It Is Estimated That China Executes Over 10,000 A Year
Republican Leaders Draw A Line In The Sand
Both Boehner and McConnell have declined invitations to a state dinner by President Obama to honor the Chinese leader Hu. Obama is like a giddy schoolgirl getting ready for a date with the high school quarterback as he bends over to make the Hu feel special. Now Obama must feel smitten, since the White House had advised Congressional leaders that they were expected to attend the state dinner for Hu.
Nancy Pelosi, D. CA, has been a critic of China’s human rights record, but is anxious to be in the spotlight with a world leader and our gift from G-d. She will surely take the opportunity to quiz the Chinese dictator on China’s human rights’ violations with her inane sense of intellect and wit or perhaps Obama has wisely told her to keep her pie hole shut.
Shakespeare understood the addiction of the Progressive Socialists, and described the problem over 400 years ago.
Henry IV, Shakespeare:
I can get no remedy from this consumption of the purse; borrowing only lingers and lingers it out, but the disease is incurable.
This is only the third state dinner of Obama’s Administration and with his attention to extravagance and to show the dictator how we Americans can waste public funds, the dinner will probably be epic for a country that is mired in a recession and near bankruptcy. Every attempt will be made to show the man who wants, (has already decided) to dump the dollar as the international currency standard, that he is absolutely correct in his assessment of America’s financial leadership and wisdom, especially with the current administration.
For Boehner and McConnell to decline their invitation may seem like a lack of manners and etiquette to many; however, Harry Reid, who referred to the dictator as a dictator, is predisposed in Nevada and will meet with the Chinese dictator with Boehner and McConnell on Thursday as well.
Boehner, when quizzed about missing the state dinner, replied with diplomatic aplomb:
“Without accepting most of that question, the president of China is coming to the Hill on Thursday. We’re going to meet with him in a bipartisan fashion and I look forward to seeing him in the future.”
A rare show of diplomacy is appreciated in Washington these days; however, the question is remains in the shadows, like an assassin with a knife, how much of a friend is this country we call China. Can we trust them? or is their intention to destroy us economically and militarily. With a leader like President Obama, they know they can seize the advantage and manipulate his obeisance and hero worship of Communist leaders and dictators as if he were a gullible child.
(View all pictures of Chinese execution: Warning Graphic)
I just came in and popped on the TV.
First thing I see is a line of men and women kneeling on the ground with an armed Chinese soldier behind each one.
Suddenly the puff of smoke and the executed all fall over one way and another.
Gee, in the USA every firing squad hands out rifles with one empty among them.
Every man on the line can imagine his was that one.
Not in China.
There is a huge move earth-wide opposed to individual conscience.
Think of the seared conscience of every Chinese soldier, knowing he absolutely killed a person during executions like the ones you show.
In the Muslim world Christians are systematically being wiped out of existence.
Yes, those who can, get out.
But many are simply being murdered.
And when a few European countries and the Pope expressed outrage and dismay here’s the reaction: butt out!
http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/news/arab-leaders-reject-western-interference-minority-affairs
So Nan would you be in favor of allowing those persecuted Christians to move here to the USA?
As long as Obama is able to read what he is told, we still have to depend on who loaded the teleprompter.
I was wondering if this is the good cop, bad cop ploy between the two branches. Schumer has been making hostile remarks all week and Reid has also been pretty grumpy about our loan officers today. But, if the WH expected them to show up, and then they get snubbed, what might that look like to Hu?
I just read an article about Boehner and Obama. I seems as though Boehner isn’t too much concerned with him. He also turned down a ride on AF1 to attend the memoriapalooza last week, other dinners as well. Boehner said he lives in the real world and hasn’t much in common with Obama but may play a round of golf with him in the future. Fresh after dealing with a couple years of Obama the manchild, having to contend with the One’s new role as the press pumped up “compromiser” isn’t a duty he may be real optomistic about.
@John ryan: would you?
Darn right I would.
Rather that than have them wiped out in places like Pakistan, Egypt, Iraq and where-ever else.
Why not?
I am also for allowing refugees from the drug-violent Mexican border area come here to seek asylum.
(That is, if their own country cannot assist them in moving away from the violence.)
Those are exactly the people who America puts out the welcome mat for.
@Nan G: why would anyone have to ask such a question? Doesn’t bode well for us, does it?
It wasn’t Obama who got us in hawk to China. We took on two decade-long overseas wars while simultaneously cutting taxes for a decade. It’s possible that there might be some sort of relationship.
@Greg:
No it wasn’t ONLY Obama that got us into, I think you meant “hock” to China, that started a looonnnggg time ago, even longer than the 8 years prior to Obama, remembering the wheeling and dealing between Clinton and the Chinese. He actually assisted them in job creation.
But, Obama certainly gets plenty of credit for a healthy chunk of debt we are in “hock” to China for.
Those are exactly the people who America puts out the welcome mat for.
Nan G,
Exactly so. Harboring those fleeing religious or political persecution has been the very heart of American immigration policy since its very beginning, although we often fall short of our lofty goals, (and rhetoric). Nevertheless, America was founded for the most part by people fleeing tyranny and religious persecution, which is exactly why some of us are appalled at the way the Obama administration continues to curry favor with some of the most despotic and tyrannical regimes on the planet.
The official state visit of the President of the People’s Republic of China, Hu Jintau, supplies another sad example of financial considerations trumping human rights. Lost amidst the gala of steak and apple pie was the courage to stand up for basic human rights as thousands of political prisoners languish in prison, and some are even executed. Indeed children and adults are forced to work long hours under grueling conditions in factories and fields for subsistence wages, even as families are only allowed the state quota of one child per customer. Bibles are banned and Christians (as well as other faiths) are persecuted. All things considered, China has a worse human rights record than Russia, which is saying something. But China holds much of our debt, and the borrower is ever beholden to the creditor. In one sense, the very steak and apple pie Hu Jintau dined on was bought with money borrowed from China!
Honey, when your guy is printing money so fast as Obama has been doing, and gaining an extra TRILLION DOLLARS of dept in just 7 months you can’t really ”Blame Bush,” anymore.
Here’s what a Trillion Dollars looks like.
http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html
In less than ten years we will be paying more to ”service the debt” (pay just the interest) than we will be committing to our entire military!
Remember the scariest jobs chart?
http://calculatedriskimages.blogspot.com/2010/07/employment-recessions-june-2010.html
Last entry on this version was in June 2010.
But look where we were when the country knew Obama would win……
Week number 2 on the red line of the chart.
Obama took office during week number 13 of that chart’s red line.
So many business-friendly things he could have promised, then done, but did not.
Plummet.
So, here we are, today, six months after the last entry on the chart we are still near the -5.0 line.
Pathetic, to blame Bush for all of that.
@Greg: who took on 2 decade-long wars? I will say though, I couldn’t be proud of my President. sarc/
A Chinese dissident has asked Obama which of his two daughters he would choose to put to death if America were living under Chinese law.
Chai Ling was a survivor of China’s 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.
It is a fair question.
They are both such lovely girls.
But post-birth ”abortions” are done all the time in China.
So McConnell and Boehner won’t be coming to dinner, but insisted on extending tax cuts which will ensure the need to borrow hundreds of billions of additional dollars from said dictator.
Take a look at Skookum’s photos of the executions.
It is nauseating that conservatives find virtue in avoiding the unpleasant necessity of paying for their own government, which necessitates turning to such an odious banker.
They didn’t go to dinner. Whoop de do. Tough guys. Real patriots.
Real patriots pay their own bills. They pay their own way in the world. They make the sacrifices necessary to remain not only free but independent of odious dictatorships. They even pay taxes, when necessary. That’s what Biden meant, when he said it was patriotic to pay taxes. You pay for your own government, so that you don’t have to borrow money from truly evil foreign governments.
@nan: Why don’t you explain to us precisely what additional money Obama spent (over what Bush and the GOP spent and would have spent) to generate all that extra debt? Obama spent a pittance more (about $260 billion). In the form of aid to state and local governments, tax cuts, and extension of unemployment benefits, which were largely supported by the GOP. A trifling for infrastructure and the like. The debt didn’t go up that much because of Obama spending. It went up because the economy went into the tank and tax receipts plunged. The economy went into the tank because of an under-regulated Wall Street, bad decisions by Greenspan, and irresponsible tax cuts under Bush (unfortunately, just extended under Obama).
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Missy: I think you meant “hock” to China…
Yep, “hock” is the word. The typo is also Bush’s fault.
Actually, I don’t blame it all on Bush. As you correctly observe, the stage was set earlier. And Obama just gave in to a 2-year extension of the same tax cuts. There’s plenty of blame to go around.
Skookum, a few thoughts –
1) You make much of Chinese executions. Are you, like the Catholic Church, anti-death penalty? Or are you just beefing about who the Chinese execute, and content that we, in contrast, execute “the right people”?
2) Boehner will not attend the state dinner for Hu, but will meet with the same guy on Capitol Hill. If this, in your eyes, counts as a “resolute stand” against a Communist dictator, then we are all in a heap big trouble, Kemosabe!
3) You act as if you did not notice that, from 2001 through 2009, when George W. Bush was in office, we had become horribly indebted to the Chi-Coms. During that time frame, GOPer cons cut tax revenues and increased spending, then decided to borrow from the Communists to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, instead of raising taxes — as the US had done during prior wars. Were you asleep all that time? Or drugged? What is the explanation for your lack of awareness and your lack of outrage? Please explain!
Nan G. –
I LOVE that you are all exercised NOW about all the debt that we have run up during the last two years, when the economy has been in recession (from December 2007 through June 2009) and tax revenues dropped and spending increased. But I ask: what took you so long to get jazzed up about deficit spending?
Where were you, Nan, in 2002, when a Clinton surplus was turned into a Bush deficit? Where were you during the 2002 through 2007 period, when the economy was expanding but GOPer cons ran up deficit after deficit after deficit, cutting tax revenues while increasing spending? How much screaming were you doing then?
You know it is easy to criticize when money is being spent to put out fires . . . but what were you saying when we were in better fiscal condition, and the GOPer cons kept pushing through deficit after deficit after deficit? Were you blogging about the end of America? Or did you say nothing, as I suspect?
I know you cons NEVER want to answer those questions. I have even seen cons blame the Bush era deficits on THE MINORITY DEMOCRATS! Really?! Then by the same warped calculus, the Dem deficits can be laid at the feet of the minority GOPers!
No, cons . . . methinks this is all a charade. You really care nothing about deficits and debt; this is just a game. You will not criticize the Boehner led GOPer cons for proposing deficit spending because you accept GOPer deficits . . . you just don’t like Dem deficits. You don’t really mind borrowing money from the Chinese Communists . . . you just oppose Dems doing the same thing. There is no principled dissent against ANYTHING, only a GOP-centric, party based reflexive opposition to anything the Dems do. And that is your downfall, cons: you lack any governing principles. And Barry Goldwater spins in his grave at 1,776 revolutions per minute, lamenting that his conservative movement has been given over to political pimps, hustlers, hucksters, jack-leg preachers and charlatans. You stand for nothing and you fall for anything . . . and we are beginning to see you cons for who you really are . . . .
Larry, usually I can follow your logic, but I think you have wires crossed on this issue. You did read that Harry Reid is missing the dinner as well. Shall we apply your logic to his absence as well. He used the same excuse as McConnell of being too busy in his home state, Whooopee is this the mark of a tough guy, at least he had the integrity to brand Hu as a dictator.
I agree that the photos are despicable, but having a state dinner to celebrate the chief representative of such atrocities is hardly an issue to be proud of and continuing to increase the nation’s debt in light of borrowing from such sources until servicing the debt will put us at the mercy of the Communist banker is not a pretty picture either, but at least the reader has a warning of the graphic nature of the execution photos. I don’t think we are receiving any warning of the graphic nature of the consequences of our debt with China.
@Missy:
You cons on FA frequently to refer to Obama as a “manchild”.
Dictionary.com defines “manchild” as “[man-chahyld] noun, plural men-chil·dren.
a male child; boy; son.”
What do you mean by using this word? Are you calling the president a “boy”? Please explain.
@Skookum: I didn’t understand the whole story. I (yet again) made the mistake of shooting off my mouth without carefully reading what was actually going on. I just glanced over your post and somehow got the impression that the absences at the state dinner was some sort of overt political statement — an intended direct slap in the face of the Chinese leader. It was the “draw a line in the sand” headline. As I now understand it, this was your headline and not a characterization by McConnell, Boehner, or their staffs. And McConnell, Boehner (and Reid) are going to meet with him, later on.
Yes, by the way. I do cast similar aspersions in the direction of Reid as I do toward McConnell and Boehner. Reid gets a lesser set of aspersions than the latter, because Reid, at least, was in favor of ending part of the Bush tax cuts. I agree with the likes of Greenspan and David Stockman that it’s irresponsible to extend ANY of the tax cuts. If we current day Americans have to bear some additional suffering to minimize our borrowing from creditors like China, then we should stand up tall, like true patriots, and take on our fair share of the load.
I’m glad that we both agree that borrowing money from China is a bad thing. We probably disagree some, on how to minimize and hopefully avoid such borrowing in the future.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
A few Replies:
I think Nancy Pelosi and I agree on this one issue, executing people for being politically incorrect is horrible. I hate the idea of capital punishment and I hate the idea of prisons; unfortunately, they are necessary. The idea of releasing people from prisons because of DNA evidence has been appalling for me. The thought of people being executed for crimes they didn’t commit and the truth never being brought to the surface because of the limitations of our DNA analysis, is awful to contemplate. No, I don’t think we only imprison and execute the right people, but there are some people that cannot be allowed among the general population. A cage is a horrible lace for an animal or a human; I have very personal reasons for those feelings; yet, I know we have no other known option for dealing with those who harm others and those who steal. Not everyone can be elected to congress, even some thieves have a measure of honor and integrity.
Trust me on this issue, I know what a resolute stand is; I can’t be sure of Boehner’s reasons, nor can I be sure of Reid’s or McConnell’s, but I believe that business and socializing under the trappings of pomp and circumstances are two different things.
I am anti-drug and consider aspirin to be a strong drug, a drug that I use occasionally when I am thrown against a wall or to the ground by a 1200 pounder in a move so fast you can’t see it happen, so I doubt that would qualify as being drugged. Tonto. I have only been on the internet for a little of over a year, so I would have had few opportunities to register my disgust over the situation.
A part of the TEA party’s platform that I agree with is that we are taxed enough all ready and that way too much of our tax money is wasted on pork and other dubious schemes of government. So even though I am a newbie to the computer and the internet, I am making my feelings known. I learn more everyday about how these machines and the internet works, so I will hopefully become more proficient in mechanical skills and writing as time goes by.
(I thought it was funny replying to Kemosabe with Tonto, Jay Silver Heels, the man who played Tonto raced Standardbreds and was once a customer of mine.)
I hope you find common ground with my answers, they are my feelings and were expressed in good faith, if you want to probe for weaknesses, you can probably find the weak spots, but I think it would be more practical to find common ground and work towards a consensus, rather than taking issue strictly for the sake of confrontation. This is a Conservative blog and heaving manure and throwing insults actually accomplishes nothing, but finding common ground and working for a purpose or towards a goal can accomplish things for both of us or all of us.
@B-Rob:
I did a cursory search.
Couldn’t find any except from you.
Can you prove your allegation?
Thanks in advance.
Always a racist implication for you, eh Billy Bob? Don’t you ever get tired of manufacturing the racist boogie man you see behind every corner in life?
Where were people when the debt was being accumulated before 2009?
Well, there is a concept in chemistry called “activation energy.” A reaction can be energetically favorable, but still require a big enough push to actually get it started. People had known for years there was a debt problem brewing, but did not want to make a lot of noise about it. There is a natural apathy in many people about political matters. That’s how I was- I knew it could not go on like it was, but did not actually get out and protest until 2009.
