Tax cuts for the Rich

“Zactly, Zac.”

“They're gonnah sell Grideiron Buybills to the Atheist, that'll pay 'er off in kNoW time.”

“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUaF5spn6fg&feature=player_embedded

Shocking: Obama Admits He is “Unpatriotic”

In 2008,candidate Obama had some harsh words about President George W. Bush’s fiscal policy:

The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up the national debt from 5 trillion for the first 42 presidents — number 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.
Forget for a moment that during the Bush administration, the highest offense one could commit was to question the patriotism of the far-Left.

CBS News reported Monday:

The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama’s watch.

The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion.

It’s the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.


WOW! He sounds like a Tea Party guy...heh heh”

“He's a puppet of the rich, much as you are.”

“Running a deficit during an economic expansion when we were at close to full employment is very different than the situation we've been in lately.


I'm still waiting for you to explain how cutting Federal spending will create jobs.”

“The problem is the defect spending is way out of control. Look at our national dept. We owe $14.5 trillion. Even if we had a $1 billion surplus it would take us 14,500 years to pay that dept off. There has to be cut backs. This country is bankrupt.”

“I'm still waiting for you to explain how cutting Federal spending will create jobs.”
Rev Truth V Wicked

Well the administration says that food stamps creates jobs....so why don't we all just get food stamps and then we'll all have jobs....right?”

“That's not what you said.

You said: "Cutting spending and getting people back to work is the best medicine for what ales us...�
Stratd00d
2:12:10 PM
8/22/11


Can you explain how cutting Federal spending would help put folks back to work?

I'm all ears.”

“The system is bankrupt. When subsidies hide the true cost of living for so long, the real cost is lost in hassle to borrow more. We have never been able to allow the rich and even the middle Class to have the lifestyle they think they deserve for doing non-productive desk bound jobs.”

“Zac the only way to a solution is cutting spending heavily and raising taxes ... dudn't take a rocket scientist to see that. But anyone running for office in this great nation who even seems to want that (much less say it outright), don't have a chance in Hades of getting elected into office. I know for dang sure my 2 brothers ain't voting for anyone willing and evil enough to take away their free handout every week thereby letting my nieces and nephews starve .... heinous, evil, cruel even!

There's your starving poor Rev. Look, if you wish to pay them not to work, I got no trouble with that ...... One bro been living free for over a year, the other has passed his 1.5 year mark, mebbe closer to 2 now. (We don't talk about it.)

This incredible experiment called America obviously has some flaws, and the fact there are too many of "us" who think like you do Rev is something we will never be able to overcome.

perhaps directly or indirectly .... we will hail China, perhaps sooner than we all think .... I bet they won't feed my brothers for nothing .....”

“.......and I bet those bros have a cell phone cable tv internet a car a dishwasher keep paying America”

“Two years? tsk tsk

We have lot's of democrats that have been living off welfare for 3-4 generations.”

“I don't mind at all if Rev wants to pay my dearest brothers, I just hate having to do it. Oh yeah, nimrod, you'd be winning that bet. The wife of one brother recently had to "cut back on her Starbucks", I guess Rev wadn't giving her enough for her VERY regular visits there.”

“Your brother lost his job and is using food stamps to help feed his family and you resent that?

YoCan you even use food stamps at Starbucks?”

“We have lot's of democrats that have been living off welfare for 3-4 generations.”

The party that gets the poor has people on welfare, now that's a surprise. You'd think that the party that hates the poor may have been hating them for even as much as 3-4 generations, am I rite Stovie?”

“You may think you know your brother, but often his behavior may be caused by things over which he has no control. The welfare, you hate, is sometimes the most efficient and cheapest way to handle chronic can't does. Don't let jealousy create monsters in you relationship as is so prevalent in situations like this.Yes, I said jealousy.”

“OK uncliff, like I said liberal, if YOU and Rev want to pay for my brothers (that's plural, not singular), then by all means, I would never stand in your way. "I" just don't want to pay them that way.

