Score one for the middle class

[jpn of Seattle]

I see the debt went down during the Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford administrations, Republicans all. So, what happened to the GOP in the past few years? Has it changed?

Of course it's changed. Where have you been?

When he was in office, Gerald Ford actually vetoed a tax cut bill because he thought it was fiscally irresponsible! That would never happen today! The fiscally responsible moderates in the GOP are almost all retired or dead. They are not allowed in the party today. Tax cutting has become a religion. Haven't all the GOP candidates signed a pledge not to raise taxes for any reason while in the White House?

My parents used to be Republicans. Dan Evans was an extremely popular governor for Washington State, relected a number of times. He was honest, responsible, reasonable, moderate. And a Republican. Republicans like him are no longer allowed in the party.
Okay, that's a little extreme, but I'm making a point. One of the reasons that people are saying that Huckabee doesn't stand a chance is because he's seen by the GOP establishment as being to moderate on economic issues. He dared to raise taxes as governor in order to balance his state's budget, for example. That cannot be allowed!!!

 

[jpn of Seattle]

The percentage of GDP is the most honest measure of the debt. When we see the percentage going up, that's a sign that the government is overspending.

Exactly.

 

[jpn of Seattle]

Granted. The solution is to cut spending. The opposite of national healthcare money grab. The opposite of blowing money on H2 or Ethanol. The opposite of farmer Ted Turner subsidies. The opposite of government paid for abortions, medical 'research'. Cut the National unEducation Association. Social Insecurity. End giving money to non-producers in our nation.

I'd cut military spending and subsidies for already profitable corporations. And farm subsidies.

Here's something I found that's pretty cool. It's a graphical depiction of the budget: http://www.thebudgetgraph.com/

 

[jpn of Seattle]

Rich people create jobs, products, services and wealth. Everything we have is made by rich people. Every job out there is because of rich people (other than farming I wager).

But why cut the tax? The highest rate used to be 90 percent. Then it was cut to 70. Then 50. Then 28. Then back up to 31, then to 39. Then Bush cut it down to 35. And the economy did fine the whole time. It did especially well during the decade after the high end rate as increased from 31 to 39 percent.

Let's restore the rates back to where they were in the 1990s when our economy did great--at least for the top income earners.

We also need to cut needless subsidies to already profitable corporations.

 

[Dustin]

Rich people create jobs, products, services and wealth. Everything we have is made by rich people. Every job out there is because of rich people (other than farming I wager).

When you tax rich people, you only hurt yourself. In the early 90s, Clinton imposed a Yacht tax. The Yacht tax designed to only harm rich people, devastated the yacht industry leaving thousands of lower and middle class workers unemployed. Who was hurt? Rich or Lower/Middle class? Rich people just bought their Yachts elsewhere.

Here's another. Taxes on the upper class are so high, that now most CEOs are paid in stocks and other benefits. Which of course leads to CEOs having invested interest in stock manipulation. Why do you think Enron, Worldcom and Martha Stewart situations happen? Because we try and tax them, which always hurts us.

Worse, every time we do raise taxes on the rich, something amazing happens, and everyone seems clueless about it. You realize these CEOs and Business owners are.... CEOs and Business owners! So what? Well... let's say you are a business owner and your taxes go up... what do you do? "oh well, my income drops this year..."... uh no... "I'm going to raise my pay!" Yup!

That's right. When taxes go up, the rich people just raise their income. Vote themselves a pay raise. Then you complain because worker wages stay flat, benefits decrease and vacation time is reduced. Hint: every time you tax the rich, you hurt yourself.

Maybe that's true but they had to get their somehow. If you hurt the pooer people then how are they going to become rich?

 

[PLC1]

Point taken. As stated, cut unconstitutional spending, of which both are. Social Insecurity is the net provider of revenue, which indicates just how out of wack our over spending is. The feds have been 'borrowing' from SS since before Reagan. Which is why so many Repugs get so angry when Dems make accusation of robbing SS, when they themselves have been doing it for the last 30 years. (repugs have been doing it too, but you don't see them hypocritically pointing fingers)

I believe it was Johnson who moved the SS fund into the general fund where the greedy little porkbarrelers could get their hands on it, and he could spend it to build his great society. Forty plus years of borrowing from it has left it unable to meet its obligations. Now, we need to cut back spending, move it back out of the general fund, and start paying back those IOUs.

