Who the hell cuts taxes during wartime?

[mac56]

Bush's budget makes his tax cuts for the rich permanent.

What the hell sense does this make?!

Not a rhetorical question. I'm sure it's been discussed before.

[HughBeaumont]

1. A Reaganite Simian who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the sky.

[gratuitous]

2. Nothing is "permanent"

Bush and the Republican swine would like people to think that their package of giveaways to their overrich pals can be made "permanent," but in terms of legislation there is no such thing. Bush can propose, and Congress will dispose. Tough luck, Dubya. You had a clear field to run for five years, did a hell of a lot of damage, but in the end, your achievements were no greater nor any longer lasting than anything that could have rightfully been expected from such a small man as yourself.

[Double T]

3. The idiotic offspring of a guy that practiced voodoo economics.........

BOTH suffer from a genetic economic defect which is incurable.

[HappyWeasel]

5. yes. this disease is known for its sufferers to compulsively bear false witness by

re-writing history and the laws of nature. Examples include, economics (which the higher revenue is just due to higher service fees),biology, human sexuality, ecology, and for the most accutely affected, the holocaust(unless they are making a stand against abortion or genetically engineered health therapy).

[hfojvt]

30. it was daddy Bush who coined the term "voodoo economics"

to describe Reagan's theory when he was running against him in the Republican primary.

Unfortunately, the supposed 'surplus' created an opening to make tax cuts seem even more acceptable. Even Gore proposed cuts of his own, which I do not remember. I think he could have stolen Bush's thunder by endorsing the bottom part of the Bush plan and showing that a tax cut does not have to be complicated, and neither does it need to favor the rich.

[Dr.Phool]

4. People in the land where ideology conflicts with reality.

I propose cutting the President and VP's white house budget. Lay off some of these ideologues. Let them get honest employment :rofl: at the American Enterprise Institute.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

6. I would say only people who are deliberately trying to destroy our country and

bring us down to true third world status.

[The_Casual_Observer]

7. Because It isn't a "real" war. This thing is actually a colonial

occupation. The military deaths are simply a consequence of the occupation.

[baldguy]

18. Bingo.

[Hidden Stillness]

8. Rich Capitalists Have no Allegiance to this Country, Only to the "Market"

Who cuts taxes on the rich during war? The type that thinks the wealthy capitalists and "all the rest," really are different species, and that the rich have allegiance to their corporations and to their stockholders, not to a "country," with any old type admitted. It is the type of rich male capitalist who dodges the draft, some of them several times, and seems offended that the country would impose such an inconvenience on them. It is the type that considers the natural world to be just so much land and mineral resources that could be marketed "and making me money," yet is not. The type that never thinks that there is any measure of "how strong the economy is, or how it is doing," beyond stock prices, corporate profits, or CEO pay and benefits. A high unemployment rate and stagnant or falling wages are good, not bad. It is the type that believes that "the economy is good," but that the peons, for some odd reason or other, are "not keeping up," and they don't know or care why. If you are poor--then stop being poor; case closed. Taxes are for the servants to pay; rich people do the important things, like decide elections, here and elsewhere.

[haymark]

9. what matters is taxes collected

Since the tax cuts were put in place, tax revenues have increased sharply. Isn't that what is needed, more $ in the federal treasury? Does it matter how the $ gets there? The rich already pay plenty. For 2004, the top 50% of income earners 96.7% of all federal taxes. (Taken from the IRs own site)

[Hidden Stillness]

10. Hi Plant

As soon as the tax cuts were made, July 2001, the deficut appeared; it was not there before, Clinton's budget surplus was. Tax revenues do not increase by cutting the amount, any more than a bill is paid off quicker by cutting the amount of money you pay toward it. It is not tricky, no matter how the plants and operatives try to trick people with it. Statistics from this Administration's Labor Dept., Commerce Dept., IRS, and even its general budget, are known to be faked, and do not even match up to known Census, GAO and CBO figures. Scientists were just testifying before the Waxman Committeee about how they were pressured to lie about global warming, and not even use the phrase. The Departmental statistics from this Administration are worthless. When you reduce taxes, the tax revenues go down--there is a lower income. Don't pretend this actually has to be explained to you. This has been explained over and over, to plants, on this website.