The activation energy that precipitated the protests against government spending can be seen depicted in this chart from March 2009:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.html
A sudden tripling of the deficit that was, shall we say, unprecedented, and extended into the future as far as the eye could see. Before that, things were getting worse much more gradually, in a “boil the frog” sort of manner.
You can also see from the chart that the Bush-era deficits were not dramatically different from previous ones, and had actually been getting steadly smaller for several years until 2008. Democrats took both houses of Congress in the 2006 elections, and were sworn in January 2007. The new Congress worked on the budget in 2007, and the 2008 fiscal year was when that first Democrat-Congressional-majority approved budget took effect.
The unprincipled, arrogant, ruthless way that the Democrats and the media behaved in the ’08 election and afterwards pushed things along as well. In particular, the media had been in the tank for Democrats for quite some time, but 2008 was the year that the mask of impartiality and professionalism finally dropped off altogether.
The, again, unprecedented radical social engineering stuff got started as soon as the class of ’08 was sworn in — Cap and Trade, Healthcare takeowver, Auto Takeover, etc. etc.
Stating, as many ‘Progressives’ have, that the only thing unprecdented in 2009 was that we had a President with a skin of a particular shade, is a disgusting and manipulative lie. Obama is simply the most visible representative of the left wing of the Democratic Party; they are numerous, and almost all of them are old and white. I don’t care what Obama looks like, B-Rob. Do you?
Guest list:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/01/obama-hu-state-dinner-guest-list.html
A lot of “Honorable” folks in that list.
Like:
The Honorable Hillary R. Clinton, Secretary of State
The Honorable William J. Clinton, former President of the United States
The Honorable James E. Clyburn, Representative from South Carolina
The Honorable Richard Daley, Mayor of Chicago, Chicago, IL
The Honorable Thomas Donilon, [Fannie Mae VP] incoming National Security Advisor
The Honorable Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury
The Honorable Valerie Jarrett
The Honorable John F. Kerry
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
The Honorable David Plouffe
The Honorable Kathleen Sebelius
—-
“Honorable”
“You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” –Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
—-
I noticed that Gov. Christie showed up with this A-list of commies and uber-rich libs. WTF.
From November 2010: a newly-elected Republican congressman gives his victory speech to a room full of crazed Tea Partiers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62L3nxWOlX4
His name is Allen West.
The word for Barack Hussein Obama is MULATO:
n., pl., -tos, or -toes.
1. A person having one white and one Black parent.
2. A person of mixed white and Black ancestry.
Well, AdrianS, you misspelled it, and what the hell is your point anyway?
I think the word for you is ‘Moby.’
Adrian, what’s the word for 1/8 black, 1/2 white, and 3/8 Arab?
Again delusional Larry trots out the disproven claim that cutting taxes causes deficits. Poor Larry, so unable to face reality. Hey Larry, feel free to cut a larger check to the govt. if it gets you so excited you hypocrite. Ah yes, WE need to pay for the spending Dems like Larry pushed despite a majority of the nation telling them not to. Patriotism Larry? You haven’t a clue what that is.
Taqi, Christie IS NOT a Conservative. That is why he arrived with them. His overall views are much closer to theirs than ours.
Braindead rob strikes again. The Chinese MURDERING innocent people is somehow the same as executing convicted murderers who received a fair trial. He then goes on to imply Christians who support the death penalty are hypocrites. How does so much stupidity fit in his skull? Obviously it doesn’t and that is why he has to continually dump it here– to keep his head from exploding.
Hard Right
I know. I’m slowly coming around to this realization, especially after his appointment to the court of a Hamas-linked Muslim judge recently.
Even the Tea Partiers in this nation are being duped. When 2012 rolls around, my guess is that more than 50% will be smooth-talking Gadsden Flag-wavers who, when elected, will show their true colors.
I find it ironic that the flag chosen by the supposed God-fearing conservatives depicts a serpent. Pretty brazen, from Satan’s point of view. It’s not just the Left in this nation which is ripe for deception.
Scott Brown comes to mind. One of “us”. As far to the left as John McCain in his voting, so far. Perhaps further. This is an age of great deception.
@Hard Right (#28). In a very recent F/A debate over the relationship of tax cuts and deficits, I provided links to the statements of 10 conservative economists who agreed unanimously that tax cuts have never paid for themselves (i.e. that they always increase the deficit) and MataHarley, in attempted rebuttal, cited the largest study ever done on each and every tax cut bill or tax increase bill over the past 40 years (or more), and, in every case of the study she cited, the tax cuts resulted in a net loss of revenue (i.e. they increased the deficit) and the tax increase resulted in a net increase in revenue (i.e. they reduced the deficit).
Not a single Republican congressional leader defended extending the tax cuts on the basis that so doing would decrease the deficit. Not a single one rebutted the CBO estimate that they would increase the debt by $2.1 trillion. Rather, the GOP leaders instead simply made statements to the effect that “it would be disastrous to increase taxes in the middle of a weak recovery” or whatever.
In other words, the GOP defended extending the tax cuts on the basis of pure Keynesian stimulatory economics. Deficits and debt be damned.
The most discredited economic theory since “The Communist Manifesto” is that you raise revenues/cut deficits by cutting taxes — it is unequivocally obvious and universally accepted that cutting taxes in the marginal tax range of 50% or below reduces tax revenue and therefore increases deficits and therefore requires increased borrowing from authoritarian China.
If anyone wants to start this argument all over again, let’s do so now.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Sherman (#22). You are trying to deflect blame away from Bush and onto Democrats, regarding the massive increase in the debt ratio, trying to claim that the Dems have been in control of the budget since 2006. In point of fact, the rate of increase of government spending did not accelerate upward between 2006 and 2009, while the deficit massively exploded during this time. The President is Constitutionally charged with preparing the budget. Congress approves it and the Dem Congress of 2007 (when they were sworn in) to 2009 (when Obama was sworn in) simply approved the Bush-submitted budget, with the usual amount of (completely bipartisan) pork slathered on — the pork being important symbolically but being a mere trifle.
The reason the deficit exploded was because of declining tax receipts, which were owing to the full phase-in of the Bush tax cuts, combined, in the last year, with the recession.
Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts nearly doubled the debt ratio, following 35 years of steady declines under higher tax administrations, both GOP and Dem. Clinton’s tax hikes again reduced the debt ratio. Bush’s tax cuts pushed them back up. The recession caused another hike, and “the stimulus” directly accounted for another couple percent or so. But it must be noted that Obama’s $760 billion “stimulus” was only $260 billion more than the $500 billion stimulus which was the GOP alternative. So the only direct blame which Obama uniquely deserves is $260 billion, which is only a percent or so.
It’s hypocritical to say that it’s wrong to attend a state dinner for the nation’s banker, on some sort of moral principle, while being directly responsible for policies which have forced the US to borrow from such an odious lender of last resort.
From the view of a strictly business/capitalist perspective, it’s hardly a bad expenditure of of the nation’s money to take a client out to dinner, when you are trying to get him to buy more of your goods and services, correct his currency manipulation, and lend you the money you need, in order to stay in business. Oh yeah, and then there’s this thing about North Korean nukes. We need the Chinese for help with that, as well.
The USA has a proud history of wining and dining and supporting dictators and human rights violators, in the pursuit of our own self-interest, e.g.
http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/shared-blogs/austin/opinions/upload/2008/05/Oil%20Jawboning.jpg
There are a number of different photos of Bush handholding and kissing various and sundry Saudis, easily retrievable on the web. Arguably, though, good for business.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@B-Rob:
First, I’m not a racist, never have been, never will be, so get that out of your ignorant head. Illinoisans have been referring to Obama as a “manchild” since his senate run. He was a lazy state senator and had to be propped up by the senate president who created a record for him using the years long work of his colleagues. He is where he is because of a blue state and Chicago, not because he had a record of achievement.
So, so impatient, such a rush to prove something that isn’t there, who da thunk the definition for manchild would have evolved since…..1350–1400; ME? Evidently, not you.
Heh, the Urban Dictionary appropriately defines why so many use “manchild” when referring to him, and btw, I noted the definition fits you as well:
Who can argue with that, LOL! All this time we assumed it simply meant, immature, lazy, childish.
Hope you don’t get too “wee weed” up over the definition.
Openid, Congress during the time frame when Bush first took office to 2002 was dominated by Democrats. From 2002 to 2006, it was Dominated by Republicans. From 2006 to 20010 it was Dominated by Democrats.
Open you might want to re-read the Consitution. The Executive branch is not resposible of Budget concerns, the Congress is. All the President can do is sign or pocket veto/veto a budget plan and even if he vetos the Congress can bypass that Veto.
And if Tax receipts were in such a decline then why does the offical Government tax collection datas show that there was an increase in Tax Revenue from 2002 to 2007 for the Federal Government? And if Tax Receipts have declined, then why are politicans shoving forth plans to increase spending? It’s common sense in a household that has a declined income or no income not to jack up spending. It’s what’s called, “building up to failure.” Or simply making the household Insolvent, which is in the case of a Government going insolvent can lead to very terrible things for the citizens.
And that little fun of Economits? From my own Micro-Econ instructor back in college: “Funny little thing about working Economists. Get 3 in a room, and you’ll never get a solution.”
Larry, you have deliberately ignored economists who disagreed with your bogus beliefs. I know because I posted the links you ignored. I’m also not a fan of appeals to authority. So your claims that because they feel the way you do means little to me. As for economists themselves, they have a record of being wrong so often as to be almost useless.
There’s also the little problem where when confronted with graphs that showed increased revenue, you dismissed said revenue as an increase in “raw tax collection” but offered NO PROOF depite multiple requests for you to do so.
Both Mata and myself have pointed out how flawed your debt ratio measurement is, yet you act as if it’s un-impeachable. Really, you saying the same thing over and over doesn’t make it true.
Your claims are full of holes and unsupported by facts which is typical of liberal beliefs because they are rooted in ego and not reality.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
What a farce.
Conservatives are more than willing to “Pay for our government.” The trouble is that “our government” lies buried under layers of unconstitutional socialism put there by liberals like you who won’t pay for their own misplaced class guilt.
“Our government” is very strictly defined by the Constitution, no social security, no food stamps, no unemployment, no foreign aid, no socialist healthcare, no prohibition. And we are more than willing to support it.
Liberals lead the way alright. Let us know how much of the liberal’s vaunted “death tax” has ever been paid on any of the Kennedy fortune.
Go back to hiding under the bridge, you’ll get no more sustenance here.
Missy, Mr Irons, Just Al, and Hard Right, you guys know how to get the morning started Right.
@MataHarley:
Mata, you wrote:
Quite weak and defensive, Mata. I showed you the definition of “manchild”, an odd word that cons here use in referring to our president. The definition includes the words “boy” and “son”. Don’t know about you, but where I come from, unless you are his father, you don’t go around referring to a Black man in his 40s as “boy” or “son”; it’s demeaning and it DOES have a racist connotation . . . not one that I made up, but one steeped in 150 years of post-slavery and Jim Crow history.
Which, Mata, is why I asked why you cons are using that word. Y’all were the ones using it, so I asked what was your intention.
I am open to the possibility that the users here might not understand the belittling racial connotation that would arise from referring to a Black man in his 40s, a Harvard educated constitutional lawyer and professor, with a word that means “boy” or “son”. (I am reminded of W.E.B. DuBois’s short story “And/or”, by the way.) But now that you KNOW that there is a racial connotation to using the word “manchild” when referring to an adult Black male, I wonder if you folks will CONTINUE to use it anyway.
I would hope that you would not; but I will not be surprised if you do. It’s just how y’all roll . . . .
B-Rob….nothing is racist about this term (manchild) and if you keep on with this line of comments and racebaiting you will forever be banished from this site. First and last warning.
Really now…..
But wait…there’s more…
And on and on and on and on….The hypocrisy meter just pegged out and burst into flames.
Exit Questions:
What color is “[your] boy” Sherman?
What color is bbartlog?
What color am I?
@Taqiyyotomist:
Have we been had or what?
Obama wants us to eat sawdust and fiber sandwiches.
He wants us to limit our intake of fats and sugars.
Anybody else seen the menu for that China State Dinner?
Here it is:
D’Anjou and Pear salad (sugars)
Farmstead Goats cheese (fats)
Fennel,
Black Walnuts (fats)
and White Balsamic
Poached Maine Lobster
Orange-Glazed Carrots (sugars)
Black Trumpet Mushrooms
Served with Dumol Chardonnay ‘Russian River’ 2008 (sugars)
Lemon sorbet (sugars)
Dry Aged Rib Eye (bad fats)
Buttermilk Crisp Onions (fats)
Double-Stuffed Potatoes and Creamed Spinach (fats)
Served with Quilceda Creek Cabernet ‘Columbia Valley’ 2006 (sugars)
Old Fashioned Apple Pie (sugars and fats)
Vanilla ice cream (sugars and fats)
Served with Poets Leap Riesling ‘Botrytis’ 2006 (sugars)
List found here among other places:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348896/State-dinner-Obamas-All-American-White-House-banquet-welcome-Chinas-rulers.html#ixzz1Bb8JGj6t
Next state dinner, at this rate, Michelle will need a fancy-dress tarp!
@Open
I think you also missed the last election, where most of the republicans and Dims that helped to spend us into this mess were voted out of office. Unless of course the lived in states where more dead people vote than living.
@Hard Right:
PMSL…..
Missy –
Merriam-Webster, Random House and the American Heritage dictionaries define “manchild” as “a male child: boy: son.” For you to try to use the urbandictionary.com definition, instead of a REAL dictionary, to show your non-racist bona fides proves the weakness of your argument.
See my post to Mata, above. In short, back in the Jim Crow days in the God-foresaken South, it was perfectly fine for White people to refer to a Black man in his 40s as “boy” or “son”. You could even do that if the 40 year old Black man graduated at the top of class at Harvard Law School. It was acceptable to treat him as a “child,” even beat him with a belt if you chose to, because he had no legal or cultural rights to demand the respect due a “man.” Read Vernon Jordan’s book “Vernon can read!” and you get a taste of what a college educated Black man was expected to accept without complaint.
Given all that, for you and other cons to refer to the President of the United States by that term, showed some combination of ignorance or racist bile that I was having a hard time teasing out. But then I show you the definition and you double down by using it AGAIN, and standing by that usage, shows me something else.
Missy, I don’t know you at all. Don’t know your education level, etc. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you did not know the racial connotation of calling a grown Black man a “manchild.” You were put on notice that it is offensive. I did not even use the word “racist” to describe your usage; Mata used that word, not me. But you not only used the word, you then tried to justify it, and then used it again! At some point, you lose the benefit of the doubt; you are no longer ignorant of the racial connotation of the word “manchild” when ascribed to a grown Black male. If you or any con on this board uses it again, we can only conclude that you INTEND to invoke the racist spectre of Jim Crow, when you could call a college educated Black man a “boy” or treat him like a child, and get away with it.
I am not calling you a “racist”, exactly. But if I am in my back yard and see a black colored quadruped, about two feet long with a white stripe down its back, and it gives off a foul stench, I am going to conclude that it is a skunk, and not just a cat that needs a bath, and I will act accordingly.
Skook, I’ve been fighting the head cold from hell for two weeks now so I’m a little crankier than usual.
@Nan G:
When you exercise a lot you can eat whatever you want. Don’t worry about Michelle; she is still as fit as when she went in and she’s been doing this for two years. She’ll still be wearing Vera Wang this fall . . . .
@Aye:
Weaker than weak. I refer to Sherman as “my boy Sherman” because of . . . Mr. Peabody and his boy Sherman.
I do not know the race of any of you cons, so there CAN BE NO RACIAL CONNOTATION in referring to you as “boy”, now can there?
But we certainly know Obama’s race, don’t we? And we know the racial connotation of calling a grown college educated Black man a “boy”, don’t we?
As I said above — I ascribed it to ignorance that cons called Obama a “manchild” and did not know the racial connotation. I gave you the benefit if the doubt. But now that you KNOW why it is offensive, you have no more excuses for using it.
Curt –
You may argue that there is nothing racial about calling a college educated Black man a “manchild”, but that does not make it so. I just told you all why it is offensive, so now you all know.