That won't happen any time soon, of course, as the fiscally responsible politicians have all gone the way of the whooping crane.

 

[Andy]

You are so uncaring.

I'd cut military spending and subsidies for already profitable corporations. And farm subsidies.

Here's something I found that's pretty cool. It's a graphical depiction of the budget: http://www.thebudgetgraph.com/

So you would end grants for developing alternative fuels? You would end grants for medical research? You would end low income housing? You would end renewable energy grants and subsidies? You would end money for developing nations that have poor malnourished children? (and on and on and on...)

You cold uncaring elitist!
The point is, everyone talks about cutting money given to corporations, yet every single dollar has people with reasons why it is needed. Like farm subsidies that the repugs eliminated in the late 90s, the dems reenacted in the early 2001+, why... because it helped down home private farmers, like Ted Tuner who is ecstatic over Ethanol subsidies, and we all know how important renewable energy is... right?

You need to make some choices... do you want your government hand outs to end, or do you want your grants and subsidies for the things you think are important.

Finely, as far as military is concerned, that is the one single thing government is supposed to do. Let's cut the things government *isn't* supposed to do first, then we'll talk about cutting the military.

 

[Andy]

Less taxes

Maybe that's true but they had to get their somehow. If you hurt the pooer people then how are they going to become rich?

Look at average CEO pay, and watch tax levels. It's plain to see that as taxes go up, so does CEO pay.

You missed my point... Every tax... hurts the poor. Where did you see me say I want to hurt the poor? I do not. So again 'Every Tax hurts the poor'. Now based on my two statements... what do you think I advocate?

Hmmm... all taxes hurt the poor, and I don't want to hurt the poor...

Maybe I'm in favor of less taxes! What a crazy thought!

Less taxes on the rich, the poor, the middle class, the upper class, the lower class... less taxes on everyone! That's what I'm in favor of.

 

[ilikeboobs]

The AMT is a communist scam. You fill out your taxes and all of a sudden Turbo Tax tells you (on behalf of the oh-so loving government) that hey we don't think you're paying quite enough taxes yet so we're going to penalize you even more.

What a F-ing crock.

 

[Andy]

Taxes again.

But why cut the tax? The highest rate used to be 90 percent. Then it was cut to 70. Then 50. Then 28. Then back up to 31, then to 39. Then Bush cut it down to 35. And the economy did fine the whole time. It did especially well during the decade after the high end rate as increased from 31 to 39 percent.

Let's restore the rates back to where they were in the 1990s when our economy did great--at least for the top income earners.

We also need to cut needless subsidies to already profitable corporations.

First see my post "You are so uncaring." about the subsidies and corporate welfare.

Ok the answer to that is simple. All taxes hurt everyone. The worst thing you can do to a rich person is raise taxes on the poor so they can't afford to buy products rich people produce.

But why cut taxes on the rich? Well what do you think rich people do with money? Only morons think rich people hide $100 dollar bills under their pillow at night. No, rich people invest, spend or bank it.

When a rich person builds a huge house, buys 20 expensive cars, or purchases a private jet... do you not realize the dozens on dozens of people who have jobs because of this?

When you see these young upstart companies... where do you think the money comes from to fund it? I worked for a small company in Ohio that repaired Cell Phones. The only reason it existed and employed 100 people was because of rich people who invested in it's startup.

But I hear you saying, yeah but some rich people just horde it in their bank. Ok yes some do, but what does a bank do with the money? Ever heard of a small business loan? How about the mortgage on your home? Where do you think the bank gets that money from? Rich people who have money in the bank. If the bank declines your loan, sometimes it is because they can't afford it.

So again... all taxes hurt the poor. All do. You want to shoot yourself in the foot? Raise taxes on someone, or anyone. Want to help things? Cut taxes, on anyone and everyone.

