Taxman!

posted at 9:37 am on October 13, 2006 by Bryan

The GOP is swimming in a sewer: Foley, a floundering war, a spate of hit-books published to effect the election, a base that no longer trusts it on border security, spending and a few other things make this a nasty-looking mid-term election. But the Democrats have ridden to the rescue, putting tax increases back on the agenda. And the GOP is going to make sure the voters know it:

Republicans grinned from ear to ear last month when the ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, New York Rep. Charles B. Rangel, just about guaranteed tax increases if his party takes over the House after Nov. 7. Asked whether Democrats would consider raising taxes across the whole spectrum of income, Mr. Rangel said, “No question about it.”

Some Republicans say Mr. Rangel and his party will soon regret those words.

The WashTimes hightlights several GOP campaigns that are flogging the tax issue hard, and I think this has a pretty good chance of making a dent in the polls. Charging Democrats with wanting to raise taxes has the benefit of being true, and Republicans can just trot that Rangel quote out to prove it. Doing so might even divide the Democrats over the tax issue if the GOP hits it often enough. And voters ultimately vote their pocketbooks, and as irritated as many of us are at the Republicans, the thought of anti-war Charlie Rangel getting in there and on the one hand defunding the war in Iraq while on the other hand raising my taxes to fund liberal pet causes instead of the war, or better border security or anything else that’s actually useful is downright nauseating.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

They already get enough of my money, thank you very much.

Also, it’s interesting to note the strange silence coming from the dimmy camp regarding taxes and the deficit. Why is it so hard for them to understand that in order to stimulate the economy and lower the deficit, you cut taxes? did ANY of them take economics 101 in college??? They can’t admit that’s true even though it’s slapping them in the face right about now.

pullingmyhairout on October 13, 2006 at 9:43 AM

It’s nice that the Republicans have an argument and an important issue to leverage.

I’m tired, however, of going to the polls to pull the lever for the “lesser of two evils,” because when it’s all said & done, what you’re left with is still evil.

We need drastic measures to shore up our southern border, get these ILLEGAL aliens out of my country and make the Bush tax cuts permanent; then perhaps I’ll consider calling myself a Republican again.

Corky on October 13, 2006 at 9:54 AM

“They already get enough of my money, thank you very much.

Also, it’s interesting to note the strange silence coming from the dimmy camp regarding taxes and the deficit. Why is it so hard for them to understand that in order to stimulate the economy and lower the deficit, you cut taxes? did ANY of them take economics 101 in college??? They can’t admit that’s true even though it’s slapping them in the face right about now. ”

Well in order to follow their agenda and socialize everything they have to raise your taxes, that way they can take your money and use it build abortion clinics and fund groups like CAIR. You don’t see that? sheesh…;)

bentman78 on October 13, 2006 at 9:55 AM

to Corky:
Amen to that.

bentman78 on October 13, 2006 at 9:57 AM

Good – more taxes. How else do you propse paying for the war?

As a Californian, I would gladly pay thousands more in taxes each year for additional roads, better public schooling, and further advancement of social programs for the poor.

Better to tax and spend that not tax and spend.

GregH on October 13, 2006 at 9:58 AM

Greg H, why do you hate the poor and middle classes?

Hoodlumman on October 13, 2006 at 10:02 AM

Good – more taxes. How else do you propse paying for the war?

How about instituting a Moron Tax for people like GregH? We could fully fund the war from the revenues generated in California alone.

fogw on October 13, 2006 at 10:08 AM

Hey Greg H, how about “not tax and not spend”?

maud'dib on October 13, 2006 at 10:09 AM

And voters ultimately vote their pocketbooks, and as irritated as many of us are at the Republicans, the thought of anti-war Charlie Rangel getting in there and on the one hand defunding the war in Iraq while on the other hand raising my taxes to fund liberal pet causes instead of the war, or better border security or anything else that’s actually useful is downright nauseating.

Not enough for me to go to the polls. I will cast my vote for a politician not against another. Gingrich had a great article with issues the GOP could use to win the election and strenghen America. The GOP has sat on their hands, I say make em pay. Taxes shmaxkes I’m single and get reemed anyway. Heck let them win and pass ALOT of pointless legislation. A big tax hike, going to Darfur, etc just puts Dems in a worse position for 2010.

Theworldisnotenough on October 13, 2006 at 10:11 AM

As a Californian, I would gladly pay thousands more in taxes each year for additional roads, better public schooling, and further advancement of social programs for the poor.

What’s stopping you? Write the checks! The government will accept them.