Moreover, you can ban me if you like; it’s your site and your right and your choice. But whenever you cons whine about being “falsely” accused of being racists, remember this colloquy, and remember the “race war” thread and the TSA being a “black race dominated security force” thread from last month.
You cons have serious problems on race — and you always have, going back the National Review standing on the side of the Klan against the Freedom Riders, supporting Jim Crow during a time when opposition could have meant something big. It is why the GOP has practically no minorities in the party, why you guys can’t get minorities to vote for your candidates. Curt, y’all have serious problems, some of them mirrored in the kind of proto-racist language you allow to be posted here. You banning me will not change that; it will only mean you and your posters are in even more of an echo chamber than before.
@Billy Bob… you really need to get your two brain cells communicating again. I did not make a “defense” for anything. I merely pointed out what you, yourself, confirmed. That you see racist boogiemen behind every corner. Tell me, isn’t it tiring perpetuating such hate 24/7?
Secondly, I have personally never referred to this POTUS as a “manchild”… oh wait… were it racist, shouldn’t that be “man’chile”? LOL Nor do I attach any racist history to the description, despite your indoctrination that it can *only* be racist in nature.
Do you think uber feminist writer, Bonnie Goldstein, had your racism in mind when she penned her headline, Manchild of the year: Mark Zuckerberg Grows Up?
Think FL skateboarder, Tyler Pacheco, considers his moniker, Manchild, a racist term?
What about the biblical studies for the Rapture, and used for the Latter Rain Movement – The Manchild Ministry. This not only predates this aburd joke for a POTUS, but also predates your own personal beginning of time… the days of slavery in the US.
Now, if I wanted to waste more than 3 minutes on a search engine to demonstrate that your personal and extremely limited racist definition is hardly the case, I’m sure I would provide more fodder to refute your notions. Instead, your petty response again proves that you are not only a disgrace for Chicago higher education, you are unnaturally preoccupied with racism, and thereby read racism into everything you see and read.
Believe you me, I’ve muttered many a description under my breath about this temporary occupant of the WH, but none of it was ever based on his race. Which means you, of course, in addition to attaching racist assaults to every nuance, also deem it fit to paint the entire community with your purported racist views.
You really are a pathetic piece ‘o’ work, dude.
As far as the self anointed superior mantle you attempt to don, I’d say that Aye just slapped your racist butt publicly. Thanks for that entertaining recap, Aye!
openid.aol.com/runnswim:
You had nothing to say about the point of my comment, which was: what was the real reason that crowds of average people began demonstrating against government spending in 2009, but had not really been energized to do so before that.
Your long list of grievances against Republicans is not something I am going to address point by point, as it is something of a non-sequitur. Suffice it to say that it is slanted, selective, makes unsupported assumptions about what I believe, and has a regurgitated quality to it .
It looks pretty bad when you miss the point so completely and then segue immediately into a list of talking points.
@B-Rob: since your have such knowledge about black racial connotations, I would love to hear your opinion on Chrissie Matthews calling me a cracker.
@Sherman: I didn’t miss your point. I thought it was an excellent point. I entirely agree with your point (about the boiling frog). I should have taken the opportunity to congratulate you for having this insight, which I believe is at least partially true. The only thing I have to add is this:
Prior to 2009, the only people complaining about the deficit were Democrats. The only President to make deficit reduction his number one economic priority was Clinton. A great many GOP pundits had been writing, since Reagan, that “deficits don’t matter.” So you had Democrats criticizing Bush deficits for 8 years, with Republicans keeping their mouths shut.
What happened with the 2010 elections, is that the GOP suddenly got deficit religion. The Dem position was that we had an emergency in needing to avoid a Depression. So the GOP seized the deficit mantle. And, yes, the electorate became convinced, for the first time, that the deficit was a real problem. The frog finally realized that the water was boiling.
Since I largely agreed with you, I didn’t have anything serious to debate — except for the following statement:
You were clearly blaming the Democrats for the explosion in the deficit. This accusation was clearly wrong, as I explained. But the electorate believed it.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I dug out Billy Bob’s comments #43, 45 and 46 for everyone’s amusement. Allow me to summarize his views…
It’s a racist term because he sez so, and that’s proven because he is taking offense at it.
okie dokie…
So therefore, if anyone here uses it here after he – with all his higher Chicago learnin’ – informed us of his own personal offense and single definition mentality, we must be racists.
Oh yes… it’s another one of those terms that only a special class of people are allowed to find offensive because of their color. Therefore Facebook’s Zuckerberg isn’t allowed to be offended using this term because he’s not black. Neither is the FL skateboarder. Sportscaster in NY, Jim “the Manchild” Lerch will simply have to change his name. And I suppose the theological world will just have to find another term INRE Revelations so that Billy Bob can’t be offended.
sigh….
Well, Curt… can’t say as we’ll miss much if you move him to the permanent blacklist. I think we’ve pretty much got all of Billy Bob and his views down to predictability. And personally, I’ll be damned if I tiptoe around the likes of him.
Hmm doesn’t he keep trying to tell us to, “calm down?” Well gee, he can be offended all he likes. Unless he can physicaly force those who offend him from using a computer, phone, or touchpad in real life then he’ll just have to sit and spin in the moment of being offended. Ain’t going to change a damn thing in Reality or what I will post or what others will post.
And if he physicaly attempts to silence opposition, wouldn’t that make him a blaring hypocrite of supporting the “idelogy” of tollerance the Liberal side keeps harponin on?
OpenId, you’re living in a pipe dream of a world. Clinton was President and once again you show your sheer ignorance over what the President or the Executive branch has power within the Federal Government. Here’s a hint: President can not handle the Budget or Taxes, to do so would be an impeachable offense (he can only propose plans that can be examined by Congress/Senate which is the branch that actually DOES handle this matter of power). What “surplus” there was was an accounting fraud put forth by RINO’s (and backed by sitting Democrats) in the Senate to borrow forth monies from People’s Republic of China in 1998 to make up gross shortfalls in Social Security payments. Our nation still had a debt and the supposed, “surplus” was pushed as fact onto the American people with the little white lies of accounting done by the Leglistation branch to hide the fact we were short almost 200 billion dollars for Social Security/Medicare alone and were going to be unable to pay Social Security receivers during his Admin just as much under Bush, Jr.’s years without borrowing. The borrowing has grown rampant the last 6 years, especialy from Democrat domestic programs shoved though since 2006 from Congress that bypassed Bush. China has now started to halt the ablity of the United States from borrowing further from them in fears of themselves becoming unstable economicaly or insolvent. Brick wall is coming up fast for the Demcorats’ and RINO’s borrow and spend policies of a speeding train.
A large portion of our National Budget now goes to paying off interest rates to the Chinese, Japanese and other Creditors whom we’ve borrowed heavily from for the last 13 years. Even if we taxed the citizens at 100 percent income and had 100 percent sales tax, we would NOT be capable of paying off the Chinese for a very long time. The last nation to default on debt owed to the Nation was Tibet. This Nation borrowed only a fraction of what the United States owes to the People’s Republic of China but almost all news groups have turned a blind eye to that reason why China invaded and acquired Tibet for economical insolvency reasons but were quick to pick up the bullshit PUblic Relations reason of forcing out the Dalai Lama for fears of, “insurrections.”
The Military mindset of China and a large portion of Communist politicans in China have not kept it a secert they would endorse the idea of, “re-colonization” of the Northern American landmass via econmical weapons of manipulation, such as them being the Creditor of our debts. To them, our insolvency allows for expanding Global power in economics, political, and military influence and they’re not shy to use brute force to quell problems espeically if there’s Chinese property interests within the United States being threatened (such as the request of the United States to stop spying on West Coast holdings of Chinese firms or face direct war.)
@Wm T Sherman: you question why “average” people didn’t demonstration against spending in 2009? Conservatives did. We no longer had a majority, thus less power. What scares the sht out of me is, the damage they have foisted upon this country so quickly.
My family is wondering if it’s time to head for the hills.
ps, “average” people are usually conservative.
What we, again, have here is a failure to communicate. And in your “attempt” to rebut, you will continually mischaracterize my acknowledgement of your extremely simple statement, Larry.
What you say is that if there is a “tax cut”, or in this case, no tax increase, there is “lost revenue”. In the most simple of views, that is true. At least for that moment. Obviously, if you have $100K, and last year I took a 15% cut of that, but this year I’ll be taking a 10% cut, that is… in the most base terms… a loss of revenue.
Now you want to expand it to increasing the deficit? Nope… two different critters.
I never said that, Larry. And I do believe that the Reagan tax policies, where he chose to take less revenue from the taxpayer, and then start working on the tax code credits and deductions proves quite handily that “tax cuts” did indeed result in a trend of increasing revenue to the government.
On the other hand, Clinton’s IRS increases, combined with his cuts in IRS tax code for credits did exactly the opposite.. they resulted in a trend of declining revenue stream.
Neither of them has squat to do with the deficit, because the deficit is a gap or ratio between income and spending. Your deficit will get larger if you spend more, and steal less from the taxpaying public. Your deficit will decrease if you cut spending, and still steal less from the taxpaying public. And your deficit will still grow if you steal more from the taxpayers, and spend yet even more.
Spending is the all important trend that needs addressing here. The entitlement programs – all of them – must be phased out.
The spending – which has been on the increase with every Congress and every admin – skyrocketed after 2007, and tripled since 2009. These are impossible figures to argue. But I’m sure you’ll constantly be refining the spin as to the responsibility for that.
Not only do I NOT care if B-rob is offended by the term, because it’s him I’m MORE likely to use it now. In fact, MANCHILD, MANCHILD, MANCHILD!!!!!
Like I said, first and last warning and you chose to go there so you’re gone.
That is exactly what I will not allow. We’ve put up with quite a bit from him but this is the last straw, and then I even gave him one more chance but noooooo. So his ignorance is now gone.
@Hard Right:
I concur.
Obama just fell into the ”manchild syndrome” arena when he proclaimed that IF the Chicago Bears make it to the Super Bowl he’d be there to see it in person.
What a d!*#.
No concern about the cost to us taxpayers.
No concern about the inconvenience laid on all the attendees.
No concern about anyone but himself!
Oh, and he dyes his hair!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348933/Has-Barack-Obama-dyed-hair-black-hide-greying-locks.html
Sheesh, we’ve used that term since 2003, never thinking it was racist, sorry for starting all this.
Manchild was his hill to die on yet he never would consider that his term for the tea partiers was offensive.
No need to use my own “summary” of Billy Bob’s comment, and his insistence that any further usage of “manchild” would be interpreted (by him) as racist, Curt. I’ll supply his own words here that note just that.
As Billy Bob ‘fesses, he was deliberately race baiting, which was why@I made my comment #21. We all noticed, and I publicly called him on his racist views.
But now, the PC, easily offended, not-quite-as-educated-as-he’d-like-to-believe, would-be word Nazi has been banned. Will he be upset he can no longer spam FA? Not likely…
OMG… what a bunch of hoo’ey over a well used term in the current media for many a personality. “Manchild”, in the new O’faithful world, is now “racist language” if applied to the POTUS or anyone black. Give me a friggin’ break. Any other special concessions for language you lib/progs want? You’re so busy finding new words and phrases to place off limits daily, I’m wondering when any of you will ever realize just how un American you are in your quest.
Well, FA is far from an echo chamber. But it will be nice to lose an undeniable racist/word Nazi. LOL
ta ta, Billy Bob. I’d like to say I found you stimulating and shall miss you, but that would be lying. You were more the mouse to the cat… someone I could stalk and toy with when I had spare time and an over abundance of patience.
@B-Rob: the black constituents vote for your crowd only because you’ve bought and paid for it.
ps. Is Chrissie Matthews a racist since he called me a “cracker”?
No way this can be twisted as being ”racist.”
Politico is reporting that Carol Moseley Braun is very upset with Bill Clinton, after he campaigned for Rahm (dead fish) Emmanuel as opposed to any of the people-of-color candidates.
She went so far as to remind Bill that they (people-of-color) stood by Bill during his ”Monica Lewinsky problems….”
The whole story is here:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47818.html
@Missy, actually I think the forum owes you a big thank you for the boot that eventually kicked Billy Bob over the cliff. :0)
@mata:
The data from the very study you cited contradicts your assertion that Reagan’s tax policies led to increased tax revenue in an amount sufficient to overcome the loss of revenue as a result of the rate cut. His tax cuts were directly responsible for a massive loss of revenue, which is why he doubled the debt ratio, after 35 prior years of a continuous pay down. That’s what the very data showed, which you chose to cite. Vice-versa for Clinton’s tax hikes. Which is why Clinton reversed Reagan’s debt increase, only to have it go back up — way up — as a function of the Bush tax hikes.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=gdp+growth+rate
I’ve addressed your “revenue trends” before. The curve slopes are relating to differences in where you start, GDP growth wise. Reagan inherited a big recession (and GHW Bush ultimately bequeathed a bit of a recession to Clinton, but this was short lived and small, compared to Reagan’s). Of course the “trend” will be steeper, when you are starting from the bottom of a bigger hole. Clinton didn’t start in a big hole, didn’t climb as high, but stayed near the top longer. This will produce a shallower trend line in revenues (which track with GDP changes), but increasing total revenues to a greater degree. Obama started in an even bigger hole; so his GDP recovery is going to exceed Reagan’s, and so will his “revenue trend.”
But these “revenue trends” are meaningless, in the present discussion of tax policy versus deficits.
According to your logic (it’s spending, not taxes), Reagan must have been the most drunk-sailor spender in history — but, no, he wasn’t. The growth of the Federal budget has been very constant over the past 40 years. Deficits didn’t track with the built in, steady growth in spending, they tracked precisely with tax policy and tax collections. Tax collections being a function of GDP and tax rates.
As your study showed (and as all economists agree), tax cuts never pay for themselves by generating more economic activity to produce more tax revenue than they cost in revenue lost from the rate cuts. Which is why you didn’t hear McConnell or Boehner defending extension of tax cuts for the rich on the basis that doing so would help control the deficit. Instead, they were defended as “it would be bad to rescind them in these hard times.” Neither did they challenge the assertion that extending the Bush tax cuts would add $2.1 trillion more to the deficit. No one really disagrees with this. No one believes in the Laffer Curve anymore. Not even Laffer.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Curt and friends A manchild is a grown man that is extremely immature.Rush was first to so christen Obama and his minions of lemmings soon followed suit.No better or worse than the teabaggers here have referenced Obama previously.IMHO Brob is certainly not as bad as some of your far right fanatics.
A respectful Semper Fi to my fellow jarhead
@B-Rob #46
Ya know, last Sunday I had the pleasure of working with a kid named “Stevie”. Gymnastics is therapeutic for him. Stevie is pretty high-functioning autistic. He hasn’t done back flips on the trampoline since transitioning to the gym I currently work at. But Sunday I spotted him in the belt; then hand-spotted him; then turned him loose to try it by himself. At first he wouldn’t do it, so I hand-spotted him again to help his confidence. After that, he did it by himself. I wanted to shout out, “Attaboy!”, thought twice about it, and just said, “Good job, Stevie! Way to go!” After some more successes in the gym, I said to myself, “Eff it”, and gave myself permission to spout out “Attaboy!” if it felt spontaneous; if it felt right. Why would I hesitate in the first place? Because Stevie’s black.
But why should I treat him any differently than any of my other students? Because I’ve been made to be sensitive to certain words that have a history. But what is the context in which I wanted to use the word “boy”? What was my intent? How much weight and gravitas- how much power- do we give to such a common usage word? And when do we take away the power of that word to wound?
