Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

BUDGET: Cut spending and end tax cuts

Letter by Bambi Lin Litchman, Tacoma on April 14, 2011 at 12:47 pm with 132 Comments »
April 14, 2011 2:33 pm

Are we in Gotham City, where Obama has finally shown up as the Democratic Batman, standing up for Medicare and proposing a plan to make the tax system more equitable?

House Speaker John Boehner says with a straight face that we can’t raise taxes to fix the budget because we don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

Huh? We have an enormous, exploding budget deficit that gets scarier by the minute, and if we’re not taking in enough money to cover our expenditures, then we darn sure have a revenue problem. Our problem is not only that spending cuts need to be made, but also that revenue is inadequate due to inequitable taxation.

Since the Bush tax cuts, the ultra-wealthy and the corporations have been paying a disproportionately small amount of taxes compared to the middle class. Since Eisenhower’s presidency, and before the Bush tax cuts, the tax bracket was far higher on those earning over $250,000, and our nation prospered.

The Republican budget plan contains severe budget cuts primarily affecting the most vulnerable people in our society, has no plan to increase tax revenue and would not cure the deficit for 75 years. It would replace Medicare as we know it with a voucher system. Good luck with that, Grandpa.

Trying to fix the deficit and balance the budget without addressing inequitable taxation is a farce. The question is who will prevail, Obama or Boehner?

Leave a comment Comments → 132
  1. BlaineCGarver says:

    About half of households don’t pay any taxes at all. And the bottom half of those, get a check for the earned income. About 10% of the top earners are paying about 90% of the taxes. Not exactly, but close enough that I know you are full of hot air and class envy. Now, what I would support, is these rich companies paying us little guys a lot more….then, tax revenues would rise, along with the standard of living.

  2. BlaineCGarver says:

    Quick Edit: To close the gap between the rich and poor, gubment can’t do it with taxes. Employers will have to cough up more pay and benefits.

  3. Fibonacci says:

    Blaine
    the top 10% pay 90% of the taxes? Did you get that from Fox News? By the way, the top1% controls 23% of the wealth in the country. so maybe there tax share SHOULD be high? Are you one of those rich people that they are talking about? If not, why the protective attitude? I just don’t get the appeal of protecting the ultro rich to the average poor schmucks that believe that way. class envy? Ah, no. But the only way the country will get better is if money is being spent and giving more and more the rich does not mean they will spend it (oh wait, you believe in that fairy tail that if you give them more money they will run out and create jobs out of thin air).

  4. Fibonacci says:

    Sorry Blaine their not there, ultra not ultro and” the” should be a capital letter. I don’t want the righties to be making fun of my typos.

  5. nwcolorist says:

    I am amazed at how often people write that the ultra-wealthy “have been paying a disproportionately small amount of taxes compared to the middle class.”

    That’s just not true.

    “NEW IRS DATA REVEALS THAT THE RICH REALLY DO PAY TAX – LOTS OF IT
    Last Thursday, the IRS very quietly released their annual Tax Collections Data by Percentile. As in previous years, this report totally dispels the popular myth that the rich don’t pay tax. This collections report, broken down by income category or “percentiles,” shows that while the top earning five percent of income earners only earn just over a third (36%) of all income, they pay almost two-thirds (60%) of the tax that is actually collected.”

    For the complete article, – free-press-release.com/news/200710/1191980491.html

  6. Good Decent true Americans want one thing.. TAX THE RICH.

  7. Hopefully Boehner prevails. But be careful Republicans. We don’t want grannies eating dog food or children starving. “You know the ol’ Liberal line.”

  8. Wow, this is going to be one of those threads…

    The top 10% pay about 69% of the income tax burden with an average tax rate of 18%.

    Though the top 1% earn @ 20% of the total adjusted gross income, they pay @38% of the share of income taxes.

    For those of you that think that they are super duper millionaires they are not. the income split point is @ $380,000.

    Believe me, I am not protecting the rich, but once we run out of their money Uncle Sam will be coming for yours.

    …giving more and more (to) the rich does not mean they will spend it (oh wait, you believe in that fairy tail that if you give them more money they will run out and create jobs out of thin air).

    You don’t “give” Uncle Sam your money, You earned it, it is your money. You just agree they take a percentage of it. Why give those spenders more than they need to run the most effective government possible?

  9. Good Decent true Americans want one thing.. TAX THE RICH

    Good decent true Americans want one thing – to keep the money that they work hard for to do what they need to do to provide for their familes.

  10. NW your figures are consistent with the figures I am using from 2008 with an update October 2010.

    The income split point for the top 5% is about $159,000…. wow, is that rich or what???

  11. The President’s plan is fabulous and the republicans will get a piece or two of theirs if they play nice.

  12. Bow to the annoited one… bow… maybe he will allow you to keep some of your hard earned money.

    You give your time, energy and talent to an organization and in return you are compensated at an agreed rate. For some of you, Uncle Sam is the grand arbiter of what you get to keep to house, feed and clothe your family.

  13. Hey Publico, after the Republicans get through with Obama’s plan, you will think that Obama moved to the middle, or even some to the right. Just to enlighten you somewhat, if that’s possible, “The President proposes, Congress disposes.”

  14. Ithappened2me2 says:

    Bambi is a day behind Mark with the liberal talking points. They must coordinate their letters for maximum impact……

  15. Ithappened2me2 says:

    Pretty sure Publico is a TNT staffer.

  16. BlaineCGarver says:
    “Now, what I would support, is these rich companies paying us little guys a lot more….then, tax revenues would rise, along with the standard of living.”

    It sounds like you’ve found a solution. Not much chance of that happening considering that labor unions are being snuffed-out by the corporations and the politicians they’ve purchased.

    It’s gratifying to know you realize the importance of labor unions however.

  17. Ithappened2me2 says:

    Pretty sure cirrus is a TNT staffer.

  18. “BlaineCGarver says:
    April 14, 2011 at 2:52 pm
    About half of households don’t pay any taxes at all.”

