digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

The Effects of the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts

redstate.com — $14,374,330,000,000 Total Increase in Household Wealth Since April 2003; $625,000,000,000 Total Increase in Federal Tax Revenues Since FY 2003; $207,788,000,000 Reduction in the Deficit in the Past 29 Months Due to Stronger Economic Growth - There you have it. America is over-taxed. Reduce tax rates, increase tax revenue.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • fletchowns, on 10/15/2007, -40/+123URL sounds pretty unbiased.
    • neoform, on 10/16/2007, -59/+18Do you know what an Ad Hominem is?
    • OMGWTFROFLMAO, on 10/15/2007, -14/+24^^ irony
    • Exhaust, on 10/16/2007, -39/+73Redstate.com biased noooo way!

      Saying there was a reduction in the largest deficit EVER isn't saying much.

      Its like saying I used to have 100,000,000,000,000 gallons of water poring into the hole in my roof but now everything is great because I only have 99,999,999,999,999 poring in!! Woohooo everything is great why are these whining Libs freaking out so much?!?!
    • neoform, on 10/16/2007, -34/+9OMGWTFROFLMAO:

      where's the irony? i wasn't trying to discredit him, i was asking him a question.
    • Pharmboy, on 10/12/2007, -10/+50I think the real question is if the numbers are correct. Biased or not, if the numbers are correct, you can pretty much draw your own conclusion. Tax rates obviously affect revenue. Too low or too high and you take in less US taxes. Finding the sweet spot is the key. I certainly don't think they are too low, do you?
    • TomRitchford, on 10/15/2007, -27/+28These numbers seem extremely sketchy to me. For example, the government is running in the red -- we all know this -- so how could there be a "reduction in the deficit"? Perhaps "the deficit didn't increase quite as much as predicted" -- that is hardly the same thing.

      In real terms, your median American is doing worse than he did 5 years ago. The looting of the treasury has only benefited the rich, not your regular guy.
    • flernk, on 10/15/2007, -28/+54Oh yeah! I was trying to figure out where all my extra money was coming from! Oh wait I have no extra money buried inaccurate.

      from the same site:

      Average median wage fall (in today's $) 38%
      National Debt increase to $3 Trilllion since 2001
      Yearly Deficit $300 Billion per year
      Middle Class income after taxes down by 23%
      Income of those making $250,000 or more up by 37%
    • ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -6/+46The Debt To the Penny
      http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

      Prior Fiscal Years

      09/29/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
      09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
      09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
      09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
      09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
      09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
      09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
      09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
      09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
      09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
      09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
      09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
      09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
      09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
      09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
      09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
      09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
      09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
      09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
      09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
    • DBCubix, on 10/12/2007, -45/+48Dow crossed 12,000. Unemployment at historic lows. Looks like the tax cuts did a great job.
    • fnaqzna, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
    • eth3l, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4You are right, I think its all made up!
    • eth3l, on 10/15/2007, -10/+8That Laffer curve info was pretty damn interesting. thanks
    • linville, on 10/15/2007, -31/+44Funny how no one ever questions the URLs from thinkprogress.org, slate.com, etc...
    • mgreenwood, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Pharmboy, I don't think the goal of government should be to find the 'sweet spot'. While that should be the goal when pricing a product simply maximizing the money they take from us isn't a goal I'd like the government to have. They should take what they need and no more. We can argue about what they need later ;-)

      TomRitchford, Just a note to say don't confuse deficit with debt. The deficit is how much money we lose every year. The debt is the total of all the deficits minus payments we make. So basically we lost less than last year.
    • rileyjt, on 10/12/2007, -15/+33While I am all behind the tax cuts, imagine how much more money we'd have if we were not off fighting wars we don't belong in.
    • eviltandem, on 10/12/2007, -11/+8Pharmboy

      Our deficit would suggest they are WAY too low.
    • jesushchrist, on 10/12/2007, -17/+21There's not context for any of these numbers, which makes them pretty much meaningless. And the basic premise: reduce tax rates, increase tax revenue -- is pure bunk. Since the inception of the income tax, there has never been any correlation between tax cuts and economic growth. In fact, the period of greatest growth in the US, post WW2 until the early 1970s, had some of the highest tax rates in our history. That may be hard for people who grew up in 80s and later to believe, since they've been subjected to all these right-wing cranks and their supply-side nonsense, but if you don't believe me look up the data, it's not hard to find.

      The figures above come from the Club for Growth, which is a right-wing pressure group that still subscribes to supply-side "theory" of economics, a theory that was literally drawn up by Bill Kristo's dad Irving on the back of a cocktail napkin. It's not, of course, a real theory at all, and only a handful of economists have ever subscribed to it. And the ones that do all work for conservative think-tanks and politicians, big surprise.

      Yeah, we pay a lot of taxes. So do the citizens of every other modern nation on Earth. Do we pay too much? Probably. There's a lot of waste. But paying taxes is the price we pay for not being Malawi. We're a welfare state, and we're going to stay a welfare state for the foreseeable future, which is to say, forever.
    • Canthros, on 10/12/2007, -14/+8RedState's not any worse that DailyKos. (Better, I think, but I'm biased and make a point of not reading dKos.)

      They're certainly quite partisan, but it's not like they manufacture facts.
    • BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -19/+10 rileyjt,
      ""imagine how much more money we'd have if we were not off fighting wars we don't belong in""

      Funny how planes being flown into buildings or WMD's being set off will tend to hurt your economy. Hell we will ignore the loss of innocent human life as to not compound the confusion of to why we are at war.
    • mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12With ecomonic numbers like this they only mean as much as the source who computes them and distributes them. In which case attacking the reputation and reliability of the source is a perfectly valid argument. It's not like he said "these numbers can't be right, the person who wrote them is fat/white/black/ugly/tall/french". That would be an Ad Hominem argument.

      You can spin that the economy is doing well, it's easy. Several factors used to measure such things are on the rise. The most important one, to me, however is not; that's average household income. While large companies are raking in the dough, the average American is making LESS money now than they were 2 years ago. Tax revenue is up because corporations are making more money, at the expense of the worker.

      Since this was basically the intent of the Republican tax plan, of course a website run by Republicans is going to highlight the indicators they 'like' and ignore the ones they don't. It's perfectly valid to point this out.
    • iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21"Our deficit would suggest they are WAY too low."

      I'd say it says that gov expenditures are too high.
    • LightsOut06, on 10/12/2007, -13/+20"rileyjt,
      ""imagine how much more money we'd have if we were not off fighting wars we don't belong in""

      Funny how planes being flown into buildings or WMD's being set off will tend to hurt your economy. Hell we will ignore the loss of innocent human life as to not compound the confusion of to why we are at war."

      Can you explain to me what Iraq had to do with planes being flown into buildings or WMD's? Kthx
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -13/+18Isn't it amazing the dishonest statistics they can put together by using non-inflation adjusted (non-constant) dollars?

      Comparing 2001 dollars to 1990 dollars is just so stupid and transparent. But dishonesty like this sells.

      Hey guys, look how much more money I'm making than my grandfather! He was only making $500 a year, while I make $100,000! Of course, he could buy a house with his income, but ignore those minor details and statistics, keep looking at my juggling act!

      Websites like this have as much credibility as a circus sideshow.
    • eviltandem, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6iceperson

      I totally agree that spending is out of control, but we're all allowing it to happen. Deficit spending is just completely irresponsible.

      If we were forced to pay taxes to account for every penny our government spends I don't think we ever would have gone to war in Iraq.

      I'm advocating forcing Americans to pay for what they spend, not pass it on to future generations. If you think Iraq is important, then pay for it. You want those pork barrell projects? Pay for it.

      Currently our taxes are WAY too low. Our government is spending billions more than we are paying. If you want to eliminate spending I think that's by far the better way to go. I think the only way to force that to happen is to make them accountable to us on a year-by-year basis.
    • fuzzmello, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4yeah, but let's try that again without a war and see what happens.
      also, "total households" is really suspect. it makes it look as if every household enjoyed the benefits of the tax reduction. that's not true.
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5it would be nice if we actually started to pay for these wars we are having and then the data would not be the same.,
    • KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9while average income is up, it is heavily shifted to the wealthy end.  The rich are much richer bringing up the average; while at the same time the poor and middle class have never in history had so much debt.
    • Thud, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11"Currently our taxes are WAY too low. "


      You do have the option of paying more than the IRS asks of you each year. You gonna step up to the plate?

      Or did you mean "everybody else's taxes are way too low?"
    • dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13"Hell we will ignore the loss of innocent human life as to not compound the confusion of to why we are at war."

      Jeez, how could we forget that it was *Iraq* who attacked us!? You're absolutely right.

      Go ahead and sit there and think about that for a minute before you open your stupid ***** flapper again, retard.

      And, as for this budget thing, I've never lived so poorly in my entire life. I was even doing better in college when I was working part time. I don't care what the numbers say. In the middle to lower class, we are suffering bigtime, and have no means to ever climb out of the hole.
    • Antitorgo, on 10/12/2007, -15/+16LightsOut06: "Can you explain to me what Iraq had to do with planes being flown into buildings or WMD's? Kthx"

      It's pretty simple really. In a post-9/11 era, instead of waiting for someone to attack us, we decided to address the threat before it got to that level.
      Saddam had:
      Used WMD in the past
      Threatened to use WMD in the future
      Threatened the United States directly
      Was reportedly (by all intelligence agencies) restarting his WMD programs
      Wasn't allowing UN inspectors to do their jobs verifying he hadn't restarted his WMD programs
      Was actively supporting terrorism in other countries (giving money to the families of Palenstinian suicide bombers)

      Let's say that we hadn't invaded Iraq and they got their WMD program ramped back up again. If Saddam had used WMD or given WMD to a terrorist group to use, there would be a huge cry of "Why didn't the US do anything!!!" (Just as there was post-9/11 people are still wondering "how did the government let this happen?") Post 9/11 the government decided to pro-actively address the threats before they became to big.

      note: Before you bring up NK, keep in mind that they are backed by China. If the US were to invade NK without China's blessing, China would take it as an agressive move towards them and probably launch some nukes at us in retaliation.

