hi, great site! thanks for the info!…

From a conservative blogger:

The WashTimes hightlights several GOP campaigns that are flogging the tax issue hard, and I think this has a pre……

Forget about what he did with congressional pages 10 years ago. If getting screwed by Jim Kolbe is a federal crime, the FBI needs to look into how Kolbe sodomized America with his open-borders immigration stance — he supports “guest workers” and amn…

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

A stunt? Of course. But a brilliant one. To illustrate the joke of border “security,” Raj of the Apprentice — and now a Congressional Republican candidate for Congresss in Pennsylvania — decided he’d “sneak” across the US-Mexican border on an……