Superbelt

I'll tell you my personal experience with Bush's tax cut.

I make 29,500 a year. I am a renter. I am getting 1.78 a week back in my federal taxes because of bush's tax cut. I am paying an extra 2.75 in local taxes now that came about several months after Bush's tax cut. That extra tax is a direct response to the choke on money Bush put on states.
I have no children, I have no stocks.

2wolves

http://www.gopteamleader.com/

To see the "Action Items" you have to join up. I don't feel like being assimilated.

2Wolves

__________________
Nation of the Cat. Forgive maybe, forget .... not quite yet.

Ustwo

Gee that sucks. As a renter with no stocks,no kids, while I was in school making 15k a year being supported by my wife who made 34k we got back the full 600 from the first tax cut as well as have seen an improvement in our checks (don't recall amount). Maybe the problem is you can't see much of a tax cut when you don't pay very much in Federal taxes eh?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107341,00.html
Any fair tax cut gives more money to the 'rich' because the 'rich' are the ones paying the fucking taxes.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Superbelt

The rich should be the ones paying a greater share of federal taxes as it is the federal government that is ensuring that their income and collection of wealth are safe.

Federal Government is a form of insurance. When you have more to insure, you pay a premium to the insurer.

Ustwo

The top 50% of the wage earners pay 96.78% of the taxes collected.

The top 5% pays 53.25% of ALL taxes. Yes 5% of America pays for over 1/2 the tax.

This is why whines about 'fair share' are really assinine.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

lurkette

This strikes me as totally fair, since the top 5% of America controls 57.4% of the wealth (at least in 1998):

http://tiger.berkeley.edu/sohrab/pol...ealthdist.html

Take a look at the distribution - the top 20% control more than 80% of the wealth. So quitcher whining about "fair."

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

Ustwo

So the rich are paying their fair share then, so why do people whine about 'tax cuts' for the rich. And note I'm using the democrat definition of rich, which is basicly someone with a good job.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Superbelt

Because, first, according to lurketts and your figures, the rich are already paying BELOW their fair share,

Top 5% are paying 53% according to you, when they control 57%, according to lurkette.

So the tax cuts are dropping their already unfairly low share even lower.

Does that seem fair to you?

Superbelt

And what is being dropped, a big part, are the top 5%'s vast assortment of stock portfolios, (taxes dropped entirely after next year) which for many accounts for their entire yearly income. Allowing them to live tax free, while I have to pay my fair share.

silent_jay

i was writing this at two in the morning sorry great one my words got mixed up. your great leader had NOTHING to do with the factories booming. maybe bush should try doing something good for the world and NOT run for re-election.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

lurkette

You might find this site interesting in defining "rich":

<a href="http://www.lcurve.org/">http://www.lcurve.org/</a>

"Some doctors and lawyers and professional people, with incomes of a few hundred thousand dollars may feel "rich". They may have nicer homes and cars, and they may have attitudes that separate them from the masses. But they still must work for a living and are primarily consumers of their earnings. Whether they recognize it or not, they actually have more in common with the people at the bottom than they do with the people in the top 1/2%."

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

Superbelt

My personal definition of the "rich" is someone who doesn't have to, or can stop working today and easily maintain a standard of living for the rest of their lives that is above the norm. The qualifier for the old is if a good portion of their adult life has been that way.

Ustwo

Ahhhh then why do you support people who think of rich as a household income over 60k, and tax them as such?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Superbelt

Maybe because what you said is a fabrication and Democrats do no such thing?

Superbelt

Do you want to address the top 5% skipping out on 4% of their tax burden, while you still define their tax cut within the confines of them paying their fair share?

Superbelt

Also, addessing the real meat of this topic, of Bush "coming through for the working man:

Look at these two charts from the economic policy institute.


The first one shows that Q3 2003 wage increases very low and Q4 2003 wages decreasing. Wage growth is FALLING behind inflation. That is not coming through for the america worker.


Now for job growth. Q4 98 to Q4 2000 we were creating more jobs, and higher paying ones at that.
Q4 2001 to 2003 we are making less jobs than we are losing, and the ones we are making are lower paying than the ones we are losing.