Pablo on October 13, 2006 at 10:15 AM

Greggie Boy,
Are you one of the ones who didn’t take economics in college? Why is it so hard for you to understand that by lowering taxes, it

stimulates

the economy, causes it to grow, therefore increasing tax receipts???

Raising taxes has the opposite effect. It’s all about economics. do some reading and get back with us when you have something intelligent to say.

pullingmyhairout on October 13, 2006 at 10:15 AM

Why is it so hard for them to understand that in order to stimulate the economy and lower the deficit, you cut taxes? did ANY of them take economics 101 in college??? They can’t admit that’s true even though it’s slapping them in the face right about now.

If they admit that, their whole governing philosophy falls apart. Dig:

1) They’d have to admit that people acting on their own produce a better result than does government acting on their behalf.

2) (related) They’d have to completely and finally admit the bankruptcy of Socialism, in which case, what purpose do they serve, and

3) They’d have to admit that Reagan was right about yet another thing. (They’ve almost, kinda sorta, maybe just a little, accepted the fact that he was right about the cold war. At least that’s the impression I got from the media talk around the time that he passed.)

Farmer_Joe on October 13, 2006 at 10:16 AM

You can also write those checks directly to school programs and the NGO’s that provide services for the disadvantaged.

Would you like me to find some addresses you can send your money to?

Pablo on October 13, 2006 at 10:17 AM

New Yorkers should prepare for a double dose. IIRC, a tax hike is high on Spitzer’s agenda, too.

BillLalor on October 13, 2006 at 10:17 AM

GregH I’m with you

The thought of going to war on credit used to be absurd, now it is just par for the course. I give Clinton no credit for the economy of the 90’s, we all know venture capitalists financed it… but for all his faults we did have some money left over to pay down our debt. *shrug*

Theworldisnotenough on October 13, 2006 at 10:17 AM

Dang. I just wrote an entire post that disappeared.

Well, instead of typing it all over again, I’ll just point out that obviously the Dems can’t accept the idea that lower rates leads to greater revenues because that would mean admitting to the wisdom of Ronaldus Magnus.

Farmer_Joe on October 13, 2006 at 10:20 AM

Are you one of the ones who didn’t take economics in college? Why is it so hard for you to understand that by lowering taxes, it stimulates the economy, causes it to grow, therefore increasing tax receipts???

pullingmyhairout, are you suggesting that we’re currently enjoying all time high tax revenues, even with the tax cuts? Why, that’s impossible!

But yet, the Beeb says it’s true. Would the Beeb lie to us?

Pablo on October 13, 2006 at 10:24 AM

I give Clinton no credit for the economy of the 90’s, we all know venture capitalists financed it… but for all his faults we did have some money left over to pay down our debt.

Clinton also had the advantage of the “peace dividend” (Reagan’s legacy) which was financed at the expense of our Armed Forces. If you’re looking for a spending program that Dems don’t mind chopping into, you need look no further than here.

Pablo on October 13, 2006 at 10:30 AM

ONLY a brain falling out liberal mind could willfully ignore the fact that lowering taxes raises Federal income. But then, to whacko liberals, it isn’t about what works, it’s about two specific things for them. First, taking money away from the “evil” rich people and “evil” corporations that in their whacked out minds “don’t deserve it”, and second, having more money to give to people in exchange for their votes, thus keeping them in power.

Liberals are NOT about solving problems and making the nation better, they are about CONTROL, they want to control every aspect of other peoples lives, from what they can and cannot eat, drink, smoke, drive, speak, shoot, and ultimately, THINK.

NRA4Freedom on October 13, 2006 at 10:32 AM

As a Californian, I would gladly pay thousands more in taxes each year for additional roads, better public schooling, and further advancement of social programs for the poor.

GregH on October 13, 2006 at 9:58 AM

Oh how noble of you Greg! We are not worthy to have such selfish selfless hypocrisy generosity in our very midst!

How about this: post a link here showing images of both sides of your cancelled check to the state of CA (with personal info redacted of course), and we’ll see how sincere you really are. Put your money where your big liberal mouth is.

infidel4life on October 13, 2006 at 11:11 AM

year individual tax receipts corp tax receipts

2000 1004 trillion 207 trillion
2001 994 trillion 151
2002 858 148
2003 794 132
2004 809 189
2005 894 227

Source http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/pdf/hist.pdf

These numbers are not adjusted for inflation. So lowering taxes does not raise Federal income. If you include SS numbers, you get back to 2000 revenue rates (again not adjusted for inflation) in 2005, but with all the on budget and off budget finagling, it muddies the water. That and the fact that SS taxes have not been lowered).

honora on October 13, 2006 at 11:12 AM

For some reason my spacing got lost–first column is year, second is individual fed tax revenue, third is corp fed tax revenue. Sorry.

honora on October 13, 2006 at 11:13 AM

As a Californian, I would gladly pay thousands more in taxes each year for additional roads, better public schooling, and further advancement of social programs for the poor.