    • brufleth, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3@linville
      Usually the first and/or second comment on a link from Thinkprogress (or most news papers for that matter) is someone criticizing the source.
    • Monolith2, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Beacause the dozen odd links from "crooksandliars.com" that get frontpaged here every day are unbiased too, right?
    • eviltandem, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Antitorgo

      If you are so right, then why not pay for it? Why lower taxes and go to war? After 9/11 if we told Americans we needed a 10% tax hike for 2 years to go beat Afghanistan back to the stone-age you would have gotten support. The indication that this is a valid fight.

      If you then said we needed a 20% tax hike, indefinitely, so we could go liberate Iraq because we don't like their policies, I think you would have had a much tougher sell. Trying explaining to the American public that this 20% hike needs to stay because it's irresponsible to have an exit strategy. I don't think that would fly, which makes me question how much we really think we should be here.

      I hate the attitude that we should be able to go to war without consequences. We are killing thousands of Iraqis and blowing up their country, and moaning that it's $3/gallon for gas. It should hurt to go to war. Then maybe we would spend more time planning and thinking about what we are getting into.
    • Highborn, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4Isn't red the color of communists?
    • Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@Exhaust:

      You're only looking at the level of debts; you have to compare it to revenue to get an accurate picture. In this case, you have to measure the US national debt as a percentage of GDP:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:National_debt_as_a_%25_of_gdp.jpg

      As you can see from this chart, the debt level relative to GDP is actually not that bad. As an average, it seems to have almost flattened out over the past 15 years.

      Keep in mind that the past five years includes 9/11, the Afghanistan War, the Iraq War, and Hurricaine Katrina. It's really not that bad.
    • Exhaust, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:National_debt_as_a_%25_of_gdp.jpg

      "As you can see from this chart, the debt level relative to GDP is actually not that bad. As an average, it seems to have almost flattened out over the past 15 years."

      Averaging the past 15 years yes it is leveled off however I disagree that this is a sign things aren't that bad since there is no realistic hope that it will go down again like it did under Clinton. Bush is racking up debt like he's Reagan to the third power.

      I think this article and others like it are just people trying to spin the statistics to suit them. Ignoring any statistics that they don't like.
    • MrBlackthorne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Maybe I'm missing something here, but as an unmarried middle class citizen, I haven't seen a damn bit of difference in the taxes I paid under Clinton or Bush. If Bush's tax cuts are so great, show me some gravy.

      The fact is that the bread and butter of this economy -- the middle class -- are still getting screwed. Tax cuts are going to the upper class who have less of an impact in the economy for two reasons: 1) There are fewer of them and 2) Regardless of how much they are being taxed, they'll have a budget surplus. That money won't go back into goods and services, because they'd spend the money regardless of how much they're being taxed.

      You can paint the numbers however you want, but the real way to stimulate the economy is to shift the tax burden AWAY from the middle class. They are, after all, a majority of the country, and the driving force behind the economy. Without the middle class, there would be no upper class. Without the middle class, the economy would choke.
    • Monolith2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@ MrBlackthorne

      lol, buddy, you really need to take an economics course if you think the middle class is what drives the economy. Its the rich that drive the economy - theyre the ones with all the extra capital to invest with, and investment is what counts... not your weekly $100 checkout at wal-mart.
    • youareretarded, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@Monolith2

      Obviously it does matter otherwise if it weren't for the middle and lower class, companies like walmart wouldn't be so big.

      Sure the individual contribution may not be that high for those that are in the middle class but as a whole they contribute a lot more than the top (and I'm not referring to taxes).
    • qwertydvorak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1quoting from ICSU above:
      The Debt To the Penny
      http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

      Prior Fiscal Years

      09/29/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
      09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
      09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
      09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
      09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
      09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
      09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
      09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
      09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
      09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
      09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
      09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
      09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
      09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
      09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
      09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
      09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
      09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
      09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
      09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00

      just looking at these numbers, it seems that the debt is slowing. from 1987 to 1997 it increased 2.3x the amount in 1987. from 1997 to 2006 it increased 1.57x. seems like slowing to me... maybe my math is wrong, but it is simple division. the final debt at the end of fiscal 1997 would have to be about $12,450,235,826,213 to equal the increase in the prior 10 years... so i would say that all signs indicate LOWER DEBT.

      but i am no expert and i am just working off of those numbers.
    • MrBlackthorne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ah, Monolith, you silly little economics major... So apparently, the middle class don't invest. Apparently there aren't MANY MANY MANY middle class people that would like a little extra capital to invest? MANY more of them than the rich? Aren't there MANY more middle class people that are paying MANY MORE extra dollars to credit card companies and loan companies? Here's a little quiz for you, bud: What are the RICH going to invest in if suddenly the MIDDLE CLASS lose their ability to buy products and services? Answer: NOTHING. The rich fold, that's what happens. Their investments tank.

      I'm not the one that needs a lesson in economics, here, man. The economy booms when you give a REASON for EVERYONE (not just the rich) to invest. Stocks rise when people buy products and services. Without the middle class driving that, the rich have nothing to invest in, plain and simple.
  • gilmet, on 10/12/2007, -13/+15Shouldn't the summary say America *was* over-taxed? I suppose it could still be the case...
    • uttles, on 10/12/2007, -25/+59No. The tax cuts were very minor, especially for those in the middle to upper income levels. There should still be FAR LESS federal taxes on the American People.

      http://www.fairtax.org - how taxes should be

      Wow, check out the internet bias on this issue on Google:
      http://www.google.com/search?lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=2003%20Bush%20Tax%20Cuts

      This is so funny - all of these sites and articles from 3 years ago preaching the doom and gloom that will surely follow the tax cuts. Revenue is going to fall, the deficit is going to grow, we're all going to die! lol!
    • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -6/+72We could run this country on 1/4 the taxes and 1/4 the budget.

      Abolish all pork barrelling!
    • tsaylor, on 10/12/2007, -23/+9We could run this country on 0/4 the taxes and 0/4 the budget.

      Abolish all government!
    • codyman, on 10/12/2007, -15/+45The fair tax is the way to go.... think:

      No more IRS, no more income tax... amazing right?

      Solution: National Sales tax aka fair tax.... everyone is equally represented... for instance

      Man A: Buys a 10,000 buck car, pays say 23% sales tax = 12,300
      Man B: Some rich dude buys 100,000 buck car, pays 23% = 123,000

      You cannot say that the rich would be getting away with paying no taxes because look at this "rich" guy.. he just paid 10x the amount of tax the middle class dude paid... yet at the same time its fair because the rich guy was not obligated to buy the 100,000, he could have bought the 10,000 one, yet he chose to buy the expensive one and thus he is also responsible for the higher total due to the tax... nuf' said
    • iggee85, on 10/12/2007, -11/+12Wait, how can you run the U.S. with 1/4 taxes and budget? A large part of your taxes go to the military and defense...
    • deadmilkman, on 10/12/2007, -16/+20To all of you championing the Fair Tax:

      I have a thought for you to consider:

      Fair Tax is not going to lessen government spending.
      As such Fair Tax will have to make come up with roughly the same amount of money.
      (if you claim the dismantling of the IRS will cover it, you haven't paid attentiont to FairTax...it creates a new office. It'll roughly cost as much to enforce as the current system via IRS)

      So if Fair Tax has to raise the same general amount of revenue...Who is going to make up for the difference?

      Hint#1 Rich people pay more taxes than anyone, even after their fancy tax attorneys do their tricks...

      Hint#2 The lower end of the poor folk don't have the money to cover it

      So if the Rich pay less and the poor will be given a subsidy / can't make up the difference anyway...guess who gets taxed to make up the difference
    • ncmusic, on 10/12/2007, -14/+23@codyman

      The national sales tax isn't fair, in my opinion, because you end up taxing lower incomes a higher percentage of their total income for the same goods [and services].

      Example two families make 30,000 and 60,000 a year respectively. They both buy the same amount taxed goods each month to support their family: $1,500. They both pay 23% which is $345 x 12 months = $4,140 a year in taxes. Which means the poorer family pays roughly 13.8% of their yearly income in taxes and the other family pays 6.9%.

      To me this isn't fair in the sense that it places a higher tax burden on the family that needs that can least afford it. If good required for maintaining the healthy and well being of your family were exempt (e.g food, clothing, housing) the maybe the fair tax would seem more fair to me.

      Personally I don't have a problem with being in a higher tax bracket and paying a higher percentage of my taxes. I owe, at least in a philosophical sense if not economical, a certain debt to societal infrastructure (roads, schools, etc.) that helped make my success possible.
    • NJank, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14umm... wasn't the fairtax called the Flat Tax a few years back (at least, the consumption portion of it, without the income portion)? I don't think too many people complain about the rich paying no tax in such a case. The usual issue regards the effect of the tax on the lower income end of the spectrum. Sure, if I'm pulling in 150G's, a 23% consumption tax on my basic need items is trivial. If I'm pulling in 50G's, it becomes more deal, but not much so. At 20G's, I'm now choosing between clothes and food because the prices are all higher than before. A flat tax rate affects the poor more than the rich, because the taxed portion of basic needs items represents a much larger share of their income. Unfortunately, a flat rate consumption tax cannot support any progressive scheme to try to offset this effect on the poor.

