as "those who run the country" (i.e. politicians in general) and us as "those who are being used and abused."

Doesn't matter which party is in power - they have no problem remembering who "them" is.

... and that leaves "us" with nobody looking out for our interests.

Oh, and last time I checked, the Dems got the same raise as the Repubs.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

dav4463
12-09-2005, 12:29 AM
In one month, The House has passed the following bills:

1. Cut Medicaid benefits for the "poorest" of Americans.
2. "Raised their own congressional salaries"
3. "Cuts taxes for the wealthiest" of Americans maintaining the Capital Gains Cut, and defeating a Democratic alternative that asked for those making over 500,000 to not get their cuts. Defeated the alternative along party lines.

The Party of Christian Values strikes again.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051208/ap_on_go_co/congress_taxes


"Are there no poorhouses, are there no workfarms?"........Ebeneezer Scrooge!(a great man!)

Secretariat
12-09-2005, 01:30 AM
I saw nothing in this article about item number 2. If this did happen, which I am hoping didn't, what was the vote along party lines, as you're obviously taking another shot at the Republicans (gee, alert the media!) Surely you don't mean to suggest that only the congressional salaries of Republicans are going up, and the rest we either not approved, or they graciously declined the money.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/3504606.html

"U.S. lawmakers accept pay raise, after some had offered to skip it
Each will get a cost-of-living increase of $3,100
By JUDY HOLLAND
Copyright 2005 Hearst News Service
WASHINGTON - Members of the U.S. House and Senate will get a pay raise after all, boosting their salaries to $165,200 in January.
....

Lawmakers were squeamish about discussing the subject, but congressional aides — speaking on condition that their names be withheld — said House Republican leaders had pushed for the pay raise in the conference committee."

There's another link with this quote:

"It's not a pay raise," claimed DeLay, who will now make $183,500 a year. "It's an adjustment so that [we're] not losing [our] purchasing power."

Unfortunately, Mr. Delay saw fit to make sure medicaid did not get that "adjustment"

Oh, and I forgot they also defeated the minimum wage raise which hasn't been raised since the 90's. A minimum wage worker now makes barely 10,000 annually. THey don't get "adjustments", but Mr. Delay does ,and those who can actually afford to invest to even qualify for capital gains.

It's the Christmas thing to do I guess nowadays. Give gifts to yourself. Ebenezer Scrooge was a good reference.

kingfin66
12-09-2005, 02:06 AM
Yeah, Bobby - it was democrats who went to war to preserve slavery. The party of the people!

Kingfin needs a history/geography lesson. Am I to believe that the Civil War, which I had previously been led to believe was North vs. South, was in fact Republicans vs. Democrats? How did they get everybody to agree to move North and South during the war? Hmm... Inquiring minds want to know. Or is it possible that Tom was trying to deliver a glib line to Bobby but it came out horribly, horribly wrong?

kingfin66
12-09-2005, 02:07 AM
We are marching through the Dems like Sherman! This is what happens when you lose elections Sec. You get stomped on when it comes to legislation. Get used to it...........more to come! :D

You're just getting to be an angrier, angrier white male aren't you?

JustRalph
12-09-2005, 06:55 AM
You're just getting to be an angrier, angrier white male aren't you?

not really, I just love to jab Sec. Like poking a dead dog with a stick........

GaryG
12-09-2005, 07:24 AM
Just to clarify....the Civil War was about STATES RIGHTS

JustRalph
12-09-2005, 08:12 AM
Just to clarify....the Civil War was about STATES RIGHTS

Excellent point Gary!

kingfin66
12-09-2005, 10:35 AM
not really, I just love to jab Sec. Like poking a dead dog with a stick........

I know, I just couldn't resist what with words like march, Sherman, stomp.... ;)

Steve 'StatMan'
12-09-2005, 02:53 PM
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/3504606.html

"U.S. lawmakers accept pay raise, after some had offered to skip it
Each will get a cost-of-living increase of $3,100
By JUDY HOLLAND
Copyright 2005 Hearst News Service
WASHINGTON - Members of the U.S. House and Senate will get a pay raise after all, boosting their salaries to $165,200 in January.
....

Lawmakers were squeamish about discussing the subject, but congressional aides — speaking on condition that their names be withheld — said House Republican leaders had pushed for the pay raise in the conference committee."

There's another link with this quote:

"It's not a pay raise," claimed DeLay, who will now make $183,500 a year. "It's an adjustment so that [we're] not losing [our] purchasing power."

Unfortunately, Mr. Delay saw fit to make sure medicaid did not get that "adjustment"

Oh, and I forgot they also defeated the minimum wage raise which hasn't been raised since the 90's. A minimum wage worker now makes barely 10,000 annually. THey don't get "adjustments", but Mr. Delay does ,and those who can actually afford to invest to even qualify for capital gains.

It's the Christmas thing to do I guess nowadays. Give gifts to yourself. Ebenezer Scrooge was a good reference.

Well, I wish they hadn't done it, but they did. But in your eternal bitchiness (unbecoming for a male) you've left out some important facts from the article.

That the 1989 law that allows for these raises is automatic unless it is voted down. It was only refused once in the last 8 years, the only time both houses didn't vote against it was in 1998.

The amount of the raise is 2%. Yes, I think they should have abstained from it this year.

There were efforts by both Republicans and Democrats to not accept the raises this year.

No vote breakdowns were given, it was just noted that it did pass both houses. So we don't know how close it was, or how many from either party voted yea or nay. But you want everyone to believe it's all the big bad Republicans fault. (I'm still not a registered one, but maybe you'll drive me to it.)
-------------------------------------

Regarding minimum wage, the State of Illinois passed their own minimum wage laws, setting them higher than the national law. It will gradually go into the $7.00-ish range in the next few years.

I'd look it up, but frankly I'm getting tired of being one of the 'firefighters of reason' everytime you or some other political pyromaniacs start another little fire here.

In fact, I was writing a much bigger post, with more details and insights, and I've decided to hell with it. It won't matter Sec. Economics for those with very little skills will always stink. You should know that. I work in a non-growing industry (racing related) so I know enough not to expect raises in my near future, and anyone working in a non-growing industry, or at a non-skill, little talent job that could just as easily be replaced by someone else shouldn't expect much of a raise either, sure not much more than 2%. It's just the way Economics work Sec. Grow up. I'm not going to bother waisting any more time with you on this and your other fires. I'm going to try spending more time at life other that arguing this stupid stuff. For your own sake, I suggest you do the same.

Secretariat
12-09-2005, 09:14 PM
Economics for those with very little skills will always stink. You should know that.t's just the way Economics work Sec. Grow up.

There is a wide perception on this board that if you don't agree with supply side econOmics, you're stupid, or you jUst don't get basic economics, and the only way to stimulate an economy is to create deficits with trickle down tax cuts.

And generally, the attack has been on me, as if I am unable to understand basic economics.

Well, perhaps the wisdom of Ten Nobel Prize winners in ECONOMICS who disagree with GW's policies instituted in 2003 of skyrocketing deficits, while giving wealthy massive tax cuts is NOT sound economic policy. So instead of attackign the messenger, attack the economic stupiidty of the 10 Nobel Prize Winners in Economics. btw..how many Nobel Prizes in Economics has GW won?
Oh, that' right, he has an MBA.

Ten Nobel prize winning economists have attacked President George W Bush's tax cutting policies

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2735269.stm

"Ten Nobel prize winning economists have attacked President George W Bush's tax cutting policies.

On Monday, Mr Bush sent his budget - designed to help revive the US economy and boost military spending - to Congress for approval.

But the combination of cutting taxes and increasing spending will mean that the US is set to notch up record budget deficits greater than those run-up by his father more than 10 years ago."

