Its funny; but no one will see it.

lorien1973 on October 23, 2006 at 4:51 PM

I need to get my absentee ballot as I won’t have time to vote when acting as a poll watcher for the day.

DannoJyd on October 23, 2006 at 4:54 PM

“Ohh-wee-ohh….”

Nice little Wizard of Oz homage at the end. So that would make Pelosi the Wicked Witch of the West, er Left, eh?

Mancipium on October 23, 2006 at 5:01 PM

Now I know what I’m gonna be when I go to my Halloween Party!

Scary and true, a pencil neck Dem in a blue flannel suit!

Kini on October 23, 2006 at 5:16 PM

Hey, voted today here in Florida.

It’s absolutely non scientific, but for the first day of “early voting”, it sure seemed like there was a large turnout.

And who knows, but at least in my precinct, they didn’t appear to be any kool aid drinkers.

Hopefully, this will be the case across the good ole USA.

Incidentally, I highly recommend voting early. I think it will make the next two weeks of MSM bull shit slightly more palatable.

As Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore once said ” I love the smell of napalm in the morning.”

there it is on October 23, 2006 at 5:22 PM

True, Constantine; but the Dems would just try to outdo them. I’d challenge any Dem candidate to say with a straight face that they’de reduce overall spending.

Mike O on October 23, 2006 at 5:42 PM

The election’s two weeks from tomorrow, when are we going to see these ads broadcast, if ever? Have they actually ran anywhere? If so, where and when?

Indy Mark on October 23, 2006 at 5:52 PM

Constantine, while not codoning the runaway spending of the Bush administration, at least they coupled it with tax cuts. Have you seen the numbers, regarding the massive influx of new revenue as a result of the reduced rates?

The Dems would spend as even more, AND tank the economy with tax INCREASES to appease their ignorant, vindictive base. The average Democrat doesn’t care that tax cuts result in more federal revenue, AND stimulate the economy. They just don’t want ANYBODY else to get a break.

The tragic politics of envy that throttle every capitalist country are why at the start of this country, only landowners had a vote. The founding fathers reasoned that without a stake in something, people would only vote out of spite. Jefferson, right again.

Indy Mark on October 23, 2006 at 6:04 PM

I have an urge to buy every DVD of every Zucker film ever made. But that might be supporting OJ just as much as Zucker.

Savage on October 23, 2006 at 6:44 PM

Agent Smith has found a job with the Democratic Congress. Where is Neo when we need him???

Mallard T. Drake on October 23, 2006 at 6:54 PM

The Republican congress has spent more money than ever!!!

More than Democrats ever could!!

Wait, where did they get all that money, since they CUT TAXES!

Yes, Constantine, today’s Congress spends out of control, and abuses its authority in taking tax money from person A and giving it as an entitlement to person B. But if Democrats had been in power since 1994, they would have done as much (aimed at different pork priorities, but similarly wrong), and would have raised taxes at the same time, or at the least not cut them.

And the current jobless rate, the current record stock markets, the current GDP would all be in the dumper while they did their spending. And don’t go on about Clinton balancing a budget or increasing government surpluses. Half of that is lies, the other half was the Contract with America.

Bottom line, the current bums are indeed wasteful, but don’t pretend the left wouldn’t have been (and won’t be, if put back in power) far, far worse.

Freelancer on October 23, 2006 at 7:43 PM

and would have raised taxes at the same time, or at the least not cut them.

Yep. It’s also worth noting that the deficit would be no smaller, and overall spending would be higher. Nothing like more taxpayer funds to keep stoking the spending bonfire.

Be honest Constatine. The Donkeys and the Elephants are both wasteful. Under GOP control, at least I get to keep more of my dollars.

BacaDog on October 23, 2006 at 8:11 PM

Freelancer, please provide at least one source for one thing you’ve said. Anything. Honestly.

Constantine on October 23, 2006 at 8:25 PM

I’m with Constantine. I was entertained until they threw out the reckless spending comment. Tax and spend vs. cut taxs and spend, I’m all atwitter at the possibilities. Flags Of Our Fathers is playing see it and imagine… a war we can actually pay for, and the people actually have to support in order for the govt. to conduct, imagine that…

Theworldisnotenough on October 23, 2006 at 10:46 PM

Yeah, I’m disappointed that the pubbies have, in recent years, been guilty of massive overspending. I prefer slash and burning wasteful social programs.

That still doesn’t get away from the fact that the donks like using class warfare, and that they want to raise my taxes. Such fun.