Median income has been falling for two years now.

onetime2

I guess we're back again to the topic of how much does the President control the economy. Since he doesn't, the unemployment rate, poverty rate, and median income have no relevance to the discussion. But alas, some people continue to believe the President reigns supreme and can dictate the course of the economy.

Interesting that many of those same people claiming the Pres can impact the economy point to the tax cut as being the reason the economy grew at such an incredible rate in the 3rd quarter of 2003. Now, if this tax cut only went to the rich, how could it possibly have had such an impact?

Of course people who don't pay much in taxes won't get much relief when it comes to a tax cut.

As far as Bush being a boon to the working man, again, he has no real impact on the economy. The billions of dollars Bush has added to government spending is dwarfed by the size of the economy. Increased manufacturing, while slightly impacted by Bush's spending, is due to the perception that demand is increasing due to a strengthening economy.

Everything good that happens isn't because Bush is a genius, just as everything bad that happens isn't because Bush is the anti-christ.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Superbelt

I personally think the President has a very real, indirect effect on our economy.

Policy decisions, both internal and external such as tax cuts and starting wars, and helping america and the companies in its borders feel secure. Keeping the nation financially solvent, paying down our national debt (to me this is the most direct and powerful means a President can effect the economy). His ability to charge up the american population. The willingness of the government to go after companies who cheat the system such as the disregarding of several major corporations moving their accounts offshore.

I think these things, plus many others have a very real effect on the economy.

Or you can believe that what FDR did had no effect on taking us from the worst Depression this country has ever seen to the most powerful nation the world has ever known.

Sparhawk

Here's an editorial from the Post talking about Bush's economic recovery, and what it's done for the working man.

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

rogue49

Actually, what FDR did in the New Deal didn't have direct impact on the economy.
It wasn't until the miltary/industrial complex kicked in for WWII and after that the economy recovered.

Now what it DID impact, was it allowed many people out of work to have jobs that they might not have.
Plus it set up projects such as the Tennessee Valley Project that had overall regional infrastructure improvement
that increased the economic potential for that area over the long term.
And it setup protectionary standards, entities and programs that would protect the average person on down
and the local economies from corporate abuses, economic downturns, and personal crisises.

WWII was the rocket. (or at least the catalyst)
FDR's programs were the parachute afterwards.

Superbelt

Ok this statistic is directly out of James Carvilles latest book Had Enough

He says he gets his statistic out of the US Department of Labor Statistics

Rate of Job Growth (or loss) by President.

Democrats
5.3 Roosevelt
3.8 Johnson
3.1 Carter
2.5 Truman
2.4 Clinton
2.3 Kennedy

Republicans
2.2 Nixon
2.1 Reagan
1.1 Coolidge
1.1 Ford
0.9 Eisenhower
0.6 G.Bush
-0.7 GWBush
-9.0 Hoover

This is every President since Calvin Coolidge, Eight Republicans, Six Democrats.
Every Democrat presided over greater job growth than every Republican. Ability or Coincidence. Who knows, but those are some pretty steep odds.

Sparhawk

Is that % increase or decrease, Superbelt?

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

Superbelt

percent increase... for everyone but Dubya and Hoover.

shakran

1) "factory activity" does not necessarilly mean "lots of jobs were created." It could, and probably does, mean that factories are producing more with fewer people than in the past. Meanwhile, Bush wants to cut the workers' overtime pay. Comes through for the working man my foot.

2) Cutting taxes while increasing spending to gargantuan proportions WILL stimulate the economy, but ONLY in the short term. It is not sustainable. That extra 4 or 5 grand in your pocket won't mean jack when the economy tanks again.
A simple explanation of this is: If you have $10, and you get $1, you now have $11. But if the value of the dollar falls so that your $11 can only buy as much as $9 bought before, you have actually LOST a real dollar, even though you appear to have gained one. Cash in your pocket is meaningless if the economy tanks.

3) Here comes the old "it takes 8 years for presidential policy to have an effect on the economy" - this is the excuse republicans used to claim Clinton didn't turn the economy around at all. Unfortunately, those same republicans had 12 YEARS to try trickledown economics and it didn't help anything. If it takes 8 years for a good economic policy to effect the economy positively, and they had 12 years, then obviously their economic plan isn't a good one.