The richest people have had their income taxes cut and cut and cut, so many times since the evil Reagan empire, that we have all had to make up for it with increased payroll taxes, sales and property taxes, and cut programs. "The top 50%" means absolutely nothing, since it includes upper middle class as well as the rich. Bizarre.

[Hippo_Tron]

17. Plus, what are the figures adjusted for inflation?

I would certainly hope that we're taking in more total tax revenue than we were in the 1990's with a 3% inflation rate. Of course that the tax revenue is REALLY higher.

[mac56]

19. Good catch, HS.

Thank you.

[haymark]

20. Tax revenues have increased

In tax yr 2000, IRs gross collection was $2,096,916,925,000
In tax yr 2005 $2,268,895.122,000
( from the IRS' own site http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05db07co.xls)
That's an apple to apple comparison. Those revenues have been collected in the Bush yrs of the worst economy since the depression, job losses and rising costs of medical care.
If you cannot trust the IRs or any govm't figures, then the figures you cite are likely faked as well. If govm't fake stats in the Bush years, the Clinton yrs stats must be fake too, as the same bunch of bureaucrates are generating them.
Is there a discrepency between various govm't agencies stats? Likely. I think it can be explained in terms of incompetence and sloppy workmanship and poorly defined terms, so we are not comparing apples to apples.
You say tax rates go down and tax revenues go down....the figures above say something else. My guess is that when taxpayers get to keep more of their own money they work more, harder or more efficiently so they can earn more. The more they earn, the more tax collected even if it is at a lower rate. It may not be worth the time and effort to seek tax shelters if the rates are lower. Of course lower income earners have less flexibility, but their tax rates have been cut too, sothey pay less is fed tax than in the past.
Sales and property taxes are state and local issues, if program cuts on a federal level are a problem, then solve it at a local or state level. Problems are always better solved by the people closest to them.

[Hidden Stillness]

21. One More Attempt at This Phony Game

There are so many things wrong with your propaganda, and you are obviously not a Democrat and so are not interested in the welfare of society and a fair tax system as so many are here, that I will only address a couple of things, and quit. You are not making arguments anyway. First, Republicans, as they always do, have cut the staff of the IRS, and outsourced its work and recordkeeping to commercial firms, to such an alarming degree that the agency can no longer pursue cases of corporate tax-cheating and failure to pay, so what the collected revenues are, what they are supposed to be, what has been lost, and anything else, is unknown--and supposed to be, now. I did not say that you cannot trust "government" figures, liar, I said you cannot trust any figures that can be faked by the Bush Administration directly under their control with no other oversight. (The "Labor Dept.," complete with its corporate management, has just announced that they "undercounted by 400,000 the actual growth of jobs during the year 2006," so, oh wow, yay, really, everything is actually hunky-dory, and no one is able to trace or track any of these supposed "jobs," where "they are," etc. This is what we call "faked.")

You claim any descrepency between statistics is due to "sloppy workmanship"--well, that was an interesting knee-jerk reaction, wasn't it? It was not an official order; it was the employees themselves? Then why has this problem of being unable to get records or statistics on anything the Bush Administration does, not been corrected, but has only gotten worse? Most of the Departments of the Bush Administration cannot even submit a budget to the Congress, so overrun with debt and missing funds, and so corrupted is the whole process now.

You reveal your attitude with the pejoratives you use--"a bunch of bureaucrats" to describe the career Federal employees who, generally, are the whistleblowers, and the only ones who care above all how the institution works. You also do not understand, or care, how poor people pay taxes--they have never been heavily taxed by Federal income taxes, (they have miniscule incomes, Einstein), and did not get any decrease after Bush's recent rich capitalist bonanza, no they did not. Poor and middle class workers pay payroll taxes as employees, and pay increased sales and property taxes whenever the rich shift their income taxes onto us. Your entire delusional paragraph about "workers working harder" when rich people's taxes are lowered--or I mean, when "your" taxes are lowered, even though they were not--so they can "keep more," only reveals the intractable Republican corporate attitude that never listens, and will not now. How are people "taking home more money," when the tax cuts implemented by this Administration have cut Federal and State programs that people once used, which they are now price-gouged in the commercial world for, spending more money on things that have to be bought commercially than they ever paid as tax?