    Mr xx will say 47%.

    I’d still like someone to tell me where the cut off point is. Our household made less than $60,000 and I just wrote a check to the IRS, in addition to witholdings all year long.

    If 47% of Americans are making so little that they don’t pay taxes, there is something wrong with our country and its employment picture.

  19. “Ithappened2me2 says:
    April 14, 2011 at 6:45 pm
    Pretty sure cirrus is a TNT staffer.
    ———————————————–

    Pretty sure this is a stalker/troll

  20. “On Sunday, Crooks and Liars demolished the right-wing talking point dating back to the 2008 McCain campaign that over 40% of Americans pay no taxes. Of course, virtually all workers pay the Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. And the new tax credits signed into law by presidents Bush and Obama, on top of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) Ronald Reagan himself proclaimed, “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress,” explain how the tax burden is lightened for many working families.

    Yet despite record income inequality, stagnant wages and the inescapable conclusion that tax rates for the wealthy “have fallen more than any other group’s over the last three decades,” the Republican echo chamber has resurrected its claim that tax credits for working Americans constitute “welfare.”

    Now, media as diverse as the Daily Show and the New York Times are pushing back against the latest attack in the Republicans’ perpetual class war.

    In a segment Tuesday titled, “That’s Tariffic,” Jon Stewart lamented:

    “The media attacks the poor and elderly for not paying federal income taxes, but the U.S. government doesn’t see a cent of Exxon’s $35 billion profit.”

    And in Tuesday’s New York Times, David Leonhardt urged Americans to “look closer”:

    With Tax Day coming on Thursday, 47 percent has become shorthand for the notion that the wealthy face a much higher tax burden than they once did while growing numbers of Americans are effectively on the dole.

    Neither one of those ideas is true. They rely on a cleverly selective reading of the facts. So does the 47 percent number.

    Labeling the 47% argument a “distraction” from “who really pays what in taxes,” Leonhardt explained:

    Even if the discussion is restricted to federal taxes (for which the statistics are better), a vast majority of households end up paying federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47.

    The reason is that poor families generally pay more in payroll taxes than they receive through benefits like the Earned Income Tax Credit. It’s not just poor families for whom the payroll tax is a big deal, either. About three-quarters of all American households pay more in payroll taxes, which go toward Medicare and Social Security, than in income taxes.

    Leonhardt’s analysis doesn’t end there.

    Corporate taxes have plummeted. “State and local taxes, meanwhile, may actually be regressive” as “the typical family pays a lot of state and local taxes, too — almost half as much as in federal taxes.” And while the income gap between the rich and everyone else hit levels not seen since 1929, he concludes:

    If anything, the government numbers I’m using here exaggerate how much of the tax burden falls on the wealthy. These numbers fail to account for the income that is hidden from tax collectors — a practice, research shows, that is more common among affluent families. “Because higher-income people are understating their income,” Joel Slemrod, a tax scholar at the University of Michigan, says, “We’ve been overstating their average tax rates.”

  21. For all you Liberals, your Messiah has spoken. His message should be your next line of garbage that you can try and peddle to the American people. Get this: “In order to get the deficit in order, 50 million people will lose their health care.” So says Obama. Not verbatim, but darn close. I mean his speech writer is probably about 5 cans short of a six pac. That seems to fit most Liberals. No conservative could write “doo doo” like that. Hey libs, are you going deny another truth?

  22. Blaine / XX – close enough for TNT work don’t ya think X6

    All filings of your tax return is different… you wrote a check because for the income clamied (after all the deduction BS) it turns out you did not pay enough…

    Is that now the approved counter to the 47% don’t pay claim. I have seen it repeated in a few discussion thread. To reply to your comment, yes their is a problem with the tax system.

  23. re: frankiethomas…. expect to see more of that feces in the run up to the vote on the 2012 budget… they will attempt to sway your emotions, gin up your anger and attempt to focus it on demons… don’t fall for it…

  24. X6 – per your article, the CBO may “suggest” but the IRS doesn’t suggest anything.

  25. About three-quarters of all American households pay more in payroll taxes, which go toward Medicare and Social Security, than in income taxes.

    Now they are going to tell you that these poor families actually do may taxes… yeah they do but not federal income tax.

    Remember in addition to the payroll, fica, medicare, and whatever else they want to tell you the “47ers” (homage to Ed Shultz) pay, you also pay federal income tax.

  26. Ithappened2me2 says:

    X_6 must have an inside line to be able to post comment after comment in a row.

    With nothing of substance mind you.

  27. That should be no surprise, ithappened2me2. That’s the standard liberal method. “Say something that means nothing.” For all you libs, I suggest you
    read the Machiavelli Doctrine, although you may have already. “You probably will find many of the idiotic comments, like the ones you submit.” It’s a lenghty document, but to sum it up in Liberal fashion: “lie, cheat and steal to control the masses and then throw the subjects a bone periodically to keep them happy.” I think X_zero mostly reflects those beliefs. The doctrine does provide ammunition on how to easily defeat the Liberal regime. It further provides extremely good insight into the Kooky mind of the average Liberal.

  28. whos_on_first says:

    Maybe Obama messiah (the “Advanced Soul”) could just do a little “five loaves and two fish” trick and spread it around… he is “the one” after-all.

    I’m still faithfully “believing” … “a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany”… and that “the rise of the oceans “will begin to “slow and our planet began to heal.” …

    Heck, I’m willing to “collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear.”

    Gollygosh… Barry, “He’s our product out of the all-knowing quantum field of intelligence.”

    Really… “he is an evolved leader . . .has an ear for eloquence and a Tongue dipped in the Unvarnished Truth.”

    ……… LOL!

    “He is not the Word made flesh,” … “but the triumph of word over flesh.”

    How can you argue with “the new testament.” ???

  29. bobcat1a says:

    Any of you people complaining about those individuals who pay no income taxes or getting credits want to trade places with them? Don’t be bashful. Step right up. Show us how sweet a deal they have.