Better to tax and spend that not tax and spend.

GregH on October 13, 2006 at 9:58 AM

Your words are hollow until you voluntarily pay more taxes than required, which any government entity will willingly accept. If you are so in favor of everybody paying higher taxes, you shouldn’t have to wait until the government forces you to do so – you should lead by example. Until then, you are the worse thing anyone can be in liberal eyes – a hypocrite.

thirteen28 on October 13, 2006 at 11:35 AM

Can that party be more arogantly moronic, or what?

Editor on October 13, 2006 at 11:35 AM

The thought of going to war on credit used to be absurd, now it is just par for the course. I give Clinton no credit for the economy of the 90’s, we all know venture capitalists financed it… but for all his faults we did have some money left over to pay down our debt. *shrug*

Theworldisnotenough on October 13, 2006 at 10:17 AM

Ever heard of WWII? That wasn’t a pay-as-you-go war, I assure you. Not for us, nor for the British (Lend-Lease). It’s been par for the course for a long time.

thirteen28 on October 13, 2006 at 11:41 AM

Since the Revolutionary War, we have always gone to war on credit. Always. We owed the French millions after tossing out the Redcoats. War bonds were a form of credit during both world wars. The notion that we have never until the eeevil Bush regime went to war on credit is loony.

Bryan on October 13, 2006 at 11:46 AM

Since the Revolutionary War, we have always gone to war on credit. Always. We owed the French millions after tossing out the Redcoats. War bonds were a form of credit during both world wars. The notion that we have never until the eeevil Bush regime went to war on credit is loony.

Bryan on October 13, 2006 at 11:46 AM

True, but at no other time in history have we gone to war and cut taxes at the same time.

Strangely enough, I have had no remarks on my post above. Pesky facts.

honora on October 13, 2006 at 11:53 AM

Strangely enough, I have had no remarks on my post above. Pesky facts.

honora on October 13, 2006 at 11:53 AM

Here’s a comment, disguised as a question: In which way are the revenue figures currently trending, up or down?

You must choose, and you must choose wisely.

thirteen28 on October 13, 2006 at 11:59 AM

Here’s a comment, disguised as a question: In which way are the revenue figures currently trending, up or down?

You must choose, and you must choose wisely.

thirteen28 on October 13, 2006 at 11:59 AM

2005 revenue will reach 2000 levels only if you don’t factor in inflation. Stated above: tax decreases increase tax revenues. They haven’t so far.

honora on October 13, 2006 at 12:02 PM

2006, not 2005.

honora on October 13, 2006 at 12:02 PM

2005 revenue will reach 2000 levels only if you don’t factor in inflation. Stated above: tax decreases increase tax revenues. They haven’t so far.

honora on October 13, 2006 at 12:02 PM

You still didn’t answer the question, Barry Sanders (or, if you prefer, insert the name of your preferred, elusive NFL running back year).

The year 2000 has nothing to do with it – the Bush tax cuts had not been enacted then, and he inherited a recession from Clinton, which was exacerbated by the bursting of the stock market bubble and 9/11. There was a first round of tax cuts in 2001, and a second round in 2003.

Now again, I ask you a very simple question: In which way are the revenue figures currently trending, up or down?

No dissertation needed, choose one (up or down) based on the numbers you presented. You can do it.

thirteen28 on October 13, 2006 at 12:08 PM

A few of you already told GregH that it would be nobler to voluntarily donate one’s own money for good causes. I admire the billionaires who’ve been venturing in that direction, and all others…haven’t heard from the Kennedys and Streisands yet – please don’t come back with “oh, they do and give a lot” – I’m looking for most or all of it, without digging into my pockets. Then it will at least sound credible. I will do the same.

Here’s a very telling glimpse into the ‘soul’ of our endearing troll, GregH. If you wish to understand him, you must skim this piece.

Yep, we need to be “nice and understanding” with complete loons, who believe that President Bush caused 9/11/01. Love and peace!

Entelechy on October 13, 2006 at 12:11 PM

Now again, I ask you a very simple question: In which way are the revenue figures currently trending, up or down?

Adjusted for inflation, flat. Not adjusted for inflation, up–for 2 years. If you look at this and deduce that Bush’s tax policy has been a rousing success…. Well, it’s not a big surprise you’re a big fan of his Iraq policy. Talk about diminished expectations. Yikes.

