Posted on 11/14/2010 11:31:09 AM PST by rabscuttle385
(snip)
...Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican presidential contender in 2008, said he could fathom a short-term extension of all the tax cuts. McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts, saying they disproportionately benefited wealthy Americans and did not rein spending.
"They should be extended until we are out of this recession," McCain said. "At such time we can look at other tax hikes. But when we're in a serious recession I cannot believe that raising taxes is a good thing on anybody."
In fact, the recession officially ended in June 2009, but the recovery has been markedly slow, with unemployment stuck at 9.6 percent, and in danger of sputtering.
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
” Reagan tax cuts led to higher tax revenues. “
Actually they didn’t, and moreover Reagan’s economists never claimed that the tax cuts would result in higher revenues. This is dealt with extensively in Martin Anderson’s memoir ‘Revolution’. Anderson was one of Reagan’s principle economic advisors and helped design and implement the Reagan economic program.
The tax cuts did perform as the Reagan economic team expected: the tax cuts stimulated sufficient economic growth to offset a large portion of the revenue loss that static analysis predicted. Something over 60 cents of each dollar cut was recouped through growth. The sole instance of tax cuts generating enough new revenue ‘to pay for themselves’ was in the case of capital gains tax cuts, which ironically were put into effect by Jimmy Carter. A detailed study of the results of the Reagan tax cuts can be found in Lawrence Lindsey’s ‘The Growth Experiment’. Lindsey’s study validated the actual forecasts of the Reagan economic team, but not the claim that ‘tax cuts led to higher revenues.’ That idea has achieved the status of ‘truth’ largely from being endlessly repeated by talk show hosts, whose idea of economic analysis seems to consist of subtracting the gross tax receipts of 1981 from 1989.
You called me calcow. The noun is cowgirl, got it? Kind of like cowboy. They’ve been in the dictionary for a couple hundred years now, not necessarily having anything to do with cows. My screenname is calcowgirl, as in California. If that is too long for you, drop the cal. Or shall I call you the Cow from Ohio? Since, after all, that is not name calling in your book.
Oh — and your cutesy little name for sickoflibs (i.e. “sick”) ain’t cute either. And what he posts here has nothing to do with the questions that I directed to you but you refused to answer. Do not read anything into my responses, or lack of responses, to him. I have addressed questions to you and taken exception to how YOU addressed me, nothing more.
As to the rest of your denials and deflections, I can only recommend that you do some soul searching and self evaluation. Or have someone else do it who is more honest with you than you are with yourself.
Oh, and as to “adult conversation”, I attempted to have one with you. But you dodged and twisted and would never answer a straight question. Instead of responding, asking for clarification, or simply saying that you disagree, you say that I “misinterpreted” your words. Give me a flippin’ break! And now you whine that I’ve been “hard on you”? Sheesh, lady. Will you not stand up and be accountable for anything???
“Throughout the 1930’s, the mood was much less positive in the country. The government spent and spent and spent prior to the war, but the economy wouldn’t budge”
Government spending during the 30s was far less than most people expect. Prior to WWII, even during the Depression, government spending accounted for just over 10% of GNP. It rose dramatically during WWII to nearly 50% of GNP. And in every year since WII government spending has been around 20%.
Government spending during the Great Depression was ‘large’ only in comparison to what it had been prior to the 1930s, when government’s share of the GNP was maybe 5%-6%. It was much less than it has been every year since the end of WWII, and it is dramatically less than during WWII itself.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/art/fig06.jpg
Dang those are some effective blinders. I'm cutting and pasting from sickoflibs post -- perhaps you missed it:
BTW, Bush's foreign policy was anything but conservative so scratch much of "national defense" off your list.GM bailout, TARP, Bush/Pelosi Stimulus, No Child,.., Medicare Drugs, Ethanol, minimum wage increase (OK that one backfired on democrats), Amnesty.
People need only look at the nation George Bush handed off to figure out what caliber of president he was, and what a despicable man the populace thought would be better.
Bush can write as many CYA books as he likes. His legacy ended on January 20th, 2009.
I think we can safely say that McCain doesn’t like Bush. He did everything he could to neuter him politically for eight years.