  30. Remember when those teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS cause the markets to crash, wiped out half the value of our 401Ks, took trillions in TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf, gave themselves billions in bonuses and Paid no taxes?
    Yeah, me neither.

  31. BGC:
    Top 1%, income over $380,000, paid 38% of total federal income tax;
    Top 5%, income over $160,000, paid 58% of total federal income tax;
    Top 10%, income over $114,000, paid 70% of total federal income tax;
    Top 25%, income over $ 70,000, paid 58% of total federal income tax;
    Top 50%, income over $ 33,000, paid 97% of total federal income tax;
    Bottom 50%, income less $ 33,000, paid 2.7% of total federal income tax.

    http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

    BGC – how can lower the income on workers close the gap between rich and poor?

  32. bobcat1a says:

    Follow up question: How many of you folks moaning about the poor folks in the top 2% of earners would turn down the opportunity to have their tax burden? Anyone?

  33. xring – if Uncle Sam keeps or lower your income tax burden then you have more money that stays in your pocket ot spend as you wish… use that resource (money) wisely and…. well what do you want out of life?

  34. xx – you missed the point, again. If the republicons keep lowing taxes there will soon be NO USA. Just a patch work of forgien owned inclaves.

  35. Inspite of benefiting from the lowest federal tax rates in history and the availability of loopholes, shelters, and deductions which are not available to the middle-class, conservatives like pointing out the fact that the wealthy’s input to the federal revenue pot, has increased. Conversely, conservatives lament, that the middle-class and the poor are paying a smaller percentage into that pot, and that, 47% or whatever, pay nothing into into it.

    Those facts are the manifestation of the redistribution of wealth in this country from the poor and middle-class working people, upward to a wealthy few. Why the conservative resentment against the working poor for falling poverty level tax brackets? I’m sure they’d like to earn enough to pay taxes.

    Ithappened2me2 says: ” X_6 must have an inside line to be able to post comment after comment in a row. With nothing of substance mind you.”

    Log in eye/pot calls kettle black

  36. xring – the purpose of federal income tax is to simplistically pay for government services. Keeping the size of government on the small side (low cost) negates the need for a excessive tax revenue.

    The respective tax rate is fiqured to allow for the most tax revenues. No one is saying move tax rates so low that we don;t have enough revenue to pay for government. Right now in time our problem is too much spending. Get that under control and then take a look at the revenue needed to maintain that level of service.

    Again the “47ers” is too high a figure. Too many people are not paying into the system…

    Bluntly, if you are at the lower end of the income spectrum you gotta ask yourself, with all the programs and resources available, what am I not doing (or need to do) to earn more for me and my family. The answer my friend is in the mirror. People who continue to earn and generate wealth are doing something your not…

    the twisted logic continues to amaze me…

  37. xx: You are right in that everyone should look in the mirror and ask themselves what they could do to solve their own financial problems, and then do the best they can to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and hopefully then, succeed.

    However, the answer is not always in the mirror. There are many reasons a person may not be able to increase his education, his earnings, and conquer his problems. The programs and resources that you say are available are under the scalpel.

    The one thing I’ve noticed since following this blog, is that conservatives seem to have little concept of what it’s like to walk a mile in another man’s shoes.

  38. And by the way xx, your statement that “the twisted logic continues to amaze me”, and that you think everyone’s problems can be solved by looking in the mirror, has a lot to do with your inability to walk that mile in another persons shoes.

  39. I was going to give you some sob story about my life but I asked why… If I tell you that I have had hard times and what is consistent is that they were almost all as a result of choices I made in life.

    I don’t need to walk in another person shoes to know that when you are dependent on another entity, whether it be a government, a corporation, a “charitable” program, whatever…. the course of your life will be dependent on what that entity can and/or can not do for you.

    I am at a loss at to why There are many reasons a person may not be able to increase his education, his earnings, and conquer his problems.

    Sorry, don’t see it. I’ve been “there”, didn’t like being “there” and found a way to get out of the hole I found myself in… those are life skill that our parents are suppose to teach us.

  40. when you are dependent on another entity, whether it be a government, a corporation, a “charitable” program, whatever…. the course of your life will be dependent on what that entity can and/or can not do for you.

    Ah yes….the myth of the rugged individualist! Got news for you, unless you are Robinson Crusoe (nope he doesn’t count – he was dependent upon Friday) or that guy from that roughing it in Alaska show that the PBS always trots out during pledge week (oh…..he got supplies flown in so he doesn’t count either) you are dependent upon someone else doing their job.

    Someone is responsible for making sure you can have electricity when you flip the switch, gas when you put the pump in the car, take your garbage away, pave your streets, provide insurance coverage……..you may pay for these things by going to a job and working for an employer or owning your own business in a building built and designed by someone else and selling items you didn’t manufacture to customers who you are totally dependent upon to provide your living……

  41. bb = must these boards always go to some strawman extreme…

    Yeah, I got a hamster in my basement turning a wheel to provide for the electricity I need…

    What you describe is the opportunity that is awaiting you… for every person that ha a need is a person that can solve that need by providing the product and/or service to meet that need.

    Someone is responsible for… yep, sure is, isn’t it great that a person and/or group of people saw an opportunity and went for it… working as individuals to develop their respective strengths and finding others, each with their respective strengths, working together to plan, build and deliver said product or service. In a nutshell – and we pay them – sometimes alot… what can you provide that a group of people (or another business) are willing to pay you for?

    …you may pay for these things by going to a job and working for an employer or owning your own business in a building built and designed by someone else and selling items you didn’t manufacture to customers who you are totally dependent upon to provide your living……

    Then welcome to your respective lives… I’ve been there… I didn’t like it either… I’m trying to change it right now…

  42. hansgruber says:

    We need to cut spending.

    Since Obama took office, he has increased spending 28% ($2.983 Trillion in 2009 to $3.818 for 2012) and revenue has dropped 29% ($3.076 Trillion to $2.173).