And 2000 is the relevant comparison for the reasons you state.

honora on October 13, 2006 at 12:33 PM

infidel4life asks(?):

How about this: post a link here showing images of both sides of your cancelled check to the state of CA (with personal info redacted of course), and we’ll see how sincere you really are. Put your money where your big liberal mouth is.

I’m not sure what you are insinuating here, nor how to reply. Are you eluding that I don’t favor higher taxes?

And the echo chamber of cries that I should somehow be responsible for footing more than others is ludicrous. If I am not paying more in taxes than is asked of me, somehow I am a hypocrite?

Surely your collective argument can not be that I alone should “put up or shut up”.

GregH on October 13, 2006 at 12:44 PM

Adjusted for inflation, flat. Not adjusted for inflation, up–for 2 years. If you look at this and deduce that Bush’s tax policy has been a rousing success…. Well, it’s not a big surprise you’re a big fan of his Iraq policy. Talk about diminished expectations. Yikes.

And 2000 is the relevant comparison for the reasons you state.

honora on October 13, 2006 at 12:33 PM

On what basis do you say “adjusted for inflation, flat”? In the last three years, individual reciepts have increase a total of 12.5%, while corporate receipts (you know, paid for by evil corporations) have increased 72%. There is no way in hell inflation accounts for all of that – if it did Fed would have raised the prime into double digits.

FY 2000 isn’t relevent. You can’t begin measuring the success of the policy before it was implemented. Bush’s first round of tax cuts passed in 2001 and went into effect beginning in 2002 – two years later. Trying to measure it from before he took office is ludicrous. Do you work for Lancet?

thirteen28 on October 13, 2006 at 12:52 PM

And the echo chamber of cries that I should somehow be responsible for footing more than others is ludicrous. If I am not paying more in taxes than is asked of me, somehow I am a hypocrite?

Surely your collective argument can not be that I alone should “put up or shut up”.

GregH on October 13, 2006 at 12:44 PM

You’re the one calling for everybody else to give up more of what they earn – if you are going to do so, then you should lead by example. No government coercion should be required of you, since this higher taxes are one of your strong beliefs – or are they not?

Actions speak louder than words.

thirteen28 on October 13, 2006 at 12:55 PM

A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF WHY HONORA IS WRONG

2005 revenue will reach 2000 levels only if you don’t factor in inflation. Stated above: tax decreases increase tax revenues. They haven’t so far.

The correct way to state what your data shows, honora, is “tax decreases in the midst of a recession do not necessarily immediately increase tax revenues above that of the previous boom“, which is of course a very benign statement that in no way supports your false conclusion that tax cuts do not increase tax revenues. Perhaps if you read some history and looked at the economic analysis of previous tax cuts this century, you would know that your conclusion is provably false.

The economic boom of the late 90s was still around in 2000. The recession hit in 2001. Bush’s tax cuts were not going to single-handedly prevent or eliminate the recession, which was part of the natural economic cycle: the bust after the boom. Anyone who tries to portray the background noise of the natural economic cycle as proof that tax cuts dont help the economy are either being intentionally misleading, or are simply too stupid to understand the basics of economics.

The question is, did the tax cuts result in a softer recession than we would have otherwise had without them? Did the tax cuts result in a more vigorous recovery than we would have otherwise had? As a result, did the tax cuts boost tax revenues in the long term by growing the tax base, as opposed to shrinking it with higher taxes? These are serious questions, and honora doesnt ask them. All she offers instead is misdirection and obfuscation borne from ignorance and/or deception.

If anyone wants to see real statistics and informed analysis as opposed to the ignorant/deceptive nonsense you’ll get from liberals taking advocacy positions, the best source, as always, is Heritage. Here is a great, recent article full of charts and analysis: http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/bg1975.cfm

The Heritage article points out that the tax rate reductions went into effect in 2003, and this coincides with the strong economic recovery we are enjoying today. The data in the Heritage aricle shows that the tax base has grown significantly since the tax cuts went into effect.

Liberals want to raise revenue for the government by using the power of the government to take a bigger slice of a smaller pie, leaving less for everyone else. Conservatives make the pie bigger, so that even though the government gets a smaller slice, it still gets more pie than it otherwise would have. The most important difference between these two strategies is that there is no question that following the conservative approach results in a lot more pie for everyone else. Of course, “everyone else” is not a factor the liberals give any weight to when they plot to pillage the economy to fund their schemes.

kaltes on October 13, 2006 at 12:56 PM

Greggie Boy said:

As a Californian, I would gladly pay thousands more in taxes each year for additional roads, better public schooling, and further advancement of social programs for the poor.