      Edit: just saw ncmusic stated it much better than I.
    • ohmar, on 10/12/2007, -12/+20@codyman
      Consider:
      Man A who earns $100,000 a year
      Man B who earns $1,000,000 a year

      Man A purchases $50,000 a year in goods, => $12,500 in taxes at 25%. Thus, Man A spent 12.5% of his income on taxes.
      Man B purchased $200,000 a year in goods, => $50,00 in taxes at 25%. Thus, Man B spent 5% of his income on taxes.

      So, with your "fair tax," the higher your income the less you tax liability would be. Doesnt seem very fair to me.
    • MrOrange49, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16@ Ohmar

      your math isn't taking everything into consideration. the tax rate is the same for everyone. whether you make 100k or 1m. in your example you spend 50% of the 100k persons income and only 20% of the guy making 1m. of course the guy making 1m pays a lower percentage of taxes b/c you have spending a lower a percentage of his income. a fair example would be to have the 1m guy spend 500k, run those numbers @ 23% and tell me if its fair.
    • eth3l, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Fair tax was ruin consumer confidence and cause an economic slowdown and decrease in spending. plus whenever the gubment needs more money our goods will cost more.

      and let's not forget how powerful deductions are to the market and new home buyers. We want people to own homes, and the deduction is the biggest incentive
    • MrOrange49, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@ eth3I

      The biggest incentive shouldn't be the deduction, which really isn't that major from an investment stanpoint. Its appreciation, real-estate is a tremendously good investment historically.
      Not to mention the fact that you own it, not renting, so along with the property appreciation you gain equity as well by paying down the principal, rather than putting it in the guys pocket that was smart enough to invest in that property buy purchasing it and leasing it to you.
    • diggnate, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17OK. To all you guys claiming that the fair tax isn't really fair because the rich pay a smaller % of their total income than the poor do:

      Hang with me here, and read the whole statement before you make a judgment.

      #1: You made a HUGE lapse in logic when you compare the two. for example: @ohmar said:
      "Man A 100k/yr, Man B 1million/yr
      Man A purchases $50,000 a year in goods, => $12,500 in taxes at 25%. Thus, Man A spent 12.5% of his income on taxes.
      Man B purchased $200,000 a year in goods, => $50,00 in taxes at 25%. Thus, Man B spent 5% of his income on taxes."

      This statement purposefully lowballs Man B consumption spending. I can assume that Man A only spends half of his income per year. I do not, however, believe that a man pulling 1million a year only spends a fifth of it. What millionaires do you know that only spend 200k/yr?

      #2:
      What would be wrong with a man who makes a lot of money to CHOOSE to spend a smaller portion of it in order to avoid taxes? The fair tax is a consumption tax in order to make it a choice.

      #3:
      The tax system as it currently stands punishes those who make a lot of money, but the fair tax punishes people for spending it lavishly. Most rich people will do so. But for those who choose to remain low key and not spend lavishly can pay less taxes or spend the money investing in business and creating jobs, or simply saving what they earn. Remember, the idea is to give people a choice of how much tax they pay, and thus giving them the choice of keeping more of the money that they earn.

      #4:
      Remember, once all the hidden taxes (http://www.fairtax.org/fairtax/faqanswers.htm#17) are removed from goods, then prices for goods will fall. Since you as the consumer have more money in your check, and pre-sales tax prices have fallen, you end up with everyone benefiting from the system.

      For more debunking of our initial assumptions of the Fair tax, go to:
      http://www.fairtax.org/fairtax/faqs.htm
    • fried, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@everyone in this thread
      If your going to make any claim for how (un)fair the fairtax is atleast read the website, instead of just making it up. This will work out for everyone, the argument will be founded in fact, and you wont look like a moron.
    • Canthros, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The FairTax proposal's big advantage is that it reduces the economic overhead of the tax at levels. The FairTax proponents estimate a net boost in revenue (and, by extension, wages), with no net change in after-tax prices.

      That's possibly over-optimistic, especially as the idea isn't going to work unless we also manage to repeal the amendment that allowed the goverment to levy an income tax in the first place.
    • tehn00b, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4@ MrOrange

      It's your example that is unfair, IMO. Ohmar's example gets to the earlier point about non-discretionary spending. A flat tax on consumption is regressive, or affects lower incomes more than higher incomes, because people of modest means spend a larger share of their income on basic needs. Wealthy people can spend more, but that is a discretionary choice. Your example requires wealthy people to spend a large amount of discretionary income in order to keep the tax code fair. If they save or invest too much, it becomes more and more regressive.

      As far as the government saving money by getting rid of the IRS, consider corporate taxes. Some type of revenue service would be required to enforce that tax code, in addition to whatever agency would enforce the consumption tax.
    • Antitorgo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4You guys aren't taking into account the rebates everyone gets. Lets take the typical family of 4 (two adults, two children). For 2006 it would be $6,072 in rebates.

      In ncmusic's example:
      $1,500/mo * .23 = $345/mo paid in taxes
      $345 * 12 = $4140/yr in taxes
      Net PROFIT: $1,932/yr

      Family A: $30,000/yr + $1,932/yr in rebates
      Poorer family gets 106% of what they made that year.

      Family B: $60,000/yr + $1,932/yr in rebates
      Less poor family gets 103% of what they made that year.

      What I think is GREAT about the fair tax is that you give an incentive to SAVE money. The current tax system "punishes" you for making money (and "punishes" you more the more you make).
    • pflarr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4The problem I see with fair tax is illustrated above ($1M salary spending $200k vs $100k salary spending $50k, the lower salary pays a higher percentage of taxes. It was noted by MrOrange49 that, of course, in that case the lower income person would be taxed more.

      No one has noted, however, that the lower your income the more of it you actually spend. A household making $20k spends every penny of it just to get by. A person who makes $200k or more needs to spend more than that "just to get by", but they still have plenty of money that they don't spend on goods or services. They can use this extra money to generate more money via investments (which wouldn't be taxed either). The poor get a rebate, and the rich have room to maneuver, but the middle class get neither of those perks. They may not have to spend all of their income "just to get by" like the poor, but they still spend most of it.
    • santaclaws, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@MrOrange

      What you are missing is that it takes a certain amount of spending just to survive. Let's say that you must spend at least $10,000 per year to stay in housing, food, and transport (which is definitely optimistic.) Taxing somebody who earns $20,000 25% of that is very different from taxing somebody who earns $200,000 25% of that. The $2500 tax on "survival" leaves our poor man just $7500 to spend on additional uses (education, clothing, ...) but our rich man $187500 to spend on the same. There is nothing "fair" about that; "flat" otoh is accurate.
    • Antitorgo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1techn00b -- What corporate taxes? Those are state-level not federal.
    • Antitorgo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4pflarr: Thus why there are rebates. See my above post and then go to fairtax.org an read up on it before trying to bash it. A family making $20k/yr (and spending all of it) would end up with a net profit for the year.

      santaclaws: Everyone gets a rebate, poor, middle-class, rich.

      While I'm sure a lot of you think it is "unfair" that a person who makes $1,000,000/yr gets to keep a lot of it. In reality, they end up investing it and creating jobs for you. You think the government should get all that money so they can waste it on pork-barrel spending?
    • MrOrange49, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4@ santaclaws

      I think what everyone is missing is that the fair tax is not on your income, just on what you purchase. also, you also get a cost of living rebate each month mainly to help people in lower income levels, just check out fairtax.org. yes true, the person making 200k a year is going to have it easier, they have more disposable income, they always will, your example shows someone making 10 times more than your 20k person. the rich man isn't going to have 187500 to spend, his cost of living is going to be much more (by choice, granted).

      check this about the "rebates" - http://fairtax.org/PDF/2006FairTaxRebates.pdf
    • govsucks, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I agree with the Fair Tax. As a small business owner I am sick to death of government spending and the IRS. My small company brought in about 150K last year. After paying our 2 employees the company made a profit of about 14k. The feds want 8k of that in taxes leaving me with 4 to 5 k to grow my business. This is outright pathetic! It cost my company 3k just to file the freaking taxes. You would think that just the amount of paper and trees we could save alone would be enough to chnage the minds of commie enviromentalists, not to mention the time and money we all have to spend to file the damn things. the fair tax is EXACTLY that...FAIR. Everyone is treated EQUALLY under the law(remember equal treatment under the law?) unlike the current "progressive" (read commie) tax system that punishes those who work hard and try to build a business. Hell even China has a flat tax system and according to my sales guys in Hong Kong it has increased govenment revenue and made life easier on everyone. I am sick and tired of this crap, I just want to build my business and give people who want to work a job, should I get raped by the feds and my neighbors for that? I have in the past considered closing my business after 5 years and becoming the number one software package in our industry for what we do. Not becuase of competition, but becuase of government taxation, its just to much. It stresses me out, wastes my time and takes money from my company that I could use to grow. The IRS is an abomination that should die a horrible death. This is same group that tried to garnish my wages in the 90s for a house I purchased in 1965. I was born in 1972. They threatend me, tried to take money from my account and I had to hire a lawyer to defend myself against them despite the fact that the home was purchased in 65 and I was born in 72. No matter how many agents I talked with, it never seemed to click in their tiny brains that I COULD NOT BE the person they we're looking for. This went on for TWO years. And after all that wasted time and money what do I get? An "oops sorry we made a mistake" letter. How much of the taxpayers money did they spend trying to fry the wrong guy? As far as I'm concerned the IRS needs to go and from now on, if the republicans don't act like CONSERVATIVES and support it then they can kiss my ass, I'm voting for a libertairian and if I have to, a democrat just to spite them. At least if we get democrats they'll raise taxes and hopefully bring the people who "build and provide jobs" in the nation to the boiling point and we can get some change. To me this is a "Take up arms" worthy situation.
    • Jonnio, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3@ohmar - You are totally neglecting the fact that Man B pays an extra $37,500 in taxes...Who cares that he pays less percentage wise (using your disproportionant spending percentages) he is still paying more in taxes.
    • Alphi1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I like the idea of a national sales tax. I have reservations about it, though.