    Obama has borrowed over $3.6 Trillion in 27 months!

    Just do the math. To balance the budget you would have to cut/reduce spending by 43%!

  43. and revenue has dropped 29% ($3.076 Trillion to $2.173)

    but, but, but…….what happened to all those claims from the Right that tax cuts raise the revenue?

  44. “Ithappened2me2 says:
    April 14, 2011 at 7:53 pm
    “X_6zero says:
    APRIL 14, 2011 AT 7:19 PM
    “Ithappened2me2 says:
    April 14, 2011 at 6:45 pm
    Pretty sure cirrus is a TNT staffer.
    ———————————————–

    Pretty sure this is a stalker/troll”

    Pretty sure this is a Douchlord.

    Ithappened2me2 says:
    April 14, 2011 at 7:56 pm
    X_6 must have an inside line to be able to post comment after comment in a row.

    With nothing of substance mind you.”

    ———————————–
    Sayeth the one using foul language, off thread comments and posting two in a row.

    Must be using mommy’s computer while she is working as a staffer.

  45. Voodoo Economics defies logic.

  46. xx98411 says:
    April 14, 2011 at 4:36 pm
    Bow to the annoited one… bow…

    xx98411 says:
    April 15, 2011 at 6:21 am
    bb = must these boards always go to some strawman extreme…

    ——————————————————————
    You can’t write this stuff without help…..LOL

  47. “xx98411 says:
    April 14, 2011 at 7:27 pm
    Blaine / XX – close enough for TNT work don’t ya think X6

    All filings of your tax return is different… you wrote a check because for the income clamied (after all the deduction BS) it turns out you did not pay enough…

    Is that now the approved counter to the 47% don’t pay claim. I have seen it repeated in a few discussion thread. To reply to your comment, yes their is a problem with the tax system.
    ——————————————————————————

    Nope. I’m still trying to get proof of the assertion and that is being dodged like Jim Carrey as “The Mask” dodging bullets from the bad guys.

    My real point, though, is that if 47% of Americans are making so much less than me, who paid 5% of his gross income in income tax alone, is that indicative of the real challenge that we have funding our county – the ones WITH the money are not paying enough and the ones without are….well…..WITHOUT!

    As to writing a check, I really don’t mind. The IRS doesn’t pay interest for holding my money for up to 15 1/2 months, so I’d rather put mine in an interest bearing account and just write them a check when it’s due.

    I’m just trying to get one of the 47% asserters to tell us the threshold of earnings that allegedly 47% of the workers get to not pay taxes.

  48. “hansgruber says:
    April 15, 2011 at 7:29 am
    We need to cut spending.

    Since Obama took office, he has increased spending 28% ($2.983 Trillion in 2009 to $3.818 for 2012) and revenue has dropped 29% ($3.076 Trillion to $2.173).

    Obama has borrowed over $3.6 Trillion in 27 months!
    ————————————————————————————–

    Obama is (1) paying Bush’s bills and (2) reporting them.

    How many times does this have to be said?

    Bush’s bills didn’t go away on January 20, 2009.

  49. speaking of numbers….

    Paul Ryan’s budget projects a balance in 75 years. Could you imagine if Obama said “we’ll fix this in 75 years”? Right Wing radio would explode with the overload and FOX would open another network.

    How about this?

    “Tax cuts? We’ll give them to the rich in 75 years”

    Does that work?

  50. Well we certainly have the proof that the repubicans are nothing but a cult that is rabidly ANTI AMERICAN from the comments in here. Let me reinterate, for the stupids, good and decent Americans want to TAX THE RICH..

  51. “I am at a loss at to why There are many reasons a person may not be able to increase his education, his earnings, and conquer his problems.”
    —————————————————————–

    When you have up to 200 college degreed people applying for a $40K job, maybe there is an indicator.

    Let’s send all the jobs overseas and then complain that no one is able to increase his earnings.

  52. I have three college degrees and have sent out applications for many $40K positions. One recent one I was told during my phone interview that – though it was only announced two weeks before the closing date – they received over 150 applications and over a dozen applications from people like me who have over 20 years of experience in the field.

    Granted….I am in a field that is not valued by our society but the reality is that there is fierce competition for all positions.

    My dad told me of a colleague whose son, with a PhD in mathematics, was having problems getting a job.

  53. hansgruber says:

    Obama is (1) paying Bush’s bills and (2) reporting them.

    How many times does this have to be said?

    Bush’s bills didn’t go away on January 20, 2009.

    Lest check The Fact Checker

    “I think [the war in Iraq] is the first time we’ve ever been taken to war and had a president who wouldn’t pay for it.”
    –Hillary Clinton, Democratic debate in Pennsylvania, April 17, 2008.

    But is Hillary Clinton correct in claiming that George W. Bush is the first president in American history to refuse to pay for a war that he launched?

    it has been financed largely through the issuing of treasury bonds, 40 to 45 percent of which have been bought by foreigners.

    . Clinton has exaggerated the case against Bush by skating over this fact. One Pinocchio.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/paying_for_the_iraq_war.html

  54. hansgruber says:

    X_6zero says:
    Obama is (1) paying Bush’s bills and (2) reporting them.

    How many times does this have to be said?

    Bush’s bills didn’t go away on January 20, 2009

    March 17, 2006
    Congress has approved about $337 billion for the wars since Sept. 11, 2001.
    (Gee how did this not get paid or hidden by the Bush Admin? Huh?)

    Fiscal 2007
    House approved last night includes $67.6 billion for war operations
    (More of Bush not paying for a war and hiding off the books? Huh?)

    Well X_6zero, you don’t need to say it anymore….Congress authorized the spending and borrowing for the war long before Obama became President.
    Your creditability is tainted
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ak3gHkUGPtpY

  55. Hans….it is well known that the Bush Administration put out more money than reported.

    Let’s start with the 9 billion in cash “lost” on the streets of Baghdad. Did Congress appropriate that?