 

[Andy]

I believe it was Johnson who moved the SS fund into the general fund where the greedy little porkbarrelers could get their hands on it, and he could spend it to build his great society. Forty plus years of borrowing from it has left it unable to meet its obligations. Now, we need to cut back spending, move it back out of the general fund, and start paying back those IOUs.

That won't happen any time soon, of course, as the fiscally responsible politicians have all gone the way of the whooping crane.

I am less concerned with 'who' or 'what party' did thus and so. Focus more on the larger issue of 'do you want government having your money'. It is amazing to me that people will never say they trust politicians, yet people instinctively are more upset with an oil company making a million on $0.08 a gallon of gas, meanwhile the government makes billions on $0.56 per gallon of gas.

Do you trust government with your retirement? Do you trust lawyers and politicians with your hard earned money? If not, stop voting people in government that promise big government handouts, because in order to hand out, they have to take from you.

Honestly, I can't even blame politicians completely. It's the ignorant American public. The '95 budget battle is proof of American stupidity. Here the repugs shut down the government explicitly over having a balanced budget, and the repugs got shamacked over it. So did the American people really want a balanced budget? No, they wanted their SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Section 8, Public housing, Food stamps, Welfare and on and on....

Just look at the national health care issue. You think that is going to help balance the budget? Of course not. But we have too many people who don't really care about the good of the nation, and just want free stuff from the government.

 

[Andy]

Basics of Budgetting.

Of course it's changed. Where have you been?

When he was in office, Gerald Ford actually vetoed a tax cut bill because he thought it was fiscally irresponsible! That would never happen today! The fiscally responsible moderates in the GOP are almost all retired or dead. They are not allowed in the party today. Tax cutting has become a religion. Haven't all the GOP candidates signed a pledge not to raise taxes for any reason while in the White House?

My parents used to be Republicans. Dan Evans was an extremely popular governor for Washington State, relected a number of times. He was honest, responsible, reasonable, moderate. And a Republican. Republicans like him are no longer allowed in the party.
Okay, that's a little extreme, but I'm making a point. One of the reasons that people are saying that Huckabee doesn't stand a chance is because he's seen by the GOP establishment as being to moderate on economic issues. He dared to raise taxes as governor in order to balance his state's budget, for example. That cannot be allowed!!!

True or False... When Reagan was elected, the top merginal rate was 70%+ and when he left it was 23% and the government revenue was double.

Repugs know something that is lost on most Americans for some odd reason. The principle is this: If you spend more than you earn, you are not fiscally responsible. Note: It does not matter how much you earn. If I earn $400 this week, and spend $500... I am being irresponsible. If I double my income to $800 next week, but spend $900... I am *still* irresponsible.

Government is the same. People like you, and most democrats, keep looking at taxes, the income side, to balance the budget. This is an irresponsible method. You don't go buy a $50k sports car, then go to your job and tell them they have to increase your wage to pay for what you bought.

Point being, it does not make the slightest difference how much is taxed, when the government consistently over spends.

Consider: $2.662 Trillion is how much the government brought in '08.
The Government spent $2.902 Trillion.

Only $717~ Billion went to the constitutional duty to protect the nation. Let's toss in $100 Billion for funding governmental agencies and DOT and such.

So after spending $817 Billion to cover the constitutional duties given to the federal government, they raised $1.845 Trillion extra from taxes. Yet... they managed to spend all of that and $239 Billion more causing a deficit.

So what good is raising taxes when they consistently over spend how much comes in on a yearly basis? In fact give me one logical reason why government needs more of my money anyway? They already covered their constitutionally given duties in the first $817 Billion. Why do they need more? Our nation is going into debt over things the Feds are not supposed to be funding to begin with!

This is why repugs are always hyping tax cuts. They consistently blow our money on a yearly basis. So let's stop giving them our money to blow.

 

[PLC1]

I am less concerned with 'who' or 'what party' did thus and so. Focus more on the larger issue of 'do you want government having your money'. It is amazing to me that people will never say they trust politicians, yet people instinctively are more upset with an oil company making a million on $0.08 a gallon of gas, meanwhile the government makes billions on $0.56 per gallon of gas.