I used that word for Stevie in a colorblind way…my original suppression of it was not colorblind. I treated Stevie as I would any boy (Stevie’s 17) under my care and tutorship. Somehow, I don’t think Stevie cared that I referred to him as a boy. Is he ignorant of the negative, historical connotations? Maybe. I said it right in front of his mom, but she didn’t even bat an eyelash. Was it because Stevie’s mom is white? Certainly, it’s not because she is unaware of its ability to be used as a word to wound. The thing about Stevie’s mother is that she adopted him, knowing he was a mess (not just autistic, but under some pretty wretched background I won’t go further into). And she adopted him as a young boy out of love and compassion. Is it okay for her to refer to her son as “her boy”? After all, she’s white…she shouldn’t do that, should she? Lest it offend the B-Rob’s of the world…
Being sensitive to the power of words and how it affects the feelings of others should be taken into consideration. However, sometimes the power of “words that wound” can lose their power if they are simply reclaimed as ordinary, everyday words, applicable to anyone without regard to race. To make blacks exempt from a word that applies to all other “races”….that in itself perpetuates racism and keeps in the forefront of one’s thought the distinction of “racial differences” rather than “colorblindness”.
This isn’t to say that one should be completely insensitive to history and be sensitive to the feelings of others. But what is the path to moving beyond racism…?
I know I posted this before.
But you cannot negotiate with reality.
It is futile to try to increase tax revenues by increasing tax rates on the richest.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/11/30/the-futility-of-tax-hikes-in-pictures/
Only three things can help us now:
Cutting spending
Shrinking government
Allowing for more economic growth
Obama opposes all three.
But since he’s kept open Gitmo and is now even going to start trying detainees in military tribunals there, who knows?
Maybe he can come around.
@John ryan:
Absolutely. Living in a Very small town, there are poor prospects for jobs; however there is plenty of housing available at very low cost. However, if there would be initiative for inventions, small business, small industries, those people could thrive here!
@nan: Heritage graph misleading. Can’t get back for a long time (gotta work), but will have at it, when able. – Larry W
@Nan G, #65:
And yet, during all the years when our top bracket rate was markedly higher, annual deficits were relatively low and the national debt was small and entirely manageable. We even managed to pay down the enormous debts that had resulted from necessary deficit spending during World War II.
For some odd reason, the national debt began its unrelenting climb at precisely the point the idea that “tax cuts increase revenue” set in. The most rapid increase in our accumulated national debt has coincided with the lowest tax rates since the 1950s.
all of those uber rich liberals attending the dinner wish to heartily thank ALL who supported the extension of the tax cuts for the super wealthy. The elites of America applaud those lower classes who helped to keep them rich. ELITES CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY HIGH TAXES BETTER FOR THE DEFICIT TO GO UP THAN FOR A SINGLE ELITE TO CRY!!
I hope that Maine lobster was caught at the mouth of the Saco River near where the City of Biddeford releases their waste water.
Oh and Skookum, there are some people on this earth that deserve to die. Charles Manson. The 7 guys in who kidnapped and raped a guy and his girlfriend, poured bleach down their throats, mutilated the girl while still alive. Child molesters, gangbangers, Mexican drug carriers, a certain leader of Iran……
@Nan (#66): Found what I remembered (and , along the way, found even better on a Perot web site — more on that later).
Anyway, here’s the rebuttal to Hauser:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/79495/lying-chart-the-day-classic-edition
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Greg, I think you will note also that government began to grow when politicians began complaining that a status quo for a department budget was akin to shrinking that department.
Then, more recently, a less-than-large INCREASE in the budget of a department was complained about as a cutting back of that department.
The more I think about it the more I am sure George Orwell was right.
Newspeak is here.
Only under Newspeak can an increase in a governmental department’s budget be ”doubleplus ungood,” because it is not enough to please the Big Brothers of today.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I think your buddy forgets the huge tech bubble that burst just as GW Bush took office.
Not tax hike, tax-staying-the -same or tax cut was going to keep revenues where they were before it popped.
In fact, all the governmental employee unions that locked in retirement guarantees before that pop are what has our states in so much financial trouble today.
@nan: show me where government “began to grow”
http://perotcharts.com/category/charts/budget-deficit-charts/
- Larry
@Nan: (#74): But it punctures your theory that tax rates don’t matter. They clearly do. With the tech bubble recession, GDP went down, but the graph wasn’t a GDP graph and it wasn’t a revenue graph, it was a revenue/GDP graph. So this should have stayed at 19% of GDP — but it didn’t. It want down. And it continued to go down, even when the nation recovered from the (brief) recession and GDP went back up! And revenue/GDP went UP despite the GHW Bush brief recession, because GHW raised taxes. And the revenue/GDP ratio went up even more under Clinton, when he raised taxes again.
The Hauser Graph is simply an optical illusion by plottting revenue/GDP on a scale of 0 to 100 when the ratio hovers in the range of 20 (albeit rising and falling significantly, as tax rates go up and go down).
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Larry, how very convenient you provide a graph that stops at 2007, when Pelosi/Reid and Dems seized both chambers, and supermajority Senate power. And of course, it’s extra convenient you leave out the Obama/Pelosi/Reid spending.
Shall we remedy that?
So Larry, wanna point out where those big arse humps of spending began?
While we’re at it on the revenue vs spending wars, let’s have a look at TTL US revenue vs public debt from 1970 thru 2014 projections, shall we?
My my… lookie at all that red/public spending/debt increase during the Clinton years, followed by again those huge arse bumps after 2007 forward.
You were saying?
@mata: The rise in spending was TARP + “stimulus” (more later, first…):
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_the_executive_branch_prepare_the_annual_budget#ixzz1Bcf1Vtas
n.b. Please don’t give me grief over the link. I didn’t have the time to go searching for a more prestigious URL.
Now, as much as you want to say that the Dems were responsible for everything from 2007 on; they weren’t. Bush prepared the budget. Congress approved 99% of what Bush proposed (including through FY 2009, which was also Bush’s responsibility to prepare). They tacked on the usual 1% or so extra pork (always a bipartisan exercise). Congress doesn’t have the wherewithall to budget for executive agencies. That would be absurd. You think that the Foreign Relations Committee should prepare the budget for the State Department?
The reason for stopping at 2007 was that we were discussing the effect of tax cuts on revenue and debt. ALL of the data, and I mean all of it shows that:
(1) Tax cuts ALWAYS cost the more in lost revenue from rate cuts than they ever make up for in revenue increases as a result of extra GDP growth, which wouldn’t have occurred in the absence of the tax cuts.
(2) Tax increases ALWAYS increase revenue above what would have occurred in the absence of the tax increases.
(3) Revenues grew more slowly under Reagan and under “W” Bush than under Clinton, contradicting your claims to the contrary.
(4) Spending grew more rapidly under Reagan and under “W” Bush than under Clinton.
Now, what’s happened post 2008 is an anomaly, resulting from an inherited catastrophe. There was a calamitous financial crisis, which threatened to become the next Great Depression. Paulson, Bush, Obama, and Geithner followed a consistent game plan of TARP and including the auto bailouts. Most people would now judge this effort to have been a success.
The GOP wanted a stimulus of $500 billion. Mostly tax cuts (to be paid for by borrowing from China, to return to the main theme of this thread) . Obama went with a $760 stimulus, including aid to state and local govts, tax cuts, and extension of unemployment benefits — later supported by the GOP — plus a small amount of infrastructure spending. This latter did indeed increase spending, but it was a one-off, emergency response to a crisis, and not some great permanent shift to a welfare state. This type of spending bears no relationship to anything ever done before, because it was in response to a fiscal crisis never before experienced.
And it has no relationship whatsoever to the underlying, present debate over the (direct) relationship between tax cuts and debt.
“Gross public debt” is a meaningless metric. By gross public debt, California’s debt burden looks massive. But in comparision with state GDP, it has an average debt burden, relative to the other states. My “gross debt burden” is about $400K. Verizon’s is about $20,000,000K. Even though Hard Right can’t seem to grasp the concept, the only meaningful way to compare debt — over time and place — is on the basis of debt to income ratio, inflation-adjusted, for individuals and companies, and debt to GDP ratio, inflation-adjusted, for states and countries.
P.S. (#78) You aren’t reading your own graph correctly, when you talk about “arse bumps in the Clinton years”). Look at the chart again. Those years were virtually flat. Anyway, those graphs are too difficult to read. Here’s a better one:
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP-L.gif
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
“Let us never negotiate out of fear.But let us never fear to negotite” JFK Today is the 50th anniversity of his inauguration.
“Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”
Larry, really…. all this is on TARP? LOL
TARP total was approx $750 bil… of which only half was spent in 2008 by Bush/Paulson. The other half was the demand by Obama for the beginning of his term. That’s $350 bil there.
Within 60 days, Obama/Pelosi/Reid had the so called “stimulus” bill … that topped the TARP in spending funds. Then add another $410 bil for the Omnibus. So far we’ve more than doubled TARP in less than a year.
Financial reform? Right… added to federal spending by hiring thousands of new federal employees on the taxpayers’ backs for new agencies created. And we haven’t even gotten into how many federal agencies created by O’healthcare and that added cost.
Sorry…. your whitewash just don’t sanitize the spin.
CML, you forgot Jarred.
Mata, You remember how you castigated me for changing the subject. This was a simple debate about the relationship of tax cuts to debt and you want to turn it into a full fledged debate on Obama, which, again, is why I didn’t carry data beyond 2007, because the only useful, evaluable information pertaining to the relationship between tax cuts and tax increases and debt ends at the time when the financial meltdown begins.
We can’t begin to have an intelligent discussion about whether Obama and Geithner were financial geniuses or financial fools until a period of time has passed. I’m happy to debate Obama at some other time, but I’d prefer to get to the end of the present debate before starting another one.
- Larry W/HB
Changing the subject? I am under the impression you and Nan G were carrying on a subject about spending the the growth of government. Not that it isn’t interrelated with taxes, etc.
Now I’m really confused as to why you wish to hold this administration, plus the 2007 forward Congressional purse string control, immune from your debate. When did they get a collect…er spend… $2 trillion and pass go for free card?
I will also remind you again of the 2006 results assessment, in text, of the analysis of the period from 1968 to 2006.
I will remind you that the latter category includes Clinton’s 1993 Omnibus tax increase.
Mata, there’s no useful data to be had from Obama relating to the impact of tax cuts and tax increases on revenue.
I know that you will never concede the totally obvious fact that tax cuts are paid for with borrowed money, as opposed to with increased revenue generated from greater economic activity; it’s against your DNA, and I won’t insist on an “uncle.” No big deal. Many great people have had stubbornness as a defining trait.
If you’ve nothing more to add on the general subject of tax cuts and debt, then by all means, let’s have an Obama debate. (Things are actually looking pretty good for him, at this point, as I’ll be happy to discuss).
I’ll consider your #82 as the opening salvo on the Obama sub-thread. Back atcha l8r.
- Larry W/HB
What a childish display of arrogance and condescension, Larry. It’s also called projection. Again, typical of a liberal like yourself.
Call it a fact all you want it doesn’t make it so and it’s been proven you are wrong.
Yeah, Chris Christie sucked up to Hu and had dinner with him. I used to like Christie, but it would seem that only in the fiscal realm is he anything close to being a conservative.
He is in favor of amnesty, he appointed a muslim with Hammas ties to a judgeship, and of course he backed Castle, the ultimate RINO.
http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/nation/gov-christie-goes-to-white-house
ANTICROCKS Remember Christie like Scott Brown is from a Blue state and to get re-elected they MUST be socially moderate-liberal.That’s politics.
Larry, the big arse bumps are in the Pelosi/Reid/Obama years, as I specifically said in that comment. Does that escape your eye?
Oh… right… that was all “tarp”…. LOL
Nor are the Clinton years “flat”, as I described it as an increase in the public debt there too… unless you have visual problems seeing curves.
BTW, I’ll ignore your condescending and absurd Wiki link about basic civics. I’m not giving you grief about an 8th grade cyber search. But I will say your snipe, presuming my lack of education on the workings of our government, is not lost on me. Instead, you might want to read up on the reality that only Congress controls the purse strings, by Constitutional law, and that they are under no mandate to pass a POTUS budget unaltered. I’ll let you find your own link to Wiki on the Constitution so you can spin your way out of that one, but I would suggest you up the quality of your educational sources, and go right to one of the various Constitution online sites available instead.
Needless to say, Congress (under either party) is long overdue in saying NO. However the delinquent “no” is more heinous of late. Which is why now the US voter is screaming *no!*
Secondly, you link to a New Republic article (what a deplorable site, BTW…. makes Huffpo look moderate!) For your rebuttal to Veronique de Rugy, a woman who did her PhD thesis on “Public Versus Private Tax Revolt”, and who has been visiting scholar and lecturer to both the University of Tours and George Mason U’s Dept of Economics, as well as her think tank policy work for economics, you dredge up self described “liberal hawk” Jonathan Chait, who’s journalism degree from U of Michigan doesn’t even indicate he’s qualified to balance a checkbook.
This is further evidenced by the chart Chait wants to show, while screaming “foul”, that depends upon a single source of an administration’s OMB, while Rugy’s chart sources not only OMBs, but also CBO and Tax Policy Institute data.
Now gee… which do I think is providing more complete and credible data and source? Don’t help……
Dissing Hauser’s theory, which I can see by Chait’s casual flippant remarks made to his adoring progressive readership, is a disservice. It is not just “making big changes look small” in a graph. Perhaps he should turn to his wife, who works for the progressive Center for American Progress for more informative input before he puts fingers to keyboard. Or else he’s blessed with one stupid readership….
But there’s two sides to the story, as usual. One side is that Hauser’s historical research is indeed true, and not the optical illusion that Chait claims.
Hauser’s economic research, first put out in 1993, bears out with the years he used as his research. However there is no where in there that says revenue can’t fall *below* that historic average… and has as a result of this recession/depression. I believe it was something like 15% of the GDP. Between 1946 and 2007, it’s hovered at about 17% of the GDP, fluctuation down to 14% and as high as 20.9%. This is, of course, including all types of tax revenue, and not just income tax. And when I speak of tax revenue, I speak of it all, encompassed as well.
It’s this trick that politically motivated economists like to play… like those who want it to only reflect individual income tax. But then, that’s not our entire tax revenue stream, is it? Very disingenuous. Keep that in mind… it resurfaces below.
The other side of the story? That can all change with an oppressive, greedy Congress.
Forbes writer, Daniel J. Mitchell, also points out that this hovering of revenue to US GDP does historically remain true. Mitchell is another one who’s credentials with Masters and PhD in Economics, make Chait look like the chump change he is. Mitchell notes that this theory is unlikely to protect the US taxpayer from money grubbing politicians… our only redeeming grace thus far being we don’t have a VAT or national sales tax, like the Euro socialist nations do. And also, the other nations have a much lower income that they consider the “evil wealthy”… i.e., they nail the low income with odious tax rates, and have therefore figured out a way to pad the government/politician coffers using income tax rates.
The chart he has, is based on OECD figures for each nation from 1965 to 2007. Remember what I said above about what “taxes” are used? These figures are based only on income and profit taxes. So the historic figures for the US are lower than when you include all forms of tax revenue (i.e. pensions, business, etc) The OECD info shows that New Zealand gets the #2 spot with tax revenues at 22% of their GDP, while Denmark is coming in at the highest with taxes making up 29% of the GDP. That same chart, by comparison, shows the US holding between 11.6% to 15.1% for years between 1965 and 2007. Of course, we’re also looking at two countries with populations between 4.5 and 5.5 million.
So is the graph by Rugy correct? Historically, yes. Absolutely. Can the US Congress blow the Hauser rule out of the water by implementing odious tax regulations? But of course… but it will also be the death of the US economy. What works (sorta) for countries with .016% of our population, and considerably less national land mass, doesn’t work for the US.
The other rule that holds true is that one called “blood from a turnip”.
Tax cuts should be accomodated for with equal or greater reduced spending. It is not the tax payers fault that Congress continues to spend. Nor is the money we make classified as “open season” by big spending pols.
You consider me stubborn. I consider you somehow brainwashed into believing that what we earn is rightfully the government’s to take to support their ever increasing spending habits they insist is for societal good. But that’s okay. I won’t insist on an “uncle” from you either. No big deal. Just a difference with your concept of governance, your refusal to demand the government stop spending, and your stubborn insistance they own all rights to our wallets when they don’t.