.................................................. .......................

“Tax cuts for the rich,” he said, “are not the solution to every economic policy.”

Joseph Stiglitz, winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Economics

.................................................. ...........................

lsbets
12-09-2005, 10:05 PM
Sec - you seem hung up on "tax cuts for the wealthy". However, I have asked this question of you several times, and you have never answered, but here it goes again:

What was the effective tax rate (the one actually paid) during the days of higher rates vs. the effective tax rate in times of lower rates?

On another note -- tax revenues collected by the government have gone up since the last round of tax cuts to all time highs, while the share of tax revenues collected from the "wealthy" has increased vs. those in other tax brackets. The deficit problem doesn't come from not enough taxes, it comes from too much spending.

If you'd like, I can give you some great tax advantaged investment ideas, where you can eliminate all of your income from the preceding 3 years, get a huge refund for taxes paid, and then pay capital gains taxes on the money in 7 years. There aren't too many of those vehicles around anymore because the lower rates make taking the chance of investing in a "shelter" not worth it, and many accounting firms have simply decided to no longer offer shelters. However, the one I mentioned is still in business (if you look at the Keeneland auctions you'll see the company doing this as a fairly active buyer and seller). Its been challenged in court by the IRS, and been ruled legal. Minimum investment one million. Marginal rates are meaningless, the effective rate is what matters.

Tom
12-10-2005, 11:34 AM
Sec, please post us list of demo congressmen who will either not accept the raise or will donate it to charity. Until then explain how this is a political issue.

Secretariat
12-10-2005, 01:33 PM
Well, Isbets 10 Nobel Prize winners for Economics seem to disagree somewhat with you.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2735269.stm

While everyone agrees that while overspending increases deficits, it is also necessary to gather revenue to pay for what has already been spent, and to addess adminstrative policies such as war. Cutting taxes during a war in which the wealthiest garnish the primary benefit is irresponsible and deficit enlarging. Lincoln, a Republican instituted taxes for the Civil War. In 1812 the first type of income tax was instituted to pay for war expenditures. In WW II it went through the roof to pay for war. War, with its increasing need for newer technolgies is becoming more and more expensive. Prolonged wars increase expenditires necessary to fight those wars. To "reduce" revenue gathering for the government at the same time only exacerbates the deficit.

10 Nobel prize Winners for Economics do NOT AGREE with your perspective on more 80's trickle down economics. Why do you not address that?

The non-partisan Citizens for Tax Justice citing the CBO projections this past year also do not agee with Bush's approach:

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bush0105.pdf

Citizens for Tax Justice 202-626-3780 • www.ctj.org Jan. 27, 2005 (5 pp.)
Contact: Bob McIntyre

Bush’s $10 Trillion Borrowing Binge: An Update
New projections from the Congressional Budget Office confirm that continuation of President Bush’s budget policies will triple the national debt over the next decade. Left unchecked, Bush’s reckless approach to fiscal policy will saddle our country with an additional $10 trillion in debt just ten years from now. This is one of the frightening statistics that can be gleaned from CBO’s January report, The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2006 to 2015, in whichCBO offers “alternatives” to its so-called “baseline” budget projections. Unlike the baseline, the alternatives take a more realistic approach to predicting future spending and taxes. Primarily, this means dropping the implausible assumptions that federal appropriations will plummet as a share of the economy, that tax cuts ostensibly “sunsetted” will really go away, that the alternative minimum tax will engulf 30 million families, that Iraq and Afghanistan activities will suddenly end, and that anti-terrorism efforts will be curtailed.

The effects of CBO’s more realistic predictions are striking. By fiscal 2015, for example, the projected annual deficit in the regular budget under Bush’s
policies skyrockets to $1,164 billion—seven times bigger than the unrealistic “baseline” estimate for the non-Social Security deficit of $169 billion.

Some of CBO’s important information is hidden in footnotes, and nowhere is everything added up. But with a little arithmetic, here’s what CBO’s figures reveal about where George W. Bush’s policies are taking our nation:

# Under Bush’s policies, almost a third of the federal government outside of Social Security is financed with borrowed money—this year and for the foreseeable future.

No president has ever put such a large share of federal spending on the national credit card over such a sustained period of time.
# The Federal Reserve’s aggressively low interest rates have kept federal interest outlays in check for now, but after fiscal 2005 interest payments are expected to rise rapidly. By 2013 and thereafter, the government is likely to be spending more on interest on the debt than on all domestic appropriations put together—from
education, to the environment, to law enforcement, to science, to transportation, to veterans.

# Compared to when Bush took office, the national debt, including amounts owed to Social Security, is expected to more than triple by fiscal 2015—to $14.8 trillion.

Bush’s 2001 campaign promise that he would continue President Clinton’s policy of paying down the national debt turns out to have been a $10 trillion fib.

# Since Bush’s second year in office, annual deficits in the regular budget have approached or exceeded five percent of the economy. Absent major policy changes, that level of deficits is expected to continue unabated over the next decade. Since World War II, only the borrow-and-spend policies of Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush have reached that deficit level. So much for the current Bush administration’s frequent claim that its deficits are “moderate by any historical measure” as a share of the economy. (In contrast, in the last few years of the Clinton administration, there were no deficits outside of Social Security, but instead surpluses.)

# As a share of the economy, the government’s debt is expected to rise from 45 percent in 2001 to 76 percent by 2015. Such a debt level in relation to the economy hasn’t been seen since the World War II era. As the debt grows, more and more of our tax dollars will go to pay interest, rather than for essential government programs.

“Although the President likes to blame his fiscal profligacy on increased defense and security spending, his tax cuts loom much larger,” said Robert S. McIntyre, director of

Citizens for Tax Justice. “In the President’s first term, 45 percent of his $2 trillion in deficit spending was directly attributable to his tax cuts, with the
lousy economy responsible for most of the rest. Over his second term, 47 percent of the $2.7 trillion in projected deficit spending reflects Bush’s tax cuts.

Thereafter, tax reductions will explain more than half of the huge deficits we’ll face if Bush’s policies are left in place.”

Tom
12-10-2005, 02:34 PM
If 10 NPP winners disagree with lsbets, then I hereby nominate ls as man of the year!


Hip hip

HOORAY!

Steve 'StatMan'
12-10-2005, 02:52 PM
Silly me. There are only 10 worth economists in the world The rest must apperently suck then. :rolleyes:

Some things have to be done to get through the problems of the current time, and these times were difficult, Sec, and I know you don't want to believe it, but they got through it all pretty well considering what they had to do - keep consumers spending and the economy going despite 9-11, the war, and counteracting all the doom and gloom talk that might cause people to sit on their wallets and bank accounts, which would have sank the economy.

Just because actions have been taken recently certainly doesn't mean anyone is saying we're never going to pay it back, or never make adjustments, etc.

From what I've read, this is all stuff about the doom and gloom of the consequences, assuming nothing is ever changed. Did any of these 10 economists give great plans, in advance and early in the 2001-2005 time frame that would get us through the last 4 years without the economic and national doom during that time? Would it really have worked, or worked as well? Is there really only 1 answer, or will 2 or different methods actually work, provided political fighting doesn't cause namby-pampy switching between the two schools of thought, thus dooming either methods to fail?

Win your damn national elections, and then bring in your own damned economists. Enough damn damage was done by you twits that has encouraged our enemies not to give up, and causing us to fight than less than the superpower we are.

Point to the obsticals on the road. Fine. Just stop trying to jerk the steering wheel out of the drivers hands until we at least come to a safe place to stop. :rolleyes:

Lefty
12-10-2005, 07:30 PM
sec, you mean capotal gains tax doesn't affect the middle class and even some so-called poor people. Ypou mean it's only wealthy people that own stocks and property and such? Coulda fooled me. Didn't know I was wealthy.