I "...may think I know my brothers...", what? I live near both and grew up with them both .... yes sir indeed I know them, very well, extremely odd you might question that. Both are direct products from the welfare state that you so purportedly and vehemently support.

Beavis and Butthead ---> "hehehehehehe hehe hehehe... he said jealously... huhhehehehe"”

“See why you are the victim of your bothers, it ain't rocket science.”

“See- I don't know your brothers or their situation. You were the one who offered them as an example of a broken system.

Were they both gainfully employed and lost their jobs like millions of others have in this crummy economy? Have they not been able to find work that would allow them to support their families? If so, how can you not support a system that keeps food on the table?”

“The Republicans don't really care if people starve and die. Of course, when those starving people are rioting and burning all the McMansions to the ground, it'll be the Dem's fault.”

“The Republicans don't really care if people starve and die


LMAO!”

“Seriously though, I never get tired of hearing or reading that one---people should use it more often.”

“Don't worry, yawl use it without knowing, just enough to remind us periodically.”

“Liberals are very generous with other people's money.”

“Can you explain how cutting Federal spending would help put folks back to work?

I'm all ears.”
Rev Truth V Wicked

I own a huge business and employ hundreds. My taxes might be going up because of all this debt, so I better not hire right now because I can't afford more taxes and more employees....

Get it?

DErrrRrRRr”

“It took a while but I finally got an answer... and an insult.

So its your contention that keeping taxes low on the wealthy spurs hiring and federal spending deters it?”

“I've been away so I couldn't respond right away...

So yeah, unless you're talk'n bout Government Union jobs absolutely. Then the Union dues go straight to the D party coffers....that seems fair.

Gubment can't spend a dollar unless they take it from someone else(or borrow it from the Chinese and then they'll take it from our children). Do you have children V? I know a lot of progressives that don't. I think it's relevant because it's irresponsible what we are doing to the next generation, IMO. What can government "produce"? Oh yeah yeah, we need firefighters and military and judicial systems and cops.....but what else?”

“Posted: 8:10 a.m. Thursday, Aug. 25, 2011
Illinois increases taxes, loses jobs

*

comment (27)
*

Share
*

favorite
*
Vote (0)

View Larger
Illinois State Seal photo
Illinois State Seal

By Neal Boortz

How many times have I told you that taxes influence behavior? People want to keep more of what they earn. It’s as simple as that. So it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this one out ..

Since the official start of the “recovery,” Illinois employers were moderately adding jobs for months. That all stopped in January 2011. Since January, Illinois started losing jobs. Big time.
In fact, in July 2011, Illinois lost more jobs than any other state in the nation. It lost 24,900 non-farm payroll jobs in July as its unemployment rate climbed for the third straight month to 9.5%.

So Illinois was steadily adding jobs and then .. bam! .. it is losing more jobs than any other state in the nation. What happened?

Tax increases.

In early January, a Democrat legislature along with a Democrat governor passed a 67% personal income tax increase along with a 46% hike on corporate tax rates. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/12/ill-lawmakers-pass-percent-income-tax-increase/At the time the governor’s office estimated that the higher taxes would generate about $6.8 billion a year. I’m curious to see, but my guess is that Illinois will not see an increase in its tax receipts of $6.8 billion this year. This is because these Democrats were too focused on punishing wealth and the achievers rather than growing the size of the economic pie. Now they have fewer taxpayers paying into the system and more people drawing from the system in the form of unemployment benefits.

Aren’t Democrat tax policies inspiring? I sure do hope that Obama looks to his own state of Illinois for guidance on how best to create jobs and grow the economy .. don’t you?

See Violin? It doesn't work....and we gonna have a little Tea Party in 2012 to prove it.”

“I think that for every question Strat has to answer the Rev should have to answer one too, lol.”

“High density always needs more taxes than do less populated areas. The less pop areas invite biz into their areas with lower taxes and the high density pop moves to the low tax low pop areas where the new jobs are.

I'm out of green paint or I would have done a painting 4 yawl. California tries to get rid of people and nasty biz, Wait my paints here.”