      The big one, is that part of the idea is the idea that without the "hidden" taxes, prices on goods/services will go down. Personally, I'm not that optimistic. What, other than competition, will prevent a goods (or services) provider from leaving their prices high, and having the previously hidden taxes just adding to the profit? Sure, competition could help that, but that's assuming that there will be some businesses that choose less profit. It's equally possible that every competitor will leave their prices as-is, and accept higher profits.

      The other one, is that in order to also include the state and local taxes, the percentage could be pushed even higher, possibly raising the prices of goods prohibitively.


      However, in support of the flat tax idea: to refute the various examples posted here (such as the one with a lower-income family spending 50% of their income, and a high-income family spending only 20%), not only is the idea (as already posted) that they are spending different percentages of their income, but also bear this in mind: while a higher-income family will be (likely) spending more money on necessities (food, clothing, housing, etc.), they have to do something with the rest of the money as well.

      They can either save/invest it, or they can spend it on non-necessities (such as luxuries and what-not).


      The idea of this is that even money spent on luxuries (which I think it's safe to say, the "rich" spend more on than the "poor") is taxed. Not only that, but even money spent on necessities ends up taxing the rich more.

      Bear with me here a minute.


      My understanding of this flat tax, is that all goods would be taxed, but everyone would get a "rebate" to pay for a certain level of essential goods.

      The "poor" person is inevitably going to spend less on essentials than the "rich" person. For example, a "poor" person may only pay $500/month renting an apartment (making numbers up here, so bear with me). On the other hand, a "rich" person may find themselves paying $2000/month (or most likely even more) as their house payment.


      In the same idea, a "poor" person spending their "food" money on just mac and cheese and ramen noodles (yes, this is a terrible exaggeration here, but you get the idea) will spend considerably less than the "rich" who spends his "food" money on lobster and filet mignon every day.
    • ncmusic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@Antitorgo

      You're making the assumption that the flat/fair tax system would have the same rebate system. Not to mention it's a complete farse to assume that any family would get a rebate from the goverment that exceed what they paid in taxes. And I'm not refering to social/welfare programs.
    • ncmusic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I take back my comment about the rebates. I was ignorant of the flat tax rebate system.
    • litt8899, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm know expert on the flat tax system and I went through the FAQ page really quick to see if they addressed this problem and I didn't see any reference to it so i'm going to try and bring up a topic I think is being overlooked when talking in favor of the fair tax.
      Roughly 1/3 of the U.S. tax income comes from the top 1% of earners in the nation. It seems to me that if I were part of that 1% meaning I made 1 million+ or even better say I was worth 500 million, I would simply not spend any money in the U.S. that I didn't have to. If I want to buy a Ferrari that costs 250k but I have to pay 23% tax on that car in the U.S., which would be 57,500, me being rich and all, I would much rather buy it from the manufacture in Italy, which would probably be somewhat cheaper do to shipping costs, and have it shipped to the U.S. myself. I don't have the exact figures but it seems unlikely to cost 50k to have a car shipped overseas on a boat. Or better yet why live in the U.S. at all, if i'm the CEO of a major company obviously I would want to be here for important meetings and some day to day activities but I certainly by no means need to be here 365 days a year, so I buy a small townhouse in the city which my business is located in and I fly in when needed from my private home in the Caribbean, obviously this would be most convenient to have a business say in Miami, but you could do the same in Canada for a place in NY, or Mexico for a company in LA. Therefore i'm really not buying anything here, I may have A car or something like that but there is no reason why I can't have basic furniture and supplies brought in with me, after all i'm worth millions and millions of dollars so what is a few grand to have some things shipped in instead of paying 23% on everything that I need to buy.
      You see my point? The rich have a choice, they can choose to spend money in this country or not, they can choose to buy expensive things here or not, they are not limited by borders, by travel costs, by shipping costs, the poor are. "Average Joe" can not drive to Canada every time he wants to buy a gallon of milk or a new tv, or clothes, he doesn't have the luxury of being able to pick and choose where he is going to spend his money. Do you?
    • Alphi1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@litt8899

      Now, let me preface this with the idea that I'm not exactly an expert on this either. That said, I would think that in order to prevent people from sidestepping this type of tax by ordering overseas, the simple solution would be to implement equivalent tariffs on any items purchased overseas. That way, the government still gets the money, and the "rich" don't get to skip out of it.

      As for the idea of them having a home elsewhere (read: outside the country), they are free to do that now. In fact, if a "rich" person now wanted to live outside the country to avoid the current income taxes, I believe they can do so now (they may have to relinquish US citizenship though). The thing is, not too many of the "rich" tend to do that to avoid the taxes. Why should we think that they will begin to under a flat "sales" tax system?
    • litt8899, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I would agree that would be the logical thing to do I just didn't see any answers like that on the site, any reference to shipping things in only stated that they would be taxed when sold and shipping things out would not be taxed.
      As for living outside the country rich people might not want to get residents somewhere else because the income tax is even higher in other places, but do people living in other countries and working in the US get income taxes taken from there checks by there resident country? If so then obviously it would be an advantage to live outside of the US but retain citizenship with the flat tax, essentially avoiding the tax in both places. Obviously there should and probably would be some restrictions on this but I think just like the current tax code there would be large loop holes for those that could afford to use them.
      Honestly I think a flat tax if implemented fairly is a great way to go, but I hardly have confidence in a government that is so close to so many of those top 1% earners implementing a fair tax program, maybe that is just my bitterness talking but I haven't seen a lot in the past few years to contradict my idea of a buddy buddy government for the rich.
    • jamesfrmmaine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@codyman

      "Man B: Some rich dude buys 100,000 buck car, pays 23% = 123,000"

      or rich guy orders a 110,000 italian sports car, shipping 10,000(over estimate).
      His cost 120,000(net 3,000 in savings) Tax revenue: 0 Dollars.
  • warsql, on 10/12/2007, -10/+19Hopefullly this helps comprehension of one of the most fundamental economic misunderstandings around. Tax rates and tax revenues are two different things, and are not necessarily on the same slope on a graph. What is all the talk of "irresponsible" tax cuts now?
    • uttles, on 10/12/2007, -23/+40Shouldn't liberals be happy about these results? I Mean the government is getting MORE MONEY from us now, so they have more to spend...

      oh wait, I forgot, these numbers fly in the face of their "tax cuts for the rich" slogan and their creation of class warfare.
    • tofufever, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@ Uttles

      Question, isn't it George Bush how is increasing the size of government? Is it not this Republican congress who gave Bush the power to borrow even more money against the future? Our original assumption of taxing liberals and non taxing conservatives are thrown out the window. Generally there is a common middle ground that works for everyone, however extreme partizanship has created a rift so large we can't find a common middle ground. I mean just look at shows like Crossfire (i know it's cancelled), Bill O'Reilly, Air America, it's all part of the whole beast that prevents us from coming to a reasonable middle ground.
  • dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -30/+3430,000,203,000,330,403,220

    Astounding high numbers, everything is fine! Who gives and F about the country, when we have 430,000,203,000,330,403,220!
    • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21What's your point. All the numbers in that article had units to them. Your number wasn't even in the article and has no basis. You might as well have posted

      "3

      Astounding low numbers, everything is fine! Who gives and F about the country, when we have 3!"

      Get the point?
    • perlmunger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5




      Everyone keeps using the word "fair". What does that mean? Here are a couple thoughts:

      1) Some say that it's not fair that rich people get more money back when tax cuts happen. This assumes that the money paid in was not their (the rich people) money. This philosophy advocates socialism--distribute the wealth to everyone--which, in case you missed it creates a culture of lazy people who depend on others to make up their slack. Why work when the rich people will do it all?

      2) Who determines what fair is? Poor people might say it's not fair that the rich people have so much. But is it "fair" to take money away from rich people who earned it?

      3) When people use the word "fair", they sometimes mean just (or unjust). Fair is a stupid term kids use on the playground and it is completely arbitrary. Just, however, means to be done or made according to principle. Taking from one person to give to another is not justice. It's just as bad as being wealthy and not giving out of one's own charity to his fellow man in need. Doing what is right, is what is right.





  • BarryG, on 10/12/2007, -22/+40The news just cant be good if Bush had anything to do with it. The libs will find a way to distort this...somehow...
    • stankyg, on 10/12/2007, -12/+12The only way to reduce the deficit is to get these idiots out of office and get in those who are able to do simple math.
    • warmonger48, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13I'm not a lib but it says 6,000,000 new jobs. Lets see how many people have lost jobs and what the average rate of pay is for those jobs. If you have loose a 40,000 dollar a year job and have to take a 20,000 job its not good but its not a job loss. If those 6 million jobs are all 20,000 a year job is it a good thing? I want to know how many jobs have either gone away to another country or just gone (GM, Ford, Chrysler I'm talking to you).