Lefty
12-10-2005, 07:32 PM
The Civil war was about States rights but what the South wanted to do was to lawfully own slaves.

Secretariat
12-10-2005, 08:18 PM
Silly me. There are only 10 worth economists in the world

That's not just 10 economists, that's 10 "Nobel Prize Winning Economists". Not just 10 Nobel Prize Winners. Let me ask? How many Nobel Prize Winning Economists endorse the Bush econmic plan?

Did you read the article, Or the one on the Citizens for Tax Justice based on the Congressional CBO report? These aren't wild eyed liberals. They are the ones supplying projections to the Congress of the US.

Steve 'StatMan'
12-10-2005, 10:08 PM
I've skimmed them before, and looked them over a bit again.

That 10 of these economists were Nobel prize winners on something at one time in their lives is a fact, but only a fact. There are lots of good economists, and more economists will win Noble prizes in the future. All kinds of economists and acedmics win awards of all kinds. Fine. Big deal. No guarantee of additional greatness here. I'm sure there are plenty of schools who have all lots of economists on staff, and plenty of them will disagree with one another.

Yes, things will have to be paid for. But first, get and keep the economy moving through the current times. And they have. Then adjustments can be made to reflect any changes. I expect that. Most of this article (and yes, a total of 400 economists including the 10 Nobel winners are planning to sign what they've worked on, I'm sure you can get a bunch of economists to work on a common statement and get a whole bunch of signtatures either way. Big deal again.

The articles main focus is worried about the costs of everything in the future, and is concerned about paying for it now, and complains about tax cuts for the wealthy. A key part of the Secretariat Daily News.

Who else will have the extra money to invest in the jobs and trigger the growth of the econonmy, rather than have the weathy just put that money in the bank or in CDs? Nothing said about that. But I'm sure the intent of the governent's plan is to get the wealthy to invest that money, which will provide jobs for the rest of us so that we can earn some money as well as those making the investment.

The article had a small note criticising the government's plans for the current situaton in the economy, advocating other methods be used to stimulate the current economy. But of course, it gave absolutely no suggestions or details on how that could or should be done. Which means we really don't know if these 10 Nobel Prize winners and 400 economists could do any better job for the current economy.

In other words, reading the article, at least to me, pointed out absolutely nothing that I nor most of us already know:

We all know that the war and things are costly, and somehow will have to be repaid.

There are different schools of thought as to whether freeing up money in the means of tax cuts will stimulate the economy. Extending tax cuts to the middle class will help drive sales. That's good. Some see extending that to those who are much wealthier as either good or bad. Since I think it'll take a lot of investment, those who are wealthy are more likely going to be the ones to open or expand businesses based on financial incentives, and I'm hopeful that that will create jobs for others to earn money.

If the economists helping our current and future goverment's leader see a need to make adjustments to this strategy, I have to trust that that will be effectively analyzed and adjusted.

But a daily diet here of these concerns isn't going to change anything.

And since nothing I read, and nothing we have discussed will change those views, I can't help but feel that I've wasted at least 3-4 hours of my time the last few days, that I could have spent on other things, like handicapping, God and my bankroll could use my efforts, instead of contemplating this stuff and crafting carefully worded responses (well, up until recently - I've tired spending the time I truly don't have over these matters.) So now hopefully you know why I'm not thankful to see these things keep coming up every day when they aren't going to change anything, and the people in charge are much better suited to figure it out than you or I.

To keep bringing it up and blame things on the administration, to me, is just you starting another needless fire.

Frankly, now I understand why people in government, of both parties, often don't seem to care nor take too seriously all what we citizens say and write about them and their policies. They just focus and (hopefully) do their jobs. We just sit back and argue and piss away all our precious time, and get far more upset about it than many of them.

Steve 'StatMan'
12-10-2005, 10:29 PM
By the way, I had a thought, remember you first read me sharing this here (though I may not be the first to consider this):

While the Katrina and Rita disasters have cause huge problems and traumatic, life-altering changes, I'm thinking some stimulating is going to happen, and there could likely be some big economic boosts, although I can't say that it will help all hurt by the damage from the hurricanes.

Imagine for a minute the tens of thousands of homes, offices, restaurants, etc. that will need to be rebuilt.

Now imagine all the building supplies, construction supplies, panelling, carpeting, toilets, appliances, furniture (bedroom, living rooms, electronics) that will be needed, whether people rebuild at their prior NO locations, nearby, or where the relocate.

Companies are going to need to manufacture all those items. There will eventually be a surge in demand for all these replacement items. Additional people will likely need to be hired to build and/or construct all these things. Imagine all the people needed to build those items, and to do the construction work to turn all those items into all those new homes, offices, and restaurants.

The bank I once worked at, Harris Bank, was started back in the 1880's in Chicago (it's been owned since 1984 by the Bank Of Montreal.) The original N.W. Harris started it as an investment company. His investment turned banking company made it's biggest surge that helped make it a hugely successful business was taking the risk and investing in the reconstruction of San Francisco after the big Earthquake that destroyed the town back in 1900's.

There might just a lot of money to be made out there, and a lot of money to go around, and a lot of tax dollars will be earned. Some people may never recover from the tragedy, but the overall economy, and those involved in the future reconstruction, and those in the supply chain, may do very well.

I wouldn't write off the future economy of the U.S. nor would I suggest any totally believe that U.S. national debt will forever be hopelessly managable, just yet. ;)

Or so says me, Steve Miller, the $40,000 a year, 2 job, independent but conservative voting, newspaper handicapper, who has an ancient B.A. degree in math and computers, and has absolutely no reasonable hope of earning a Noble Prize, at least in Economics. ;)

Steve 'StatMan'
12-10-2005, 10:56 PM
No Nobel or Pulitzer Prizes in Literature, Writing, English, etc. for me.

... there might just be a lot of money to be made...
...Hopelessly unmanageable

and make it around 5-5 1/2 hours now...Oh the self-imposed burdens of a perfectionist when he's possessed with something.

Oh well. Still somewhat humble with a sense of humor hopefully.

lsbets
12-11-2005, 02:56 AM
So Sec - are you disputing these two simple facts:

Tax revenues collected by the government have increased since the last round of tax cuts to all time record receipts, and

The percentage of revenues collected from those in the highest tax brackets has increased while the percentage collected from those at the bottom has gone down.

Are you saying that information is untrue? What's the saying? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. The two above statements are indisputable facts. If you are interested in really discussing tax policy, perhaps you should start by acknowledging facts.

Tom
12-11-2005, 12:27 PM
ls.....talk to this. You have a better shot at getting an answer. :D

Secretariat
12-11-2005, 12:52 PM
OK Iz, I'll bite, even though you ignored my post by the 10 Nobel Prize Winners in Economics, and the non-partisan Citizens for Tax Justive report on the CBO projections. So be it. (If you can post those Nobel Prize Winners in Economics who do support the GW economic policy, I would be interested though.)

1. Ok, first your marginal vs effective tax rate. Yes, I know the differnce. my point is the government sets the marginal rate. That is what they control via tax legislation, and in the 50's the marginal tax rates for the upper 1% were at 90% during a Republican adminstration. It was at a point that most American familes had one person working in the household, not two, and it was a point when Business still did business with American workers even though trade unions were very strong.

2. That tax revenue has increased since last round of tax cuts. I'd be interested in your source on this. Got a link. I know the population has increased. You would think if tax revenue vastly increased the deficit would not increase, and there would be no need to make vast cuts in Medicaid. Where is that new tax revenue going? Give me a link.