“Yes strat, I have children. Funny how you defended deficit spending up until the second a Democrat was sworn in.


You stated "Gubment can't spend a dollar unless they take it from someone else(or borrow it from the Chinese...)."

There is something known as the multiplier effect. It is very important to understand the concept if you want to have any idea of how an economy functions. Very simply, a dollar in spending will produce something more than a dollar in gross national product. That dollar given to a steel worker to build a bridge gets spent at the local deli who's owner then spends a dollar on school supplies for his kid and so on until the original dollar becomes 2 or 3 dollars worth of economic activity.

Many people believe, and I agree, in most cases the market does a better job of deciding where to spend money (allocate resources) than does a centrally planned economy (the government). However, when there is an economic slowdown and businesses and individuals can't or won't spend money, the government can step in to prime the pumps by spending more than it takes in, which, through the multiplier effect, generates more economic activity and jobs. That's what has been going on over the last few years and is one reason why the economy didn't continue its nosedive and sink into a 1930's style depression. The austerity programs that have been forced upon the individual states are having the opposite effect - taking money out of the economy. This is one reason why the economy continues to lag and may be entering another recession. I believe that Republicans in Congress know this all too well and are deliberately trying to keep the economy in the crapper until after the 2012 elections by restraining spending.

We have a real structural problem in the American economy right now. So much money has been concentrated at the top by creating a regressive tax structure (where those at the top pay a lower effective rate) that there isn't enough money in the hands of everyone else to keep the economy going. A capitalist system does rely on capital formation but we've got a surplus of that now. Folks with money won't invest it here and create jobs for Americans when they see that there isn't enough income to create demand for their products. Corporations are sitting on record piles of cash with no place to invest it. It is in everyone's best interest to restore progressivity to the tax code so that the system can function properly and raise all boats. Some refer to this as class warfare and envy. Its neither. It is simply good economic policy.

I think you said you work at a college. Go to the book store and purchase a used copy of an introduction to macroeconomics. It is commendable that you are thinking and reading about these things, but you really should learn the basics so you won't be misled by those with selfish agendas.”

“There is something known as the multiplier effect. It is very important to understand the concept if you want to have any idea of how an economy functions. Very simply, a dollar in spending will produce something more than a dollar in gross national product. That dollar given to a steel worker to build a bridge gets spent at the local deli who's owner then spends a dollar on school supplies for his kid and so on until the original dollar becomes 2 or 3 dollars worth of economic activity.

Please explain the difference between this theory and the trickle-down theory. Is it more than just who gets to decide where the first dollar goes and how it gets there?


I believe that Republicans in Congress know this all too well and are deliberately trying to keep the economy in the crapper until after the 2012 elections by restraining spending.

You see, this is where you kill your credibility. Do you also believe that Democrats are capable of or are guilty of the same thing?”

“Actually meant to say, "Please explain how this is any different than the trickle-down theory. Is it more than just who gets to decide where the first dollar goes and how it gets there?"”

“Trickle down is known as supply side economics. Its pretty easy to understand that extra dollars in the hands of those with no place profitable to invest it does no good.


Do I believe that Democrats want to hurt their own chances going into 2012? No - I don't believe that.”

“The same dollar in the hands of someone living paycheck to paycheck will be spent and generate further spending. Get it?”

“Do I believe that Democrats want to hurt their own chances going into 2012? No - I don't believe that.

LOL. You seem to have missed part of the question.

I understand that you have very strong feelings about what you believe but if you only see demons in one area and refuse to see them anywhere else then you do nothing more than perpetuate a half-truth.

You imply you have little or NO trust in at least part of the government (the Repub and Tea Party part) but then you also seem to imply (IMO) you trust government MORE than you trust big business or big business people. Really?”

“For the record, I trust government (R's, D's, I's---you name it) far less than I trust the private sector.”

“Not sure I mentioned trust anywhere.

I trust very few people to do the right thing when they think no one is watching.”

“I trust very few people to do the right thing when they think no one is watching.