@rich wheeler: You said:
Okay good point, but don’t talk down to me. I get that it is politics, but I was hoping against hope that he might just actually stand for something rather than just friggin’ pander.
Anyone who can look at that photo and get their undies in a wad over calling somebody “boy” or anything else for that matter, or can defend government’s “right” to get bigger and more intrusive has serious, serious issues. Behold the face of socialism, it’s true face stripped bare of platitudes and political “theory”. If this image does not haunt you the rest of your days you are seriously damaged goods.
You know, I was just thinking of that great Sinatra movie, The Manchurian Candidate. Doesn’t it seem like this bozo in the white house is acting exactly like what the Chinese were trying to implement in that movie? Seriously, it truly seems this President is hell bent to deliver us to the Red Chinese and the rest of the Marxist Socialists. Watch the movie and you’ll see what I mean.
What’s delivering us to the “Red Chinese” isn’t a fancy dinner, it’s refusing to pay our own way, necessitating the mortgaging of the USA to the “Bank of Red China.”
It’s all fine to talk about cutting spending, but, until that imaginary day comes, the conservative thing to do is to pay our own bills and not borrow any more money from nations we allegedly abhor.
By the way, China is probably more capitalist than Europe today. It hasn’t been “Marxist” in a very long while. A more accurate name for “Red China” would be “Green China.”
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Larry: China is no longer Marxist?
Tell it to this couple:
Or tell it to the babies that are killed day in and day out in China:
I would say China is best described as Red China, red for the blood on their hands.
@anticsrocks: You are confusing economic systems (Marxism vs Capitalism) with systems of government (Authoritarian vs Democratic).
China is an authoritarian capitalist society. It is no longer an authoritarian Marxist society.
A very good analogy to present day China was the Chilean government of Augusto Pinochet. Prior to Pinochet, Chile was a democratic socialist society, led by popularly-elected Salvadore Allende, an avowed Marxist. The CIA didn’t like a Marxist (even though democratically elected) being in charge. So Allende was toppled in a military coup.
Pinochet changed the economic system from Marxist to capitalist. But he was every bit as much an authoritarian dictator as the current Chinese government.
Here’s the summary (from Wiki):
Now, do you see the precise parallels with China? Substitute “miracle of China” for “miracle of Chile,” and this provides yet another direct proof that capitalism is an economic system vastly superior to Marxism.
But you can have democratic capitalism (the USA); you can have democratic socialism (the former Chile, present-day Venezuela); you can have authoritarian socialism (Cuba, the ex-Soviet Union), and you can have authoritarian capitalism (China, Chile under Pinochet).
By the way, I think that it is a mistake to think that the best form of government for every nation on earth is Jeffersonian Democracy. There was an interesting segment on the PBS Newshour on Thursday or Friday (forget which). They interviewed a number of Chinese university students and they were quite defensive of their own government. What they tried to explain is that China is a vastly more complex country than the USA, of vast geographic size, with a hugely greater population, with a vastly more diverse population (which doesn’t even speak the same language), and without any history of democratic governance.
It was probably a big mistake to try and democratize Russia is such a short period of time. This led to near chaos, until Putin brought in a greater degree of stability. China has undergone tumultuous changes in a very short period of time. The country is held together by a strong, authoritarian central government, but the people of China are much more interested in improving their economic status than in improving their freedom of political speech. Their government will evolve over time.
In the meantime, the USA is in no position to go throwing its weight around to pressure the Chinese into speeding up the pace of internal human rights reforms, as we are unconscionably dependent on them to give us the money to pay the bills which we, ourselves, should be paying, but which we selfishly refuse to pay.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, if you mean green as in cash you got that correct. If you mean green as in evironmental, then you are off your meds.
@Hard. I meant green as in cash.
The traditional, colloquial meaning of green, before it was hijacked by the environmental movement. As in, “long green.”
I’m really getting old. Probably no one here remembers that expression.
Is the designation, Authoritarian Capitalist Country an apologist’s expression for the mature Fascist State of China. They call themselves Communists and the Communists control the country and the people, but it is the corporate Elite of China that controls the purse and the future. It is the children of Elites who are buying homes in the US and in Europe, just in case. How else would you describe a fascist state, China is the perfect modern example. And always, we have these curious people whom we and Orwell call Elites: the ones who control the money, the ones who inspire all the Useful Idiots to dedicate themselves to Socialist ladder climbing and selfless service in the forlorn hope to become, but like our Elites with their legions of serving and self-effacing bureaucratic dilettantes and wanna be’s, membership is highly regulated and rarely attained.
@Skookum: You say:
It’s ironic that the Chinese economy is becoming more like that of the USA, while the USA’s economy is becoming more like that of China, with wealth and economic power concentrated among a true elite class of people.
With the virtual demise of the estate tax and with the vast and increasing disparity between economic growth at the top 1% and everyone else, we are rapidly evolving into a society with its own, permanent, to-the-manor-born elite class.
It’s not entirely obvious that this is a positive development in our national evolution.
P.S. Anyone can Google “Is China still a Communist country?” and read all about it.
Here’s one particularly clear explanation:
http://www.teachabroadchina.com/china-not-communist-country-ccp/
(There’s also a lot of spirited debate in the commentary which follows).
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still just an effing pig.
China is a communist country that ALLOWS capitalism.
Since you brought it up, why do you love the estate tax so much? I mean if I toil and bust my ass for 40 or 50 years, build up a business to the point where I am able to put away let’s say $5 million so that I can pass it on to my family, why should the government come along and take over half of it??
Don’t tell me you are one of those “uh-oh! there’s a ‘concentration of wealth’ guys.”
Aye, Sawbones:
Melville, Moby Dick
Isn’t it strange that our own most notable and wealthiest Progressives are always in Pursuit of the Socialist Utopia: perhaps it is to truly cement their Elitist status, so that none may steal the mantle.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Pray tell Larry, which “class” were you born?
HEY,Y”al, WHAT is it with CHINA,? WHY is he being entertained and given such a big deal by the GOVERNMENT, you never hear of invitations to the WHITE HOUSE regarding AMERICANS,
how about inviting a group of CHRISTIANS ‘familys with there children as a special dinner
of many courses, to show them that their tax go in the right pocket, what CHINA ever did to AMERICANS
except to lend money to the GOVERNMENT not lend money to the AMERICANS,
and AMERICA don’t owe nothing to CHINA, only the government has borrowed the money,
so let them buy their own dinner,
@antisrocks: Regarding the estate tax, I’ll defer to the father of capitalism, Adam Smith:
http://www.conlaw.org/Intergenerational-II-2-4.htm
Or (great GOP President) Theodore Roosevelt, who
http://www.physiciansnews.com/finance/405.html
My own feeling is that, in the United States of America, every person should have the right to amass as big a fortune as is possible. It’s entirely reasonable for successful people to pass financial security along to their children, but it’s corrosive to our national culture for people with vast fortunes to be able to endow all of their descendants in near perpetuity with lives of both leisure (if chosen) or power or both.
When my father in law died, he left a modest “estate” of $1.4 million to his four children. The estate tax at the time ended up taking more than 50% of this. Not a single “heir” voiced a single complaint: their father left them with gifts of far greater value than money.
We should make it on our own. That’s always been the key to our success as a nation.
@Kansas: In the long ago time in which I was born, there were no “classes” in America. Some people had a vision, others didn’t. We all inherited genes. Some inherited money, but few inherited money which lasted beyond one or two following generations, unless renewed through the labors of those who followed.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Interesting article Larry, I hope you are not offended with the sawbones nombre: I couldn’t resist, purely in an effort to be in the spirit of the quote. Since most of us haven’t been to China, it was interesting to read the commentary by those of Chinese heritage who had lived there for varying periods of time; still, their opinions seemed to vary as wildly as ours.
Like Russia, their political system could easily ‘progress’ in several different directions. Whether they slip back into their Communist dystopia or become a truly enlightened country in the sense of Jefferson and his drinking buddies, will be revealed in the future. All things considered, dealing with a country like China that is developing a technological and military superiority should be done through the image of strength rather than weakness, whether speaking of leadership or military capability. The idea of negotiating from a position of subservience and weakness is a fool’s game that will yield lesser results at the very least with the ever present ominous possibility of disaster and chaos.
@Skook:
I agree with that, but there’s a difference between style and substance. Speak softly, but carry a big stick. Be a gracious host to your visitors, but pay your own bills and don’t become indebted to a visitor who happens to be your rival.
Real strength is not using tough words and refusing to bow. It’s being tough enough to have the will to pay your own bills.
The best way for us to have stood up to China would have been to allow ALL of the Bush tax cuts to expire.
I blame Obama as much as I blame the GOP. Both lack the vision (and patriotism) to see beyond the next election.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: I can’t believe the heirs of your FIL weren’t outraged that the government took 50% of his estate. It wasn’t the government that earned or accumulated his wealth. I also think the less government the better.
Larry, if estate taxes are oppressive, people who want their children to inherit their wealth will be dividing up the business and proceeds much earlier in life to avoid the loss. Real estate can be sold to relatives and kids can be earning ridiculous salaries. I doubt if any of our Elites, like many I have worked for, would leave their estates vulnerable to the IRS. I am thinking of the Dupont, Kennedy, Carnegie, and a multitude of others that I better not mention. Card carrying Liberals all, except they have professional bean counters in their employ at all times to watch over these nagging details. I think the fortunes that will be gutted are those who neglect to manage their estate and those who cash in early, the true Elites are not that interested in neglecting the welfare of their dependents who wear the same genes. It is a rhetorical game of taxing the wealthy, except we really want those wealthy over there to pay up, we have taken care of our own. Nancy Pelosi caused a lot of unnecessary grief with her sense of Elitist self-entitlement by using the air force as her personal air line for her and her family. This is the sense of Liberal Elitist entitlement that causes resentment and distrust among the public. To think of Ms Pelosi being willing to fork over 50% upon her death or John Kerry being willing to fork over 50% of the Heinz fortune is a little far fetched no matter how altruistic your personal motives and beliefs.
@Skook:
You say:
That’s the idea behind the gift tax.
The way it currently works is as follows:
ESTATE TAX
First $5,000,000 is tax free. This is from EACH parent! So the first $10,000,000 is tax free. Beyond $10,000,000, it’s a 35% tax.
GIFT TAX
Everyone can gift $13,000 per year to as many different people as he/she wants, and it doesn’t even need to be reported to the IRS.
Beyond $13,000 to any one person, then the amount IN EXCESS of $13,000 needs to be reported (but it’s not taxed).
Once the total amount of reportable (over $13,000 in any one year to any one person) gifts to individuals exceeds $5,000,000 (lifetime; $10,000,000 for a couple filing jointly), then additional pre-mortem gifts (and 100% of the post-mortem estate) are taxed at 35%.
This is aimed, obviously, at the super-duper wealthy.
I think it’s incredibly generous. Bill Gates could still endow his heirs with tens of billions (although, in Gates’s case, he’s supposed to be giving most of it away to his foundation).
But many people are grumbling that it’s still too confiscatory
With respect to Pelosi and Kerry, I never once believed that Liberals were, at the level of their own person finances, any less selfish than anyone else. Liberals are humans, just like everyone else — only they tend to be less religious and therefore tend to be less personally charitable.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, the Bush tax cuts had Obama with his back to the wall: if he let them expire, and the economy headed South, that would have been the coup de gras for his reelection. Now if the economy turns belly-up, he can always say, it was the fault of the Bush tax cuts and not his personal management style. From the point of the extension of the tax cuts, the president will be running the country and the economy as if it were a campaign. All actions have a political price to be paid, it is the Obama’s job to offend as few people as possible for the next 21 months. The ideological projection has been closeted; unless, it is expedient to apply the principles. Otherwise, the campaign is in high gear and right now he is running against no one, so it is imperative to build up as much of a lead as possible. Killing the tax cuts and taking a few dollars out of the paychecks during these trying economic times would have left him with a deficit rather than a lead in the race. High energy prices and the resultant increases in food and every other commodity will be a negative factor that wont be going away and another deficit that will be hard to hide.
@Skook: I agree 100% with your analysis (#113). I’d have been thrilled had Obama walked the plank on this, for the good of the country. He could have had the moral high ground by allowing ALL tax cuts to expire (not simply those on the rich). I don’t believe that allowing the cuts to expire would have added more than a few months of pain onto the recovery. There’s no capital shortage, now, and tax cuts are the least effective form of economic stimulus.
I think that, in times of crisis, a great President can ask the people to all share in the pain/sacrifice, for the sake of the nation. And the people will — amazingly — rise to the task. In my entire life, the only “sacrifice” the government ever asked of me was to register for the draft, and I drew a high lottery number. Today, we don’t even ask that. Lyndon Johnson did raise taxes to finance Vietnam, but I was in school and didn’t have to pay these extra taxes. Today, we declare wars and cut taxes at the same time. Compare our lot in life with that of the Greatest Generation, who endured the Great Depression, endured WWII rationing, won the war, then paid off the war debt with high taxes.
And we borrow the money from China. So that we don’t have to pay taxes.
Which brings us back to the beginning.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I must say Larry, of the super rich whom I work for, $13,000/year wont pay for much of their expenses, it wont pay for one groom’s salary. These people spend $10,000/week per horse, (most of them have several) at a big horse show and they have never worked a day in their life and never will. If they fly to Europe the expenses increase considerably.
I was actually referring to, although I have no way of knowing, since I don’t really become involved with my customers finances, the seeming likelihood of grown children being placed on boards for a small amount of work and a large salary. This is all hypothetical, but I have dealt with many of the wealthiest people in the world and understand the way they do business, at least with me. In the nineties, I worked for about 10% of the Forbes list for the world and even more for this country, some of them didn’t ever see me, their bean counters dealt with me as a rule, but not always. It is a fairly tight run world, with very little that isn’t kept track of and accounted for, I was a necessary nuisance, nothing more; again, getting money from these people will not be easy, no matter what the rules are, they want the best for their dependents as a rule, but not always. They have mansions for their horses and designated parking for people like myself.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Bill Gates knew the government was intending to destroy him, so he crossed over. Pelosi and Kerry married money. Larry, what you call selfish, I call success.
@Skook: Well, if you put your kids on a board and pay them a salary, then their salary will be taxed, and the current marginal rate is 35%, same as the estate tax rate, same as the gift tax rate. So there’s really nowhere to hide. At least, there’s no way to hide out in the open.
One other thing about the Gift Tax, just to be relatively complete. There’s no limit at all to the amount which can go to pay someone else’s educational or medical expenses, as long as the check is made out directly to the school, hospital, doctor, etc. That’s all tax free.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Larry: You said:
???
Seriously? ROFLMAO
The Chinese give one whit about our tax rates in what alternate reality? And don’t give me that crap about more revenue. That horse has been beat to death.
It is also difficult to ask the country to bite the bullet and accept austerity, while its leader is living life to the max and enjoying the best life has to offer. This is a matter of common sense, that was ignored by the administration.
I feel that we have purposely been sanitized from the effects of the wars. Of what sacrifice have any of us paid for the war effort, I remember my grandparents talking of contributing metal and wool for the war effort. We live a life of luxury; if we need tires we buy them, my relatives packed tires with straw when they would no longer hold air, because there were no tires to buy. Families were expected to have a victory garden, s that the vegetables from the farms could feed our troops. We pursue our daily interests as if a war wasn’t happening, for only 2% percent of us even know someone who has been in the war and our troops are deployed 4 and 5 times so that we can avoid a draft. There has been too much political expediency in the prosecution of these wars to make them palatable for the general public.
They no longer want me, but I could do some clerical work for a month or two, relieving someone else for duties in the field or some time at home, and it is the same with you, an MD who could provide a vital service somewhere. We are asking way too much of too few, in my opinion and taking advantage of their patriotism while the rest of the country skates through a war with no ill effects. Why did the government ask for metal and wool? To offset the cost of the war. Yet we contribute nothing. I feel as if I should do more and I am making a pledge to myself, to spend time at the veterans hospitals reading to groups, ( they used to like me to read bible passages in church because of my voice and inflection) or doing whatever I can, upon my retirement, that elusive goal, that unfortunately, might never happen.