These same republicans are now crowing that, in less than 4 years, Bush Jr. has boosted the economy, despite the fact that they claimed Clinton couldn't have boosted it in his first 4 years because of the 8 year rule. These arguments are made separately from each other in the hopes that the ignorant masses will fall for it, and in many cases those hopes have been realized.

The real story is very simple. You cannot cut your income while increasing your expenditures without winding up in a worse financial situation than you were before. Who here thinks that reducing their salary while increasing the amount of stuff they buy would result in them getting rich?

2wolves

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3882629/

"The Labor Department is giving employers tips on how to avoid paying overtime to some of the 1.3 million low-income workers who would become eligible under new rules expected to be finalized early this year.

The department's advice comes even as it touts the $895 million in increased wages that it says those workers would be guaranteed from the reforms."

Warms the cockles.

2Wolves

__________________
Nation of the Cat. Forgive maybe, forget .... not quite yet.

Sparhawk

There's something highly Orwellian about the Labor Department giving employers tips on how to avoid paying overtime.

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

onetime2

Yep, I've heard plenty of my neighbors say "You know, I wasn't going to get the bigger house/new car/the DVD player I always wanted, but Clinton/Bush/Carter/whoever has made me feel much safer so I'm gonna splurge".

The things you mention most people take for granted and they do not impact day to day or long-term spending. Americans feel relatively safe, they generally believe that, while not altruistic and certainly out for their themselves/their leaders, corporations are more or less safe investments. These aren't things at the forefront of their economic decisions.

Interest rates, home prices, inflation, jobs, ease of getting credit, consumer confidence, consumer spending etc have far greater impacts than anything you mentioned and are not directly controlled by the President. The President may be able to influence some of them perhaps putting pressure on the Fed to lower interest rates (although Greenspan is pretty good about keeping out of the politics game), inspiring consumer confidence to a minor degree, etc but he has no direct way of impacting these things. He could start a major government jobs initiative but that would only be a short term fix and would simply increasse the debt you rail about.

The President has no way to know what will inspire confidence or what the reaction of the consumer will be to any of his actions. The consumer is unpredictable because he/she has varying needs/desires/fears. What causes consumers to stop spending one year may influence them to spend more the following year. There are far too many influences on the consumer to think any one action can have a predetermined effect on him/her. And, in the end, it's the consumer who determines what the economy does.

Once again, throwing out one or two figures to describe the economy and the relative success or failure of an administration is misleading and in many cases just political finger pointing. How about throwing in the incredible levels of productivity increases for each administration? What do you think that does? More productive workers means fewer workers are required. How about throwing in the trends around women joining the workforce in a major way? What do you think that does to the numbers?

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

onetime2

1. Yep, activity does not mean jobs.
2. First off, the spending does not significantly impact the economy. Look at the size of the economy versus the spending. It's a drop of water in the sea. Second, I don't know where you're getting the 4 or 5k figure but regardless, there's little evidence that there's inflation, so your spending power is not decreasing. Third, which would you feel better about in the face of a tanking economy, having that 4 or 5k you speak of or the government having it? Fourth, can you honestly say that the economy isn't going to tank again if the government just had more money? Of course it's going to tank again and there's not a person alive who can control it.

3. I'm a Republican and I've been saying the Pres has virtually no influence over the economy. Your brethren point to Bush as being the cause of the downturn, does that mean the election of a President retroactively effects the economy? Please. The economy moves in cycles the President simply suffers or prospers at the hand of the economy's performance.

And lastly, why would we want to make the government rich?

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

shakran

Are you forgetting to include the cost of the war?

Quote:

Second, I don't know where you're getting the 4 or 5k figure but regardless, there's little evidence that there's inflation, so your spending power is not decreasing.

the 4 or 5 k figure was mentioned by someone in a post above. I was just using it.

No, there's not much inflation now, but there will be when the economy takes a nosedive.

Quote:

Third, which would you feel better about in the face of a tanking economy, having that 4 or 5k you speak of or the government having it?

Woah, hold on. Sure in your hypothetical situation I'd feel better about me having it. HOWEVER, in the real world I'd rather the government have it if it means that the economy WON'T tank.