Then he said:

And the echo chamber of cries that I should somehow be responsible for footing more than others is ludicrous. If I am not paying more in taxes than is asked of me, somehow I am a hypocrite?

Surely your collective argument can not be that I alone should “put up or shut up”.

If you want to pay more, and obviously you do based on your above comments, that’s just fine. But don’t make everyone else do it, too!!

If you are itching to give away your money to the incompetent federal government, then go right ahead. It’s a foolish move. If you really want to help the poor, feed the hungry, improve schools, then the wise choice is to donate your spare cash to local shelters, food pantries and give directly to schools to help them buy textbooks and improve the playgrounds, etc. You know, people donate money to local public schools all the time.

pullingmyhairout on October 13, 2006 at 1:03 PM

GregH, the hypocrisy is that while you are stating that you would be willing to pay more taxes, what you really mean is that you are unwilling to contribute any money to address things you consider to be problems with this country unless everyone else, including everyone who disagrees with you, is also forced to pay along with you, and in many cases those people are forced to pay far more than you.

This attitude is par for the course with liberals, and it is highly offensive to conservatives. Conservatives generally feel that, if you want to do something about a problem, you take action yourself with your own money and maybe you encourage others to follow your example, as opposed to not paying a dime unless and until everyone else in society is forced by the power of government to do the same. I don’t think someone is truly committed to better schools if they are unwilling to put in any effort on their own. Those people are basically saying: “I want this done, and I want everyone else to pay for it!

kaltes on October 13, 2006 at 1:04 PM

thirteen28,
you got to the tax thingy before me. thanks! I ditto that.

Now GregH, have your read up on your basic economics yet? Still waiting to hear from you. Honora managed to prove our point for us. Thanks, Honora.

pullingmyhairout on October 13, 2006 at 1:05 PM

honora,

You would benefit by picking up todays Wall Street Journal. There is an editorial by Lawrence Lindsey, President Bush’s chief economic adviser from 2001 to 2002, which puts your numbers in greater perspective. I’ll give you a tease.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the FY 2002 revenue loss of the first Bush tax cut was $38 billion and $51 billion from the second Bush tax cut — $89 billion in all. This leaves $268 billion of the shortfall to be attributed to the effects of the collapse of the 1990s bubble, the attacks on 9/11, and other economic drags. Swings in economic activity, not discretionary tax changes, drive the great majority of the swings in federal revenues, and were the cause of the deficits of the early part of the decade. Since then, it has been a matter of fiscal “catch-up.”

The data suggest that process of “catch-up” has been far more successful than official estimates thought possible. In August 2003 the non-partisan CBO forecast tax revenue in FY 2006 at $2.276 trillion (which excluded $53 billion of tax relief passed subsequently). That forecast included the effects of the slowdown, a return to more rapid growth, and the 2003 tax cuts. But the data just released showed FY 2006 revenues of $2.407 trillion, $131 billion higher than CBO projected after the tax cuts were accelerated and $624 billion higher than the FY 2003 revenues. For perspective on that $131 billion of extra revenues, the total 2006 revenue loss from all of the president’s tax cuts was only $193 billion.

While economists will argue about how to divide up the extra revenue between the demand-side and supply-side responses, the more interesting question is what would have happened without an aggressive fiscal policy response. In Japan, five years after its bubble burst, tax receipts were still 14% below their peak because the economy was so weak; in the U.S. they are 19% higher than in 2000. Evidence suggests that monetary policy, though helpful, was not the lone cause of the recovery. Consumption spending turned up sharply in the third quarter of 2003, coincident with reduced tax withholding in paychecks. Nearly every important macroeconomic variable, including the unemployment rate, started improving noticeably in the second half of 2003, the first time the full impact of the tax cuts hit the economy. Moreover, consumption spending turned up in advance of the housing boom, whereas in Australia, New Zealand and the U.K. the increase in home prices clearly led an acceleration in consumption growth.

Tman on October 13, 2006 at 1:07 PM

Kaltes wrote:

Anyone who tries to portray the background noise of the natural economic cycle as proof that tax cuts dont help the economy are either being intentionally misleading, or are simply too stupid to understand the basics of economics.

As I said previously, honora, you must choose and you must choose wisely.

thirteen28 on October 13, 2006 at 1:13 PM

As a Californian, I would gladly pay thousands more in taxes each year for additional roads, better public schooling, and further advancement of social programs for the poor.

As an American who lives in the state of Missouri, I too want better infrastructure, schools, and so on. Who doesn’t? Although I believe that is the responsibility of state and local governments, not the national government.