    You have no credibility to taint.

  56. I’m just trying to get one of the 47% asserters to tell us the threshold of earnings that allegedly 47% of the workers get to not pay taxes.

    Take two people each earing $50,000.00 gross. Both have similar type of withholding (fitw, fica, medicare, 401k, charity) One is a single bachelor, living in an apartment, files a 1040ez

    The other is married, two kids, live in a house, has a stable job with a pension. Files a 1040 with a Schedule A.

    One will pay significantly more than the other to Uncle Sam for the Federal income tax bill. Their is no single threshold, it depends on your AGI after deductions and yes, even the poor have deductions and credits available to them.

  57. Let’s start with the 9 billion in cash “lost” on the streets of Baghdad. Did Congress appropriate that?

    How do they (whoever they are) know it is 9 billion dollars… wouldn’t that have to be recorded somewhere? or How do you know something is missing… it would have to exist in the first place… wouldn’t it?

    The books have to balance dude…

  58. …TAX THE RICH

    $380,354… is this what you mean by “rich”?

    (threshold for the top 1%)

  59. hans – you do know that the government pays interest on T-bonds. And owners of T-Bonds get their principal back.

    So……the idea that selling T-Bonds to foreigners (Chinese?) to finance the war by deferring the principal plus interest to a later date somehow means that the war was paid for is just……ignorant.

  60. hansgruber says:

    X & Beer- If you want to make that arguement about selling bonds or borrowing means you are not paying then you better look at Obama who is going to out borrow Bush’s $4.9 trillion in 8 years in less than 3 years and if re-elected will out borrow all pervoius 43 Presidents combined while the sheeple look all starry eyed and drooling over his lower the deficit talk.

    “President Barack Obama on Wednesday proposed lowering the nation’s future deficits by $4 trillion over a dozen years through a blend of specific measures and vague objectives designed to lower spending in politically sensitive health care programs while also increasing taxes.”

    OR

    “Near-Record $1.3 Trillion Federal Deficit
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – The federal government ended fiscal year 2010 with a record $1.3 trillion deficit. According to the Associated Press, “That means the government had to borrow 37 cents out of every dollar it spent.” The AP further reported that “The (Obama) administration is projecting that the deficit for the 2011 budget year, which began on Oct. 1, will climb to $1.4 trillion. Over the next decade, it will total $8.47 trillion.”

    So will Obama reduce the defict $4 Trillion over the next 12 years

    OR

    Will the deficit increase $8.47 Trillion over the next decade?

    Hummmmmm

  61. hansgruber says:

    How about a flat 10% tax rate with no deductions on income?

    That way every pays the same percent of their income?

  62. hansgruber says:

    And a constitutional admendment that requires the government can only spend what they bring in?

  63. hans – the only way I would consider supporting a flat tax is if income wasn’t taxed below the poverty rate. So everyone filing single would get around twelve thousand dollars of income untaxed. A family of four would get around $21K of income before taxes kicked in.

  64. aislander says:

    So…”Bambi”…how much did revenues fall off after the Bush tax cuts? And how much did spending increase with the advent of the Pelosi/Reid axis? And then Obama… There is absolutely NO DOUBT we have a spending problem…

  65. aislander says:

    beerBoy: How can you be so parsimonious? All the flat-tax proposals I’ve seen treat low-income people MUCH more generously than you would…

  66. xx – google “9 billion lost in Iraq” I’m not going to play semantics with you.

    As to your $50K worker example…..is it your contention that a married couple with children should pay the same taxes as a single person? If so, the problem is obvious.

    The same people that complain about people not paying taxes are the same people that want to defund birth control clinics.

    Amazing.

  67. “aislander says:
    April 15, 2011 at 4:20 pm
    beerBoy: How can you be so parsimonious? All the flat-tax proposals I’ve seen treat low-income people MUCH more generously than you would…”
    ———————————————–
    Take a 10% flat tax.

    10% of $25,000 a year is $2,500
    10% of 100,000 a year is $10,000 a year.

    One ends up with $22,500 and the other with $90,000

    Who will have trouble buying gasoline at $4.00 a gallon?

    Very generous, until you run the real numbers.

  68. aislander says:

    Conversations are SO much more productive when both participants speak from positions of knowledge…

  69. X6 – the money was appropiate by congress (you contention is that it was not) and a funny thing happened on the way to Iraq… crappy fiscal control, it existed and then they lost track of it… no semantics…

    Nope – this had to do with the 47%, I will contend that the married couple will probably be taxed at a lower rate than the single dude with no kids and might be one of those 47%’s. The single dude will probably not. If you have a problem with that then talk to Obama…

    Glad I duck with you last sentence. You do like to throw stuff out their for effect huh?

  70. Who will have trouble buying gasoline at $4.00 a gallon?

    Is this a test question??? The one making $25,000 will have an issue buying a few things at that compensation. Solution: keep expenses low, take advantage of programs available to you for low income people, educate thyself and most important…. have a goal and work that plan to achieve that goal.

    Is your solution, tax the feces out of the 100k dude and pass it on to the 25k dude… just askin…

  71. If a rightist ever tells the truth, it will be the first time.

  72. xtp – who’s lying about what…?

  73. hansgruber says:

    So if Bush “didn’t pay” for his war budget by selling bonds, just how is Obama paying for his $3.6 Trillion in the red with? He says his healthcare “is paid for” but has run up $3.6 Trillion in debt?

    Obama promised that a health care overhaul “will be paid for.” -July 23, 2009
    http://factcheck.org/2009/07/obamas-health-care-news-conference/

    A $5 Trillion Whopper?

    The president claimed he has cut federal spending by more than $2 trillion.

    Obama: I am very worried about federal spending. And the steps that we’ve taken so far have reduced federal spending over the next 10 years by $2.2 trillion.

    The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office doesn’t agree that Obama’s budget has “reduced federal spending” at all. Quite the opposite. His budget calls for vastly increased spending, according to CBO.