Reason Larry it’s, “Tax free” for such donations is the fact the Local, State or Federal Government now knows not to allocate a certain ammount monies to such education or medical centers that get tax payer funding due to private investments into such firms from donations filling gaps in budget so the Government can reallocate the monies to more needed areas (such as rebuilding crumbling water/sewer systems for example…). This is a reward program to get people to directly support various social infrastructures. The citizen is still out of that money, the mere difference is the citizen has far more power to direct where and how his or her money is spent.
In the case of the, “Death Tax” losing almost 50 percent of an Estate’s value upon the holder’s death to Government is a very touchy and very angry issue with majority of people as the property and monies collected in the Estate’s name has already been previously taxed at least 2 times (sometimes 3.) and in the case of property composing the Estate inflicted by annual taxation. This sorta angers people who worked for their homes and family.
@anticsrocks: Extending the Bush tax cuts will require us to borrow an additional $2.1 trillion. Cut taxes, cut revenue. Raise taxes, raise revenue. That’s what all the data show. That’s even what Mata’s data showed. The treasury permanently loses a minimum of 70 cents in unrecovered revenue for every dollar in taxes cut.
Why didn’t McConnell and Boehner try to sell the tax cut extensions on the basis that this would reduce our debt burden? They didn’t — because it wouldn’t. Quite the opposite. As everyone agrees.
There was a wonderful PBS interview show, with David Stockman and Eric Cantor, on the tax cut extension. Stockman attributed nearly all of our economic woes to tax cuts necessitating borrowing; Cantor kept maintaining that we “needed” to keep the tax cuts and kept ducking the borrowing issue. Why didn’t he come right out and say, “look, if we don’t extend the tax cuts, we’ll actually have to borrow MORE.” ? Because he knows it would be a ludicrous claim. No one believes that stuff anymore. The GOP economic theory is no longer “tax cuts increase tax revenue,” but “we need to keep taxes low and low tax rates will eventually starve the beast enough to lower our spending.”
It’s a nice theory, but “starve the beast” is just as discredited a theory as the Laffer Curve. Why, because it’s much easier to borrow money from China than it is to starve the beast.
I’ll try to see if I can find the video link on the PBS website. It’s very instructive.
@Mr Irons:
You’ve got to remember that the first $10,000,000 (couple) and $5,000,000 (single) is tax free. It’s only the amount beyond that which is taxed at 35%.
It’s not any form of “double taxation.” It’s taxed once. You enjoy the money during your life. And then you die. Did you ever hear of the expression “you can’t take it with you?” That’s true. You can’t take with you the money that you earned and paid taxes on and had left over when you die. So you give $5 million of it to your heirs ($10 million, for a couple) and, beyond that, you give them 65%.
The estate tax has always served to work against the emergence of a large, permanently endowed upper class. That’s what both Adam Smith and Teddy Roosevelt felt was such societal curse. The permanently endowed upper class.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach. CA
It has been historicaly proven that raised taxes do not produce raised Revenue, the only exception of this ideal was World War I with the various Businesses within the United States having little to no where else to go to operate and a heavy handed movement from President Willson’s administration. All other times, even World War 2, higher taxes have lead to lower revenues.
As for the “tax cuts” and borrowing? My my how you ignore the Clinton years, that was the onset of major borrowing from the Chinese. Even if such cuts were to expire, we would still not be able to generate enough revenue to remotely pay for the programs the 111th and now 112th Congress have for plans. We need to borrow just to cover various bloated welfare programs alone.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Larry, scroll down the page a bit to see what I had to say…. #126
Something was screwy and my partially completed comment was posted twice.
The completed one is further down.
@Mr Irons: You missed my debate with Mata. It’s too much work to do it all over again.
Since 1980, there have been myriad tweaks to the tax code which have either (1) raised tax rates or (2) reduced tax rates. In every case, the tweaks which raised tax rates increased revenues, while those which reduced tax rates reduced revenues. Reagan’s signature tax cuts led to a massive loss in revenue. Yes, total tax collections went up, but they always go up, as the GDP always goes up, if only because the population always goes up. The only time the GDP goes down is during a recession, when tax collections do fall. But tax cuts cost the treasury a minimum of 70 cents on the dollar, and this lost revenue must be made up in increased borrowing.
@Aye: Back l8r. Thanks.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
SKOOKUM, hi, yes I like what you mentionned on the warzone being ingnore by the majority,
or taken for granted, saying ;IT’s their job to do it, and even for some radicals to block the efforts of the military by way of MEDIA explaining their own idiotic logic of how they should extend the war by talking to an ennemie whose only knowledge is to hate and destroy our own people:
A good question that you bring on to all of us, what are we doing for the war effort?
like those previous years the whole country was doing something to boost the moral of the troops
and help on every way, there was jobs in armement big enterprise and every little bit would make the troops know they where loved and followed with one country’s mind,
what are we doing today? even that our way of communication has improved 100%.
thank you, bye
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
It took me a bit of reading to discover what Smith was speaking of here. Having done that reading I discovered that he was not, as you allude, referring to the taxation of estates and inheritances.
He was, instead referring to “entails and primogeniture” which were practices of inheritance, specifically of land. These practices worked to tie the hands of the heirs and bind them to the will of their predecessors.
Primogeniture passed estates to the first born, to the exclusion of the other heirs. Entails allowed those passing the estate along to bind it up from beyond the grave.
For example, entails would allow John Smith to leave his land to his son Joe ” ‘and the heirs of his body’ or some similar language with a specific legal meaning.” Through this practice a property owner could restrict who owned the property and how it was to be used for generations to come. Entails created a situation whereby those who inherited had lifetime use of a piece of property but they never really “owned” it. Their relationship to the land was more of a tenancy.
We see the same sort of thing that Smith was referring to still going on right here in modern day America. An acquaintance of ours owns quite a large amount of land. He has placed that land under conservation easement which, effectively, binds it up in perpetuity. The land cannot ever be subdivided. Development is extremely restricted. Buffer zones are established around all property boundaries. His four sons will eventually inherit the land but they, and other future generations, will never be allowed to exercise their free will in using or developing it because the conservation easements go on and on perpetually.
Teddy may have been in favor of an inheritance tax before the income tax and all of the other zillions of taxes that have already been paid on the property and money that is being handed down.
I seriously doubt that he would have been in favor of an estate tax on top of everything else.
Not sure how your logic works here Larry.
The person who earned the money originally, either through sweat of brow, investment, or ingenuity, paid taxes on that money when it was earned. Then, if it was invested, either in real estate or a financial investment vehicle, taxes were paid on the growth (interest, etc) of the original dollars.
To have the gov’t swoop in after Grampa dies and skim their share off the top after already feeding at that trough of assets is indeed double taxation.
That’s really my biggest beef with the estate tax. The taxes have already been paid on that money. The gov’t has collected taxes on the interest or other growth of that money.
Now, when the person dies, the gov’t is entitled to skim off another 35% or 65% or whatever the rate is?
openid.aol.com/runnswim, hi, we must not forget that It’s not comparable to other ways of presidents,
because you are dealing with an explosion of illegals crossing the border, coming from many poor and for some anti AMERICA ideology, and mid term immigrants who get all the benefits of what is to be given to AMERICANS in need, this is now the reality of where the moneys go, many abuse the system,
or hide in the system and take for granted what is being given to help, that should have never been meant as a forever donation. don’t compare just ask for redressing the wrong GOVERNMENT’s policys
and if it’s done ,[if ], you will see, an adjustment of where the tax should go that is back in the pockets of the people
Larry, just how is it you think the GDP rises? Just because more may, or may not enter the workforce? No… it’s because the private sector – not the public sector – takes off and creates wealth by creating product (unlike the government, which produces nothing….).
Again I will say you stick to a simplistic view with “reduced tax rates/reduced revenues” argument. Compared to what they would have taken in if they didn’t reduce revenues? Perhaps. But that’s not an appropriate measure, but it’s one you stick to in order to make your point, and to also continually mischaracterize mine.
Fact is Reagan, inheriting serious depression days, came into office with a GDP of $3126.8 billion in 1981. When he left office in 1989, it was up to $5482.1 in billions… an increase of $2355.3 billion, or a 42.96% increase of the GDP over his two terms… during recession years… using the income tax cuts/tax code tweaking. His policies stimulated growth in a deplorable economy and the GDP did not “go down”.
In fact, the GDP didn’t even “go down” during Carter’s recession. He came in with $2030.1 bil in 1977, and left at the end of 1980 with $2788.1. An increase of $758 bill, or 27.18%.
On the flip side, Clinton enjoyed the dot.com bubble, and the onset of the housing bubble. His only war spending were his little diversionary hit and runs, and also had a GOP Congress to rein him in. In short, he enjoyed a “camelot” economic boom. Yet he started with $6667.4 in billions in 1993. With his tax increases, combined with his code tweaking, he did not grow the GDP to the extent that Reagan policies did. Clinton left in 2000 with $9951.5 billion, an increase of $3284.1 billion, or 33% increase in the GDP.
Let me repeat that. Despite two bubbles, no 911/Wall Street shut down and no major overseas conflicts, Clinton’s tax increase policies, combined with his tax code cuts (aimed at the lowest economic sector, which wouldn’t stimulate the economy), only resulted in a 33% increase in the GDP in a time of “camelot” economic conditions.
Thanks… I’ll take Reagan’s economic growth of the private sector record any day.
BTW, a few more GDP factoids…
Reagan’s first two years had a .039% GDP growth in a recession. By his third year, he doubled that amount in that year alone. As a reminder, Reagan’s big tax cuts were in 1981.
Obama’s first two years had .025% GDP growth in a recession. It can be argued that the majority of that was taxpayer infused cash.
Bush’s overall two term growth was 28.77%… with no camelot economy. 911, two wars, inherited recession, and a housing bubble burst.
Therein lies the continued flaw of your thinking. Tax cuts do not “necessitate” borrowing. Spending more than anticipated revenue stream does.
Please put the blame where it belongs, and stop advocating government theft to support their spending addiction.
One good thing about Larry constantly repeating his disproven tax theories is that we have folks like Mata and Aye to point out how wrong he is. It can be quite an education.
@Larry: You said:
70 cents on the dollar? Really? How in the blue hell would this be proven?
Because we did not extend ANY tax cuts. We extended the tax rates and prevented a tax increase. When you leave things at the status quo, how can you argue that it will reduce anything?? What they wanted to avoid was a tax increase on the American public.
I was going to rebut your sad, incorrect tax theories, but Mata and Aye did a fine job. I will only say that my understanding of tax policy reflects Mata’s to a great degree. When you let the private sector have more of the money they work damned hard to earn, then the economy grows because that money is not tied up by a bloated, over sized government that seemingly only wants to “redistribute” it.
Why should anyone work that extra bit, only to have the government decide that it can spend that money better than the private sector does? In other words, why would any business expand, any private citizen work harder if they know that at that next tax bracket they will be considered “rich” and are going to have their private property and fruits of their labor confiscated? When you over tax, you remove incentive.
When JFK and Reagan cut taxes, the economy boomed. When Bush 43 cut taxes, despite 9/11 the economy vastly improved.
Don’t know where he got that either, anticsrocks. That sure wasn’t in the 2006 study. He tends to blend things he thinks I said along with things he keeps saying, as if they were one. But no doubt some brilliant undergrad journalist pulled that figure out of the air, and posted it in Wiki.
The way Larry looks at this, is that if the government were collecting $1.00, then gave you a 30% tax cut, it’s “unrecovered revenue”. Meaning that as long as that 30% of cash isn’t stolen for government coffers, it’s counted as lost revenue, and that there is never enough measurable growth in business to make up for that supposed “loss”. First if all, it’s a notion that requires the assumption that the government owns your earnings, and is being gracious not stealing as much of it. Since he and I differ from that base assessment, there’s always an impossibility in the debate. Secondly, to know that requires the ability to travel parallel universes, to see how the economy responded under two sets of rules at the same moment in time.
Ergo, using that same flawed thinking, even when the economy and GDP grows, Larry will still see it as “lost revenue” because it will always be cash the government is not collecting as long as that policy is in place.
@anticsrocks, #132:
The Bush tax cuts were not supposed to become the new status quo. There was concern ten years ago that they would result in an even more rapid growth of the national debt, so an expiration date was built in to the legislation. They had exactly that effect, and the national debt was doubled in only 8 years. An identical effect was demonstrated during the years of the Reagan administration. During that initial experiment the national debt was tripled.
What does it take to refute the illogical assertion that reducing taxes increases revenue? The idea runs contrary to common sense, and the common sense-conclusion has been supported by consistent real-world results–results that have rapidly accumulated to the tune of nearly $14 trillion dollars.
Once solution seems to boil down to letting the nation’s crumbling infrastructure collapse completely, to remain locked in to an increasingly shakey fossil-fuel energy technology, to let large components of the national economy collapse without intervention, and ultimately to eliminate long-standing social programs that have well-serve the great majority of the nation’s population for generations.
I find that “solution” totally unacceptable. It’s the road to wide-spread misery and national decline. If it takes a more agressively progressive tax schedule to avoid it, so be it. It’s no coincidence that the lowest taxes since the 1950s have coincided with the most rapidly growing debt in history.
@Greg: You said:
Wrong.
You also said:
This is also wrong. The national debt was doubled under Bush because conservatives (both in Congress and the White House) strayed from their small government, fiscally conservative roots. In other words, they acted like Democrats. During Reagan’s tenure, the DEMOCRATICALLY controlled Congress just couldn’t seem to stop spending all that extra revenue that Reagan’s tax policies brought into the coffers.
You further said:
Oh my. Where do I begin? First of all, of course you don’t understand that when the private sector gets to keep more of their own money, then the economy booms. But that is lost on you because you view the fruits of labor of the private sector as belonging to the government. When you start from that illogical and flawed premise, of course cutting taxes to raise revenue is incomprehensible to you. You suffer from the same mental health condition that Larry does – you are a far left liberal. Sorry.
As for the 14$ trillion in debt? Well you can thank your hero, Obama for the vast majority of that. He spent in 20 months in office what Bush did in EIGHT FRIGGIN’ YEARS!!
Obama raised discretionary spending a whopping 84% his first year in office if you include the failed stimulus spending, 24% if you do not.
The EPA budget increased by – wait for it…wait for it…
ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FOUR PERCENT! – Source
Yes, that’s correct, the EPA’s budget increased 124%. But you want to blame the debt on Bush?????
Interesting.
I think that they know their AGENDA, and It is to willingly slowly get rid of the CAPITALIST and
CREATIVE will of the SELFMADE ENTREPENEURS to advance in riches and therefor create jobs for the people of AMERICA only, NO they want to be the sole employer the major job giver,
despite the expanses they encounter on the back of a suffering nation and STATES also,
look at what vilain they became when GOVERNER made her law to take care of her problem which the GOVERNMENT was suppose to do under the CONSTITUTION, and look at their protection over the UNIONS, they broke a big AMERICAN COMPANY in order to take over on the excuse to save the
the unions jobs,and they spend AMERICA’S money AND they borrow more from CHINA and are still spending it to keep their CONTROL over the nation , YES he said it HIMSELF ,he is changing AMERICA
AND IT’s scary to see that they still have the support of some ignorant and some adorator of the image they try so hard to project.
To pile on with anticsrocks attempt to educate Greg, who is under the impression that there was some noble, lofty goal about a sunset provision… sigh…. Apparently you prefer to attach emotions to events instead of looking at actual Senate debate rules on legislation that affects the deficient when it’s passed via the more liberal reconciliation methods.
We’ve been here and done this before. I pointed this out on Dec 7th,…. then Aye pointed the same out a week later… and now antiscrocks today. Hopefully, after three times repeating ourselves, you might get enough curiousity to read up on the Byrd Rule and “sunset provision”, as it relates to Senate rules and legislation mandates. The “expiration date” is due to the rules, not some emotional cautionary flag you think was raised.