Particularly irritating to me, he was most effective at blocking Bush policy when Bush was trying to do the right thing.
I’m not a fan of Bush. I detest John McCain.
It’s one thing to do something because you just plain don’t know better. It’s another to be a craven calculating traitor to our cause.
The forum was much better before they put in the troll-road.
Oh wow. Completely unintentional, but I understand. I'm sorry.
Perhaps in real life we could have a real conversation. I wasn't trying to evade anything, and I'm certainly holding myself accountable for everything I say. (I apologize a lot because I say some pretty stupid stuff!). In addition, I understand that there is no 'anonymity' before a Holy God, and that I am accountable, first and foremost to HIM (and spend time on my knees asking forgiveness).
But I do not apologize for my support for my brother in Christ, President Bush. I do not equate my conservative political views with character, nor do I believe that his doing some things I didn't agree with make him the evil man that some of your friends think he is.
I haven't 'denied' anything here, though I believe what you are referring to as 'deflections' are because I don't keep records of others' posts. I did provide you with a link to support what I said about rabs, though, and you didn't respond to it (nor my question about sickoflibs). So, in that light, you have denied and deflected as well.
Bottom line for me here is that there is no more point to this. You seem to be a decent sort of person other than the fact that you don't seem to have any trouble with sickoflibs' highly unprincipled behavior.
Perhaps some time we can have another conversation about the conservative activism that JimRob supports on this forum. We need to work together, because it's not about you, and it's certainly not about me (accusations notwithstanding).
It's about US - working together to save our country. It's about defeating the Marxist menace in the White House. It's about restoring out beloved Republic. It's about conservatism and all the values that conservatives stand for. FR is a great place to work TOGETHER with fellow conservatives, and to me that's the best thing about the place.
Once again, my apologies for offending you.
You are the calcowbabe :)
I am sure that she will give you a point by point response why all this text above is untrue. Or maybe not.
She might just lecture you on how she is the REAL tea partier and how in comparison we have done nothing. Because it was she that single-handly won the election with her 'Elect Bush again" sign, only she has the right to speak. She knows that the Tea Party is all about Reviving Bush and her.
Yep, lets save this country by pulling together and electing another liberal with a R label as we did before. Let's work with liberals again, that really helped in 2006 and 2008.
I am starting to think someone doesn't like me here.
“unprincipled behavior” , LOL
remember, before the country as a whole wakes up, somebody has to get on the cattlecars for the one way trip to the showers...we need compromisers for that...
Feeeeeeeeeeeeeel the love! ;-)
I am starting to think someone doesn’t like me here.SOL
Feeeeeeeeeeeeeel the love! ;-)
LOL!
Interesting... wish you would explain that further... especially this part: “not the claim that ‘tax cuts led to higher revenues’... “whose idea of economic analysis seems to consist of subtracting the gross tax receipts of 1981 from 1989.”
Something in layman’s terms?
“This “tax the rich” BS is just people acting on their jealousy.”
If it is jealousy when we raise taxes on the rich, what is it when we cut their taxes, as we did in 2001? Is it love? The richest 1% now control more of the nation’s wealth than at any time since the Great Depression. I think we have loved them enough.
I prefer not to personalize matters of national economic policy. The fact is that we face a trillion dollar plus deficit, and the economy is sputtering along at a 2-3% growth rate, which is not enough to cut our massive unemployment rate. Economists seem to agree that it won’t get better without increased consumer spending. Continuing a tax break for those making more than 250k a year is not likely to spur the economy because when you make that much money, the extra you get from a tax break is at least as likely to end up in a bank account (Zurich?), or invested in a stock market (maybe one of the Asian tigers) as it is being spent in America. If we need further tax cuts, let’s cut the payroll taxes, which would benefit middle and lower income earners the most. That money is sorely needed by them in these hard economic times and would very likely be immediately spent and thus injected into our economy, which would be a benefit to us all.
What is it? It's called 'fairness'. There is no reason that some people should be giving a larger percentage of their income to the government than others. A flat tax rate is the only fair income tax rate.
The wealthy already pay a disproportionately large amount of federal income taxes. Maybe instead of stealing more of their income, we should raise all taxes to match the rates that they are paying. It's about time that the freeloading deadbeats that make up the base of the democrat party pay their fair share as well.