  74. hansgruber says:

    Obama: I’d like higher gas prices, just not so quickly
    on June 11, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
    According to Barack Obama, high gas prices don’t really constitute a problem for Americans. He stated yesterday that the reason for our anger is the rapid increase in prices, not the prices themselves. Obama claimed that Americans would have accepted a “gradual adjustment” to the current cost

  75. This is what the president said during the ABC World News interview…

    President Obama said Thursday that the White House is monitoring rising gasoline prices “very closely” while adding that last year’s tax-cut extension deal will help ease the strain on families paying more at the pump.

    “Now, one good thing that we did was in December, an example of compromise that a lot of people didn’t think was going to be possible, with Republicans — we were able to pass a package of tax cuts that has helped to buffer some of that strain on families. So the total amount of tax cuts that we passed to boost the economy this year will probably be higher than the additional gas costs,” Obama said.

    1 – are we really calling the tax extension in December “tax cuts”… they are now 10 years old?
    2 – if you are earning less than the $250k threshold taxes were never going to go up so their are no “savings”

    jeeze, how disingenious

  76. Ithappened2me2 says:

    Welcome to the world of Obama Speak.

  77. aislander , in 2000 personal income tax receipts were 1,004.5 in 2003 they were 793.7 it took until 2006 before they were above the 2000 level.
    (source Statistical Abstracts 2008 from the US Census)

    BTW in 2008 Bush was still president, so you can’t even claim that Obama jiggled the numbers.

    But you’re being dishonest in another way. Do nothing, and federal receipts will go up. in fact, cut rates, raise rates, or leave them the same, and federal receipts will almost always go up. If you want specifics go to http://whatever.scalzi.com/2011/04/13/obamas-deficit-reduction-speech/#comments and go to comment 138.

    Be warned! it’s a long thread.

  78. ItalianSpring says:

    Drill here. Drill now. Drill baby drill.

  79. Xx,
    -is $159,000 rich? – well considering that only the top 5% earn that much, I would have to say maybe not rich, but definitely well to do and still able to take advantage of Obama’s tax plan.

    Bobcat,
    Top 2%, income $250,000 or above, at 35% = $87,500 which still puts you in the top 25%.

    However under Obama’s tax plan the tax on $250,000 would be only $60,291.

    Xx,
    Set the tax rate where ever you want. The same loopholes that work at 35% work just as well at 15%.

    It’s not the logic that is twisted; it’s your misreading the facts.

    Hans,
    A large percent of that 28% increase came because Obama funding for Afghanistan and Iraq on the regular budget as opposed to the special supplemental budgets Bush used.

    As for borrowing, tell the GOP to stop cutting taxes on the top 2% and inact real spending cuts (as opposed to their sound bit social engineering cuts) and we can start paying off the debt and not have to borrow.

  80. Expensive gas is long-term good for us. It should be $6/gallon.

  81. xx,
    Audit: U.S. lost track of $9 billion in Iraq funds
    http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

    Audit Show $8.8B Missing in Iraq
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129489,00.html

    DoD’s lost $8.7 Billion: What About the Pentagon’s Missing Trillions?
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/disappearing-act-8-7-billion-of-iraq-development-money-missing.html

    Hans,
    Ryan’s Folly takes 75 years just to balance the budget, yet the conservatives are all atwitter over it.

    Flat tax of 10% – The Fair Tax Book calls for a rate of 23%.

  82. xring – I think you are a little off here as to what the issue is here…

    My “rich” was in response to someone else who want to “TAX THE RICH”. THe Dems keep referring to “miilionaires and billionaires”. They also keep referring to the top 2%. I am stating the top 2% are not all “miilionaires and billionaires” (at least annual compensation wise).

    The lower tax rate discussion also provides that many deductions be removed as part of the lower tax rate. Now sure what you have nor have not been reading.

    The claim was that 9billion dollars never existed…. it was never on the books… thanks for providing more infomation that somehow it did exist… at least when it left Washington but something happened on the way to Bagdad…

  83. xx – love how the terminology shifts from net worth (the accepted way of defining whether one is a million/billionaire) to annual income.

    If someone’s annual income meets or exceeds $1million per year it is a pretty safe bet that they are in the billionaires’ club. If someone is regularly pulling in $250K per year and not a millionaire then they need to get some serious investment advice.

    You have – like many Rightists – shifted terminology in the same breath in order to put forward the lowest number possible (gee……those poor folks trying to get by on a mere $250K per year) But then….obfuscation is a useful tool for the propagandist, is it not?

  84. hansgruber says:

    xring says:
    April 15, 2011 at 10:23 pm .

    Hans,
    A large percent of that 28% increase came because Obama funding for Afghanistan and Iraq on the regular budget as opposed to the special supplemental budgets Bush used.

    Look! Here it is:

    See also: Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund
    FY2003 Supplemental: Operation Iraqi Freedom: Passed April 2003; Total $78.5 billion, $54.4 billion Iraq War
    FY2004 Supplemental: Iraq and Afghanistan Ongoing Operations/Reconstruction: Passed November 2003; Total $87.5 billion, $70.6 billion Iraq War
    FY2004 DoD Budget Amendment: $25 Emergency Reserve Fund (Iraq Freedom Fund): Passed July 2004, Total $25 billion, $21.5 billion (estimated) Iraq War
    FY2005 Emergency Supplemental: Operations in the War on Terror; Activities in Afghanistan; Tsunami Relief: Passed April 2005, Total $82 billion, $58 billion (estimated) Iraq War
    FY2006 Department of Defense appropriations: Total $50 billion, $40 billion (estimated) Iraq War.
    FY2006 Emergency Supplemental: Operations Global War on Terror; Activities in Iraq & Afghanistan: Passed February 2006, Total $72.4 billion, $60 billion (estimated) Iraq War
    FY2007 Department of Defense appropriations: $70 billion(estimated) for Iraq War-related costs
    FY2007 Emergency Supplemental (proposed) $100 billion
    FY2008 Bush administration has proposed around $190 billion for the Iraq War and Afghanistan
    FY2009 Obama administration has proposed around $130 billion in additional funding for the Iraq War and Afghanistan.
    FY2011 Obama administration proposes around $159.3 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

