Ok, I can take the neo-con likes to bomb stuff arguemnt. there is an element of truth there. Bent half truth but enough for me to momentairly ignor it.
but this non-sense about tax cuts for the top 5% is patently false. (down here in the deep south "patenly false" is often recognized as a flat out lie.)
the FACT is that GWB reduced taxes on the bottom tax payer by 100%. That is right, they paid taxes now they dont. the tax rate on middle income people was drastically reduced and those in higher tax brackets had their taxes reduced only by a small percentage.
that is the FACTS.
in 1980 the top 5% paid 37% of the tax burden today the top 1% pay 37% of the tax burden. using the pre-Bush tax code the top 1% would have paid 31% of the tax burden.
It is utter nonsense to say that The Bush tax cuts favored the rich by giving them a greater tax cut than middle income people! UTTER NONSENSE.
in 1999 the top 1% paid 36.18% of the federal Personal Income Tax
in 2006 the top 1% paid 39.89%
in 1999 the top 5% paid 55.45%
in 2006 the top 5% paid 60.14%
in 1999 the bottom 50% paid 4%
in 2006 the bottom 50% paid 2.99%
it is a balled faced lie that George Bush gave rich people more tax cuts. he did cut taxes, the rich did benifit from it, they made money and they paid MORE taxes.
but even more importantly for social progressives, George Bush's tax policy was MORE PROGRESSIVE than Clinton's tax policy NOT LESS.
Mike really, I can live with the "you people like to bomb everybody line. it isnt really accurate but it is worth debating.
I cant take this insipid and blatantly false charge that Bush gave the rich bigger tax cuts than anybody else. It has no basis in reality.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
1. GWB was a republican and his approval rating as the sitting, outgoing president was below 50%. There has never been an election where the party of a sitting unpopular president won the white house.
2. The Democrat was alive and had not been caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Contrary to some folks view GWB did not become so unpopular because he was too conservative.
Certainly the war in Iraq caused a great deal of fatigue and was the primary reason for his drop below 50%. Had he stayed out of Iraq, it is very likely that he would have maintined a much higher approval rating.
but consider also that there were preventable failures in Iraq that eventually wre turned around after rumsfeld was fired. (cant over stress this point)
additionally, GWB did some things that were very un-conservative that caused the right wing of the party to be disaffected as well.
He governed as a moderate and got labled as a conservative. Immagration reform was very un-conservative, the approach to adding drug coverage to medicare was not the conservative approach. leaving Fannie and Freddy alive and well to mess up the economy was what the dems wanted and Bushes attempts to fix it were tenitive and he stopped at the first sign of oppostion.
His tax plan was very progressive but he let the liberals paint it as something other than what it was. the fiction became reality. even though the facts say otherwise.
GWB let spending exceed what it should have been and he had willing accomplises in both parties in that.
Liberals hated GWB because they wouldnt even fight Hitler and most of them think Chairman Mao was just miss-understood.
Conservatives turned on him because he didnt govern as a conservative.
TARP was a failure because it didnt do what it was supposed to do.
But that has nothing to do with where republicans need to go from here. rebulding the party means actually being the party of responsible spending. if they do that one thing, the republicans will be fine.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
I stand by my assessment. The loss in '08 and subsequent win by Obama and Dems wasn't a indictment against conservative Republicans.
I'm a registered Independent ... I left the Republicans in 2004 or 2006, I don't remember when I officially changed my party affiliation ... in my case, I couldn't stand their inability to control spending or move things thru Congress. They became as the Democrats, money and power-hungry.
Again, McCain and the Republicans loss in '08 wasn't about ideologies ... this was about:
1) an incredibly gifted orator - with a teleprompter;
2) a man who offered a motto of encouragement - "Yes We Can;"
3) the fairy tale story of a minority who came from the bottom up to run for the highest office in the land ...
this versus ...
1) an old, grumpy, grouchy-faced, negative veteran of Congress;
2) a man who was tied with the unpopular Bush administration;
3) a man who offered nothing, no hope or vision for America, but only offered criticism of his opponent and tried to win thru fear
Like it or not, a large majority of the population voted for Obama based - not on ideology - but on race.
I heard countless interviews on cable news with people saying how they just "had to vote" for Obama, because he was making "history."
Add to that, Howard Stern and others who sent people in the streets to poll people ... with the completely wrong information. People HAD NO CLUE what Obama's policies were. In several instances, they even thought Obama and PALIN were running together and were happy about that.
Again, '08 NOT an indictment against Republicans.
What do you blame the Congressional loss by the Republicans in '06 on?
__________________
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity. Augustine
Ok, I can take the neo-con likes to bomb stuff arguemnt. there is an element of truth there. Bent half truth but enough for me to momentairly ignor it.
but this non-sense about tax cuts for the top 5% is patently false. (down here in the deep south "patenly false" is often recognized as a flat out lie.)
the FACT is that GWB reduced taxes on the bottom tax payer by 100%. That is right, they paid taxes now they dont. the tax rate on middle income people was drastically reduced and those in higher tax brackets had their taxes reduced only by a small percentage.
that is the FACTS.
in 1980 the top 5% paid 37% of the tax burden today the top 1% pay 37% of the tax burden. using the pre-Bush tax code the top 1% would have paid 31% of the tax burden.