      I'm not distorting anything. I just want the full story, not a one-sided spin-job.
  • killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -31/+36Sadly, liberals are too narrow minded to understand how this type of thing works. To them, the only way to reduce the deficit is to tax tax tax.
    • SoftwareSamurai, on 10/12/2007, -15/+34I disagree. While there are some truly ignorant liberals, I believe the vast majority of liberals do indeed understand exactly how taxes and our government's finances work. The _choose_ to twist reality to fit _their_ idea of utopia for America. Believe me, with the exception of only a few, the Democrats in congress know full well how our economy works. They simple expect us to be ignorant enough to believe them without question when they lie about it to our faces.
    • noodlez, on 10/12/2007, -8/+32i'm a fiscally responsible liberal and i understand exactly how taxes rates and revenues work.

      but if you're going to point fingers at liberals about spending and money, you should recognize that the current conservative administration is just as "liberal" with their spending as any commonly labeled liberal. government is spending as much as and is as large as ever, which are opposites of the standard conservative small government, small spending ideals.
    • BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6What is the cause of the spending?? Reagan==Bankrupt USSR, Bush==War on Terror. Maybe.?.?
    • kopar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22Both sides LOVE to spend our money and take it away from us on a regular basis. It's just where they spend the money that seems to be different. Liberals: Social Programs; Conservatives: Military Programs.
    • spudnic, on 10/12/2007, -11/+8It baffles me that you guys can't just dissagree with the opposing political view, you have to ~hate~ them, this goes for both sides
    • noodlez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11edit: @spudnic -- i definitely don't hate the opposing political view. i'm the political black sheep of my family. i just disagree with a lot of stuff thats going on today (old conservatives weren't so bad)

      conservative admin were spending more before the war, also.

      we're spending a lot currently, but a certan % of that is understandible. we're in war and we definitely do need to improve security at home. but unfortunately another, large enough % of that are earmarked funds for totally unnecessary stuff (for example, 20 million for a "victory party" after "we win" the war in iraq in washington dc, anyone?).
    • Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17"but if you're going to point fingers at liberals about spending and money, you should recognize that the current conservative administration is just as "liberal" with their spending as any commonly labeled liberal"

      That's a fair point. I miss the old republicans, a lot. You know, small government, state rights, citizen rights, lower taxes/lower spending. They just needed to increase their protection of the environment and they'd be really nice.

      No, instead, the republican party has deteriorated and lost most of it's core principles.
    • eviltandem, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7noodlez

      I believe there should be a forced tax hike to pay for any war when the decision is made.

      If you really believe this is what we need to be doing you should be forced to pay for it. Saying how important this war is, but actually passing the cost on to your children is just selfish.

      It also says a lot to me about how important we really think this "war on terror" is. We definitely need to liberate Iraq, but we shouldn't have to actually deal with any consequences! That's just not fair.

      How do we explain to our children that this was so important that they need to work to pay for it, because it wasn't important enough that we were willing to work for it.
    • litt8899, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Conservatives are not equally as narrow minded??? Cut, cut, cut, cut. There is a middle ground somewhere and just because both sides think there standing on it doesn't automatically make one right and one wrong.
    • jamesfrmmaine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@killinger77

      "Sadly, liberals are too narrow minded to understand how this type of thing works. To them, the only way to reduce the deficit is to tax tax tax."

      What is the point of even saying this? I see you all over Digg and you never add anything relevant to the discussion. You are literally saying that you know that about half the country wants to just "tax tax tax".

      You just oversimplify everything. You might as well call everyone cacaheads, there's about as much substance to your comments.
  • pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -24/+3http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
    • uttles, on 10/12/2007, -7/+28That website is crap. It purposefully misleads people by confusing the terms debt and deficit. Please don't use propaganda.
    • Brownds, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7This site is full of *****.
    • chris355, on 10/12/2007, -13/+12Total crap is right. No economic basis to their claim. Take a class in macro economics. It's the first damn thing they teach. Lower tax = higher tax revenue.
    • Diabolickungfu, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2"That website is crap. It purposefully misleads people by confusing the terms debt and deficit. Please don't use propaganda"


      Yet the original article you posted is from redstate.com???
      Are you high, or just a hypocrite?
      Not coincidentally, the site the original article is on is blocked by the proxy at work as hate speech/profanity. Go figure.
  • DucoNihilum, on 10/12/2007, -15/+15Why pay income taxes at all? Fair tax FTW!
  • venusian, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5http://www.duggmirror.com
  • tedemang, on 10/12/2007, -19/+7Yeah the taxs cuts were fair (NOT)...

    Most working people got some tiny, marginal adjustment worth about $300... While at the same time, they cut Dividends and Capital Gains by as much as 1/2 !

    Just ask yourself: Do you get paid a salary (W-2)? Or do you own a business and file a K-1 or Schedule D?

    It's that simple. If you in the 1st group, you got screwed.
    • yomamadudeyo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14If you only make a small amount of money each year then you can only get so much back. Should we simply transfer wealth to people who pay barely any taxes at all? Perhaps those who only got $300 back should have invested it and then they could take advantage of the capital gains cuts.
    • vandread, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20oooh 300 bucks, if it hadn't happened then you would have gotten nothing. If you only pay 1500 bucks in taxes, getting 300 back is a pretty good chunk. Or do you think you should have gotten back everything you paid because people who make more paid more they can pay for your share too? 300 bucks is 300 bucks, don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
    • mitchellk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Yes, they were very fair. The end result of the Bush policies has been that the rich are paying a higher share of the tax revenues, the middle class less, and the poor nothing at all. The tax system has become MORE progressive.
    • funkpucker, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Simple fact is, even though the economy in general is doing better, the things that matter to the citizens of the country, those being standard of living and the CPI vs. inflation, aren't any better. Whereas most people now make less money now than they did 5 years ago, the wage earners in the upper 10%, especially the upper 1%, are making vastly more money. For the wealthiest wage earners, wages have increased 1000%, where the bottom 50% of earners have lost about 5% of value.

      Who is to blame is beside the point. The way to gauge a good healthy fair society is by the equality that society engenders. By equality, I mean monetary equality, not some philisophical nonsense. Things aren't right, and this growing economy is making them less right. Case in point: modern Russia. They have the largest number of billionaires outside of America, yet the country is dying (literally) at an astonishing rate. They're in such bad shape, that within 30 years their country could dwindle to 1/10th it's former soviet size.

      Wealth disparity kills a community.
    • Marmot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@yomamadudeyo

      So if I invested the $300, I would actually save on taxes paid on dividends, and therefore benefit greatly.

      What sort of dividend revenue should I expect off an investment of $300?

      Suppose I get a return of 10% (pretty good). That's $30/year, or $25.50 after the 15% tax on dividends. Why--that's over $2 per month!!! And I can take *that* to the bank!
    • FarmerPete, on 10/12/2007, -5/+175% of all statistics are made up. Thats some thing to think about.
    • yomamadudeyo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1marmot -- It's a start, is it not? We can't all be wealthy and privileged from birth. Hard work and saving is the only real option for most people. While it's sad that many people are bad off it is not the responsibility of the government to provide endless safety nets for people to fall onto. Life is hard -- but in the U.S. even the worst-off have it better than millions of people around the world.
  • tedemang, on 10/12/2007, -18/+19Oh yeah, and by smaller government, we mean less money for health care, education, and things like roads and the fire department...

    But in September, the congress voted $450 Billion for the Pentagon, with an additional $70 Billion for our wars in Afganistan and Iraq... our nice little desert reclamation project.

    • neozeed, on 10/12/2007, -17/+14Just don't ask about the 2+ trillion that have gone unaccounted for in the DOD. Its funny how the story broke on 9/10/2001 and has since been totally forgotten.
    • theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9"we mean less money for health care, education, and things like roads and the fire department..."

      Where in the COTUS are education, health care et al. mentioned? The financing of the Defense of the US is explicitly mentioned, and it also says that whatever is not enumerated by the COTUS is left to the States.

      So, again I ask, where is the Article or Amendment addressing the Health Care or Education, or Fire Departments, or Highways?



    • neozeed, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4@theblooms here is a better part of the DOD fun... Who has congress declared war on lately? It says in the COTUS that only congress has the ability to declare war...

      Its just dammed sneaky with them hiding everything, and not moving forward with proper budgeting. And again where is the 2+ trillion??
    • TreborYelaeh, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Interesting people remember the "provide for the common defense" clause but have a brain fault on the "promote the general welfare" clause.

      I believe roads are covered under the commerce between states: what is the national economic damage if roads and trains disappeared tomorrow?

      I don't think its too much of a stretch to think education and healthcare might be considered "promote general welfare".

      One also has to challenge the statement that the economy has actually grown, its probably more accurate that most of the purchases have been with CREDIT and not CASH so private consumer debt has skyrocketed but its hidden from the stats because they only consider amounts paid to corporations and NOT where the "money" actually came from.

      Back to mud sling fest!
  • robert94087, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16This is TOO FUNNY! HA HA HA HA!

    Why? Because 95% of you kids on digg are KIDS. And you're not paying AMT.

    And if you're not paying AMT, you are a LUCKY DUCK! You're getting off EASY in taxes.

    Only people paying AMT have a right to complain about TAXES.
    • yomamadudeyo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Wouldn't be so bad for you if they would re-index.
    • neozeed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I get an accountant to do my taxes so im not all 100% on what goes where, but isnt that for $170,000 and above?

      I guess with inflation one day we will all have the problem
    • spudnic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I believe that you can only rightfully disagree with taxation if you have some problem with the way the money is spent

      Seems a bit hypocritical to me to complain about taxation but at the same time enjoy and expect the things you get in return
    • jddigger272, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ neozeed

      No. It is a lot less I think around $40,000. It was intend as a tax for the wealthy but it's rate has remained the same for about 30 years but average salaries have increased so now it affects the middle to upper middle class.