That being said, I do not trust either political party at the state or national level to spend my tax money wisely. They already have quite enough of it. Given them MORE money isn’t the answer until they can demonstrate they are good stewards of what they already have.

Go back to the Constitution and look at what the national government is supposed to be doing. I don’t think sending a Billion dollars to Africa for AIDS relief, pork projects like building a bridge to Nowhere Island in Alaska, or paying dues to the corrupt United Third World Nations are on the list.

We should look at our government’s budget the same way a corporation would. If a corporation isn’t spending its money wisely, smart investors typically don’t say “hey, we’ll get better results if we just give these clowns even more money.” It doesn’t work that way.

Yet, for some reason, some of my state tax money is going to ILLEGAL aliens so they can pay in-state college tuition instead of having to pay out-of-state tuition. That money could be better spent elsewhere, don’t you think?

I did a quick total of my local, state and federal taxes from last year. That money could’ve paid off the balance on my car loan plus over 25% of the principal outstanding on my home mortgage. Instead, I get to see countless examples of how that money is being wasted.

Would I be willing, like GregH, to pay MORE in taxes if it went to a good cause. Maybe. Do I trust these clowns in Washington DC to do good things with it? Absolutely not.

The Republican slogan of “the Democrats are the party of tax and spend!” doesn’t carry much weight for me anymore. As Orwell would say, the pigs have turned into the farmers.

Dave Shay on October 13, 2006 at 1:19 PM

pullingmyhairout – I am quite familiar with your economic policies. Here’s a brief synopsis:

tax cut, tax cut, privatization, trickle down, tax cut, cut in social programs(s), tax cut, neoliberalism, tax cut, subjugation, program reforms, tax cut, defecit, tax cut… and the song plays on…

While I may have missed a few of the finer points, this about sums it up, no?

GregH on October 13, 2006 at 1:20 PM

On what basis do you say “adjusted for inflation, flat”? In the last three years, individual reciepts have increase a total of 12.5%, while corporate receipts (you know, paid for by evil corporations) have increased 72%. There is no way in hell inflation accounts for all of that – if it did Fed would have raised the prime into double digits.

FY 2000 isn’t relevent. You can’t begin measuring the success of the policy before it was implemented. Bush’s first round of tax cuts passed in 2001 and went into effect beginning in 2002 – two years later. Trying to measure it from before he took office is ludicrous. Do you work for Lancet?

thirteen28 on October 13, 2006 at 12:52 PM

You are one obtuse man. Sorry, but it’s true. If I am going to measure the affect of a policy on a variable, regardless of what it is, I need a measure of that variable prior to instituting that policy. For instance, if I go on a diet, and after one year, I weigh 150 pounds, was the diet a success? Well, think hard now, what piece of info do you need to know before you can answer that question?

Or think of it this way. If you use words like increase and decrease, there is a reference point implied, right?

And your math is hard to follow–I repeat, total receipts in the last year where we have data, 2005, are less than the total receipts of 2000, the year before the tax cuts. Jesus H Christ.

honora on October 13, 2006 at 1:28 PM

While I may have missed a few of the finer points, this about sums it up, no?

no, it doesn’t “sum it up.” you are completely wrong. Until you can come up with a logical, reasonable explanation as to why raising taxes is good, then I don’t think I (or anyone else with half a brain) can read your nonsensical rants anyone.

And regurgitating your liberal talking points does not count as an answer.

pullingmyhairout on October 13, 2006 at 1:32 PM

You are one obtuse man. Sorry, but it’s true. If I am going to measure the affect of a policy on a variable, regardless of what it is, I need a measure of that variable prior to instituting that policy. For instance, if I go on a diet, and after one year, I weigh 150 pounds, was the diet a success? Well, think hard now, what piece of info do you need to know before you can answer that question?

You’re weight at the beginning of the diet. Not your weight A YEAR BEFORE STARTING THE DIET.

And your math is hard to follow–I repeat, total receipts in the last year where we have data, 2005, are less than the total receipts of 2000, the year before the tax cuts. Jesus H Christ.

Then obviously math is not your strong suit. The numbers you presented show that, measuring from the beginning of the tax cut, revenues have increased and are currently trending upwards.

Pesky facts.

thirteen28 on October 13, 2006 at 1:33 PM

13/28:

And one more thing: the real way to do this–the way economists do it–is to look at tax revenue per capita. As population rises, revenues will increase, regardless of tax rate. But I don’t want to make your head explode–trust me, it will future deflate the suggested effect of Bush’s tax decrease on tax revenues.

honora on October 13, 2006 at 1:34 PM

oops, your weight, not you’re weight.

thirteen28 on October 13, 2006 at 1:34 PM

13/28:

And one more thing: the real way to do this–the way economists do it–is to look at tax revenue per capita. As population rises, revenues will increase, regardless of tax rate. But I don’t want to make your head explode–trust me, it will future deflate the suggested effect of Bush’s tax decrease on tax revenues.

honora on October 13, 2006 at 1:34 PM

Only if per capita income remains constant or increases. If per capita income decreases at a rate faster than population increases, then that thesis doesn’t necessarily hold.