3 The percentage of revenue collected from those in the highest tax brackets has increased while the percentage collected from those at the bottom has gone down. Give me a link. The CBO report affirms just the opposite in terms of logn term deficits growing based on loss of tax revenue.

4. I'm asking for your substantiation. Forgive me if I don't just accept your word. You say the two are indisputable facts. Well, then there should be no difficulty in backing them up, and you should have no problem in countering the CBO's projected deficit figures. Are you saying that the CBO is not using facts in determing their projections to Congress? That's a pretty serious assertion. Are you saying that these 10 Nobel Prize winning Economists are just out to get GW, that they aren't basing their conclusions on facts? As you say, acknowledging facts is important to beginning any discussion. I've provided links to the CBO report, and to the Nobel prize winners conclusions. Your claim at this point is anecdotal.

Isbets, why do we have these tremendous deficits? Why have poverty figures grown every month GW has been in office? I've responded to your questions. How bout actually answering mine?

lsbets
12-11-2005, 01:24 PM
Sec - the numbers are very easily available. You seem to think spending has nothing to do with the deficit. The reason the deficit has ballooned is simple - spending.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/12/growth_in_feder.html

Now, in the good old days of the 1950s when it was thought to be fair to take 90% of someone's income - what was the effective tax rate? How many people paid 90% and how many found ways to pay a much lower effective rate, taking advantage of the way the tax code was written to allow such transactions, thereby having an undue influence on the direction of investment in our economy?

I'm sorry that you are so uninterested in an honest discussion of taxation that you cannot take the time to look up the basic facts of revenue brought in. One could argue that revenues would have been higher with higher rates, but one cannot argue that revenues are not higher today than they were when the last round of tax cuts was passed. A simple look at the new rates shows how many people in the bottom were removed from the rolls, and how the earned income credit has those at the bottom who pay no taxes receiving a tax rebate.

I'm not saying anything about the CBO or your Nobel Prize winners - I'm saying you don't even speak the language and are trying to have a discussion in it without first learning how to understand it. I would not try to converse in a foreign language without at least having a dictionary handy - I suggest you do the same.

Lefty
12-11-2005, 06:48 PM
sec says: Why have poverty figures grown every month GW has been in office? I've responded to your questions. How bout actually answering mine

__________________________________
sec, i'll bite. Why?

Secretariat
12-12-2005, 12:40 AM
Sec - the numbers are very easily available. You seem to think spending has nothing to do with the deficit. The reason the deficit has ballooned is simple - spending.

Why do you say that i think spending has nothing to do with it? if you look at my post previously in this thread I said "While everyone agrees that while overspending increases deficits, it is also necessary to gather revenue to pay for what has already been spent, and to addess adminstrative policies such as war. Cutting taxes during a war in which the wealthiest garnish the primary benefit is irresponsible and deficit enlarging."



Now, in the good old days of the 1950s when it was thought to be fair to take 90% of someone's income - what was the effective tax rate? How many people paid 90% and how many found ways to pay a much lower effective rate, taking advantage of the way the tax code was written to allow such transactions, thereby having an undue influence on the direction of investment in our economy?

You again harken to the effective tax rate of the 50's in an anecdotal way - no backup. The govt. sets the marginal rates, not the effective rates.


I'm sorry that you are so uninterested in an honest discussion of taxation that you cannot take the time to look up the basic facts of revenue brought in. One could argue that revenues would have been higher with higher rates, but one cannot argue that revenues are not higher today than they were when the last round of tax cuts was passed. A simple look at the new rates shows how many people in the bottom were removed from the rolls, and how the earned income credit has those at the bottom who pay no taxes receiving a tax rebate.

Well, the tax cuts of 2001 did not in fact generate an initial recovery. A business cycle coming out of a recession did occur during late 2003 into 2004, but at what cost. Burgeoning deficits, overseas borrowing, and a shift of tax burden onto states and local muncipalities.

Bloomberg is a fairly neutral reporting service. Here's there take.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=nifea&&sid=aZMH4sOC3OKQ

``I'm very unhappy,'' says Strazzullo, who adds that he wants the city to slash taxes and curtail spending. ``A lot of people in town are under financial stress, and you just can't get a break.''

That lament is being heard all over the U.S. after Bush's 2003 tax cuts as states, counties and cities boost rates to meet the rising cost of government. Mayors, school officials and taxpayers from Virginia to Oregon say the tax burden in the U.S. is shifting from the federal government to states, cities and counties as local taxes are raised and services are cut.

You're simply shifting the burden from the federal govt. to the states. There's no real dollar tax savings. This is why poverty is up and people like Mr. Strazzullo lament, and poverty figures are at record highs, and the minimum wage adjusted for inflation is lower than the 60's. It's morally obscene.

Why else would Warrren Buffet say about the tax cuts?

"Warren Buffett, the world's second-richest person and chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., said in his annual letter to shareholders in March that Bush's tax cuts unfairly favor corporations and the rich."

Why would he do that Isbets? Is he lying to his shareholders?


I'm not saying anything about the CBO or your Nobel Prize winners - I'm saying you don't even speak the language and are trying to have a discussion in it without first learning how to understand it. I would not try to converse in a foreign language without at least having a dictionary handy - I suggest you do the same.

Of course you don't want to say anything about the CBO because they predit a "tripling" of the deficit if these tax cuts are made permanent as pointed out by the Citizens for Tax Justice. I don't blame you for not wanting to say anything about that or the Nobel Prize winners. It doesn't fit into your agenda. Well, I'll take the opinions of the CBO and the Economist Nobel Prize Winners rather than some info from a tax blog.

I have no problem with curtailing spending, just across the board, not just programs that help people. In fact I demand curtailing spending as I'm for a balanced budget amendment, and am heavily anti-deficit spending if you've actually read some of my earlier posts. I have nothing against you, but you like to insult people who disagree with you. I don't know why. Whatever.

Ballooning Deficit spending, inequitable tax legislation which shifts the burden to the states and local muncipalities, overseas borrowing, and beleiving we cut taxation in the middle of the war, is irresponsbile fiscal policy.

I hope tax revenue grows adjusted for inflation and that the deficit actually shrinks, becasue then we all win. I hope that state and local govts. reduce tax loads to make up for the shortfalls as outlined in the Bloomburg article, and that everybody's property taxes go down and no servies are sarcificed. i hope we can win the war on terror while simultaneously not asking wealthy people to pay for it by an increased fiscal comittment.

If you've made it this far read at least two things: 1. The Bloomberg article i posted 2. The CBO report on deficit projections (or read the Citizens for Tax Justice report, an excerpt which i posted earlier in the thread.

You're a supply sider. A beleiver of trickle down. That those cuts to the wealthy spur the economy. I understand that. I beleive in just the opposite. That you give the middle class a decent incentive and they spend, making the wealthy richer. Trickle up if you like. Any tax cut will stir the economy somewhat, but not at the cost of rising federal deficits, and shifting tax loads on state and local govts.

I've written too much. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

lsbets
12-12-2005, 07:50 AM
Okay Sec, since it appears you don't want to acknowledge any truth that runs contrary to the party line, I'll review some of the numbers on tax distribution across the income quintiles:

The lowest quintile pays -1.3% of all federal income taxes, that means 20% of the people get back 1.3% more than what is withheld from their paychecks. The highest quintile pays 86.6% of all federal income taxes. That means the 20% who you probably consider wealthy pay the vast majority of all taxes in this country. The effective tax rate on the top 20% is 14.5%. Their effective tax rate with all federal taxes taken into account is 21% - which, amazingly enough is what the effective tax rate was in your good old days of trying to take 90% of someone's income. You say the effective rate doesn't matter, but that's what people actually pay, so it matters a heck of a lot.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxModel/tmdb/TMTemplate.cfm?Docid=1045&DocTypeID=2

So what have we learned here. Well, you claim that the tax cuts have spurred the deficit, and you post quotes from people who basically say "Bush is bad" but no numbers. I give you numbers showing that last year the federal government collected more in tax revenues than ever before. So - if the taxes brought in are the highest ever (or are you still denying what is really an undeniable truth), how have the tax cuts caused the deficit? Please answer, don't pontificate.