My, such run on thoughts. Yes, what anticsrocks said, plus a bit more for you to chew on.
The feds, or even state and local governments are fully dependent upon citizen worker taxpayers to subsist. They create nothing but debt. When they “spend”, adding their small contributions to the growth of the GDP, it is because they buy tangible products or services from the private sector to manufacture product for government use. They are utterly dependent upon the private sector for everything… from feeding their budgets, to implementing any federal agency’s agenda. To note just how small their contribution as public sector is, you need only remember that virtually an entire nation – busy building vehicle, weapons etal to support the WWII war effort under Truman – resulted in very small GDP growth in those years. Nor did the two wars with Bush, and their Pentagon contracts, add much to his GDP growth.
Therefore, the nation’s GDP growth primarily lies with the health of the private sector and, as a byproduct, the government’s health primarily lies with the health of the private sector. Our government, just like US families in the past 2-3 decades, has been living primarily on credit cards since the New Deal days. It is a piper that has to be paid, just as any family has overextended themselves with credit does.
When you put high tax demands on the private sector… all the while increasing the federal payroll and Congressional spending… you are chopping the lifeline to future tax revenue. Does “blood from a turnip” sound familiar? Which is why the economy, vis a vis the GDP growth, took off under Reagan. He fueled private sector growth, and under extremely difficult conditions. Back in those days, mortgage rates were 13-18%. Carter left us with high energy costs, and lines to gas stations with rationing. Yet even under these conditions, Reagan fueled the private sector.
It is Reaganesque policies that Obama’s bipartisan deficit commission recommended, and that Obama has decided to ignore.
Now perhaps the difference between us, and you and Larry, is that you measure the health of the “economy” by how much money the government is able to abscond. I don’t. When the economy is healthy, and the private sector majority portion of the GDP grows, the government will take in more revenue. When the electorate is flush, the government becomes more flush because they always skim off the top.
What you and Larry are doing is playing the numbers game… i.e. weighing how much the the government skims via legislative tax policy vs what you both believe the government *should* be skimming via legislative tax policy. Hey, I *should* be paid a lot more for my skills, but I’m not. So I’m losing revenue. It’s that inane an approach.
This is because you both share the same problem. You think the cure to the annual deficit and the nation’s debt is to just steal more money. Little do you both realize that the more you steal, the less there will be to steal tomorrow.
The anticipated tax revenues is what should drive any budget, just like you in your personal budget attempt not to spend more than your income that year. Herein lies the prickly argument of “balanced budget” mandates. Since the Congress and admin have a hard time reining in their spending, which requires them to steal more taxpayer cash, all a balanced budget mandate would do is provide legal license for government theft to meet their spending demands.
I suggest the alternative is the budget must be no more than 10-15% lower than anticipated revenues for any given year.
@MataHarley, #137:
Uh huh. But why did the bill need to be passed in a manner that required that those rules be applied? Quite simply, because democratic concern about resulting deficits prevented republicans from putting the Bush tax cuts into effect in any other way. The application of sunset rules was deliberate and purposeful–not some sort of procedural accident. It’s as if we want to pretend that the controversy centering on fiscal responsibility that originally surrounded the Bush tax cut proposals never existed, and that it’s not the same fiscal responsibility controversy that still exists. Repetition doesn’t change the facts.
From the Wikipedia entry on the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001:
Section 901 of Public Law 107-16, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 as passed:
Sorry Greg, You still don’t get the point. The reason that they used reconciliation is because the Democrats were against ANY tax cuts. So since the GOP didn’t have the filibuster proof majority, they passed the cuts with a sunset rather than no cuts at all.
I suppose your reading comprehension skills have slipped, either that or you just want to live in some liberal fantasy world where you get to bend the facts until they fit your perception of reality.
Still don’t get it, eh Greg? Wiki offers a somewhat bizarre view of the Byrd Rule, but that’s what you get when you turn to such sources for your education. My suggestion is you read a more accurate version of history and original intent for the Byrd Rule from the CRS reports. And before you go all gun ho, whining about GOP abuses, it may interest you to know that the reconciliation process has been used 23 times since 1980. Twenty of these were enacted into law, three of which were veto’ed by Clinton.
Out of those original 23, eighteen were when the Byrd Rule (and or subsequent amendments) was in force, and 14 of them evoked Byrd Rule protests.
Out of all of these reconciliation procedures… all budget related as they have to be… only nine of the measures came from a GOP controlled Congress. Two of those from the GOP were veto’ed by Clinton, and they didn’t have that convenient supermajority to override a veto. So the GOP has only used this process seven times with success. The rest? That’s your heroes, Greg.
And I’ll get to the sunset provision in a sec..
The Byrd Rule was originally passed to curb the abuse of adding extraneous issues to budget bills’ process. Especially since budgetary bills have limited debate time on the Senate floor. Extraneous, meaning provisions that had no budgetary effect; that increased spending or reduced revenues when the reconciliation instructions called for reduced spending or increased revenues; or infringed upon a committee’s jurisdiction. Senators can either deal with these extraneous issues via the amendment process, or they can raise a point of order under the Byrd Rule to strike those provisions. They can even opt to waive the Byrd Rule, which doesn’t happen often. All of these take 3/5th majority vote… that magic number of 60.
The GOP did not have the 60 supermajority that the Dems have enjoyed during their spending frenzy in the past years.
Thus, the sunset provision was “deliberate and purposeful” to the extent that it didn’t make that particular issue in the 2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act – which was the gradual phasing out of federal estate tax, and not the tax rates – conflicting with Byrd Rules. Problem solved. And actually, I don’t think we should be making tax policies permanent. I believe different economic trends make for different evaluations, and I don’t want those bozos to have to make another law. Personally, I think tax legislation should be reviewed every 5-10 years, and more often if the economy warrants it. So I wouldn’t want a permanent low tax rate any more than I’d want a permanent high tax rate.
Now, I said I’d get to the sunset provision, which seems to have your knickers in an indignant twist. First of all, this sunset provision goes back in our history to the late 1700s. But the GOP has been trying to get the sunset provision repealed since 2005. Another sunset provision, used by the Dems (which they hated to have to put in) was the Assault Weapon Ban as part of their Omnibus Act. Now’s the time you should be asking yourself just what did the AWB have to do with the deficit. But will you? Probably not…. Yes, the Dem sleaze by example has been a lesson well learned by the GOP for their brief time in power. At least the GOP used it to keep cash in the pockets of taxpayers, while the Dems used it to infringe upon a Constitutional amendment.
And, in fact, the Byrd Rule itself has many critics in both chambers, and from both parties.
So… if you’re all in an uproar about reconciliation, budget and sunset provisions, I suggest you do some house cleaning in your party, since they are the biggest users and proponents of these procedures. And in fact, the most heineous example of it’s abuse was between Dec 2009 and Mar 2010 for O’healthcare. Gnaw on that little factoid for awhile, then get back to us when you’ve placed your disdain on to the proper party.
To the first part, about *why* the bill needed to be passed in such a manner…. duh. Because the GOP never enjoyed the majority numbers that the Dems had from 2007 until Jan 2011. Therefore, even if every GOP voted for the 2001 Economic Growth Act, they still needed Dem defectors to sign on to the bill. Since it’s legislation ripe for the reconciliation process, and because they spent a couple of decades learning the sleazier tricks the Dems used to play the game, they just used their rules and methods. Hurts, don’t it?
However in the case of O’healthcare, it has never been used to implement such a monster entitlement package, and even with their big majority numbers, they couldn’t even get most of their own Dems to the feeding trough without bribery.
Oh, and by the way…
@anticsrocks, #135:
…when have republicans behaved otherwise? All they ever stray from are their promises and rhetoric. I’ve heard the same fiscal responsibility, downsize government campaign pitch again and again, Reagan onward, but haven’t once seen it put into practice. Instead, spending and government have expanded. The only difference is where the spending is directed and who benefits from it. What always accompanies those expansions is a push to reduce the tax revenue coming in that’s needed to pay for them. The only recent addendum to the time-honored pitch is “This time we really mean it”–followed by an exclamation mark.
Democrats may be “tax and spend”, but they at least seem to recognize the fact that spending must be paid for.
@Greg:
Which is why, of course, Presidebt Obie and his always, always fiscally responsible compadres in Congress immediately raised taxes to help offset their spending binge.
Oh, wait….
@Greg: You said:
Which is why Pelosi and Co. totally ignored PayGo after they instituted it…
Really Greg, you make this TOO easy.
Yeah right…. had a look at the spending that’s not paid for since 2007, and especially since 2009?
Greg, have a read, then try to repeat the statement about “spending must be paid for” with a straight face…
Oh yes, and don’t attempt to pull a “Larry” on us, and tell us that’s all TARP… of which Obama and Pelosi/Reid were in charge of half of those funds on their watch. Not to mention the TARP allocations don’t come anywhere close to adding up to these figures.
I know a lot of people want to pin it all on Obama. This New York Times chart based on an analysis of CBO data suggests otherwise.
Consider where we were and the direction we were headed at the point President Obama walked in the door. Do the same with regard to President Bush. Compare and contrast to your heart’s content.
The chart is probably a bit out of date, not taking the recent 2-year extension of the Bush Tax Cuts into consideration. I suppose we can add that portion of the blame to Obama’s total. The extension will increase deficits and add to our total debt, exactly as the cuts did in the past.
This is the Wikipedia entry that the chart appears in, btw.
Well now I see where Greg and Larry get their warped views on tax policy. That Wiki article is nothing but a slobbering love fest to Keynesian economics.
Believe what you want, Greg. No matter what is discussed, Mata is right. You operate on the premise that all private sector monies produced belong to the government. So any tax cut is nearly as scary to you as Sarah Palin.
Sad, really that you cannot see past your ideology.
Dear antics: I beg your pardon, but I did not get my “warped” view on tax policy from wikipedia, and I don’t want you stating that I did. Over several threads, I have supported my arguments with data (including from a major study cited by Mata), as well as a broad spectrum of conservative economists. There is nothing “Keynesian” about my analysis of the direct relationship between tax cuts and debt — where all tax cuts of the past 30 years have increased debt and necessitated increased borrowing.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Well, if I erred it was in where you got your ideas on tax policy and not that your ideas are warped. I am well aware of how you look at the government’s role in taxing it’s citizens.
For you to allude that your ideas are anything near conservative is ludicrous. I mean I could go back and dig up some of the different things you have said, but I’m too tired for the effort. Anyone who followed the various debates between you and Mata know that you are Keynesian in your views. Otherwise you wouldn’t see a tax cut as a disastrous thing.
Tax cuts don’t cause debt. Spending more than is taken in is what causes debt. Not hard to figure out.
*yawn* I am tired, good night Larry.
@Greg:
I took a look at the chart you linked and two things immediately leapt out at me:
1) The chart reflects the mythical Clinton Surplus. That argument has been destroyed over and over here at FA.
2) Take a look at the figure the chart calls “Obama Stimulus”. It shows only $145B when we all know that the price tag for the ARRA was actually a minimum of $787B.
Seems to me that the chart information is dishonest to say the least.
There’s that “necessitated increased borrowing” phrase, blaming it on tax cuts instead of the real culprit, not reducing spending, again.
That the government continually chooses to put a tax policy adjustment on credit cards is the problem, Larry. The tax policy adjustment is not the problem.
Trends… trends… trends. And look at those trends in the context of the economic conditions of each era.
The 2006 study provided charts for revenue related to tax bills only, and did not include the phased in long term effects of those bills. Yet there was a marked trend of an increase in federal revenues under Reagan, and you chose only to see that anything that was a cut resulted in less revenue collected, and anything that was an increase resulted in more revenue collected.
Well duh… no brainer. If I rob your safe where you keep cash, you have a million in there, and I take half a million, I’m certainly not making as much as if I take it all, am I?
As I pointed out to you in a subsequent comment, if we are playing your debate rules, where money not stolen is “lost revenue”, then we can look at the Reagan tax policies cumulative as a loss of $76 billion over his two terms. (This was using the figures provided in that 2006 study on pages 16). Evaluating the numbers for Clinton ‘s terms showed he lost $45 billion…. all this using your measuring stick. Ain’t that inconvenient? And considering that’s figures not accommodating for a deflated dollar, it becomes worse for your 1990s hero.
Federal revenues are only applicable to the deficit and debt… a ratio that fluctuates and changes when compared to spending. The revenues have always fluctuated up and done. The spending, however, continues to rise and they pay no heed to the revenues except to figure out how to convince us we want to give them more and still keep their cushy jobs… all so they can (unwisely) spend more.
Therein lies our problem… the spending. Yet this has nothing to do with how tax policies affect the economic growth of the nation.
@As I pointed out above, The GDP growth % under Reagan and his policies is far superior to Clinton and his policies. Obama has chosen to ignore his debt commission’s recommendations to return to something closer to Reagan’s approach… lower income taxes and less tax credits and business breaks. Instead, he’s getting up on the dais, pointing his nose in the air while he once again tries to sell spending… but this time avoiding “spending” and “stimulus” terms, but using “investments” instead.
We’ll see if the nation, and the newly elected Congress is dumb enough to buy into that one.
This is a bizarre statement that I wanted to address spending. Keynesian economics is is a theory of total spending in the economy (aka aggregate demand) and its effects on output, employment and inflation. Both monetary and fiscal policies, and spending, do have an effect on output (sometimes positively and negatively), and for any Keynesian theory to work, it depends upon prices and consumption to be rigid in nature.
Therefore, I don’t consider your particular beliefs to be Keynesian since I don’t see anything in your commentary that assumes prices remain rigid as a result of policy…. except, perhaps some in your analysis of O’healthcare and premium prices. But that’s another story.
Nor does the Keynesian theory focus on deficit and debt, but on inflation and short run employment results… i.e. his famous statement, “In the long run, we are all dead.”
Where you may be demonstrating Keynesian traits is the more commonly associated advocation of aggressive government action to stabilize the economy. This is assuming the government is capable of improving on the free market.
There is nothing Keynesian about you to suggest that continually raising taxes to support a government’s nasty habit of spending more than anticpated revenues is a solution.
We all agree that there is a direct relationship between tax policies (increases or decreases) and deficit debt. Again, a no brainer. If you make less income, you have less to spend, and you must rein in your expenses to accommodate. American households deal with this reality every day since we don’t have money presses in our basements. Unlike the government, we can’t fall back on robbing the next door neighbor, printing cash, or borrowing from abroad to mask our declining income which will not cover our increasing expenditures.
But you always give the most important equation of that triangle – the spending – a pass. You whine about the debt, insist upon increasing the taxes, and allow the spending to go on, unfettered.
That’s not Keynesian. That’s just plain foolhardy.
@mata:
When did I ever advocate “continually raising taxes?” I advocate having taxes be in balance with spending. You actually succeed in cutting spending? Fine; reward yourself with a tax cut. But don’t cut taxes first and then borrow money to pay for the tax cuts. It’s conservative to pay for tax cuts with spending cuts. It’s anything but conservative to pay for tax cuts with borrowed money.
Keynesian economics is the government taking actions to increase the money supply. You do this in three ways: (1) Fed prints more money; (2) government borrows money to finance increase spending, (3) government borrows money to finance tax cuts.
You say that tax cuts pay for themselves, in that they generate increased GDP which, in turn, generates more taxes. This was a very fine theory, back in 1980. There’s nothing wrong with believing in a rational theory. Global warming from human-generated atmospheric carbon is a rational theory.
But, at a certain point, a theory has to be tested. The theory that tax cuts pay for themselves has been tested and has been utterly discredited.
Why don’t you find me a contemporary (as in post 2007) economist who provides a cogent defense for the theory that tax cuts pay for themselves. I don’t want your arm chair analysis of raw data. You’ve been wrong on that, virutally every time you’ve tried to do it.