I prefer not to personalize matters of national economic policy. The fact is that we face a trillion dollar plus deficit, and the economy is sputtering along at a 2-3% growth rate, which is not enough to cut our massive unemployment rate. Economists seem to agree that it won’t get better without increased consumer spending. Continuing a tax break for those making more than 250k a year is not likely to spur the economy because when you make that much money, the extra you get from a tax break is at least as likely to end up in a bank account (Zurich?), or invested in a stock market (maybe one of the Asian tigers) as it is being spent in America. If we need further tax cuts, let’s cut the payroll taxes, which would benefit middle and lower income earners the most. That money is sorely needed by them in these hard economic times and would very likely be immediately spent and thus injected into our economy, which would be a benefit to us all.
If you want to deal with the trillion-dollar deficit, CUT SPENDING. There is far more than ample money flowing into the government for it to perform its constitutional duties. But it chooses to spend on much more.
The best thing that the government can do to help reduce the unemployment rate is to stop overtaxing and over-regulating the people that do the most hiring. And those people are small businesses, by and large. Your continued clamoring for raising taxes on those entities making over $250,000 a year would do just the opposite - it would raise taxes on the very entities that CAN revive this economy. Why? Because most people earning that kind of money on paper are sole-proprietor businesses, whose gross income is over $250,000. But you conveniently forget that out of that income must come reinvestment in the business to maintain and grow. A plumbing company isn't going to be working long without keeping a running fleet of trucks.
As for payroll taxes (I assume you mean the taxes collected for the social security system), if you want to cut payroll taxes, that's fine. Just be sure to also cut the SS benefits to a figure based solely on what people paid in. If a person and their employer paid only 10,000 into the system, their retirement benefit ought to reflect that. Conversely, if a person had 200,000 confiscated from their income and their employer's coffers for their benefit, their retirement should be proportionately higher as a result.
“. There is no reason that some people should be giving a larger percentage of their income to the government than others. A flat tax rate is the only fair income tax rate.”
I can understand that sentiment. But of course because many, if not most, of the very rich have a substantial amount of “unearned” income (such as dividends, interest, rents, royalties, capital gains, etc...), they oftentimes end up being taxed at a lower rate than ordinary working class people. For example, Warren Buffett is fond of pointing out that he pays a lower percentage of his income in taxes than his secretaries do.
“If you want to deal with the trillion-dollar deficit, CUT SPENDING.”
Fine. Great idea, the best. The thing is, it never happens. First we balance the budget, then pay down the debt, then give ourselves a tax cut to celebrate. That’s how responsible people run a business, or a family budget, and it should be the way we run the government. Until then, if we’re going to spend like maniacs, we have to pay for it.
“Your continued clamoring(?) for raising taxes on those entities making over $250,000 a year would do just the opposite - it would raise taxes on the very entities that CAN revive this economy”
I don’t understand why raising the taxes on a businessman from 35% to 38% would have much, if any, effect on the way he ran his business. Businessmen are motivated primarily by the amount of business coming their way—when it slows down they cut back, when it speeds up, they increase their payroll to meet demand. When I opened my business, the top marginal rate was 50%. Within a few years, it dropped to 28%. This allowed me to put more money in the bank, but it had little effect on the way I ran my business. Far and away the most important thing was how much demand there was for my services.
“As for payroll taxes (I assume you mean the taxes collected for the social security system), if you want to cut payroll taxes, that’s fine. Just be sure to also cut the SS benefits to a figure based solely on what people paid in.”
As you know, the money paid in to Social Security don’t go into a bank account somewhere, waiting for the rainy day when we need it. It’s just treated as revenue by the government, and is spent immediately, to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for interest on our burgeoning debt, for Congressional salaries, etc... and also for social security and Medicare. So it is a bit of a ruse to say that the poor and middle class don’t pay a “fair” amount of income tax when payroll taxes are excluded from that calculation, because payroll taxes are definitely taxes on income that go to the federal government and are spent on everything under the sun. They are income taxes in every way except the way that the government chooses to define them, so as to continue the fiction that these are in fact separate funds.