The fact that you refuse to admit the calcualtion of sales and property taxes as things paid by poor and middle class people, (hint: they are not "taking home more money," they are paying YOUR income taxes), shows that you only want to play this game when you can twist the rules to achieve a result, rather than showing any real concern for the disaster that is rich tax-cheating and tax-shifting. When there is a Bush-created deficit and trillion dollar-plus debt, then there are no tax cuts; the bill still has to be paid, and as a matter of fact is now worse, as interest mounts as the bill is paid off slower, with less money.

Fake Bush statistics? Did you know that the unemployment rate is now listed at 4.6%? That would be almost nobody unemployed. Have you ever been to the Midwest or the South? Total, lying bullshit--from the Republican-corporate lobbyist complex. Once again: there was no deficit at all when Bush-Cheney took office, only the Clinton surplus. July, 2001, the first two huge, rich capitalist tax cuts passed, and just like that, there was a deficit for the first time, and as further rich tax cuts have passed, and tax cheaters not caught, the deficit and the frightening debt have only increased. It is obviously less, when it is now deficit.

[haymark]

24. Facts don't matter???

Despite all the cut backs in IRS staff, they have still gathered more tax revenue in 2005 than in the last yr of the Clinton administration. Are there tax cheaters? Very likely, they cheat in 20005, in 2000, in 1995, in 1990, in 1975, in 1960, in 1950 and always. Are there more cheaters now than in the past? How can you measure that?

Tell me how you Know (can prove), that the Bush Administration has faked certain figures. Tell me how you know that other administrations didn't fake some of the same figures. Tell me why all those whistleblowers haven't screamed about being ordered to fake stats?

AS you say the lower income earners pay small amounts of federal tax, but do pay payroll taxes. How do those who pay little or no tax expect to get a big tax cut(smaller tax bill). Those with children get earned taxed credits, it may not be hugh but it is helpful. Someday those workers will collect social security, the rich will collect it as well, but will be taxed on it. If you think it is unfair for everyone who pays FICA to eventually collect it, call your congresscritter and get that changed. All I hear out of our congresscritters is talk of raising FICA taxes.

Again sales tax and property taxes are STATE and LOCAL issues. Yes those taxes impact the poor and middle class. Some of those states have Dem governors, city councils etc. They should do something about the tax burden on the poor and middle class. Lots of stuff may be Bush's fault, but local sales tax is not.

I am confused by your argument, that those who pay small amounts of federal tax didn't get any tax relief. But instead pay higher sales and property taxes, because rich people got a tax cut. Don't rich people pay property taxes, I would think taxes would be high on big houses with gold plated plumbing and 5 car garages. I think they pay lots of sales taxes too as they will be buying more than the poor family in the 2 bedroom apt.

I think the unemployment figure is less than 4.6% where I live. The paper is full of jobs. My son is a pharm tech, has a decent job for a 21 yr old, been at the job for 8 months, got 2 raises for a total of 1.50. I get my scripts at a different pharm and was talking to the head pharmist, mentioned my son. The pharmasist offered him a job....he cannot find enough people, at the son's job they are always looking for help too. The son makes enough $ to support himself, in a shared house, owns a nice car and does not work full time as he attends college.

I know there are areas of the county where jobs are not so plentiful. Most of my family lives in another state, my 2 sisters' jobs are at a state school which is talking about closing, state doesn't have the $ to support it. They may be able to get jobs in a local school, especially since those kids will probably end up in their home districts. One brother has manufacturing job for 25 yrs. He may be layed off, the co has been downsizing for 20+ yrs. I've talked to the younger people in the family about moving some place where there is more opportunity. Several have moved and are doing better than those who stayed behind in the home state. Property taxes in that state 3x more than I pay. I think I get more for my propery taxes than they do.