+1”

“Right, and who has NOT been doing the right thing over the past decade? Private business. Who did we bail out with our public money? It certainly wasn't public entities. It was Wall Street. It was banks. It was investment firms. It was private auto makers. Arguably, you can say we also pissed money down the rathole in Iraq in a trumped up war, much of which went to war profiteers like Halliburton subsidaries, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, etc. Sure, they were just benefiting from the sole source contracts they reaped because Unkie Dick was in charge, but they still helped to empty the coffers and get gut the system.

Private companies, IMHO, are the ones screwing us heavily. This is being allowed by the spineless politicians in Washington sue to political favoritism and owed debts because of multi-million campaign contributions.

Sorry, until you reign in election spending, we're never, ever gonna change.”

“The Bush surplus

By Neal Boortz

Sooooo sick and tired of hearing liberals talk about the great and wonderful surplus that George Bush inherited when he came into office, and then squandered. Know this folks – the surplus didn’t exist. Never did. It was a projection – nothing but a projection by the CBO. That projection was based on the 1990’s dot-com economy with the assumption being that we would see a continuation of this amazing economic growth, along with the increased government revenues, for the next ten years. It didn’t. That projection also made no allowances for the Islamic attacks of 9/11 and the cost of responding to those Muslim goons.

It’s a shame that more reporters don’t know the truth about this so-called Bush surplus so that they can call these Democrats when they spout this particular lie on television.”

“This is exactly what I mean when I say that you run the risk of being misled strat. People like Boortz and Beck aren't interested in educating you, they are basically using you.

Open this link, go to table F-11 and look at the surplus reported in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/AppendixF.shtml



Bush actually campaigned on returning this surplus to the people. Greenspan gave him cover to cut taxes by warning about the perils of paying down the debt too quickly.”

“Using me? Why would they want top use me?


The government can have a surplus even if it has trillions in debt, but it cannot have a surplus if that debt increased every year. This article is about surplus/deficit, not the debt. However, it analyzes the debt to prove there wasn't a surplus under Clinton.

For those that want a more detailed explanation of why a claimed $236 billion surplus resulted in the national debt increasing by $18 billion, please read this follow-up article.


Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration.

The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was only $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus.

So why do they say he had a surplus?

As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.

Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.

Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:

Fiscal
Year End
Date Claimed
Surplus Public
Debt Intra-gov
Holdings Total National
Debt
FY1997 09/30/1997 $3.789667T $1.623478T $5.413146T
FY1998 09/30/1998 $69.2B $3.733864T $55.8B $1.792328T $168.9B $5.526193T $113B
FY1999 09/30/1999 $122.7B $3.636104T $97.8B $2.020166T $227.8B $5.656270T $130.1B
FY2000 09/29/2000 $230.0B $3.405303T $230.8B $2.268874T $248.7B $5.674178T $17.9B
FY2001 09/28/2001 $3.339310T $66.0B $2.468153T $199.3B $5.807463T $133.3B

There's much more
{url]http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16[/url]”

“Stovies' Horse Hockey is nice and cool, all the rest is just Voo Doo, not doo doo, Voo Doo.”

“" I did not have taxes with this state!" California Governor Jerry Brown”

“Holy Barbill; http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/08/31/122778/haley-barbour-relative-defrauded.html”

“Strat that's rather interesting, t/y.”

“FBI arrests prominent Democratic campaign treasurer

SACRAMENTO � A prominent Democratic campaign treasurer who works for federal, state and O.C. lawmakers including U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Rep. Loretta Sanchez and state legislators Lou Correa and Jose Solorio has been arrested by the FBI on suspicion of mail fraud, The Orange County Register has learned.

U.S. Attorney's Office spokesman Thom Mrozek confirmed Saturday afternoon that Kinde Durkee of Burbank-based Durkee and Associates, was arrested by the FBI on a criminal complaint filed by the U.S. Attorney�s Office in Sacramento. Special Agent Steve Dupre of the bureau�s Sacramento office said she was arrested in connection with her position as a campaign treasurer......
http://www.ocregister.com/news/durkee-315349-campaign-county.html”