    All approved by Congress

  85. aislander says:

    jimlj: I didn’t say that revenues didn’t go down in the early 2000s (there WAS a recession, after all), but that they didn’t go down precipitously AND they came back up to record levels. More important, though, is that they didn’t go down enough to explain the huge deficits incurred not just by Bush (deficits were coming down in his second term until 2007, the record revenue year), but especially by the Pelosi/Reid congress and Obama…

  86. Riedl notes that tax revenue has historically averaged 18 percent of GDP. Yes — and in only three of the ten years the tax cuts have been in place has revenue exceeded that share. The average from 2000 to 2007 — I’m being sporting here by lopping off the last two years, and including the year 2000 high point — was 17.6 percent. By contrast, the average during the 1990’s was 18.5 percent.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/08/cherry-picking_season.html

  87. the entire theory of the tax cuts is that they would spur economic growth — “the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy,” in McConnell’s phrase. That would be a fair argument — if in fact the economy had grown at a better-than-expected rate. But it didn’t. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has shown, “the 2001-2007 economic expansion was among the weakest since World War II with regard to overall economic growth.” Even singling out the boomiest years — 2003-2007 — growth in GDP was below average.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/08/cherry-picking_season.html

  88. BB – I am trying to focus on those whose incomes meet the critirea used by the IRS to determine the annual tax rate that they will pay for any given year… this way we are talking apples to apples…

    I am not talking individuals whose net worth is a million dollars or more…

    clear enough or am I still obfuscating…. I have just reread my post and am unsure how you came by your critique. Sorry some people confuse net worth vs annual compensation when they are talking about “millionaires and billionaires”

  89. aislander says:

    beerBoy: It is impossible to conjecture about what would have happened (just as much for me as for you), but let’s say that cuts in tax rates had not been made during the Bush years. You said that growth was weak, therefore showing that tax cuts don’t work. That is not a logical conclusion, since had those cuts not been made (and taking only chance into account, rather than economic theories and past experience), growth COULD have been either extremely positive OR extremely negative. However theory and experience argue that, given the institutional problems the economy was experiencing (which are making themselves apparent now–in spades) that the alternative to your perception of slow growth would have been a contraction; also known as a recession. I think it could be argued that the President and Congress kicked the can down the road, although Bush tried to deal with Social Security and the Republican Congress DID actually cut discretionary spending. Should have gone after Medicaid first, maybe…

  90. IndependentVoltaire says:

    “ItalianSpring says:
    April 15, 2011 at 9:09 pm
    Drill here. Drill now. Drill baby drill.

    the steel required for the drilling platforms is not readily available since steel is basically an import anymore. Another brilliant outsourcing move

  91. LarryFine says:

    Spot on Ai…

  92. Uscha,
    When the President said ’50 million would lose their health care’ he was talking about what would happen under the Ryan Plan.

    Xx98
    If cutting the top tax bracket actually helped to create jobs in the USA I would support elimination the bracket.
    BUT WHERE ARE THE JOBS? In Mexico, India, and China.

    Tthe people who are creating wealth are also the ones sending US jobs overseas, and hording nearly 2 TRILLION Dollars.

    What the right wing lack in comment sense they make up for in the blind adherence to failed policies.

  93. xring – Last we were talking about 9 billion dollars… now jobs… are you referring to a specific post I made or off you ADD meds… which is it?

    cutting the top tax bracket…. wtf did that come from?

  94. aislander tells beerBoy, “It is impossible to conjecture about what would have happened…” and then goes on and on conjecturing about what would and wouldn’t have happened.

  95. ai – I cite WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED with the Bush tax cuts in placed and you call it CONJECTURE.

    As my friend LarryFine enjoys posting:

    Kooky.

  96. Wait!!!! Larry is Jimmmmmmmm?

  97. Congress should just pass a law that says all Americans are rich and pass another law that says all rich people will now have to pay a flat tax of 10% with no deductions.That would make the idea of America being a democracy,really true.But lets face it,that idea would never work because everyone would say its unfair because their neighbor makes more money and therefor pays less taxes than he does.We all seem to be willing to let someone else pay the higher taxes so we don’t have to.The sales taxes are more fairer because every one pays the same amount for their purchases.You spend More,You pay more,that is simple math that everyone should comprehend.

  98. Income taxes are more fairer, sincere, because every one pays at their ability to pay.You make More,You pay more,that is simple math that everyone should comprehend.

  99. sincere – where in the definition of democracy does it say that everyone has to pay the same tax rate?

  100. Everyone is not paying the same tax rate… some 40-some od percent are paying 0%…

    We keep looking to the high wage earners like they are going to save us… we need more skin in the game at the lower end of the wage scale…

    I know, I know… what a cold hearted b-tard I am…

  101. aislander says:

    Thanks for the grist…

    Going down the line: beerBoy’s conjecture is in saying that we believe tax cuts ALWAYS result in economic growth, and in saying that slow growth or no growth “proves” that tax cuts don’t work and are, by implication, not good for the economy. I simply point out that the economy could have gone into deep recession due to its institutional problems (which it finally did) IN SPITE of the tax cuts; but it didn’t–at least not right away. Experience and economics argue that tax hikes would have deepened any recession and put us into one sooner. Not doing anything with rates would have had a middling result. Still conjecture, but informed conjecture, without the logical fallacy introduced by beerBoy…

    Polago: “Simple” math shows that the higher one’s income the more one pays. Experience with OUR tax system shows the math to be anything BUT simple…

    beerBoy again: “Equal protection under law” argues that a “progressive” tax system is inherently unfair and undemocratic.

  102. Wouldn’t tax revenues be a better indicator of whether a tax rate cut (or increase) worked? It appears that the Bush tax cut had some positive effect.