Bush unemployment figures faked? Maybe? Isn't that what has been said about unemployment stats no matter who is in office?

Nobody likes the deficit. Maybe spending is part of the problem. An individual can't spend more than he makes forever. He will have to pay off the debt at sometime, in order to do that he must quit spending like crazy and look to increase his income. Increasing income will allow him to spend like crazy for a time more, but eventually he'll have to stop. I think it is the same for governments.

I hope you will address my questions. Please note that I did not call you a name, not even once.

[Hidden Stillness]

25. An Unbridgeable Gap

You do not listen, you do not read, and with all due respect, your message reads as if it were written by a teenager: "I think the unemployment figure is less than 4.6% where I live. The paper is full of jobs." This measures the area's unemployment statistic how, exactly? I live in the devasted Midwest, where we have lost the manufacturing base of our economy, factories and plants have been closing, moving to other countries, and outsourcing for years now, ever since that pact-with-the-devil, NAFTA, we have not recovered, and may never. No one would claim that the unemployment rate can possibly be below 20% or so at the most optimistic, for this whole section of the country, and the South has lost its textile base, etc., etc. Countless millions are not on the official unemployment count, because they have stopped searching for a job, never had a first job and therefore not an official statistic, etc., so the figures are falsely low, even when the Labor Dept., does not lie, as this Administration does. There was just evidence a while ago, where Elaine Chao or whatever her name is, admitted making up false numbers that made the economy seem better than it is.

If you have not read about the Bush Administration's known faked statistics, there is nothing I can do to explain it. I do not know of website addresses, although others may. I have heard testimony on C-SPAN hearings, and have read of whisleblowers telling how numbers were changed right before their eyes to make the Bush Administration seem to be handling the economy better than it is, etc. Most Federal Departments do not even submit regular budgets to the Congress anymore; unheard of, but typical now. Some recent ones, that I heard Democrats talking about on the floor of the House on Tuesday, for example, talked about the lying new Federal budget, where the Bush Administration pretends it will invent a magical surplus by 2011 or whatever it is, but then you discover that they are going to be stealing increasing amounts of money from the Social Security surplus to do it: 1) that is illegal, and 2) it will have to be paid back anyway, solving nothing. All these are faked figures.

There was a surplus under Clinton, Bush cut taxes twice during July 2001, and there appeared for the first time, the deficit. I don't know how much clearer it can get than that. If you actually believe, however, that "if you don't tax people, then they suddenly have more money, and will all be happy and work harder," (even though the U.S. productivity level has been at record highs, and corporate profits at record highs, for a couple of decades now, yet wages have been flat, with record levels of personal debt, foreclosures, inability to save not seen since the Depression), then you just have a totally different mind-set that will admit nothing, because it is essentially against civil society, and for deregulated capitalism, no matter what.

[haymark]

27. Sorry you live in such an economically depressed area

Hidden stillness:

No wonder you are so incensed about unemployment and the worst economy since the depression. I'll offer you the same advice I gave my own family....move to someplace where there is more opportunity. May I suggest Texas, Nevada or Arizona.

It must be awful to think that the whole govm't is actively working against you and other poor and middle class folks, and only nice democrates like you care for those who are having a hard time.

For myself I don't expect others to take care of me. I've had hard times, lost jobs etc, we moved to where there was more opportunity. I've personally lent a hand to those who were down on their luck.

The govm't is hugh. The left hand doesn't know what the right is doing. Many depts can't seem to get themselves organized. All this has been a problem and growing worse as the years go on. No business would survive for very long operating like that. All that seems to be done to fix this is to add another layer of management over top of the mess.Nobody will say that it is a good thing. State govm'ts have similiar messes.

About the taxes, if people keep more of their own money(pay less taxes), then they have more money. Ex: if nobody takes your lunch (and you don't leave it behind on the bus), then you will have your lunch at break time. Now how good that lunch is depends on what you put in the sack that day.

About the Social Security surplus, LBJ was the one who started using it for general revenue and the practice has continued since the 60's. Unclear if it is illegal, but it certainly isn't standard accounting practice.