Quote:

Fourth, can you honestly say that the economy isn't going to tank again if the government just had more money? Of course it's going to tank again and there's not a person alive who can control it.

Just having more money isn't the only answer - you have to have responsible spending as well. I know that the republican mantra is smaller government, but that's not what they're actually going for. They love to rail on the dems for wanting to spend money on social programs, but when they seize the reigns of power, they cut the social programs but increase the spending on the military.

I'm all for national defense, but Bush has turned it into the Department of War again. This little adventure he's forced us in to in Iraq has cost us a fortune. Then he wants to dick around with Star Wars, which doesn't work even when they cheat on the test. This is not smaller government folks, this is just reallocation of resources. If you insist on paying for all this crap, you gotta have a means to earn enough money to do so.

Quote:

3. I'm a Republican and I've been saying the Pres has virtually no influence over the economy. Your brethren point to Bush as being the cause of the downturn, does that mean the election of a President retroactively effects the economy? Please. The economy moves in cycles the President simply suffers or prospers at the hand of the economy's performance.

No. Sure, the economy was in a standard cyclical downturn when Bush took control, but he's made that downturn much worse. The economy does move in cycles, BUT you can mitigate the downturns if you have intelligent fiscal policy. Bush is not interested in doing that.

Quote:

And lastly, why would we want to make the government rich?

Oh. OK. I guess you're saying you want to stop driving (government pays for the roads) and eating relatively safe food (who do you think inspects the meat you're eating?). I suppose you also want to revert to an anarchic system of vigilante justice, because the government pays for the police too. Hope your house doesn't catch fire, because you don't want to make the government rich so we'll have to kill off all the fire departments.

Live in an area that gets snow in the winter? There's two strikes against driving. The government funds the plowing, but we can't make the government "rich" so we'll just cut the plows as well. Might as well, because we no longer have any roads to plow anyway.

Let's not forget city sewer, trash collection, etc.

In short, if we don't "make the government rich" we'll quickly find ourselves living in one giant craphole. People want all these services but balk at paying for them with taxes. That's absurd.

lurkette

Nitpicky point, but a lot of those services are funded by local governments - property taxes, per-use fees, etc. Granted, local governments do get some funding from state and federal sources that fund some services, but mostly these things are paid for on a local level.

Mostly, what letting the government keep the tax cuts would do is allow them to either increase spending in certain areas, or decrease the deficit, which would be good for the economy at least in the future. It's not a matter of the government being "rich," it's a matter of whether they are using the funds we give them efficiently, effectively, and for priorities that are in line with what the American people want.

Here's an interesting breakdown of U.S. government spending in 2001:

<a href="http://www.antiwarcommittee.org/resources/MNMilSpend2002.pdf">http://www.antiwarcommittee.org/reso...lSpend2002.pdf</a>

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

Superbelt

Whenever I see that kind of graph lurkette, I get so pissed off.
This nations biggest expenditure, is paying for our debt.

Conservatives, think of how much more money this country could one day give back to you, to put into your pocket and your childrens pockets permenantly if our government, like Clinton and the previous republican congress, just stressed a little fiscal discipline.
Our number one priority behind all the basics like defense, and infrastructure should be paying off our national debt. It is crushing us. You don't give "tax cuts" when you have something like that looming over you.

GW is steadily choking us out with his damned tax cuts. What will it take for you guys to get on board? Does our payment of interest alone have to outweight the entirety of the rest of our national budget for everyone to get serious about this? Because that day is going to happen if we don't reverse the course.

Sparhawk

I enjoyed this deficit 30-second tv spot:

Child's Pay

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

onetime2

Not forgetting the cost of war at all. GDP = $10 Trillion that's a mighty big ocean.

In the real world, the government can't guarantee a consistently growing economy, so no, them having money, even with fiscal responsibility, will not keep the economy on track.

How has Bush made the downturn worse? If you are of the opinion that the Pres can and does influence the economy, you have to say that he has made it better since there were three quarters with negative growth rates (two of which were barely negative making this "barely" a recession) and there have since been 8 quarters of growth.

If anything the government should be breaking even not generating a profit or becoming rich. Your assumptions about roads, garbage collection, fire departments, etc are completely misguided. In most cases you're talking state and local taxes versus national taxes. In the case of roads, the government is wholly inefficient when it comes to building and maintaining roads.