” ‘I’m in favor of extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone except the top 2% of wage earners.’”
You fell for the liberal bulls***.
The top 2% of wage earners often create the most jobs.
Get off their necks.”
The proposal is to restore the top marginal rate to 38% as it was during the 90’s from its current 35%. During the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, the top marginal rate was between 70% and 92%, but the economy grew quite well. How was that possible?
Ronald Reagan raised taxes during his administration to combat unexpected deficits. Sounds like you fell for the Wall Street bull****.
Dividends and interest are not "unearned income" as you call it - they are the result of investments. Putting ones' money behind a product or idea to help finance its fruition has its rewards - and its failures. The capital gains tax rate is, what, 20% right now? That's above the marginal tax rate paid the majority of the population. It's well above the average rate paid by most people. And all it really does is scrape a toll off the return on investment of people that actually finance the growth of this country. Perhaps all income should be taxed at that same rate. Would that not be fair?
As for Warren Buffett, he says a lot of things. He's fond of his own allegedly low tax rate, and he's also fond of that communist that now sits in the White house. He also thinks that the high-earning folks (other than himself with his 'already-earned-and-protected' wealth) should pay higher taxes. He is free to donate as much of HIS OWN money as he wishes to the government.
Fine. Great idea, the best. The thing is, it never happens. First we balance the budget, then pay down the debt, then give ourselves a tax cut to celebrate. That’s how responsible people run a business, or a family budget, and it should be the way we run the government. Until then, if we’re going to spend like maniacs, we have to pay for it.
No, responsible people don't spend more than they can afford. They don't amass insurmountable debt, with the knowledge that they can get their friends at the fed to run the printing press and just inflate away their spending to spread the costs across the population. Responsible people don't steal money from those that earn it and give it to a bunch of freeloading deadbeats in order to buy their votes. Responsible people don't conspire with acedemia and select industries to declare the air we exhale a pollutant. Responsible people live within their means. The federal government is not responsible. They've reached the limit on how much of the fruit of SOME people's labor they can steal. The difference between spending and income has to be resolved on the spending side.
Besides all that, as was proven by FDR and others, increasing taxes results in an overall reduction in federal revenues.
I don’t understand why raising the taxes on a businessman from 35% to 38% would have much, if any, effect on the way he ran his business. Businessmen are motivated primarily by the amount of business coming their way—when it slows down they cut back, when it speeds up, they increase their payroll to meet demand. When I opened my business, the top marginal rate was 50%. Within a few years, it dropped to 28%. This allowed me to put more money in the bank, but it had little effect on the way I ran my business. Far and away the most important thing was how much demand there was for my services.
A business is in business to make money - make no mistake about this. If they don't make money, they will soon be out of business. The more the government takes from that earned income, the less money can be made, and the less incentive there is to operate a productive business. Why buy the cow, raise it, feed it, house it, and milk it if half the milk is stolen and given away for free?
As you know, the money paid in to Social Security don’t go into a bank account somewhere, waiting for the rainy day when we need it. It’s just treated as revenue by the government, and is spent immediately, to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for interest on our burgeoning debt, for Congressional salaries, etc... and also for social security and Medicare. So it is a bit of a ruse to say that the poor and middle class don’t pay a “fair” amount of income tax when payroll taxes are excluded from that calculation, because payroll taxes are definitely taxes on income that go to the federal government and are spent on everything under the sun. They are income taxes in every way except the way that the government chooses to define them, so as to continue the fiction that these are in fact separate funds.
And as you know, the money paid to Social Security comes with a promise that you will have money paid back to you when you reach a certain age. So whether the money is put in a piggy bank or is used to buy T-bonds is not relevent. What is relevent is that the money has some connection to the person that paid it. So, to the extent that this money WILL be returned to the individual in the form of SS retirement benefits, that money cannot be considered as having been spent on other government projects. It may have been borrowed from the account, but it is not taken. Therefore, payroll (ss) tax is NOT income tax.
That said, what is the tax rate on SS income for a working individual? It is a lot less than 38% which is what you believe that the high earners should be paying. And let's not forget that the high earners pay SS tax on top of that on the first $100K or so of their income. And if they're a business, they also get to pay half of their employee's SS tax as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