Do you trust government with your retirement? Do you trust lawyers and politicians with your hard earned money? If not, stop voting people in government that promise big government handouts, because in order to hand out, they have to take from you.

Honestly, I can't even blame politicians completely. It's the ignorant American public. The '95 budget battle is proof of American stupidity. Here the repugs shut down the government explicitly over having a balanced budget, and the repugs got shamacked over it. So did the American people really want a balanced budget? No, they wanted their SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Section 8, Public housing, Food stamps, Welfare and on and on....

Just look at the national health care issue. You think that is going to help balance the budget? Of course not. But we have too many people who don't really care about the good of the nation, and just want free stuff from the government.

Do I want the government having my money? Well, they need some of it to maintain the military and provide for the common defense. They need some to secure the border. They need to be able to build highways, bridges, and railroads to promote the general welfare. They don't need to be giving it away, nor do they need to be spending more than I give them.

Stop voting in people who promise big government handouts you say? Just who are the people who are not promising big government handouts to someone? it seems as if the main debate is over who gets those handouts, not over whether the government should be in the business of giving away money.

It's the ignorant American public, you say? Well, there is some evidence for that. No one seems to care about that $30,000 per citizen debt our representatives have run up, nor about the fact that they've mismanaged the social security program to the point that people now paying into the system don't think they'll ever get anything out of it. They may be right, too, if the government keeps giving the funds away to people who haven't earned it and spending it on pet projects.

As for Social Security and Medicare, those programs have been self sustaining for a long time, and don't need to be ended. What needs to be done is to take the funds out of the general fund, and only spend the money that has been collected for what is was intended for, then start paying back all of the IOU's.

Health care is another boondoggle. We spend more than any other nation for our health care. That's just a simple fact. We're the only nation that doesn't have a single payer universal care. That's another fact. Could our government run health care in a fiscally sound way, and keep us solvent? They haven't shown the ability to run anything in a fiscally responsible way to date, yet other country's governments do. It's time to call for an accounting, then fire anyone who can't account for the money they've spent.

 

[Andy]

Another case and point.

Do I want the government having my money? Well, they need some of it to maintain the military and provide for the common defense.

No one seems to care about that $30,000 per citizen debt our representatives have run up, nor about the fact that they've mismanaged the social security program to the point that people now paying into the system don't think they'll ever get anything out of it. They may be right, too, if the government keeps giving the funds away to people who haven't earned it and spending it on pet projects.

As for Social Security and Medicare, those programs have been self sustaining for a long time, and don't need to be ended.

We spend more than any other nation for our health care. That's just a simple fact. We're the only nation that doesn't have a single payer universal care. That's another fact. Could our government run health care in a fiscally sound way, and keep us solvent? They haven't shown the ability to run anything in a fiscally responsible way to date, yet other country's governments do.

Think about what your saying. You admit the government has horribly mismanaged social insecurity, but yet you want them controlling your health care?

You mention government needs some money to cover military and national defense. Great, they can do that with the first $817 Billion (as outlined in my other post). Ok what about the other $1 Trillion the government blew in '07?

Medicare and Medicaid Fraud is hitting over $33 Billion a year.
Medicare lost $23 Billion in payment errors, 12% of Medicares yearly budget.
Medicare loses 14% in just plain mismanagement, roughly $63 Million a day.
Medicare does not pay enough to cover the cost of care, therefore hospitals and doctors charge more to non-medicare patients to recoup the cost of providing care to Medicare patients. (psst that's you. Next time you gag at health insurance, remember this is why)

And Social Insecurity... you don't really want me to go over all the waste, fraud and mismanagement of SS do you? It's the same only worse.

These programs are self-sustaining?... what are you talking about? Social Insecurity has increased taxes 3 times over, and cut benefits in as many times, and will do so again. Medicare has doubled it's payroll taxes while cutting benefits as well. Even now, just Google "Medicare cuts" and dozens of articles come up.