Now, going back to your diet analogy, just so we’re clear. Let’s say in 2000, you weighed 300 lbs. In late 2001, at 250 lbs, you started a diet – from what point do you measure the effectiveness of the diet?

Simple really.

thirteen28 on October 13, 2006 at 1:38 PM

And your math is hard to follow–I repeat, total receipts in the last year where we have data, 2005, are less than the total receipts of 2000, the year before the tax cuts. Jesus H Christ.

honora on October 13, 2006 at 1:28 PM

Honora, we entered a recession at the end of 2000 (one that Bush inherited, I might add). The tech bubble burst, we had an unprecedented terrorist attack that sent our markets south. It is natural that at the beginning of a recession, tax reciepts will drop. What is significant is the upward, quick recovery we had and the unprecedented market that we are having now – much of it due to Bush’s tax cuts. This fiscal policy softened the landing. There is no denying that. that trend started in 2003, which is when the economy started to feel the positive effects of those cuts. This is all basic economics.
This, in spite of 9/11, a recession, Katrina, rising oil prices, instability in the middle east, etc.
You are a bright person. I know you can figure out a way to understand this without politicizing it.

pullingmyhairout on October 13, 2006 at 1:41 PM

Q: Why don’t greggy and honora get married and go somewhere else and live happily ever after in their socialist utopia?

A: Because we need them to remind us of what they are and represent.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaa, what was that?…the sound of liberal panties in a wad.

tormod on October 13, 2006 at 1:42 PM

honora, you simply don’t get it.

I don’t think you ever will considering you ignore all the people proving how weong you are.

Tman on October 13, 2006 at 1:42 PM

This, in spite of 9/11, a recession, Katrina, rising oil prices, instability in the middle east, etc.
You are a bright person. I know you can figure out a way to understand this without politicizing it.

pullingmyhairout on October 13, 2006 at 1:41 PM

Yes I am, as are you. I need to strive to be a more patient person, but ye gods!! I am not a fan of taxes, but the touching faith in the ability of tax cuts to do all for all is silly. Taxes are one of the fiscal and monetary tools the pres has. And the fact is, economic up and down trends have precious little to do with who is in the White House. (I do get a kick out of how it’s “Clinton’s recession” but not “Clinton’s boom”. How does THAT work? And the “recession” of which you speak, as I suspect you know, was a minor one. (As all have been really for the last couple of decades).

Politicizing is one thing. Making tax cuts a matter of dogma is something else again.

Gotta run pulling. Have a good weekend.

honora on October 13, 2006 at 1:47 PM

honora said:

I am not a fan of taxes, but the touching faith in the ability of tax cuts to do all for all is silly.

This is a straw man argument, no one here is claiming that tax cuts “do all for all”, people are claiming that, as I said, tax cuts make the pie bigger by keeping the money in the hands of the people, who invest it, rather than the government, which wastes it. A bigger pie means more pie for the government, because, for example, 1/3 of a small pie will be less than 1/4 of a bigger, faster growing pie. The people, who now have a larger share of a larger pie, are MUCH better off, and that is the point of government: making things better for the people, NOT vice versa.

The only one who has faith here is you, honora. Your argument that irrelevant background noise from economic cycles, measuring from natural peaks to valleys, is proof that tax cuts don’t work, is as faith-based as it is foolish, as demonstrated by your unwillingness to engage in any analysis deeper than of the “the thing speaks for itself” variety.

And the fact is, economic up and down trends have precious little to do with who is in the White House.

I agree, unless you have a White House that is undertaking policies which have a clear effect on the economy, like large tax cuts or hikes, large scale privatization or nationalization, etc. Clinton wasn’t having much impact on the economy because the Republicans controlled Congress and the Republicans prevented Clinton from harming the economy with tax and spend policies.

I do get a kick out of how it’s “Clinton’s recession” but not “Clinton’s boom”. How does THAT work?

You are correct, people can’t have it both ways. Clinton was not the cause of either the boom or the bust, but people here point out that the downturn started as a result of events that happened during Clitnon’s term in order to counter arguments that Bush somehow caused the recession.

And the “recession” of which you speak, as I suspect you know, was a minor one. (As all have been really for the last couple of decades).