You’ve asserted that the “trend” for revenue was steeper for Reagan than for Clinton. You were wrong. You said that you 2006 study showed that Reagan’s tax cuts increased revenue, rather than cutting revenue. You were wrong.
Look at this:
http://perotcharts.com/category/challenges-charts/page/2/
And NO, the “GDP growth %” was not far superior under Reagan’s policies than under Clinton’s:
http://perotcharts.com/category/challenges-charts/page/8/
People who are used to evaluating graphs like this should be able to see that there was an upward slope to the revenue trend line which flattened substantially, following Reagan’s signature tax cuts. You can see that the trend line steepened after Clinton’s tax increases.
But this is just armchair analysis by me, an amateur, and you, an amateur. Why don’t you find a contemporary academic, or think tank guru, or Fed economist who has analyzed the data and who makes the case that tax cuts pay for themselves. I’ve already cited 10 conservative economists who assert the opposite: that tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves and, therefore, necessitate increased borrowing from China in order to make up the shortfall.
The reason that I am a CONSERVATIVE, economically-speaking, is that I believe in a (reasonably) balanced budget. I believe in paying my own bills. I believe the the USA is a stronger country when we don’t borrow money from foreign nations. For 30 years, the other discredited economic policy we’ve been following is “starve the beast.” This has never worked. Not once. Just as tax cuts have never worked, with regard to paying for themselves.
It takes no political courage to give voters a tax cut and pay for it by borrowing money from China. But it’s an economically bankrupt policy and it’s a morally bankrupt policy.
With respect to Aye’s exposition regarding deficits versus surplus, what’s important isn’t “gross debt;” it’s the ratio of gross debt to GDP. This exploded under the policies of Reagan and Bush; this came down during the higher tax policies of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Clinton.
What matters is the growth of the debt, relative to the growth of the economy. When the economy is growing faster than the debt, there’s no problem at all. A great many American corporations carry a lot of debt. As long as their business is growing faster than their debt, there is no problem. When the debt grows faster than the business; it’s a huge problem. Same for individuals. Same for the government.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Higher tax policies of Kennedy?
@antics: Kennedy cut marginal tax rates from 91% to 70%. GOP calls Kennedy a tax cutter. Obama (and Greenspan) want to raise marginal rate back to where they were under Clinton (all the way from 35% to 39%) and he’s a socialist.
There’s a Goldilocks zone with taxes, as with everything else. Even you must concede that the government does need some taxes, to pay the military, for example. It’s just a matter of balancing taxing with spending. Spend less and cut taxes. That’s conservative. Cut taxes without cutting spending. That’s irresponsible.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
In every comment INRE the deficit, you advocate raising taxes, Larry. You never demand a cut in spending. Even now, you demand increasing taxes first, then cut taxes (presumably back down to where they were before you raised them?) as a “reward” IF the government doesn’t increase it’s spending.
Has the government ever decreased it’s spending in our recent history, Larry? Cart before the horse. As long as they have the taxpayer ATM, and printing presses at their disposal, they will not cut spending. They need to be forced into that behavior, and it’s long overdue.
Number 3 is incorrect, and only serves to demonstrate your flawed approach once again. Our government borrows money to finance spending. Not stealing additional taxpayer cash is NOT spending. You cannot equate the two, save with your notion that all a taxpayers earnings is fair game for government to take at will. And Keynesian economics is not just about monetary policy, but fiscal policies. You left out a large equation of the theory.
Please point out any single comment where I have said “tax cuts pay for themselves”. Those words have never been uttered from my keyboard, so I can save you some valuable time. I do agree that adjustments in tax policies need to be accompanied by spending cuts. “Borrowing” is not the fault of taxpayers. It is the fault of a government who refuses to stop spending.
Nor did I state that “tax cuts” generate increased GDP. What I said was tax POLICY, which incorporates tweaking and fine tuning of a wide range of tax policies (and includes lowering the income rates in Reagan’s case), will stimulate the economic growth of the company. The GDP history reflects that.
Then I have to wonder why you tout Obama’s handling of the economy as wonderful. The debt via stimulus, piled on by the growth of federal government/agencies vastly outpaces an economy that faces double dip ramifications. Corporations that enjoyed stimulus money benefits now see that gravy train ending, and the layoffs again begin… of which Hanford, WA serves as a prime example.
No arguments with you there. My argument is your repeated suggestion solution of higher tax rates, which does anything BUT grow business and economic productivity. Lower rates stimulate the economy, and need to be implemented in tandem with spending reductions. But then, Obama’s not headed that way, is he? Tomorrow will bring talk of more spending, disguised as “investments”.
I might say, that the way they have done has already doom their party for the economy to rise in jobs because the busnesses have lost faith in their GOVERNMENT, and this is not going to get better,
no matter what they do from now on, next year will there be hope ? that the people will decide to play a role in electing the ones who are busyness frendly.
@Mata: It’s not true that I haven’t advocated cutting spending. For example, I endorsed the recommendations of the Debt Commission, which were about 2/3 spending cuts and 1/3 tax increases. I’ve given my “formula” for cutting Social Security: Increase retirement age to 70; eliminate cap on maximum contribution per year; means test beneficiaries. My “formula” for reducing Medicare spending is to pay for outcomes, as opposed to paying for billable hours and the like (n.b. there’s $10B in ObamaCare to explore ways to do just that). I’d also scale back military spending, along the lines suggested by the deficit commission.
When the government has ongoing expenses, and you cut taxes without reducing the expenses, you are borrowing money to increase the money supply, which is every bit as much of a Keynesian stimulus as borrowing money to pay unemployment benefits or to keep state workers from being laid off. Or the Fed printing money for “quantitative easing.” These are all borrowing (or creating) money to increase the money supply. No different, despite semantics about “stealing.”
Where do you get this “stealing” business? We live in a Constitutional democracy. Government spending follows the rule of law. It is not “stealing.” We all earn a living in a society in which government provides the environment which allows us to succeed. Rich people owe more to government than poor people. But, even if we don’t like everything which the government spends money on, the government has a legal right to tax us and we have a legal responsibility to pay. No “theft” involved.
You don’t like welfare. I don’t like war. All of us have things which we don’t like but which we have a legal responsibility to support with our taxes.
I don’t think that Obama’s economic stewardship has been “wonderful.” I do think that the country was in a major crisis. While I didn’t agree with TARP, at the time, in retrospect, I believe that it was the right thing to do and I give Paulson and Bush most of the credit for having the political guts to do what needed to be done. Obama and Geithner continued this policy to its conclusion, which I also now believe was the right thing to do.
With respect to “stimulus,” I still believe as I did at the time that the best policy would have been no “stimulus” at all, beyond, perhaps, a moderate extension of unemployment benefits, along with a more robust infrastructure program. But, as I keep pointing out, we are not talking about $760B vs Zero; we are talking about $760B (Obama, including about 1/3 of this in tax cuts) vs $500B (GOP), where the GOP was mostly tax cuts, which are the least effective form of stimulus. So, yes, Obama increased the debt more than the GOP would have (by $260B). This is not trivial, but it’s not the difference between responsible conservatism, on one hand, and socialism, on the other hand, that has been portrayed so loudly.
I don’t think that you can judge a Presidency until the passage of time. I supported Obama because my two main issues, at the Presidential level, are avoidance of nuclear weapons explosion in my geographic area and health care. I think his policies have met my expectations, in these areas. Beyond that, my third issue is control of our debt load, and the jury is still out. I do think that the number one priority is to get tax policy in line with reality. I was very disappointed when the Bush tax cuts were extended. I’d have allowed all of them to sunset, not simply tax cuts for the upper echelon, but tax cuts for everyone. They were a bad idea when enacted and continuing them is a bad idea now. But neither do I think that the Dems are uniformly wonderful. In this past election, I voted GOP for both House (Rohrabacher) and Senate (Fiorina). So far, I’m pleased with the prospects for improvements over the next couple of years, under our newly revised government. We needed the Dem majorities for health care, but, now that that’s passed, we are far better off having Boehner in charge of setting the House agenda, then we’d have been with Pelosi.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Aye, #150:
I’ll concede the point to you on this one.
I should have studied the chart more carefully before referencing it. It apparently dates from 2009 and is based on a NYT article and CBO estimates that are out of date.
Additionally, the time covered by the chart runs only through 2012. The CBO’s more recent projections of the deficit costs of the ARRA stimulus bill total $787 billion through 2019. The chart leaves out 7 years of projected ARRA-related costs.
@Larry: You said:
So if Granny gets treated for cancer, but dies does Medicare get out of paying for it? Or do they get a bonus if Granny lives?
You also said:
Really? So where in the Constitution is the authorization for any of the Government social programs? And more to the point, I believe what Mata is saying is that the Government is not entitled to all of the private property of the private sector.
To that end, let me ask you this: If you bust your behind in 2011 and for whatever reason (write a best seller, start a business, etc…) you earn $10 million dollars in income. How much of that should the Government get? Give us a number, a percentage and then explain.
For example, should the Government get 65% of your income, just because you are rich and according to your own words, you need to pay more.
Which brings me to the point, when you said:
Do you mean that if a rich person who earns $1 million in income and pays 10% income tax pays more than the poor person who makes $18,000 and pays 10% as well? One pays $100,000 and the other pays $1,800. Or do you mean that the poor person who makes $18,000 should pay 2 or 3% while the rich person should pay 50 or 60%?
You further said:
On this, you and I agree. And as Obama once said, elections have consequences.
@antics: With respect for paying for outcomes, your example was a little simplistic, but that would be the ideal (paying more for good outcomes; not paying as much for poor outcomes). Here’s a more sophisticated discussion of basing medical payments on outcomes, as opposed to paying for services, per se:
http://www.amcp.org/data/jmcp/683-687.pdf
With regard to your hypotheticals:
No, I wouldn’t be in favor of a 65% Federal marginal tax rate. I’d be happy to simply increase the marginal rate from 35% to 39%, because that would increase revenues, decrease debt and decrease borrowing and not reduce incentive of anyone to make money. As I wrote, there’s a “Goldilocks” zone in taxation.
With respect to the general philosophy of progressive taxation, I agree, in general, with the tax philosophies expressed by one of the great GOP Presidents of all time, Theodore Roosevelt. The following is a very nice capsule history of progressive taxation in America:
http://www.tax.org/Museum/1901-1932.htm
I’ve explained previously why rich people are more dependent on the government than not-so-rich people and, therefore, should pay higher taxes not simply because they can afford it, but because they owe more to the government (for their financial success) and therefore should pay more to support the government.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, from the link you provided:
Excuse me, but where in the Constitution does it give the Federal Government the right to say that someone’s private property is “swollen beyond all healthy limits?”
Sounds an awful lot like:
As to your article link about reimbursements in the medical field, what you cited were agreements between private companies. When the Government gets involved with paying higher for better outcomes then you slip into dangerous territory.
Besides, it is ludicrous to pay for outcome based medicine because there are too many variables involved in the human experience to develop any sort of standard rule set.
My example may have been simplistic, but really where do you draw the line?
A doctor might do all the right things, provide exceptional patient care and the patient might just get worse or die anyway – for unrelated reasons.
Is the doctor in this case not entitled to as much pay because, for reasons not in his control, the patient did not do as well as the Government said he should?
The carrot and stick method of paying physicians just won’t work in medicine. It is fine for factory workers who might get a bonus for higher output.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Rather than veer even more severely off topic (like we aren’t already) to yet something as legally in question and philosophical as direct and indirect taxes, the 1909 Corporate Tax Act and the 16th Amendment fraud perpetuated by ensuing Congresses, I’ll just give you a link I’ve kept around for quite a while on the Constitutionality of the 16th Amendment from Original Intent dot org.
The below excerpts may titillate you into reading, where they will go thru the specific definitions of taxes as indirect, direct, and just what constitutes a “16th Amendment income” that may be treated as an indirect, unapportioned tax. And I assure you, most of what of going on, doesn’t fit the legal definitions.
Then, of course, there’s still the sidebar question as to whether the 16th was even lawfully amended via our constitutional criteria.
If …. after reading the 17 page PDF document INRE Constitutional definitions of taxation and the multitude of references to income taxable as indirect under 16th… you disagree, that’s quite fine. But now you will know why I call it *stealing*. Or, as they put it, “governmental theft of property” and fraud”. It has always been about the questionable legitimacy of these taxes via our Constitution, and various SCOTUS decisions that specifically define 16th Amendment ” income”.
I might also reiterate that it is because of these specific definitions of taxes that Congress played their word games for the O’healthcare mandate…. yet another fraud being perpetuated. They did not use their powers of taxation under the General Welfare clause, and for specific reason.
As the rest, glad to hear you aren’t as radical as you allow yourself to be portrayed. I suggest that your penchant for playing devil’s advocate for debate and amusement may be getting a bit out of hand of late. None of that, however, negates that you do feel any and all of a citizen’s earnings is Congressional open season without permits to abscond at will. That, my friend, is a very dangerous perception to have.
BTW, if you’d like to know who are some of the minds behind Original Intent dot org.. they include a Constitutional law and tax advisor to political candidates; a former IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent; a former IRS Revenue Officer, producer of the video, “Theft By Deception – Deciphering the Federal Income Tax”, which has now been endorsed by many tax professionals, including several former IRS and DOJ officials; and a Revenue Agent with the IRS turned Certified Public Accountant and a Certified Fraud Examiner.
MATA , I read your comments answering with facts, and I think you are super, and unbeatable,
these 2 last one are like gold nuggets, you got out of your hat, thank you for that extensive work you are doing. bye
Now Larry is following B-Rob’s lead and avoiding my questions.
*sigh*
Drole, but predictable.
@rocks: I just checked my email from my NJ hotel room. I’ve got to be in Trenton for 3 days, where I’m an expert witness in a hepatitis outbreak case. For the last two days, I’ve been going through — word by word — 1,300 pages of verbatim court transcripts. I’m very sorry that I had to move good old F/A down one notch in my to do list priorities.
I was very offended, by the way, by Mata’s trashing whomever it was as leaving “excrement” and then just moving on.
Get a life, people. Not everyone lives and dies for winning every battle on F/A. Particularly the centrists and liberals, who are outnumbered 20-1. I try to stick around and throw stuff back and forth. I can do it, as long as I’m only debating one person. When I start to debate 3 or 4 or 5 at once, it’s just too time consuming. I say what I want to say and then move on. It’s “your” blog. I figure I’m being a gracious guest by giving you the last word. Why don’t you just be gracious, in return, and have the last word and make you point, without the need to do a war dance in the end zone?
- Larry Weisenthal/Trenton, NJ
My apologies Larry. You usually don’t do the avoidance maneuver, so that was what precipitated my comments.
If you do find the time, I had a couple questions about a point YOU raised re: outcome based payments for medicine.
@antics: I apologize also. I’m just very grumpy, facing, as I do, another 300 pages before I can finally call it a night. You can Google the case I’m on, by the way. Not by my name, but with key words. I can’t give any clues beyond this. It’s sort of a cause celeb. The doc in question is totally getting jobbed. It’s a combination of the Sopranos and House and CSI and 9/11, only more unbelievable than any work of fiction. I took the case on the stipulation that I not be paid a cent, because I wanted to have complete freedom to call it as a I saw it. I’ve seen it, and it’s pure lynch mob mentality.
– Larry W
Larry, personally I don’t care if you were “offended” by my “trashing” of drive by johnnie ryan… which is the subject in question. His behavior and presence here on FA predates yours, and has a predictable history. And it’s no surprise your “sensibilities” are so… well… sensitive and ill informed. ‘
I suggest that if you are so easily offended, you either get to know the characters and their own offenses as opposed to blaming it on me…a personal target for your personal snipes of late… or simply move on. You should know me well enough by now that any comment like that by me has some background.
If not… c’est la vie. I’ll just pocket it with the rest of your personal assaults of late, and respond appropriately.
openid.aol.com/runnswim, GOOD LUCK, and get back with us, you know by now that we are the keeper of the truth, best to you. let us know if we can help
Larry, write a book about it and then you can maybe make the NYT Best Sellers list.