Already there is an issue come up where specific treatments where reimbursement is cut so much, Hospitals are choosing to no longer offer it at all, because they lose to much money doing it. Because of government Medicare, people have lost the ability to get this treatment with, or without, insurance. Now imagine this in a nation wide program!

Finely let's get some facts straight about single-payer health care. First, no we are not the only nation without it. Germany for one, but there are several others. So strike that. Second, even if we were, so what? We are the most advanced and wealth nation on this planet, despite being one of the youngest among modern nations. We didn't surpass all the other nations of the world by following their examples. Third, yes we spend more on health care than any other nation... well no joke, we have the best quality health care system in the world. We're better equipped, better served, better doctors, and our system has more medical breakthroughs and advancements than any other nation... So yeah we pay more.

Last of all, other countries do not run the system really well. In case you missed the recent world news, France just passed a law declaring that if you manage to retire, or if you are not working, and are younger than 65, you are cut out of Universal Health care. Roughly 3 Million people have lost all medical insurance. And since there is no private insurance, these people can't get health care insurance even if they have the money for it! This is what you want here?

How about Canada? Canada is facing a shortage of Doctors. Few choose to be a doctor because of crappy pay. Most that do, elect to go into specialized training which pays more, or (get this) go to the US to practice.

I have a deal for you: go to school for 9 years, owe $100K+ in schooling fees, and then work 55 hours a week to earn $75K a year, no vacation or benefits. Sounds good right? Wait... a worker for Ford at the Windsor plant in Canada, at 55 hours a week can earn $130K yearly after completing a free apprenticeship program. In fact drywall workers, carpet installers and automatic transmission rebuilders can earn more than $80,000 annually. (all money amounts in Canadian currency)

So after 9 years of school and $100K in debt, you want to earn less than Bubba Joe carpet installer? One doctor who visited a friend doctor who practices in the US, found that after converting to US dollars, he only made $50K a year... as much as a nurse gets paid.

And this is only one of dozens of issues with Canada's system. I'll spare you the rest, and the issues with UKs system, and other systems around the world.

Now with all due respect... you need to start thinking about this stuff. Do you really want waiting lists here in the US? Do you really want to not have quality health care? You really want the best doctors to go to other nations to practice because we don't pay them? You want to wait 2 months for an MRI because there's only 1 unit that 5 states have to share?

Stop saying 'other people do thus and so' without learning if the system 'other people' are using actually works. Because it really doesn't. And it won't here either.

 

[jpn of Seattle]

True or False... When Reagan was elected, the top merginal rate was 70%+ and when he left it was 23% and the government revenue was double.

False.

It was 28 percent when he (finally) left.

More importantly, tax revenue didn't double in 8 years. Not even close. In fact the only way you can approach that number is to use current dollars, which no serious analyst ever does when comparing dollars across a range of years. You use real dollars--dollars that are adjusted for inflation. That puts everything on the same standard.

However, even using current dollars the increase in revenue only jumps from 599.3 billion to 909.3 billion, or 52 percent. Much of that is inflation. If you use real dollars, the increase is from 1.0774 trillion to 1.2356 trillion, or 15 percent.

15 percent is not exactly double, although "double" is what you often read on dishonest right-wing disinformation web sites or what they say on Fox "news."

Let's compare that performance with the Clinton years. As you'll recall, in 1993 the Democrats pushed through a fairly stiff tax hike on the richest 2 percent of the population. According to you, Andy, this would have a devastating effect on the economy. That's what all the right-wingers predicted too. Not a single Republican voted for it. They all foresaw economic doom and ruination.

From 1993 to 2000, tax revenues jumped from 1.1545 to 2.0255 trillion or 75 percent in current dollars; and from 1.3232 to 2.0255 trillion or 53 percent in real dollars.
source of figures here

So what you claimed, really, is false.

So is what you believe.

You have a choice. Adjust your beliefs to fit the facts, or adjust the facts to fit your beliefs. If you choose the latter, the right wing has a story all laid out for you--it's all because of the tech bubble.

The choice is yours.