      @robert94087

      As far as I can recall you only get caught up in the AMT mess if you start making all sorts of strange deductions.
    • neozeed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@jddigger272 40k? ***** then I definatly pay that then. I need to get my labor contracted out to a firm, so I can pay myself via dividends on stock or some kind of angle...
  • spahn, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6Too bad these numbers don't include money spent on the Iraq war. Add those in and then we'll see what the deficit really is.
  • CARPEDATAM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The AMT payers are some of the government's BEST CUSTOMERS. They're HIGH MARGIN, LOW EXPENSE>
  • CARPEDATAM, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Taxes are so 20th and 19th and 18th century....
  • BruticusMaximus, on 10/12/2007, -15/+14It wasn't the tax cuts that got the economy going, it was the insanely low mortage rates. More people took out home equity loans and lines of credit over the past 5 years than at any other time in history. Because of this, the average household disposable income jumped 17%. Did the tax cuts give the average American an extra 17% to spend? No. Unless of course you're making about $1,800 a year. The right refuses to see this. "I'm sure it's the tax cuts that saved the economy .... lets just stop looking for other reasons"
    • BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Its both. Money back in your pocket raises consumer confidence. If you get 300 or more back you might just go out and buy an Xbox or a TV with it. (which means Sales tax paid , seller's income tax report. etc).

      Granted though in the larger sense any interest rate can have a more drastic effect on the economy. However spending in retail also must happen.. IE remember Carter's runaway inflation. Low rates but no goods to buy resulted in runaway inflation.
    • neozeed, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2$300? give me a break, if that's what it takes for you to buy a house or not buy a house you are WAY too overextended. Although Id much rather be in the $40,000 refund group.

      That 'tax break' thing was just a slap in the face to everyone. But then again I think I'm the only one that did a 'return to sender' on my BS check.
    • BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Lol Strange but somehow buying an Xbox or a TV is getting compared to buying a house.?.? I'm not real sure how to reply...

      If it makes you feel any better I currently pay more monthly to the federal government than I do for my house. That does include the Medicaid and social security scam taxes So its not like all the money I am paying is going directly to spending but I still think it is to much. I keep hoping that someday I will have an opt-out check box appear on my tax forms.
  • Pilot85, on 10/12/2007, -11/+8Um... I pay taxes. So... what about our lovely deficit? "Largest it has ever been"? Come now... no matter that pre-Bush we actually had a chance of paying it off in the next couple of decades, returning to being creditors instead of the worlds' largest debtors... but I suppose that does not matter. Whatever.
    • chris355, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6The national debt can never be paid off. there is not enough money in circulation - nor will there be enough money in circulation in 30 years to pay it off. It's not designed to be paid off. It's designed to have you and me and our grandkids pay interest on it for the next bagillion years.

      Maybe you should start asking the question: Who exactly are we paying this debt off too? Is it the treasury department? No. Is it some foreign government? No. Is it some agency of our own government? No. It's a private orginization known as the federal reserve.
    • mitchellk, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7We did not have a chance of paying it off pre-Bush. Clinton left us with tax policies that guaranteed a recession, which did come about, with reduced revenues to the government. There was a guaranteed deficit ahead no matter what. With tax cuts and spending controls, especially eliminating spending not provided for in the Constitution, by cutting our donations to the UN, by eliminating the pork, the deficit could be wiped out quickly.
    • TreborYelaeh, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Clinton left us with tax policies that guaranteed recession? Huh? Can I get some of that smokin'/pill 'cuz they are obviously POWERFUL stuff!!!

      The deficite is the result of the orgy of spending that occured under Reagan's administration.

      Clinton reduced the burn rate but that's about it.

      If you want to assign BLAME then Grandpa Ronnie's administration, most of whom are still around in the current tax 'n spend administration, are the ones to blame!

      As far as fixing the problem? Live within your means at all levels of personal and public spending would go farther than any tax cuts ever will...

      Back to the mud slingin'
    • chris355, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4While I admire your enthusiasm, your still not looking at the big picture. If the number quoted above are correct (5.8 trillion dollar debt) you would need that much cash to pay the debt off. the fact of the matter is, the government doesn't every pay that off. They can only pay it off with cash - effectively returning the money to the federal reserve (the private corporation we owe this money too - yes, I did say private). If you can only pay it in cash you have to have that much cash to pay it off with. There is no where near that much cash (physical dollars) in circulation today. The other problem with your scenario is that the money is then by definition removed from the money supply - which causes more inflation, which causes the interest rates we need to pay on that same debt to go up because there's less money in circulation. If you don't understand, don't worry. most people don't. The reason the Federal Reserve lent us the money (the federal government) was so they could charge us interest on it. So much interest that we would never be able to pay it back. Again, the question you have to ask is: WHY IN THE HELL DO WE HAVE TO BORROW OUR OWN MONEY!!!!!!!!! Why doesn't the top of your bill read the "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"??? Because we don't own the money.

      Do me a favor. Take a $1 Bill out of your wallet and tell me what organization's name appears at the very top at the highest level of prominence? "THE FEDERAL RESERVE"
  • scifi007, on 10/12/2007, -11/+8What they don't address is the distribution of that wealth increase. Most likely it was only the upper income "households" that received it.

    The deficit numbers are probably mostly due to accounting tricks and slashes in domestic spending (such as the cuts to education under the guise of "no child left behind"). the "accounting trick" is specifically that the government allows the borrowing of money to pay off debt to count against the deficit. So, if the gov't owes $20, they can borrow the $20 now and then claim "the deficit is $20 lower!!" even though they have to pay that back later. Which is, of course, the same thing that Enron got hammered for. But it's the gov't, so they don't need to be accountable...

    Once you take those tricks (lies) out, the deficit is still increasing.
    • zydeco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I'd like to know what % of that "wealth increase" is in real estate equity, on paper, and unrealized.
  • skrowl, on 10/12/2007, -12/+17How did this pro-Bush-administration piece make it to the front page? Where are all of the DailyKos readers who normally bury any pro-Bush story as inaccurate before they even read it?
    • uttles, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6Give it about 5 minutes.
    • BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -12/+10They are all still at Starbucks telling each other how intellectually elite they are. Haven't had a chance to make it to the Campus Library yet.
    • aburd, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6This story didn't suck. Most of the digg-right's stories suck so they get buried. This one is actually really good so it is getting promoted. Find more of these and you won't get buried.
    • gnomon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2"They are all still at Starbucks telling each other how intellectually elite they are. Haven't had a chance to make it to the Campus Library yet."

      Gawd-darn book-learn't intellectshuals are ruinin' this here country.
    • MackBolan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The retorts I've seen thus far are limited to 'That website is a right wing site' (thanks for pointing it out to rest of us) or a re-spewing of the script written by the democrats which as usual doesn't reference any real data to back up their statements and simply poses questions to which they purport to have the only true answer. (e.g. Can you really tell me the middle class is better off today than in such and such a time?)

      My answer is yes. Yes I am. I asked the same question to a couple of my neighbors and they gave me the same answer. Anyone with a fundamental understanding of statistics knows that they can be twisted to serve whatever purpose. However, usually to the exclusion of some basic fact. (e.g. This number was higher than ever but look at this other number over here, how dreadful.) Yet the original stat remains and the person arguing the counter has no interest in addressing it's importance because it doesn't serve their cause. Now I'm no pollster, I don't work for a 'non-partisan' think-tank and I certainly don't work for a media outlet that can perform a survey of 1000 people and claim to know how 300 million people feel about something.

      I do know that I make more money and take home more in my paycheck than I ever have. I bought a house and have zero debt other than my mortgage. And I am part of the down trodden 'Middle Class'.

      I found out that I was part of the lower end of the 'Middle Class' growing up which I find laughable because I always thought I was part of the 'Lower Class' until I applied for school loans and found out how 'wealthy' my family was (*sarc*). Yet somehow I found a way to go to school and in my opinion succeed. Yet even though I am a college grad and make significantly more money, I am still part of the 'Middle Class' . For as long as I can remember, including from my grossly liberal college professors, all I've heard is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Amazingly I, and many I know have remained 'Middle Class' AND are still well off.

      I can't think of a bigger turn off to a voter than to have some particularly wealthy politician tell me how sorry they feel for me for being so naive as to think that I am well off.

      Of course different things are important to different people. So if social programs, abortion, gay marriage, depleting military spending or whatever are the most important things to you then by all means vote your heart. If you want to vote based on the infotainment you watch every night or your favorite pundit's blog or show go for it. That's what our 2 party system is for. Pick a side and defend it at all costs. Be critical of the opposing side yet don't offer solutions of your own. When something is counter to what your side believes don't think about whether it makes sense or is reasonable just 'google it' and find out what your party tells you to think about it or how to argue against it.

      Me? I vote my paycheck because I am shallow and have no compassion and of course I just don't get it and someone else needs to tell me what should be important to me.
  • carlosglz, on 10/12/2007, -16/+13Yes but WHO have the tax cuts benefited most? The wealthiest 1% of Americans. As proven time and time again, trickle down economics only helps the rich get richer. Ask a few middle-class families if they feel they are in a better position now... you will have your answer.
    • uttles, on 10/12/2007, -14/+10That is the dumbest statement in the history of economics.
    • crubin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Of course the wealthy benefit the most by tax cuts, because they are the ones that are disproportionately taxed! Almost half the country doesn't even pay income taxes anymore. That indeed is dangerous - you've got half the electorate receiving benefits and not paying any of the costs - how in the world is the electorate then to be expected to exercise fiscal restraint over its representatives through the ballot box?
    • ChronicColonic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Ever work for a poor person? The pay is not that great.
    • licoricewhip, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Wow. That statement made the point. The tax cuts benefited everyone. You are just mad that they benefited more those who paid more in taxes.

