Anger is a gift (Happy 3rd Anniversary!)

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Except it hasn't worked that way...

I see what you're saying.

For the benefit of this country, it being run like a business and all, the Republicans should give up their control to get money back into the government by having the Democrats tax us for it. Sometimes I wonder if that's how it works. I mean, the moment a party gets too popular and too smug and spend-y or tax-y they tank and the other side comes in to 'save the day' so to speak.

I don't know. I'm not an expert on politics. I'm just thinking 'out loud'.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Source
Bleh.

This doesn't bother me at all. Based on 2000 data (in terms of income, not all wealth), the wealthiest 5 percent pay 38.4 percent of federal taxes and the wealthiest 1 percent pay 24.8 percent of federal taxes.

If one is going to cut taxes, one must cut the taxes of those that actually pay those taxes.

We can get into a debate on the increase of federal funds that goes along with tax cuts because of increased economic activity. We can get into the amount of wealth controlled by percentage. We can get into the amount of federal services received based on income levels. There are lots of things we can get into on both sides, and they are worthy of debate. I think it is clear where I stand (and no, I am not in the wealthiest 5% of tax payers).

The truly wealthy in this country pay very little in taxes because they do have have taxable income. Taxes, as currently structured, and are penalty on the creation of personal wealth, not a tax on true wealth. That is why I think the entire income tax structure should be scrapped for either a flat tax based on something like Steve Forbes proposals discussed during the 2000 campaign (he got my primary vote in AZ), or a consumption tax which excludes food and services.

This will never happen. True political power is the power to tax, give tax breaks, and control the tax code. And ALL politicians are guilty of wanting that kind of power.

[Gemini Cricket]

Dept. of Homeland Security's Brian J. Doyle is a pedophile.

Ay carumba!

[Alex]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I wonder if that would make the pattern work if we go way way back and eliminate one Roosevelt and one Adams?

You'd also need to eliminate a Harrison and a Johnson. And it probably wouldn't work since prior to 1913 (when the income tax was made legal) the tax structure used to fund the federal government was very different. In the last half of the 19th century a president's policy on inflation was probably just as important as their tax policies (industrialists tend to be anti-inflation while agrarians tend to be pro-inflation). Also over the course of the last century the Democrats and Republicans have essentially swapped sides in the political spectrum (Republicans used to be the "reformers" and "progressives" while Democrats were conservatives).

If you only count two term presidents and throw out matched names then the only presidents to be elected twice and serve two full terms are Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton. If you go all the way back to the beginning of the century then you can add Woodrow Wilson and FDR to the list.

As for the tax cut GC posted to I can't really roll my eyes harder as it is an exercise in stupidity. Why not just headline it "Analysis shows that cut in investment taxes benefits primarily those with lots of investments." Tomorrow they can run an article that covers the controversial topic of how "Increase in candy bar prices disproportionately impacts those who eat candy bars." There are, of course, very important issues* raised by this particular tax cut that are worthy of discussion but the article doesn't mention them.


* Such as "Has this cut created a real increase in tax burden for others" or "Should taxes be cut in a time of increasing governmental spending obligations" or "Even if actually beneficial to the overall economy does it make political sense to pass a tax cut that is so likely to be used as a political tool against you and then reversed."

[Gemini Cricket]

Rangel is right about this issue. Tax cuts for all of Capitol Hill's friends, special interest groups and campaign contributors. Whoo hoo! And yet Social Security is messed up and Medicare is messed up... Not to mention the huge deficit. But let's allow the rich to get richer.

[wendybeth]

I think most people get the ramifications of such a cut- it's not necessary to headline it in any other manner. Obviously the people that have money to invest are going to be the winners in this game- that was the point that the opposition made way back, and they were right. I'm still waiting to see a return on all those freed up dollars that are gonna be reinvested in our economy. It's hard to see over that pile o'deficit, though.

[Alex]

But is it easier to see over the pile of a country approaching (statistically) full employment, good growth in investment markets, and good economic growth in general (particularly compared to most other industrialized nations).

If the last 50 years have shown anything it is that large deficit spending does not seem to correlate to any particular hampering of the economy. I'm still not in favor of massive deficit spending but the fact that a tax cut doesn't reduce a deficit doesn't really bother me.

If we want to get rid of the deficit then the answer that has worked historically (much better than trying to raise taxes) has been to spend less money and get lucky with the economic cycles.

[wendybeth]

Full employment? My, the good folks in the Gulf region and Appalachia will appreciate that. Hell, the people in my town will. Theywill never get an accurate count regarding unemployment simply by counting the people recieving bennies- many people either don't qualify or have had their benefits run out. I wish I could buy into this rosy picture, Alex, but I don't see it from my vantage point. This neo-trickle down economics only works for some, and they aren't letting the money go downhill.

Oh, and don't even get me started on pension plans.

[Alex]

I'm not an advocate of trickle down economics.

However, at the national level (which is the level the President should be primarily concerned with) things are going very well economically.

In the most depressed economies there will be segments that are doing very well and in the most robust economies there will be segments that are doing very poorly. But nationally, unemployment is very low. It is at levels that only 20 years ago were considered below the theoretical minimum threshhold. Yes, there are areas where it is worse, such is the nature of an average. There are also places where it is much better.

There are currently only five states where unemployment is as high as 5.5% (and one of them is Alaska where unemployment is always high due to the seasonal nature of most their industries) which is a number that not so far in the past would have been a miracle economy. Even in the Gulf Coast states unemployment is low for the most part.

Yes there are flaws in the system of calculating unemployment but they tend to cause both under- and over- counting (it doesn't count people who have given up on finding work, but it tends to undercount the self-employed and has a mixed bag when deciding how to count people who were not interested in being in the job market but have been drawn in by an improving economy). While there are certainly pockets of bad, overall the picture is pretty damn good (especially compared to other countries where unemployment figures in Europe are generally two or three times as high; and all members of the EU use essentially the same method of counting as the U.S.)

I think it is easy to make a case that Bush hasn't done much to help the economy but it is hard to make one that he has hurt it, particularly at the local level. Considering that Bush has spent the money regardless of whether he has had the money coming in it is hard to see how another couple billion in investment taxes would have changed much.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Dept. of Homeland Security's Brian J. Doyle is a pedophile. Ay carumba!

I saw that kid on CNN yesterday, testifying before Congress. He's a cutie!


Um, but, er ... well, he's claiming he's the victim of sexual predation by thousands of men - - via the pornographic web-cam site that he himself set up. I don't quite get the victim part of this equation.



(Well, I'm not really angry about this ... but I'm tired of all the weighty stuff in this thread. Let's talk gay sex with underage boys and the politicians who are ensnared by their irresistible wiles!)