It is utter nonsense to say that The Bush tax cuts favored the rich by giving them a greater tax cut than middle income people! UTTER NONSENSE.
in 1999 the top 1% paid 36.18% of the federal Personal Income Tax
in 2006 the top 1% paid 39.89%
in 1999 the top 5% paid 55.45%
in 2006 the top 5% paid 60.14%
in 1999 the bottom 50% paid 4%
in 2006 the bottom 50% paid 2.99%
it is a balled faced lie that George Bush gave rich people more tax cuts. he did cut taxes, the rich did benifit from it, they made money and they paid MORE taxes.
but even more importantly for social progressives, George Bush's tax policy was MORE PROGRESSIVE than Clinton's tax policy NOT LESS.
Mike really, I can live with the "you people like to bomb everybody line. it isnt really accurate but it is worth debating.
I cant take this insipid and blatantly false charge that Bush gave the rich bigger tax cuts than anybody else. It has no basis in reality.
I think you went too far with your comments Ferd. If your implying or saying that I lied, I resent that. My statement is absolutely accurate and truthful and I believe you should consider apologizing.
My point was simply that the Bush tax cut was targeted for helping the top 5% of tax payers. If you disagree with that, you disagree with the Congressional Budget Office.
I never mentioned the middle class in my post and have no idea why you inferred things that weren't there.
Bottom line the GWB tax cuts were targeted to help the ultra wealthy and they did just that according to the Congressional Budge Office.
I'm quoting from the New York Times article on the CBO report, "The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline."
What do you blame the Congressional loss by the Republicans in '06 on?
The loss in '06 was for a variety of reasons ...
The ability of the Dems to capture public discontent with the Iraq War, along with the news to publish the discontent;
Republican scandals involving several Senators and Congressmen;
There was also a feeling that Congress just wasn't doing anything besides arguing. This is something the Democrats deserve credit for, unfortunately. They were able to hold off a Republican WH and majority Republican Congress with procedures and fillibusters ... something the Republicans failed to do.
Mostly, as Ferd mentioned, with the public opinion against GW - anything relating to him either struggled or lost in both '06 and '08.
But we'll wait awhile and see how the public opinion changes once cap and trade and other Obama policies go into effect.
I predict, if the Republicans can get back to their roots, their recent losses will be temporary.
I think you went too far with your comments Ferd. If your implying or saying that I lied, I resent that. My statement is absolutely accurate and truthful and I believe you should consider apologizing.
My point was simply that the Bush tax cut was targeted for helping the top 5% of tax payers. If you disagree with that, you disagree with the Congressional Budget Office.
I never mentioned the middle class in my post and have no idea why you inferred things that weren't there.
Bottom line the GWB tax cuts were targeted to help the ultra wealthy and they did just that according to the Congressional Budge Office.
I'm quoting from the New York Times article on the CBO report, "The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline."
i suppose one cannot be held accountable for repeating a lie they have been told. the dems have done fine work. I cannot blame you.
so dont take that personally.
however there really isnt much excuse for repeating what you read from the new york times...
Whatever oh Ferdious one. Again if you have a beef it's with the Congressional Budget Office and according to CBO(not the NYT) the Bush tax cuts helped the wealthiest citizens the most. I think I'll trust the CBO.
__________________
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity. Augustine
Whatever oh Ferdious one. Again if you have a beef it's with the Congressional Budget Office and according to CBO(not the NYT) the Bush tax cuts helped the wealthiest citizens the most. I think I'll trust the CBO.
that "help" is couched in terms of "hurt" for the middle class. That simply isnt true at all.
its as if rich people "got over". That is the point of such talk. The fact is, not only did they not "get over" they ended up with a larger portion of the tax bill. (not a bad thing by the way)
There is no question that Bush's tax plan provided a better business environment and that leads to wealthy people making money. But wealthy people making money is no evil thing. Its a good thing. They hire people and pay more taxes. That is exactly what they did.
If someone could show that middle class and poor people were actually hurt (lost purchasing power) while the rich gained, then there might be an argument against Bush's tax policy.
As it is, his tax policy took many poor people off the tax roles, move all 15% tax bracket folk down to 10% (this is a 33% tax cut) and move the top rate from 39% to 53% which is about what?12% poor people got a better deal.
this is a great website. anyone can play with it and see that a persons tax rate is greater the more they pay. This goes back to 2000 (pre-bush) so you can see for yourself if it hurts middle income people.
there is a good calculator for income tax in the middle of this page that proves my point.
The wealthy pay most of the taxes, so it should be no surprised that they get a larger percentage of the tax cut total back! It is only fair.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers, he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’
‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’
‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’
‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
Whatever oh Ferdious one. Again if you have a beef it's with the Congressional Budget Office and according to CBO(not the NYT) the Bush tax cuts helped the wealthiest citizens the most. I think I'll trust the CBO.
Linear Mode