I was hoping
you had some suggestions as to what could be done about the budget, the deficit and all the fake stats. Did you have any thoughts on spending?

I have toyed with the idea of taxing wealth (not income) on a one time basis. Something like taking in taxes 75% of what a person owns over $15 million. Also getting to look in those tax shelters for that over $15 million. That one time tax could wipe out the deficit, put social security on track and still have left overs for needed social programs. After all Bill Gates doesn't need that hugh estate, hollywood actors don't need multiple homes and John Kerry's family doesn't need all those SUVs. They can live like the rest of us, in modest homes, older cars in the driveway and mow their own lawns.

[TahitiNut]

33. Where do you get this horseshit??

"About the Social Security surplus, LBJ was the one who started using it for general revenue and the practice has continued since the 60's. Unclear if it is illegal, but it certainly isn't standard accounting practice."

That's just utter horseshit.

Since the day Social Security was enacted, the "surplus" in the Social Security Trust Funds have been invested in Treasury securities. This has never changed. It's the law.

The rhetorical shell game that polticians play has to do with the (so-called) "Unified Budget" (and "lock box"). It's rhetoric only. It has to do with whether the Social Security System is lumped together with discretionary elements of the federal budget when proclaiming deficits or surpluses. It has NEVER changed the fact that any surplus in any trust fund, including the Social Security Trust Funds, has been 'invested' in Treasury securities ... securities that represent the federal debt. We have NEVER once since the Social Security system was formed been debt-free at the federal level. Not once.

[TahitiNut]

26. Total propaganda.

1. You've cited the combined figures for all federal taxes, including corporate income taxes, personal income taxes, estate taxes, employment taxes (OASDI/HI, fer crissakes!), gift taxes, and excise taxes. That's hardly relevant to reduced personal income tax rates.

2. The figures are in "current dollars" - unadjusted for inflation which has run about 3% annually.

3. The figures include the effect of a growing population, an increase of about 2% annually.

Those are just the EASY flaws in this garbage you're peddling

The individual income tax revenues in 2000 were $1,137,077,702,000
The individual income tax revenues in 2005 were $1,107,500,994,000

That's a DECREASE in revenues of about $30 billion!

At the same time, government spending has skyrocketed ... mostly to KILL PEOPLE.


Only a fucking moron would buy the bullshit you're peddling!
... like the one in the Offal Orifice.

[Skittles]

29. LOL

you actually bought this nonsense? Who sold it to you - Rush or Faux News?

[pretzel4gore]

11. no way anything bush has done has benefitted anyone

besides bush and his 'plague of locusts'
and before 'I' believe anything fed to the herd by the mediawhores 'I' want to know what the Plunge Protection Team has been doing last few years...for ex. the day ford laid off 30 thousand people the dow jones ia rose 80 points, and, frankly, that can't make sense.
btw, the collapse of wtc number 7 at 5 in afternoon never made sense either....

[Strelnikov_]

13. Those damn Lucky Duckies!!

Gotcha!

[Nickster]

22. The tax cuts are being funded on credit. So having them has taken away money

from the Treasury. It's simple really. Then the interest on that large debt will start eating up whatever revenue you do collect anyways. The Treasury Dept has even figured out that the tax cuts will only "pay" for about 10% of the actual cost of having those tax cuts. So that would seem to me like a negative result wouldn't it? You need to have spending offsets to cover the tax cuts, and no one has done that because they really want to believe that the tax fairy will bring them more revenue.

http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm

Reality: A study by the President’s own Treasury Department recently confirmed the common-sense view shared by economists across the political spectrum: cutting taxes decreases revenues.

Proponents of tax cuts often claim that “dynamic scoring” — that is, considering tax cuts’ economic effects when calculating their costs — would substantially lower the estimated cost of tax reductions, or even shrink it to zero. The argument is that tax cuts dramatically boost economic growth, which in turn boosts revenues by enough to offset the revenue loss from the tax cuts.