Then you keep insisting that the tax cuts unfairly helped the wealthy. However, the top 20% shoulder practically the entire tax burden in this country. Their effective rate is more than twice that of the next 20%! And, the top 1% pays 25.6% of all federal taxes collected. I would assume that includes Mr. Buffett. The top 1%'s effective tax rate is 29.3%, so even as you move up in that top quintile, you see those at the very top paying a lot more in taxes. The middle class pays an effective rate of about 14-18 percent depending on how you define the middle class. So, the hyper rich are paying about twice the percentage of taxes than the middle class. The facts don't back up your rhetoric. Facts and numbers can be a real bitch when you don't like what they say.

ljb
12-12-2005, 07:47 PM
The neocons goal is to "starve the beast". If you believe this is benificial to you and yours continue supporting their efforts. However don't complain when you end up hungry.

Lefty
12-12-2005, 08:24 PM
lbj, you're just too precious. Bush's poll numbers went up and the Demlibs' comments for the most part, was it was because of the economy not the war.
Tax cuts helped everyone, kept the economy stable after 9-11 and through the hurricanes, tornados and the war. ls bets gave you plain unvarnished facts. Guess that's not what your looking for.

Secretariat
12-12-2005, 09:51 PM
Facts and numbers can be a real bitch when you don't like what they say.

Yes, they can. I'm all for facts. That's why I go to the actual government sources. Below are from the IRS webpage, the Bureau of Office and Management, and the Public Debt Online. For example:

2004 Net Collections were 1738702169 (Total Returns = 224392821)
2004 Debt = 7379052696330.32,
2004 Net Collections/Returns = 7.75

2003 Net Collections were 1650372248 (Total Returns = 222271428)
2003 Debt = 6783231062743.62
2003 Net Collections/Returns = 7.43

2002 Net Collections were 1732715156 (Total Returns = 226609232)
2002 Debt = 6228235965597.16
2002 Net Collections/Returns = 7.64

2001 Net Collections were 1874998696 (Total Returns = 227928906)
2001 Debt = 5807463412200.06
2001 Net Collections/Returns = 8.22

2000 Net Collections were 1900329406 (Total Returns = 226130377)
2000 Debt = 5674178209886.86
2000 Net Collections/Returns = 8.40

Formal Cash Based Deficit
2004 = -412.8 billion
2003 = -374.8 billion
2002 = -157.8 billion

The above figures are unadjusted for the effect of inflation meaning even less net income/return is collected by the government than even shown here, which is pretty remarkable in the drop in collected revenue. But then that is evident with the increase in debt and the deficit to record levels.

Below it looks even worse.

U.S. Treasury Shows Actual 2004 Budget Deficit at $11.1 Trillion according to Gillepsie Research

http://www.gillespieresearch.com/cgi-bin/s/article/id=596

NOW, let's forget history for a minute, and look at the Director of the CBO's letter within the last month to the Chairman of the Ways and Mean Committee.

To Bill Thomas, Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means (11/17/05)

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Based on a review of H.R. 4297, the Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act of 2005...CBO and the Joint Commitee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting this legislation would reduce revenues by 56.1 billion over the 2006-2010 period and by 80.5 billion over the 2006-2015 period. In addtion, the CBO estimates that this legislation would have no effect on federal spending.

...from their graph, estimated revenues by years:

2006 = - 5773 million
2007 = - 11,237 million
2008 = - 11,182 million
2009 = -21, 394 million

Page 2

Most of the reduction in revenues woudl result from extending the TAX CUTS (emphasis added) for dividends and capital gains. Those provisions account for 50.8 billion of the estimated reduction in revenues over the 10 year period.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin
Director, CBO

....I know ...keep living the tax cut pipe dream. It's doing a helluva job. i didn't even post the increase in state, local and property taxes or the affect of inflation.

Isbets, is the Director of the CBO just another lib? And don't give me the crap about spending. We all know that needs reigned in, but the tax cuts have lead to LESS Net Revenue Collected per Return according to the IRS website. Check it out yourself.
.................................................. .................................................. ....

"The liberty of democracy is not safe if we tolerate the growth of private power to the point that it is stronger than the democratic state itself."

FDR, 1938

lsbets
12-12-2005, 10:18 PM
Sec, I would suggest that you research and try to understand what you are posting. I'm up for a good laugh, can we get your Nobel Prize winning explanation of the data you posted? I'll give you 24 hours to complete the homework assignment.

Lefty
12-12-2005, 11:58 PM
Well hell, sec, we'll just raise taxes on them evil corporations. Then they will pass it along to you and me and... Hey!

Lefty
12-13-2005, 12:03 AM
Also the big rich guys like kennedy and soros keep their money in offshore accts where they don"t pay taxes> So you tell me how tax raises ever help anybody>

Lefty
12-13-2005, 12:23 AM
sec, I know you wanna raise taxes even more on the rich, but guys like Ted Kennedy and Geo. Soros keep their money in offshore accts and pay little taxes.
I'm poor, but contrary to your diatribes, every tax raise hurts me and every tax cut helps me. Go figure...

Bobby
12-13-2005, 12:29 AM
"The liberty of democracy is not safe if we tolerate the growth of private power to the point that it is stronger than the democratic state itself."

FDR, 1938

============================

That is the best quote I've heard in a long time. In the last few years, the people have let the politiciians, big companies and their interest take over.

Lefty
12-13-2005, 12:37 AM
bobby, the problem is not that, it's big govt that i fear. You know a govt like the libs want that want to tax us into oblivion. A govt like the libs want that do not want us little pipples to have private ownership of our Social Security.


"We must not let the Government grow stronger than the people, or our democracy will fail."
Chuck Swope 2005

JustRalph
12-13-2005, 07:07 AM
"The liberty of democracy is not safe if we tolerate the growth of private power to the point that it is stronger than the democratic state itself."

FDR, 1938

============================

That is the best quote I've heard in a long time. In the last few years, the people have let the politiciians, big companies and their interest take over.

yep, this from a man who brought you a program to relieve you of 12% of your salary every week. This from a man who is widely regarded as having extended the depression for years. This from a man who sat back and watched as our allies allowed the germans to march all over europe. you can keep your hero.............

ljb
12-13-2005, 07:30 AM
bobby, the problem is not that, it's big govt that i fear. You know a govt like the libs want that want to tax us into oblivion. A govt like the libs want that do not want us little pipples to have private ownership of our Social Security.


"We must not let the Government grow stronger than the people, or our democracy will fail."
Chuck Swope 2005
Lefty, Your fears are well founded. But alas it may be too late. Big government is here. It is being controlled by corporate interests and the aristocrats but it is in fact here. Witness the deficit spending by the feds and this with most of Bush's war expenses being "off the books". Ouch, this is going to put a damper on your children and grandchildren's well being.

Secretariat
12-13-2005, 08:59 AM
bobby, the problem is not that, it's big govt that i fear. You know a govt like the libs want that want to tax us into oblivion. A govt like the libs want that do not want us little pipples to have private ownership of our Social Security.


"We must not let the Government grow stronger than the people, or our democracy will fail."
Chuck Swope 2005

Well, Lefty, Isbets wants to ignore the CBO's projections, so let me ask you something. Do you realize there are more coprorate lobbyists in Washington DC than ever before? Do you realize thsat they pump money to politicians to accomodate thier wishes? Generally, most people don't have their personal lobbyists on Capital Hill. Hence, it is "one" reason why corporate taxes are almost nil in this country today.