It also doesn’t get away from the fact that we’ve run a deficit every year for decades. Most of the time it was done with donk control of Congress. The one time, in recent history, that deficits came significantly close to being wiped out was, coincidentally, when the pubbies regained control of Congress…

Natrium on October 24, 2006 at 3:47 AM

Constantine,

You’re kidding, right? You aren’t aware of a record-breaking ecomony going on under your nose? I apologize, I didn’t think there was a need to cite the obvious. Mea culpa.

Well, that’s kind of a strange way of putting it. Seems like you’re saying “Perhaps they’ve spent too much, but at least there’s less in the treasury because they gave rich folks a tax break.”

Nope, classic liberal error. There is MORE in the treasury because of ACROSS-THE-BOARD tax cuts. Of course you can’t reduce taxes on the poor who PAY NONE to start with, but when you reduce tax rates, liquid financial activity rises, and with greater activity more taxes are collected. It’s all explained in sixth grade language for you as the Laffer curve. check it out some day after you’ve memorized your cue cards.

As for the stock market, 12,116 at today’s Dow Jones close is indeed a record.

And for the jobless rate of 4.6%, the Bureau of Labor Statistics provides all the breakdowns you could hope for.

Now, I won’t bother other folks’ with the math required to show how higher taxes would have screwed the economy. It isn’t very difficult, but to make it so you could follow would be very long-winded. Even then, you and I could probably agree that you would refuse to believe it. Just accept that there is validity to raising government revenues by increasing the flow of money caused by lowering tax rates. Even the paragon of the Democrat party knew this to be true.

Next…

Freelancer on October 24, 2006 at 5:17 AM

Constantine, While still waiting for your answer to the great Bush WMD paradox, in the comments section of the “Googlenuke” story (told ya you couldn’t answer that one), here is actual text (@#%*#! all your links, btw, you’re long winded enough w/o having to chase all your obscure links) from the NY Times from April 5 of this year:

The 92,093,452 taxpayers earning less than $50,000.00, with an avg. adjusted gross income of $19,521.00 received as a result of the Bush tax cuts an average tax cut of $425.00 equaling a percentage change in their average tax bill of (drum roll) -47% …!
AT THE SAME TIME those earning $50,000.00 to $100,000.00 (26,915,091 of ‘em) with avg. AGI of $70,096.00, received an average tax cut of $1,588.00 totalling a percentage change in their average tax bill of -20% (rim shot)

You state that the tax cuts went to “the people who least need them.” The above numbers from the Bush hating NY Times clearly dispute that. Who are you anyway to say who deserves what? The majority of Dems in Congress voted against these tax cuts, which also included a DOUBLING of the child credit. That’s looking out for the working man there, jackasses.

As of October 11, 2006, the deficit has been cut in half 3 years ahead of Bush administration’s 2009 goal and that the FY2006 budget deficit was $248 billion.

This level surpasses by $12 billion President Bush’s original goal of cutting the deficit in half by FY2009 from its FY2004 projected peak of $521 Billion (apparently the source in my admittedly “off the top of my head” figure, which I admit was wrong upon further review), or 4.5 percent of GDP.

MOST TELLING: FY2005 revenues were 14.5 percent higher than the previous year and at $2.153 trillion were the largest in history. This year’s revenues of $2.407 trillion increased 11.8 percent from FY2005 and September 15th’s $71.8 billion in corporate receipts were an all-time high.

You can focus in on my one gaffe about the revenue numbers (hey, I’m an artist, not an economist - thankfully) and ignore all the overwhelming evidence presented here and by Freelancer, above (which I expect), or you can admit that the tax cuts are A GOOD THING for us all.

If you think someone earning 70 grand is rich, then there’s no getting through to you, but c’mon, Constantine, you seem intelligent enough, why the rich bashing? This is a capitalist (well, mixed) economy.

There is a song called “I’d Love To Change The World,” by Ten Years After with the line, “tax the rich, feed the poor, ’til there are no rich no more.” You see, they’re actually mocking the folly of such a stupid idea.

If you still maintain your obstinancy in light of all this overwhelming evidence, I’d suggest checking your Honda or Toyota for an exhaust leak. Sigh.

Indy Mark on October 24, 2006 at 8:57 AM

Hmm, silly me. I just scanned back and decided to check Constantine’s link regarding “a more sensible tax cut”.

Would you believe he actually cited an article by Robert Reich from back in December 2002? I’m going to go ahead and play this game for your amusement…

I’m welcoming myself back to the Prospect by declaring a holiday on the payroll tax. Starting as soon as possible, you’ll be relieved of payroll taxes on the first $20,000 of your annual income. The tax holiday will last two years. Ballpark cost to the government: $700 billion. We’ll pay for it by repealing Bush’s estate tax cut, which will also cost around $700 billion. Are you with me? All we have to do is convince Democrats it’s a smart move and strike fear in the hearts of enough Republicans to get it passed and signed. We’ll start in January when Congress reconvenes.