    I am not saying it is the cure all but I am not sure how removing cash via taxes from the pockets of American, at all levels of income, does anything but contribute to the growth of government.

    2002 797,000,000,000
    2003 748,000,000,000
    2004 832,000,000,000
    2005 935,000,000,000
    2006 1,024,000,000,000
    2007 1,116,000,000,000
    2008 1,032,000,000,000
    source: IRS

  103. LarryFine says:

    Yes, I’m Jimm. For some reason nany nanny feels I’m more offensive than hortonspeak (as well as a few others) who frequently curses and uses profanity… kooky huh?
    ..
    “Equal protection under law” game-set-match…

  104. aislander says:

    LarryFine: Don’t you know that making libs uncomfortable with their assumptions and relishing the contradictions inherent in that belief system is hate speech of the first order? Of course the nanny threw jimm over the side, and high time, too, if you ask me…

    Our tax system shows that if you steal big enough (same principle as if you lie big enough), theft becomes philanthropy. Reread “1984” to remind yourself of the principle involved.

    I have just one nagging question: When is a critical mass reached so that if enough people agree to steal from others, it becomes virtuous, rather than a breach of natural law?

  105. If I had my way, Larrry, I would allow you to return to the first screen name you had when I met you, iamjimm. But, that’s me.

  106. If we had the ability to get past this one-up-men-ship attitude, we might be able to find some common ground, aislander.

    We’re all in this together.

  107. aislander says:

    So…Polago…are you saying you don’t believe our disagreements are real? I believe that their basis is a matter of which direction to go rather than how far, and there can’t be any common ground with that…

  108. aislander says:

    Hey–if Obama can “save or create” jobs, I can certainly aver that tax cuts prevented a recession or depression, just as certainly as beerBoy can postulate that tax cuts were ineffective because they didn’t result in spectacular growth. Logical fallacies, all…

  109. I’m saying that we’re all in this together, aislander. You’re hung up on direction.

  110. aislander says:

    It’s not a “hang up,” Polago it is a substantive and important disagreement. Trading individual freedom for some sort of collective salvation is not an acceptable exchange…

  111. And that’s why we cannot communicate, aislander. There’s only one opinion, in your mind, yours. There’s no compromise.

  112. aislander – Somewhere along the line, you might want to read up on private domain, which is what the News Tribune is running here. They have no obligation to follow your version of “fair”.

    You could always start your own blog.

  113. aislander says:

    Just what in the hell are you talking about…

  114. aislander says:

    One can compromise on methods, Polago, but not principles.

  115. Ithappened2me2 says:

    KARDNOS is probably some version of snail.

  116. LarryFine says:

    I wish Ai was running for office… I couldn’t be more in agreement…

    So, P, why do you suppose Kim or whom ever has it out for me? Do I shotgun off topic personal attacks? Swear? What do you suppose???

  117. Can’t say for sure. I think by this time it may be that you’ve continued to acquire new user names in spite. It’s become a game between you and the TNT.

    You play your game and they play back…..

  118. Your principals have no room for the rest of us, aislander.

  119. aislander says:

    I’m not quite sure what you mean by that, Polago, but individual freedom certainly has room for all individuals. I just don’t like being pushed around by scolds who then disparage me because they haven’t been able to take enough of my property–especially when I have the cheek to provide people a place to work–or to force me to follow their orders to a degree that satisfies them. The totalitarian impulse is the same whether people are being forced into cattle cars or being forced to recycle. The difference is only a matter of degree, and once the mechanisms are in place, they can be used for “good” or evil purposes. Better not to allow the mechanisms to be put into place…

    BTW, it really doesn’t matter if the coercion is for “good” or bad; a hug is an assault if it’s not wanted…

  120. aislander……..love how a self-professed originalist is citing the 14th Amendment in support of a flat-tax. Specially since I kinda remember you claiming that the 14th Amendment offered no protections to homosexuals but only the decendents of slaves.

  121. You won’t get any hugs here, aislander.

  122. aislander says:

    No good counterargument, beerBoy and Polago?

  123. aislander…..you are just going to ignore the fact that I called you on your absurd interpretation of the 14th Amendment?

    You are supporting a flat tax as a protection of individual rights yet you are against homosexual marriage – care to explain?

    And where, in the Constitution, does it say that all citizens – regardless of means – have the right to the lowest tax rate?

    I don’t need a counter-argument – just need to point to the logical inconsistencies of your argument.

  124. aislander says:

    I think you confused a couple of different threads, beerBoy. With (all due) respect to homosexuals, I don’t believe there IS a question of equal protection regarding gay “marriage,” which is to what you seem to be alluding. My argument re the 14th Amendment is with the automatic citizenship of the offspring of illegal aliens; that is “anchor babies…”

  125. aislander says:

    By the way, tax rates are the application of the tax laws, and treat different Americans differently–hardly equal protection under law…

  126. There is no reason for a counter argument, aislander. You made my point. Your principals leave no room for the rest of us.

    You are an island unto yourself.

  127. So…..your use of “equal protection under the law” had no connection with the 14th Amendment? And therefore no connection to the Constitution?

  128. aislander says:

    My allusion to the essence of the 14th amendment, beerBoy had no connection to my opinion of the homosexual agenda. Of course it goes back to the Constitution, but that didn’t seem to be your original point. You thought you had caught me in a contradiction, but you had not…

  129. To paraphrase Joni Mitchell:

    You are as constant as a northern star – Constant in the darkness, where’s that at?

    Just like the “originalists” on the Court, your application of originalism is case specific when it supports your views and conveniently ignored when it doesn’t.

  130. aislander says:

    I applies where it applies, beerBoy. I believe that, with respect to the institution of marriage, every man and every woman is treated equally, therefore “equal protection under law” doesn’t come into play. That some people WISH to be treated differently concerns neither me nor the 14th Amendment…

  131. aislander says:

    That should have read, “IT applies where it applies.”

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0