My point Lefty, is the government is almsot entirely swayed or dictated to by the contributions of those who can afford to do so.

So I agree with your statement, and I also agree with FDR's. A paradox? Not at all. See Lefty, the people really running the show are those who pay to get them elected.

As to FDR JR, he is my hero. The Depression began under a Republican adminstration "A chicken in every pot." Herbert Hoover. FDR began the publs works program, fought for minimum wage, began Soc. Security, health and occupational standards.

i'll take him over any Repub President in the 20th century.

lsbets
12-13-2005, 10:21 AM
Sec - what have I ignored? I posted two simple facts that are indisputable but very inconvenient for you - record revenues and 86.6% of taxes collected from the top 20%. Hell, I even said one could argue that revenue would be higher if rates were higher (that argument would be based on certain assumptions that simply don't pan out in the real world, but the argument can be made). But it doesn't change the fact that revnues are at a record high.

JustRalph
12-13-2005, 10:31 AM
began Soc. Security, health and occupational standards.

Like I said. He developed a program that seizes 12% of every American's salary. They take 6% directly from your check and the employer contributes another 6%. The money is out of your control and you get very little of it back.

Example: you make 40k on average for your lifetime. That is about 75 bucks a week more in your paycheck at the 12% rate. take that cash and put it in the bank to the tune of about 3800 bucks a year. Let's say you work 40 years. You average 8% over that time. You end up with over a million bucks when you retire. How many people do you know have collected a million bucks from SS? It is a bad program. It has always been a bad program. Now days the politicians rip us off by running the country out of SS funds. It provides a well spring of money for pork and more. This single program has had a profound and terrible impact on our country. I won't argue the OSHA stuff. But, there are problems there too.

Lefty
12-13-2005, 11:48 AM
lbj, sec, I guess we're never going to get past your childlike hope for a perfect socialist utipia. You abhor capitalism so guess you boys are just uneducable. FDR instituted SS as a way to keep dems in power forever and he damn near did it. I want my grandkids to be able to own their SS so the govt can't het their hands on it yet you libs fight it. Shamefully, it's about FDR's dream, keeping dems in power.
Yes, lbj, govt too big, we need to cut the entitlement prgms. Let's start with food stamps. I see too many people using foodstamps with cellphones strapped to their waists. If they can afford cellphones why can't they afford food
Sec, you rail about the stock mkt not being high enough then you rail against corporations. Gimme a brk.

ljb
12-13-2005, 02:25 PM
Lefty,
I was thinking more along the lines of the corporate welfare in the guise of tax breaks for the price gouging oil companies and the same for the drug companies. And your grandchildren can invest any money they want in the stock market they don't have to let the gubbmnt do it for them. Unless they just use the administration officials who have not been indicted, that might be safe.... nah. :lol:

ljb
12-13-2005, 02:29 PM
Like I said. He developed a program that seizes 12% of every American's salary. They take 6% directly from your check and the employer contributes another 6%. The money is out of your control and you get very little of it back.

Example: you make 40k on average for your lifetime. That is about 75 bucks a week more in your paycheck at the 12% rate. take that cash and put it in the bank to the tune of about 3800 bucks a year. Let's say you work 40 years. You average 8% over that time. You end up with over a million bucks when you retire. How many people do you know have collected a million bucks from SS? It is a bad program. It has always been a bad program. Now days the politicians rip us off by running the country out of SS funds. It provides a well spring of money for pork and more. This single program has had a profound and terrible impact on our country. I won't argue the OSHA stuff. But, there are problems there too.
Yes Ralph, but we can be thankfull the 12 percent only applies to the working class, rich folks play a much smaller percent. FDR musta been a neocon in the making. :lol: But to be serious for a moment, FDR was even a better president then Clinton.

Indulto
12-13-2005, 04:30 PM
Sec,

I’m late to the party as usual, but I finally read something of yours I need to weigh in against. GaryG was right on the mark in challenging your thread-starter. Thankfully, things have evolved along an economic path into one of enlightenment, but mixing religion with economics as well as politics seems to be the height of folly.

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled programming and attitude maladjustment.

Secretariat
12-13-2005, 05:17 PM
Sec - what have I ignored? I posted two simple facts that are indisputable but very inconvenient for you - record revenues and 86.6% of taxes collected from the top 20%. Hell, I even said one could argue that revenue would be higher if rates were higher (that argument would be based on certain assumptions that simply don't pan out in the real world, but the argument can be made). But it doesn't change the fact that revnues are at a record high.

Isbets

It's deceptive and wrong to say that more tax revenue is collected. As I showed from the IRS raw figures, that Net Collections on Tax Revenue are LOWER in 2004 than they were in 2000. Here's the figs.

2004 Net Collections were 1738702169 (Total Returns Filed = 224392821)

2000 Net Collections were 1900329406 (Total Returns Filed = 226130377)


Quite a bit lower - almost 162 billion. And based on Net Collections/Returns filed:

2004 Net Collections/Returns Filed = 7.75

2000 Net Collections/Returns Filed = 8.40

This indicates that LESS money/revenue is being collected by the government at the same time spending is expanding). My figures are from the IRS Webpage, not a right wing tax blog.

In addition the Public Debt has grown about 1.7 trillion dollars under GW.
This is from the Public Debt online.

2004 Debt = 7379052696330.32,

2000 Debt = 5674178209886.86

Also, just from 2002 when GW's first tax cuts were enacted, the Deficit has increased from:

2002 = <-157.8 billion>
2004 = <-412.8 billion>

The above figures are unadjusted for the effect of inflation on all of the above figures which means that less net income/return is collected by the government than even shown here, which is pretty remarkable in the drop in collected revenue

Now more of this folly is projected by the CBO's Director and in their Nov letter to the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, who is a Republican, leading to a "tripling" of the deficit. These aren't left wing web cites, but government web sites. These are the government's OWN statistics, AND the arm of Congress that they use to get economic projections from - the CBO.

These are the results of the Bush Tax Cuts program. You don't cut taxes if you can't get spending under control, and he hasn't. You don't cut revenue, and borrow overseas to make up the difference or you've got this mess.

And Indulto, I beg to differ that you can't mix morality or religion with economics. This is an administration that ran on "values" and it's biggest supporters were Christian churches. Economic policy is not devoid of moral choices, and Christianity is not something that is conveniently used when necesary to preach morality in "non-economic" situations such as right to life issues only. These economic choices are "moral" choices, and borrowing from your children to pay your own bills is not in my mind representative of moral choices of integrity or of Christian values.

And an increase in poverty figures for an administration every month they've been in office is NOT representative of Christian values.

Lefty
12-13-2005, 07:06 PM
lbj, guess you libs will always have your own brand of pseudo economics. You are always harping about jobs but then don't want the companies that provide the jobs to make a profit. ???????????????????????????????I don't know why you can't see that relationship but guess you can't.
Yes, we can all invest in stock mkt without the government but I want some of that money they're taking out by mandate to also be available to us. Truth is, the SS is doomed to go broke if not at leat partially privatised. It's simple mathematics.

Lefty
12-13-2005, 07:10 PM
sec says:And an increase in poverty figures for an administration every month they've been in office is NOT representative of Christian values
_________________________________________________
sec, since GW has spent more on poverty than even Clinton, guess money not the answer.

lsbets
12-13-2005, 07:18 PM
Ah Sec - you have not completed your homework assignment, for it is obvious that you still do not understand the numbers you are posting.