Ok, fairly normal socialist commentary so far. Keeping our eye on the ball…

Bush has a different plan, of course. His goal is to make his whopping $1.35 trillion tax cut permanent. Republicans love forcing Democrats to vote for or against tax cuts. It puts Democrats into a Republican box. Bush did it last year and it worked. But having lost both houses of Congress, Democrats should have learned their lesson. Avoid the Republican box. Instead, force Republicans into a Democratic box. Make them choose between a payroll tax cut for more than 130 million American working families, worth about $5,000 to each family, or a tax cut for the richest 2 percent of American families, worth millions to each of their do-nothing kids. If Republicans are too dumb to choose a payroll tax cut over an estate tax cut, Democrats should blast them. Use it as ammo for 2004. Make it a central part of the Democratic message. Yell about it on television, radio. Bellow about it from rooftops.

Nice math, Robert. 130 million familes @ $5k per family is $650 billion. The Census Bureau lists 115,904,641 housing units in 2000, so it’s possible that there were 130 million families in 2002, but claiming that many working incomes that could gain $5,000 from a tax reduction on their first $20,000 of income is patently ridiculous. When liberals use the term payroll taxes, they aren’t talking about withheld income taxes, they are talking about Social Security, Medicare, etc. (I’ll prove that in a moment). Since the rate of Soc. Sec. taxes is still under 7%, it’s impossible to get a $5,000 savings by relieving $20,000 of income from that tax. Even if the tax in question were income taxes, it would require that the average household of that 130 million were paying a 25% tax rate. Also ridiculous. The current cumulative tax on taxable income hits 22.5% at $100,000. Is Reich suggesting that those 130 million families all had taxable income over 100k? I doubt it, or he wouldn’t also be able to claim the overwhelming poverty he refers to later in his article.

Everyone hates taxes, but the payroll tax has got to be the worst. Four out of five American workers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. The payroll tax is also regressive as hell — poorer workers pay proportionately more than richer ones. It’s paid out of the very first dollar earned, all the way up to a threshold that’s now roughly $80,000. After that, nothing. (Wealthy earners pay only the tiny Medicare portion of the payroll tax on all their earnings.) So the very rich get finished paying almost all their payroll taxes early in the year. Bill Gates is done a few minutes past midnight, New Year’s Eve.

A lovely trick. First, a reminder that Social Security is supposed to be a savings account for retirement, not a tax; that’s how it was designed, right? Democrats love Social Security, except when they don’t. (Apologies to the junior senator from Mass)

So most workers pay more Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/etc. than they do in income taxes? (There’s the proof of distinction between the two) Of course this is true, because credits, allowances, and exemptions allow most workers to not be taxed on the majority of their income. Tax rate tables are simple. 10% on the first $7,300, 15% on the next $22,400, 25% on the next 42,250, 28% on the next $78,200…up to 35%.

The next statement is also disingenuous. The reason for a ceiling on Social Security “contributions” is to limit how much is paid in, and therefore how much is paid out to retirees. To call this a “benefit” to the rich is simple class warfare.

Reich’s plan is to minimize the payroll tax (which is weighted against the “poor”, so he says), and raise the estate tax. Ah yes, tax what you’ve earned over your lifetime, already paid taxes on at least once, and wish to leave to your children when you die. Let’s go back to Reich’s numbers from the second paragraph. The richest 2 percent of American families, worth millions to each of their do-nothing kids. Ok, 2 percent of the previously cited number of families is 2,318,092. Let’s say each of those families had only one “do-nothing” child, to maximize their benefit. If the $650 billion Reich claims was valid, that would average out to $280 thousand per child, hardly the “millions” he claims, even in light of the fact that the claim is bogus to start with.

But regardless of the numbers, the first point is this. I earn money over my life, I want to keep it. If I earn enough to leave an “estate” to my kids, that’s none of your business, person who didn’t earn enough. Me keeping more of that estate because of a tax cut is NOT A GIFT! Taxing estates in the first place is wrong. Tax my income, ok. Tax my purchases, ok. Tax money I’ve gained through investments, ok. Tax my kids when I try to pass my hard-earned wealth to them, NOT OK.

If Republicans are too dumb to choose a payroll tax cut over an estate tax cut, Democrats should blast them. Use it as ammo for 2004. Make it a central part of the Democratic message.

Yeah, how’d that work out, by the way?

Google turned up a Reich for Governor (Mass) campaign site from 2002. That didn’t work out too well either. But to his credit,

A 1996 poll of cabinet experts conducted by the Hearst newspapers rated him the most effective cabinet secretary during the Clinton administration.

’nuff said.

Freelancer on October 24, 2006 at 6:36 PM