Compared to what? The great depression? Maybe. In my view, every recession is a major event, because so much depends on the economy moving forward. This last recession was not seen as a minor thing at all when people were actually in it, it can only be seen that way now as a result of the strong recovery which followed, and which we are still enjoying, in part thanks to Bush’s tax cuts.

I will never argue that the tax cuts single-handedly did anything, but the tax cuts provided a BOOST that resulted in a recession that was less painful, ended sooner, and a recovery that was stronger than it would have been otherwise. I think these are the most reasonable conclusions to draw given the economic data we have, and given the historical effect of tax cuts.

The main problem liberals have, is that they want money NOW for their programs, they are not willing to make an investment in America by cutting taxes and reaping the benefits of a bigger pie several years later.

kaltes on October 13, 2006 at 2:14 PM

A bigger pie means more pie for the government, because, for example, 1/3 of a small pie will be less than 1/4 of a bigger, faster growing pie.

Mmmmmm …. forbidden pie.

Sincerely,

Homer Simpson

thirteen28 on October 13, 2006 at 2:29 PM

Next thing you guys are gonna try to say that a store can make more money by selling things cheaper. Buncha damn snake oil, all I’m sayin.

B Moe on October 13, 2006 at 3:05 PM

tax cut, tax cut, privatization, trickle down, tax cut, cut in social programs(s), tax cut, neoliberalism, tax cut, subjugation, program reforms, tax cut, defecit, tax cut… and the song plays on…

While I may have missed a few of the finer points, this about sums it up, no?

GregH on October 13, 2006 at 1:20 PM

Nothing is more subjugating than giving one’s freedoms and money to a government or a dictator to manage.

GregH, I lived in communism for my first 23 years, and here the rest; I’m also a fellow Californian. Counter that wisely.

Entelechy on October 13, 2006 at 3:14 PM

Next thing you guys are gonna try to say that a store can make more money by selling things cheaper. Buncha damn snake oil, all I’m sayin.

B Moe on October 13, 2006 at 3:05 PM

I guess you’re talking about eeeeeeevvvvvviiiiiilllllll Wal Mart. he he he he he

pullingmyhairout on October 13, 2006 at 4:14 PM

The Republicans need to hold their feet to the fire on this one, but frankly I’ll be surprised if they do. Nary a peep from them on the whole Reid mess…nary a peep!

SouthernGent on October 13, 2006 at 4:52 PM

Good – more taxes. I would gladly pay thousands more in taxes each year for additional roads, better public schooling, and further advancement of social programs for the poor.

Better to tax and spend than not tax and spend.

GregH on October 13, 2006 at 9:58 AM

The road to hell is paved with good intentions GregH. While you may be foolish enough to believe that if your wish to pay MORE tax money comes true, and that’s somehow going to make your heart all warm & fuzzy, how about considering the plight of those who are already taxed to the hilt and are barely getting by as it is. While there are endless reasons for people being poor, treating & caring for them like they’re stray dogs is NOT the answer. If you want pets GregH, adopt a cat.

Only a socialist liberal fool would welcome, no, WISH FOR higher taxes. They’re high enough as it is. About 33% of my income goes towards taxes. I work 60 hours a week. That means I slave 20 hours a week to pay my share. I don’t really mind it, I WANT to do my part. But I don’t have to like it and I sure as Hell don’t need anyone praying for it to increase.

How about I go ahead and espouse something that might be a foreign thought to you GregH. The Government should be held to a MUCH higher accountability in how they spend my/our taxes… instead of praying for the priviledge of being forced to pay even more taxes. Oh wait, that would be wrong because in the next 2 years, all your prayers will be answered GregH and your gaggle of liberal blow-hards will save the world with that money. How could I be so selfish?

Don’t count your chickens before they hatch GregH. You may or may not have money to burn, but you’re a fool if you think paying thousands of dollars more each year in taxes will actually pay away your guilty conscience. You can’t buy love GregH. Didn’t your parents teach you that?

I’m with fogw… bring on the moran tax! unbelievable

SilverStar830 on October 13, 2006 at 4:52 PM

Well stated, SilverStar830. Well Stated. Not much else to add to that.

pullingmyhairout on October 13, 2006 at 5:15 PM

I’m not sure what you are insinuating here, nor how to reply. Are you eluding that I don’t favor higher taxes?

GregH on October 13, 2006 at 12:44 PM

First you proclaim your selfless noble intention and when your bluff is called you play dumb. In a way your posting here is beneficial in that every post you make is such an education in liberal hypocrisy.

infidel4life on October 13, 2006 at 6:56 PM