Undeniable fact - revenues collected are at a record high. Sorry you don't like the truth. Fact verified by the same people you get numbers from that you don't understand - the treasury dept.

Now go do your homework before you fail this class.

Secretariat
12-13-2005, 07:41 PM
Ah Sec - you have not completed your homework assignment, for it is obvious that you still do not understand the numbers you are posting.

Undeniable fact - revenues collected are at a record high. Sorry you don't like the truth. Fact verified by the same people you get numbers from that you don't understand - the treasury dept.

Now go do your homework before you fail this class.

lol...obviously, you can't read what I wrote. My data is directly from the IRS website. I've already done my homework, no need to lift it from a right wing tax blog.

There is absolutely nothing inaccurate in what I posted and I'd be willing to bet money on it.

If you can show me anywhere that the statistics I posted from the IRS were inaccurate, I'll mail you a check. And you know what, I'm so sure they're from the site, you don't even have to pay me if you're wrong. How's that?

btw.. still waiting for your response to that CBO report last month...

And since the GW plan has been doing so well for Americans thought you could read a nice AP article while yawning.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051213/ap_on_bi_ge/housing_costs

lsbets
12-13-2005, 08:22 PM
Sec -the chart is from Treasury. Revenues are at an all time high. Go back and check again, I will give you one last chance to redeem yourself before you have to sit in a corner with a dunce hat. And, I didn't say there was anything innacurate in the numbers you put up, I said you don't know what they mean. I stand behind that statement - this is just like when you tried to show me numbers that the city of Austin voted overwhelmingly for Bush - lol. You remember that? That was another time that you stubbornly stood by a position even though you did not understand what you were talking about. Its the same now. There is no contradiction between what the IRS reports and receipts currently being at a record high. I don't dispute the IRS numbers, but they don't change the fact that receipts are at an all time high. Look at the chart again and where it came from, come back and say "Okay you were right" and then move on to your next bull headed rant.

JustRalph
12-13-2005, 08:33 PM
I say this one more time! Corporations don't pay Taxes!
























Customers/Consumers do!





Raise taxes on Corporations and Corporations raise their prices.

Enuff Said! Sec, you still don't get that, do you?

Secretariat
12-13-2005, 09:36 PM
Sec -the chart is from Treasury. Revenues are at an all time high. Go back and check again, I will give you one last chance to redeem yourself before you have to sit in a corner with a dunce hat. And, I didn't say there was anything innacurate in the numbers you put up, I said you don't know what they mean. I stand behind that statement - this is just like when you tried to show me numbers that the city of Austin voted overwhelmingly for Bush - lol. You remember that? That was another time that you stubbornly stood by a position even though you did not understand what you were talking about. Its the same now. There is no contradiction between what the IRS reports and receipts currently being at a record high. I don't dispute the IRS numbers, but they don't change the fact that receipts are at an all time high. Look at the chart again and where it came from, come back and say "Okay you were right" and then move on to your next bull headed rant.

Ok, here we go again. I hope these pixs come through, else i'll put up the link. We'll play your game, despite your refusal to address the CBO letter, oir your refusal to see that the polices of this admin have lead to record breaking deficits, record breaking poverty figures, and a flat market since he's been in office.

Secretariat
12-13-2005, 09:45 PM
I say this one more time! Corporations don't pay Taxes! Enuff Said! Sec, you still don't get that, do you? [/color][/color][/size][/font][/b]

Somebody better tell them then. IRS figs on Net Coillections from Corporations. From IRS Website.

Net collections from Corporate Tax -
2004 - 184769475
2000 - 205272105

As you can see they pay about 21 mil less than in 2000, but they do pay taxes. They might pass them on in their prices, but they do pay them.

lsbets
12-13-2005, 09:51 PM
Sec - did you go back and look at my chart? No you didn't. Reread everything I posted. Go back and read every word and see if you understand any of it. I doubt you do.

Look at the chart again. I referenced two facts - record revenues and 86.6% of taxes paid by the top 20% of earners. You know what cracks me up - on the one hand you reference adjusted for inflation when talking about revenues, but you refuse to mention adjusted for inflation when it comes to the deficit. Why? Because adjusted for inflation its not a record deficit, and that is a bit of information that doesn't fit your agenda. Twist and spin, don't you ever get dizzy?

No Ralph, he doesn't get it.

lsbets
12-13-2005, 10:06 PM
Sec, I'll make this easy for you when you go back and look at the numbers from the treasury dept (the same dept the IRS falls under). Do you know what year it is and how the federall government tracks a year for accounting purposes? Don't pontificate, just answer the simple question what year is it, and then we'll take it from there. You seem to need to be led by the nose to get the right answer.

Secretariat
12-13-2005, 10:49 PM
Isbets,

I'm still waiting for answers from my questions regarding the CBO projections which you choose not to answer. As to what partisan administration Secretary Snow says I could care less. We'll look at the Net Collections for 2005 when everything is in. Currently, the IRS figures reported show that Net Collections for 2004 are LESS than 2000. Hey, I'd be glad to adjust the deficit for inflation if that makes you feel better if you'll adjust collections for inflation. I don't know exactly what the deficit would be in that case, but I imagine the CBO's projection of tripling in 4 years probably gets the record.

I've not time for your games. You simply beleive America is better off today than 4 years ago. I beleive that massive deficits, and increased poverty tells another story.

lsbets
12-13-2005, 11:00 PM
I've not time for your games.

In other words, I was correct in stating that revenues are a record high and that 86.6% of all taxes are paid by the top 20% of earners but you just can't bring yourself to admit it. Again, if you read my actual words I touched on the assertion that collections would be higher if rates were higher, but again you have proven that you have no interest in reading and no interest in understanding. Oh well, you'll be starting a thread in a few days about how poorly the election went in Iraq (if you acknowledge them at all).

Secretariat
12-13-2005, 11:54 PM
Isbets, Isbets, Isbets.....again you misstate my position. Never did I deny the wealthy pay more taxes as percentage. They have since the 16th amendment was ratified in 1913. They paid 8% to 1% - rich to poor. The wealthy paid up to 89% in 1953. The rates have been all over. It is expected the rich would pay more. It is (anbd always has been) a progressive tax system and was set up as such. The question is "what" percentage is an optimal percentage for the health of the US. You beleive lower taxes on the wealthy help because they spur the economy and create investment in the country which trickles down to everyone in mroe jobs, better wages, etc. I just don't agree with that. While I agree that cutting taxes has the potential to spur investment, it doesn't necessarily follow that occurs. And the cost of those tax cuts mean (a) higher deficits unless spending is reigned in (which it hasn't been, and 150 billion is now earmarked again for next year in Iraq via supplemental, and discretionary spending is growing as well as the debt and overseas borrowing). In other words revenue collected is down through 2004 compared to 2000 as the IRS figures show. Now, Snow reports revenue is up in 2005 (of course this does not include the costs of increased expenditures of borrowing to pay for the deficit), but we'll see what is actually collected when the IRS publishes their reports next year.

Now, I don't mind that you didn't respond to the CBO Nov. letter regarding the "tripling" of the deficit. Honestly, i didn't expect yo to. pretty difficult to respond to that and 10 Nobel Prize winning economists, and i've posted a couple of President Bush's old teachers at Yale. But more important, there is a very good link from an economist who speaks of the trickel down issue. i doubt you'll read it, but someone on the board might. It pretty much represents the liberal economist's viewpoint versus Snow's rosy predictions. I've also incldued Centrists.orgs response to the GW plan.

http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/dagr8alex/Tax_Cuts_and_the_Recovery.html

http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=21727

http://www.centrists.org/pages/2004/07/31_lemieux_econ.html

Honestly, Isbets, I hope the CBO is wrong, the Nobel Prize winning Economists are wrong, that the Yale Professors are wrong ,that the Centrists are wrong and that GW is right, because if he isn't he's playing Russian Roulette with the future of a lot of people and the future of the country.

lsbets
12-14-2005, 12:12 AM
Whoa! Lets look at what you posted (by accident I'm sure). The welathy (of which I'll assume you mean top 20%) paid 89% in the 50s and they pay 86.6% today. Hmmm - doesn't sound like they got the sweetheart deal you always harp on. Thanks for proving my point. Next!