      Someone tell me how the tax cuts hurt anyone?
  • chris355, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The defining construct of the tax code is not to raise money for the government. it's to keep you under government control by controlling the supply of money on the demand side of the economy. The federal reserve (not federal and not a reserve) adds money to the economy that you pay interest on get then the government comes along and taxes your real wealth production which effectively increases the real interest rate you pay to the federal reserve to borrow their fiat money, causing you to borrow more. Get a clue America. The fair tax would be great, but will never happen. They've got us right where they want us.
  • teenwolf, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7When are the left wing in this country going to wake up? The DOW is at a record high, our economy is great, gas prices are respectable, natural gas is cheap again. YOu people are starting to sound like right wingers during the end of the Clinton regime.
    • satanatnmtedu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2The DOW is NOT at a record high adjusted for inflation. Don't drink the koolaid.

      And, the unemployment rate is nto the true measure of the number of people unemployed. You can drop off the unemployment list even if you are still unemployed.

      I would like to see what percentage of total wealth the "wealth created" is. If it does not outpace inflation, then there is a net LOSS not a gain.
  • RaistlinMajere, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5Reported as inaccurate. Certainly doesn't belong under "political news" :P
    • uttles, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9It's about the results of a controversial piece of legislation that was backed and signed by George W Bush, a politician. How again does it not belong under political news?
    • BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6RaistlinMajere,
      Hows your coffee?
    • Singfoom, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3It doesn't qualify as political "news" because of the fact that it is from a biased source. Please don't try to tell me that www.redstate.com doesn't have a dog in this fight, because they do. If a non-partisan think tank or foundation did a study like this and had some context in terms of how those gains were distributed, we could talk. Otherwise, this is just like treating a dailykos.com post about how the tax cuts killed the middle class as "news". Not verifiable, factual journalism, therefore != news.
  • derekbill, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Gosh, imagine what would have happened if Gore hadn't been deselected and we'd had 6 more years of Clintonesque economic policies: We'd have no federal deficit, reduced the national debt, and added another 15 million or so jobs. Of course, Halliburton wouldn't have raked in tens of billions for serving mac and cheese to 300,000 of our poor bastard troops, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women, and children would still be alive. Pretty harsh, huh?

    If you don't buy that....let's run with redstate.com's logic. Let's reduce taxes to 1%, and we'll see the greatest economic boom the world could ever imagine. We can just borrow the deficit from China and the Saudis, and when the bill gets so high we can't pay the interest, we'll just find a way to blame it on Clinton, gays, or liberals in general, and file BANKRUPTCY! What are the faraway nations holding our worthless paper going to do about it?
  • growler1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3All partisan-sniping aside, could someone please explain to me how cutting taxes creates more revenue for the government? I know the idea is that more money=more purchasing, thereby boosting business income, but is more buying really what the American consumer should do right now? Shouldn't it be more saving?

    I'd say tax cuts are just peachy if the feds would trim waste, bloat, and pork from the federal budget, but I haven't seen that happen over the past six years. Rather, I think we've seen quite the opposite.
    • BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5One simple explanation. Taxes are based off income. If one guy makes 100 dollars he is taxed off 100 dollars. if one guy makes 100 dollars spends it to another guy, both guys are taxed off 100 dollars.

      This is just one reason it can make you more money to have the masses spending money vs saving it.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Here's another simple explanation: there's no consistent evidence that it does.

      Here's what you do:

      1) create a website that uses unadjusted (non-constant) dollars, comparing apples to oranges.

      2) Tell everyone that the increase in the numbers is because of the "tax cuts."

      3) Even after lying like that, ignore that the "tax cuts" didn't even replace the revenue that they took away (ie. massive debt.)

      Then, make a bajillion off of ad revenue from people who don't know the difference between an apple and an orange.
  • puffarthur, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8It's called the Laffer Curve. Look it up. Actually, quick wikipedia link:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_Curve

    Basically we were overtaxed by overzealous and clueless democrats. Laffer Curve, which has been proven by significant quantitative studies, shows that if the nation is overtaxed, and we reduce taxes, that stimulates the economy to grow much faster thus resulting in LARGER TAX REVENUES. But you know, the Democrats will always vote for tax increases anyway, simply to punish the middle and upper classes, even though most of the tax cut benefits small businesses, not individuals. Who needs science when you are a liberal/socialist with a mission to do the exact opposite of whatever conservatives do, no matter what it is.
    • Exhaust, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5Sounds like theres a reason its called the "Laffer" curve because its laughable. Look at the other statistics on the same website... Like flernk posted:

      Average median wage fall (in today's $) 38%
      National Debt increase to $3 Trilllion since 2001
      Yearly Deficit $300 Billion per year
      Middle Class income after taxes down by 23%
      Income of those making $250,000 or more up by 37%

      Clinton's massive surplus was the republicans doing right? Your boy Bush's dad raised taxing didn't he? Even after saying he wouldn't "Read my lips"? Stop with the dems raise taxes just cause they think its fun crap.
  • gharding, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I wish these guys would start using scientific notation. 6.25E11.
  • skrowl, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10 The top 1% (by income) of Americans pay more than a third of all income taxes collected in the USA (34.27%)

    The top 50% (by income) of Americans pay a large majority all income taxes collected in the USA (96.54%)

    So basically, the bottom 50% (the 'poor' as the class-warfare-creating liberals would have you believe) pay just 3.46% of the income tax paid in the USA.

    Does that sound fair to you?
    • Yonkers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4If they don't think the Fair Tax is fair because the lower income pays a proportionately bigger share of their income in taxes, they why would they think the current system is fair.
      They won't be happy until the top 5% pays for everything. Or at the least they want everyone to pay more if the make more money. Oh wait. That's how it is now.
      Now why arent't they happy again?
    • Marmot, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5The bottom 50% are also making less than $25,000 per year.

      How much should we raise taxes on them in order to be more fair to the wealthy?
    • JackHererUK, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yes that sounds very fair to me, rich people who can afford it pay the highest proportion, and poor people who can't afford it pay the lowest proportion, with the people in the middle paying somewhere between the two. Can't really get much fairer than that.
    • reed311, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Of course its fair. Someone who makes a ***** of money, also uses a ***** of our limited resources and therefore should be taxed at a much higher rate.

      These top 1% are making over a hundred times what others are making.

      If I make $50 million a year and I am taxed 40%, I still have more money than I could EVER spend. If I make 15,000 a year and I am taxed only 20%, I will barely have enough to live on.
    • Yonkers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1reed311 says "If I make $50 million a year and I am taxed 40%, I still have more money than I could EVER spend. If I make 15,000 a year and I am taxed only 20%, I will barely have enough to live on."

      Then why not adopt Communism and no matter how much you make, the government will tax you that we all end up with the same amount of money. How absurd is your statement?
    • Marmot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Yonkers:

      "Then why not adopt Communism and no matter how much you make, the government will tax you that we all end up with the same amount of money. How absurd is your statement?"
      ----------
      Nowhere near as absurd as your strawman. That's a little bit of an extreme restatement of Skrowl's argument, which is that the fair tax or flat tax would be unfair to the poor and middle class.

      Nobody has any problem with people making more money than anybody else.

      The only problem people have is when the tax burden gets shifted too heavily on the poor. A flat tax of 20% would cost $4000 to a person making $20,000 per year. That person is going to feel a $4000 tax a lot more than the CEO pulling in $20 million per year, even if the CEO pays $4 million per year in taxes.

      The CEO would still have $16 million of after-tax income. Paying $4 million in taxes means he might have to go for a smaller jet or something, but he will have no tough decisions when it comes to basic survival needs.

      Take $4,000 per year from the guy making $20,000 per year, and the impact is very different. He's now left with $16,000 per year. If basic food / shelter cost $15,000 per year, he'll squeak by...just.

      Let's look at it differently... the government needs an extra $1000. Should it get it from the guy making $20,000,000 or the guy making $20,000? Who would miss it more?
  • nilekinnick, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Painfully thin numbers trying to imply meaning. All of these numbers mean nothing unless documented, and framed in some sort of context (trends for each data measurement).

    The author of this data would do well to study the teachings of Prof. Edward Tufte.
  • crubin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Before the 16th amendment to the Constitution, all taxes had to be levied on everyone proportionately. The 16th amendment freed Congress to impose taxes on different people at different rates - ending the important protection of equal/proportionate taxation. Essentially, everyone's freedom, property and prosperity now exists by the grace of Congress since tomorrow Congress could use the income tax to confiscate 90% or more of everyone's earnings, and there ain't nothing any court could do to stop them.

    "[S]ince the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment we have no real constitutional Government upon that most important of all subjects, the relation of Government to the Individual's right to property." The Reconciliation of Government With Liberty by John William Burgess (1915). [from www.languageofliberty.com]

  • aburd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I have a question for the Fair Tax peoples. Why do you favor the "fair tax" over the "flat tax"?