But when Treasury Department staff simulated the economic effects of extending the President’s tax cuts, they found that, if the tax cuts’ costs were not offset by spending reductions, then extending them would slightly decrease long-run economic growth. As a result, the tax cuts would cost slightly more than otherwise expected. If financed by spending cuts, the Treasury study found the tax cuts would have modest positive effects on the economy, which would pay for at most 10 percent of the tax cuts’ total cost. (The tax cuts have so far been financed by deficits, and supporters have offered no proposals to offset the cost of extending them.) (http://www.cbpp.org/7-27-06tax.htm)

[TahitiNut]

34. R.I.P.

(damn reichbot trolls!) :eyes:

[jwirr]

12. Republicans.

[jobycom]

14. There are two answers to that question.

One, Bush has never given a damn what happens to America. His concern is only what happens to his part of America, and tax cuts help them. Remember the old quote (by some zillionaire or another) that "Money was never important, it was just a way of keeping score?" That's their attitude--it's all a competition, and the one with the most money wins. They don't care what the money is for, or even what it can buy (since their assault on the economy lowers the buying power of their money), they only care how much more of it they have than everyone else. Thus, in the mind of the conservatives, tax cuts gives them more money, which makes them happy. The rest of the country just has to get of its lazy butt and earn its own money to pay for the deficit.

Second, more ideological, some of them really do believe that Reagonomics--supply-sided economics--works. Paul O'Neal, Bush's first Treasury Secretary, complained in a meeting about how much of a deficit they were running up. Cheney looked at him with his snarling go-to-hell-you-small-child condescension, and said "Deficits don't matter--Reagan proved that." (Paul O'Neal is the one who told that story). That's what they believe. They don't understand the economic mechanics behind Clinton's elimination of Reagan's deficit, they honestly beleive that the Laffer curve kicked in and eliminated it. A combination of inflation and increasing revenues from a growing economy, according to them, causes debt to go down the way your house payment goes down, or rather, becomes a smaller fraction of your income over the years, as your income increases.

The part that Cheney and Bush miss, obviously, is the part that any working person could tell them--if you keep increasing the debt, you never have a chance to pay it down, and more and more of your money gets tied up in paying off interest, so you have less buying power. That's in addition to the fact that mathematically it has been demonstrated that inflation and increased revenues aren't close to overcoming the increase in spending without a tax increase down the line. But reality has never been a strong aspect of the Republican mindset.

Just my thoughts.

[Hippo_Tron]

16. In my intro econ class we learned that the Laffer curve is bullshit

And like most econ classes, the professor wasn't exactly a liberal (he was mostly apolitical but probably Libertarian leaning). The problem with the Laffer curve is that people just don't work that much harder if there's a greater return for their work due to lower taxes. I might be wrong about this but as I remember, people would have to triple their productivity for the Laffer curve to actually work.

[Bandit]

15. The only war the USA has ever been engaged in that is funded

solely by Deficit Spending....Red Ink Republicans is more than apt..

[Norquist Nemesis]

23. Well, I'm at the point where if the Cons don't want to pay taxes

then they don't get the benefits. (period emphasized)

Late last night on CSPAN, Steve King (R-IA) was doing live floor speech in the well of the House complete with posters warning about the "Democratic Tax Increase 2009". I finally decided, OK asshole! for starters let's save the taxpayers and just stop cutting checks for your salary. While we're at it, you can no longer drive on taxpayer supported roads or ride/drive vehicles burning taxpayer subsidized gasoline, fly on planes that have taxpayer funded security regulations, drink water from any tap with taxpayer funded regulatory oversight, all policing agencies will ignore you and you will not be permitted to connect if you dial 911, and any bills you submit will be pulled out of the hopper because they would require taxpayer dollars to enforce.

BTW, did I mention the taxpayer funded military? Enjoy your tax-free citizenship, Rep. King!

[Skittles]

28. a stupid f***ing conservative twit piece of SHIT, that's who

next question?

[sydny1039]

31. Not only cuts taxes but gives the cuts to people already making money on the war!!

This is beyond treason, it's destroying our entire nation and quality of life. The blood and lifeblood of this nation be on the hands of the neocons and PNACer!! They have a lot to answer for.

[B Calm]

32. The plan is to do away with social programs. Even though the military

is the single, largest, social program we have..