Now, one of the original posts from me on this topic, maybe you'll read it this time:

The lowest quintile pays -1.3% of all federal income taxes, that means 20% of the people get back 1.3% more than what is withheld from their paychecks. The highest quintile pays 86.6% of all federal income taxes. That means the 20% who you probably consider wealthy pay the vast majority of all taxes in this country. The effective tax rate on the top 20% is 14.5%. Their effective tax rate with all federal taxes taken into account is 21% - which, amazingly enough is what the effective tax rate was in your good old days of trying to take 90% of someone's income. You say the effective rate doesn't matter, but that's what people actually pay, so it matters a heck of a lot.

Where does that say I am in favor of lower taxes on the wealthy? Umm, it doesn't, but your poor reading ability was well established long ago. If you want to know my position, its simple. I'm in favor of lower taxes for everybody - its a question of freedom - the freedom to keep what you earn. I believe in freedom of the individual and I believe in freedom from onerous taxation. I think all income earned below 50K per year should be exempted from taxes and we should have a flat rate with no deductions at all - house, kids, agricultural. As long as we are going to have social security taxes, I think the income cap should be lifted and everyone should be taxed the same percentage on it. Flat across the board - its the only fair way. Zero deductions because any hole will be exploited by an army of lawyers and accountants and the only people who can afford to take advantage of those holes are the ones who can afford to pay the lawyers and accountants. THe current tax system sucks - I've worked with clients making tax advantaged investments and the system is totally unfair. Not a thing illegal about the moves they made, and there are a lot less options for them today than there were six years ago, but there are still plenty of ways for the people who can afford to pay a money manager a 10% fee with a minimum investment of $5 million to buy a loss equal to their income (this is the most aggressive tax strategy). Zero taxes due, 10% fee to the manager. If the IRS comes after them, they have an opinion letter from an attorney stating that the tax issues from the investment are in compliance with the law. The IRS than waves all penalties and interests and will usually settle for 40 cents on the dollar without going to court. That's how the real world of taxes work. If you want to be less agressive, you can take an immediate 100% write off of all your income and realize it as a capital gain at some point in the future.

Lefty
12-14-2005, 01:24 AM
secsays:Well, Lefty, Isbets wants to ignore the CBO's projections, so let me ask you something. Do you realize there are more coprorate lobbyists in Washington DC than ever before? Do you realize thsat they pump money to politicians to accomodate thier wishes? Generally, most people don't have

My point Lefty, is the government is almsot entirely swayed or dictated to by the contributions of those who can afford to do so.
__________________________________________________ __
Not always sec. A lot of lobbies are a bunch of us leettle pipples with a cause.
The NRA comes to mind and i'm sure there are a bunch more. After all, that was the orig intent of lobbies.

Secretariat
12-14-2005, 01:50 AM
Whoa! Lets look at what you posted (by accident I'm sure). The welathy (of which I'll assume you mean top 20%) paid 89% in the 50s and they pay 86.6% today. Hmmm - doesn't sound like they got the sweetheart deal you always harp on. Thanks for proving my point. Next!


Thanks for pointing out my typo, and as you know, the marginal rate was 89% in 1953.

Your arguments sound very much like the ones surrounding the drafting of the 16th amendment, whereby the wealthy paid 8%, and the middle class 1%. But then WW I came along and pushed up the rates. As you know wars are costly. WW II pushed it up more. Korean War, Vietnam War, and now GW has decided to cut taxes in the Iraq War, and we're paying for it with massive deficits.

I understand what you're saying you'd like the tax system to be. Personally, I'd rather see a pay what you beleive in approach. A true democracy of paying what you think our money should be spent on. A referendum on how much should go to Soc. Security, to Defense, to the Iraq War, to Infrastructure, the Environment, Congressional Pay, etc.. There was an amazing experiment locally here, and with people actually putting money in a pot, and when it was counted out the priorities of the people were vastly different than the govt currently spends. I'd trust people to make that determination, and "if in fact it is their money as you say" shouldn't they have the true right in a democracy on how it is spent?

btw..I've always belevied in a balanced budget amendment, and frankly, I think it'd pass in state houses, if you could get it through Congress. To me it is the major issue right now towards restoring fiscal sanity. I just don't beleive that reducing existing revenue coming into the govt., and tripling the deficit, as the CBO projects, is the way toward fiscal sanity. And again, I'll say it, that includes spending cuts as well if you don't increase revenues, but that would also means across the board spending - not selected entitlement programs, particulary preserving the Soc. Security promise which has had it's money raided. That would be a violation of a contract made to generations of people who've contributed based on the govt.'s promises, not just those collecting at present. If we are not going to signficantly retrieve more tax dollars (which i think we need to do if we want to continue the war and to preserve Soc. Sec.), then everything must be cut, and that includes defense.

The above however is not going to happen. What is going to happen is what the non-partisan CBO predicts. Lack of control of federal spending, and reduced revenue creating a tripling of deficits. See, it is not me saying these things, it is the CBO. Please go back and read the Directors letter. It portends the projected future.

Tom
12-14-2005, 10:30 PM
I say this one more time! Corporations don't pay Taxes!

Customers/Consumers do!


Raise taxes on Corporations and Corporations raise their prices.

Enuff Said! Sec, you still don't get that, do you?

Actually, many corporations do not sell retail and are suppliers to larger ones. They cannot raise their prices and are often forced to lower them, depending on how large their corporate cutomer is. Many of these corps are the ones outsourcing jobs and who would be prime candidates for huge tax penalties.

Secretariat
12-15-2005, 04:50 PM
Oh forgot. The Trade Deficit just hit another all time high.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051215/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy_27

Lefty
12-15-2005, 07:22 PM
It's amazing how everyone thiks the economy is great except liberals! Watch Bulls and Bears on Fox onceinawhile, would ya?

Tom
12-15-2005, 08:49 PM
I don't thinkg the economy is so hot. And I think it is heading for a huge fall....HUGE fall. We cannot sustain this trade imbalance.

Did you know that Mexico's larget economic contribitor is the money send home by illegals every year? Not only billions of dollars out of our economy, but the increased tax burden on legitimate business who have to pickup the tab for every single traitorous business that employs illegal felons and take an economic benefit without paying an economic cost.

This whole damn country is out of contrl and our a-hole president is sqarely to blame for it all. Bush is by far, BY FAR the worst POS we have ever had in the WH. He should not be impreached, he should be tried for treason and pay the price.

He is a liar and and a traitor and he has absolutley no redeeming qualtiies.
I cannot understnd how anyone can support this low life.

Lefty
12-15-2005, 09:09 PM
Tom, you are justy flat wrong. All the so called fiancial gurus think the economy doing great. Do you not give this pres credit for the election in Iraq today as well as the last 2 elections? Walter Williams, a conservative economist thinks too much is made of the trade imbalance. I think you just like to praise the pres in one post and tear him dn in another. Of course if Greenspan keeps raising interest rates, he may well kill the economy for a while. It really is time for him to go.
GW a traitor? He's sticking up for this country despite all the whining liberals in congress and in the media. I really don't think you'd be happy no matter who's president. He is now starting to address the borders. It has always been a "sticky wicket, them borders" but nows the time, even the libs realize it.