    My problem with the Fair Tax is that it is a blatant attempt to create a tax shelter for those who aren't living paycheck to paycheck. Whereas a flat tax is ACTUALLY fair. What is the flaw in my logic?
    • BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I actually agree. I am in favor of flat tax. And I will go as far to say that under the guise of equality that the flat tax should be an AMOUNT not a percentage. All Americans are entitled to the same services from the federal government therefore they all pay the same fee. Now don't think I am kidding myself. I know this flat fee would never work. However its concept is the only fair tax. I would be reasonable and tolerate a flat tax percentage and still say "that's an improvement".
    • cnordholm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2A flat tax disproportionately burdens the poor, that's why it isn't fair. It's cliched, but "to whom much is given much is expected."
    • Canthros, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4A flat tax is usually understood to be a single-rate income tax. The FairTax proposal seeks to remove the national income tax and replace it with a national sales tax.
    • uttles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Firstly, the Income Tax is unconstitutional... well... until the government decided they needed to take away our money at gunpoint.

      Secondly, living paycheck to paycheck is a choice. If you don't save or if you don't make a good wage, you can choose to do something about it, or sit back and complain.
  • howrealisreal, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3economic boom for whom.. that's the real question.
    • BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Could be for anybody willing to jump into our capitalist economy and go for it. Wages are up. Unemployment down. Put yourself in demand and don't be afraid to ask for a raise.
  • Vapid, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4"300,001,643 Total Number of Americans benefiting from President Bush’s Tax Cut"

    0.13% Percentage of Americans (the wealthiest) who received 90% of all the benefits of Bush's tax cut.

    Sure, you can go ahead and say the $45 I received in tax cuts benefitted me.

    GG @ redstate.com
  • gregrich, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Lower taxes === Good

    The numbers in that article are for the most part correct

    Spending by the current administration === BAD

    We need lower taxes and get this wait a brilliant idea LOWER spending.

    We need to put a freeze on defense spending, decrease social welfare and increase education, in this day and age there is no need to for a school to cut programs and cram 30 kids into a class room. We also need to fix our problem with illegal immigration (and a fence is not the answer we need to fine people that hire illegals while at the same time increasing security at the border), and get Americans working low / no skilled jobs at livable wages.

    Higher education + more people working + lower taxes + lower government spending is the answer

    This administration one of them right
    • bryclark21, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I agree with most of this, but how much more money do we really need to spend on education? Every city in Texas, it seems, is building large, college style football stadiums. How about spending the money on the kids? (I personally love HS Football, but if you cant afford it, then don't buy it.)

      I would apply your "+ lower government spending" to education too, putting the money where it belongs and then you have a winning equation.
  • dknighton, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Anyone who believes that the government taking MORE money from you is a good thing has an agenda I don't care to comprehend. Government should be small, unobtrusive, and operate at the will of the People. While the intention sounds noble (tax money pays for social programs, helps the poor, etc.), the bottom line is these programs make people more depended on the government, whether intentional or not.

    Pay the bills, let the citizens keep more of their paychecks, and natural selection will take care of the rest. It is not society's responsibility to take care of every reprobate and slack-ass that refuses to do it for himself.
    • vinny, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2So, then I assume you are for ending the war in Iraq? I also assume you are for ending the Social Security and Medicare programs? You really think the people who benefit from those programs (you included) are slackers? Do you really think anyone who ran on that platform would have a chance in hell of being elected? Do you have any realistic ideas?
    • cnordholm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Right on! And let's let the poor die of TB and AIDS; their moral failure to make a six figure income is not my problem!
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4>Do you have any realistic ideas?

      Let me jump in here: No, he doesn't.
    • tripleg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2From the chairman of the conservative Cato Institute in May of this year:

      The "Starve the Beast" assertion is inconsistent with the facts, at least since 1980. My study finds that there was a strong negative relation between the federal spending percent of GDP and the federal revenue percent of GDP from 1981 through 2005, even controlling for the unemployment rate.

      An increased belief in the "Starve the Beast" assertion has substantially reduced the traditional Republican concern for fiscal responsibility - leading to a pattern of tax cuts, increased spending, and increased deficits. This pattern has been strongest during the current Bush administration, primarily because the Republicans control both the administration and a majority of both houses of Congress."

      http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/05/11/starve-the-beast-just-does-not-work/
  • jlunski, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"Historic Tax Cut Boosts Growth, Lifts Stock Market, and Increases Jobs"...

    Ok I am no economics whiz but how can that statement be true if this country has been "bordering on the edge of recession" for some time now? I am not being sarcastic, I genuinely want to know, somewhere some numbers are not adding up.
    • BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Who is telling you that we are on a borderline recession??? (
    • jlunski, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@ BigBaRay - Google +us +economy +recession and check out the top hits, there has been talk of the US being in a recession for years.
  • WalterDirt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Lets face the truth, the problem isn't the taxes, its always been how its spent. We need an elected officials reform (read: impeach and fire all the scumbags), not tax reform.

    The republicans have tried to run on a platform of fiscal responsibility, but you thick headed right wingers have been taken for a ride, these a**holes will say anything to get your vote.

    /its like the whiny little b*tch that complains he never has any money because he lives his life way above his pay grade.
    • WalterDirt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Don't get me wrong the Dems have spent plenty. But have you seen what this war is costing us? To what end? I don't feel any safer, these aren't our brethren? Just imagine how the billions spent on Iraq could have changed our country if spent locally.
    • gregrich, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I somewhat agree with you on this one but we have a great system here in America; come November we could have a November revolution; all without firing one bullet. Its actually really easy, do not elect the incumbent; we all the know the job they are doing but for some reason we keep on electing them. Do not elect the Republican or the Democrat; elect the person who is not a politician, elect the cop, the firefighter, elect the teacher, elect anyone besides the politician. Our countries problems are our own fault because every two years we elect the same people into office.
  • rabiddogma, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3So where did these numbers come from? A little organization called the American sharholders association, and they give no source for their numbers either.













    I call *****
  • vinny, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I'm all for lower taxes, but if you really want lower taxes you have to be willing to except spending cuts! I love how Republicans want their tax cuts AND there spending at the same time. Who is going to pay for the war in Iraq? Who is going to pay for Social Security and Medicare? You can't do everything you want to do AND pay less for it, it simply doesn't add up. I thought Republicans were supposed to be fiscally responsible? I was actually encouraged when Bush was elected and promised to "hold the line on spending." What a joke that turned out to be.
  • enki25, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4How is this associated with the tax cuts? All of the improvements listed could just as easily come from normal economic growth, there's no explanation of a correlation between the tax cuts and this activity.
    • JackHererUK, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Well there is clearly a correlation because the numbers are for the period since the tax cuts, what this doesn't prove is a cause and effect relationship.
  • cterryr2, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2 I have seen no benifit at all. When will our goverment help the poor?
    • BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5A more important question is "When will the poor help themselves?".
  • Dotnetsky, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2These numbers don't mean a lot, either side can cook the books to make things look their way. If you want to see how goverment policy is affecting the economy, just look at the stock market. Last time I checked, the Industrials had just made a new all-time high. And this BS about "biggest deficits in history" is a total crock. The deficit as a percentage of our GDP is historically right in the ballpark. So get real.
  • JackHererUK, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2If anything you need higher taxes in the US, then perhaps you could afford things that the rest of the developed world consider basic human rights such as universal health care.
  • cnordholm, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0The increased tax revenues come from corporations raping the country and the world due to deregulation corporate welfare. They rake in cash while the middle class gets screwed and shrinks ever more.
  • tripleg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6This is quite misleading... I assume that neither you, nor any of the folks chiming along looked at the original report the poster is referencing.

    1) Household wealth has increased, but the distribution is slanted far toward the wealthy end of the spectrum, and is taking into account the large increase in public wealth gained by acquisition of assets in a period of cheap credit, i.e. homes.

    2) Of course, tax revenues are going to increase in an economic expansion, tax cuts or no. The Congressional Budget Office indicates that one of the main factors is corporate income taxes from skyrocketing corporate profits, which on a pretax basis reached 12.7 percent of GDP in the first quarter of 2006, the highest level since 1950. Are average Americans seeing any of that, nope only a very select few? Well, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, tax receipts from individuals have only grown from $1.047.4 trillion in the first quarter of 2001 and $1.067.4 trillion in the second quarter of 2006, a measly 1%.

    3) Stop using the unified budget. It is incredibly inaccurate. It includes all of the government agencies that have a surplus which is supposed to be saved for later years. One of the largest of these is the Social Security Trust Fund, which consequently is reaching its peak before the decline that will result by the retirement of baby boomers. If you look at new debt issued by the Treasury, the story is bleak. Over the last four years, according to the Bureau of Public Debt, the US has issued over $550 billion each year in net new debt. At this rate, and with this amount of discretionary spending increase we aren't getting out of debt.

    I would also like to add that the Republicans have mushroomed the size of the federal government. From 2001 to the second quarter of 2006, discretionary spending increased from $649 billion to 947 billion. A rise of 39%. Under Clinton this number rose only a little under 1%. Heck, even Regan beat him by increasing discretionary spending by 12%. Who favors big government again?

    And to all the folks chiming about the high in the Dow. Take this into account:
    The wealthiest 10% control about 80% of all stocks. The Survey of Consumer Finances show that the historically increasing trend in the shares of all households owning any stock reversed course from just over half in 2001 (51.9%) to just under half in 2004 (48.6%)—the first such decline on record. Are any of you reaping the fruits of this increase?
  • JackHererUK, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Correlation does not imply causation

    Homer: Not a bear in sight. The "Bear Patrol" is working like a charm!
    Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
    Homer: [uncomprehendingly] Thanks, honey.
    Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
    Homer: Hmm. How does it work?
    Lisa: It doesn't work. (pause) It's just a stupid rock!
    Homer: Uh-huh.
    Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
    Homer: (pause) Lisa, I w