Nobody has "balked at paying taxes" I simply "balk" at paying MORE taxes when the current use of our taxes is riddled with fraud, abuse, and unaccountability.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Superbelt

We should be paying more into the federal government because we need to to pay off the deficit as quickly as possible.

onetime2

First off, what makes you think you'd see any of that money back if we magically balanced the budget and paid off all debt?

Second, where do you think that money goes when the government is paying off debt? Got any bonds?

Third, I agree that we need fiscal responsibility. Why don't you call for more efficient use of the funds the federal government has rather than ask for more taxes to be paid by the population? While the masses buy into the "look who's spending what" finger pointing of our politicians they avoid having to make the tough decisions about cutting needless spending, fraud, and sloppy accounting.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

2wolves

Why are you limiting your possible solutions to binary sets? Would it burst the collective intellect of America to roll back the current administrations tax cuts, cut corporate welfare AND control spending? Have someone standup, head of Treasury for example, and be a real hardass about looking more then a quarter or two down the line. A continual gadfly pissing in the soup of whatever party/individual is being the most fugg headed at the moment. The president could stay a step back (they always want to get re-elected) and say "That Bob/Judy/X, kinda crazy but makes some good sense...."

Simple answers are for simple problems.

2Wolves

__________________
Nation of the Cat. Forgive maybe, forget .... not quite yet.

shakran

People love to bash the democrats for wanting to raise taxes. We don't. We want to do whatever is necessary to keep the budget in line and ensure the best economy we can have. That means cutting ridiculous spending and sometimes it means increasing taxes. That's unfortunate, but you gotta do what you gotta do.

Bush, on the other hand, wants to run around cutting taxes (mostly for the more wealthy), increasing spending, and then claiming the budget is fine. He even said once "I don't care about balancing the budget, I just want to create jobs." Combine that with his bragging that he purposely avoids informing himself as to the current news situation, and you have a recipe for disaster.

I also find it hilarious that republicans like to say they don't raise taxes. Well, Bush Jr.'s daddy ran on the "no new taxes" promise, then he raised existing ones rather than create new ones.

Sure the GDP looks good NOW, but as I've said it is NOT sustainable. Our output exceeds our maximum output potential. That can't go on forever, and the longer we wait to do something about it the worse it's gonna hurt when the whole thing breaks.


Uh, if the government pays off debt, they buy back the bonds from the bondholder. Sure, that puts money in my pocket, but it's money I lent to the government in the first place. That's a VERY different story from giving me a refund on money I OWED the government. Paying off bonds is paying off a debt. Cutting taxes is giving expensive presents in a time when the government can't afford to.

Superbelt

We wouldn't see that specific chunk of money back, ever.
That money, our federal deficit interest payments, are needed to shore up Social Security. If we don't, Social Security is in danger of completely collapsing. We are currently on a course towards national bankruptcy.

This country does depend on social security, without it millions would sink into poverty. And as the baby boomers start retiring, it will become more and more important to shore up.

onetime2

Please substantiate the first statement here. It's absolutely dumbfounding. How can our output possibly exceed our "maximum output potential"?

Yes, you lent them money and you were paid interest on it. Without government bonds what are the "safe" investment alternatives that limit risk to investors?

The government does not need more money. They need to be held accountable for the ways they use the money they already get.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

onetime2

Exactly, the government would keep it. That is the opposite of what you alluded to in your first post on what we could do with the debt payments.

As far as social security, it absolutely needs help and the baby boomers will be a huge burden to the system. Now, let's prioritize the current expenditures of the government and put the money where it's needed most. When you learn your expenses will significantly increase in the coming year (say rent goes up) do you expect your current employer to automatically cough up? It would be nice, but we know that doesn't usually happen. You are forced to cut back on going out to dinner, perhaps make due with your current car, give up the name brand products and go with generics. The government continually increases spending and almost never eliminates a program. They simply pass the cost along to the taxpayer. Taxes should not be raised unless all other options have been tried and or exhausted. Tax cuts can help to force that process along. Of course it won't work if the current admin decides later to raise taxes or the next admin repeals the cuts or enacts new taxes.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.