Curious, though, they were also quite high in the Clinton years (and at other times in the post war era).
Anyone know what's up with that?
Posted on 08/13/2007 11:06:54 AM PDT by traviskicks
The Democrats tax raising plans will not only result in less tax money collected but will put a huge drag on the economy. Their energy taxes alone will boost gasoline prices and produce long lines at the pumps. Hillary’s socialized medicine plan will cripple the US economy and lead to worse not better health care. Question is who will Democrats blame when all this hits the fan and they are the cause?
So how much of a fraud is Mr. Boaz?
Have they?
Has Bush done any negotiating that would lead them to conclude that would be a good thing to do? Did he even bother to try it when the Republicans had control of the House and Senate?
Bush is weak. He does his best to please all the people all the time.
I would cut 100% of “entitlements,” as NO ONE is “entitled” to live at my expense without my explicit voluntary consent, be it welfare queen or Archer Daniels Midland or some mullah in Iraq.
‘who will Democrats blame when all this hits the fan and they are the cause?’
you kidding right?
Big Oil, Big Cigarettes, Big Fast Food, just about every ‘corporate’ montruosity out there will get the blame but the bureocrats... and you can take that to the bank.
Add in the state and local taxes and its not such a pretty picture.
He never ran as a small government guy. That much was clear as early as 1999 in the run up to the GOP primaries. Check out this from the the introduction of “Leviathan on the Right”
“To understand how conservatism has been turning away from its traditional belief in small government, one has to look no further than President George W. Bush. Indeed, as John DiIulio, the first director of President Bush’s Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, has pointed out; from the very beginning of his run for the presidency, Bush made clear his differences with small-government conservatives.
His very first campaign speech, on July 22, 1999, articulated what he believed as a “compassionate conservative.” Speaking before inner-city clergymen and women in Indianapolis, “economic growth,” Bush preached, “is not the solution to every problem.” He labeled as “destructive” the idea that government is bad and called explicitly for increasing government support for Medicaid and other federal programs. He also rebutted the notion that government needs only to step aside for families and communities to flourish. In particular he stressed that, when it comes to addressing poverty and urban blight, it “is not enough to call for volunteerism. Without more support—public and private—we are asking” local community-serving groups, both religious and secular, “to make bricks without straw.”
Bush was distancing himself from the wing of the party that came into power in 1994 under the “Contract With America”. At the GOP convention in 2000, his people eliminated planks in the GOP Platform like the one calling for abolishing the Department of Education. In sum, what we see now is what he always was. The problem was that too many conservatives were so eager to regain the White House that they looked the other way and now wake up and feel betrayed.”
People around here (and on the radio BTW) need to stop using the terms “raise taxes” and “lower taxes” and start saying “raise tax rates” and “lower tax rates”.
I’ve already seen too many self-contradictory comments on this very thread confusing the two, and thereby confusing anyone who doesn’t understand the magic of increasing revenue flow by lowering tax RATES on income and capital gains. Republican candidates had better take note of this if they want to be able to explain our philosophy.
People around here (and on the radio BTW) need to stop using the terms “raise taxes” and “lower taxes” and start saying “raise tax rates” and “lower tax rates”.
I’ve already seen too many self-contradictory comments on this very thread confusing the two, and thereby confusing anyone who doesn’t understand the magic of increasing revenue flow by lowering tax RATES on income and capital gains. Republican candidates had better take note of this if they want to be able to explain our philosophy.
By cutting taxes.
Does this mean the lefties at Cato will be recommending to Dems that they cut taxes too?
Under Klintoon and a GOP Congress, domestic discretionary spending went up 2.3 percent per year. Under Dubya and a Republican Congress, it went up 8.2 percent per year.
Like I said before... how could Bush get Rinos and dims in agreement to cut entitlement spending? He tried on Social Security, with a plan that would have saved hundreds of Billions of Dollars... but the rinos said no... and dims said NO much louder! He NEVER gets credit from those of you with BDS and I will point out the truth to people like you when you post. He has not been perfect... he has not cut spending like I would like to see done... but he is better than anyone else that was running in 2000 and 2004... ALL Republicans and dims running at that time included.
LLS
I want to do that too. How do you propose that we get Congress and the Senate to go along with it? NO PRESIDENT has ever had that solitary power. What could President Bush do to get a hate filled evildim Congress to go along with our plan? He couldn’t even get rinos and dims to go along with a Social Security reform plan that was absolutely killer... and we had majority control then.
LLS
What if the government was still restricted to doing its job and nothing more? Just imagine the wealth that would be available to all.
It has reached the point where it can no longer be attributed to "spin". It is clearly deceit. What is sadder is that America has fools who cannot detect the deceit. They have been convinced that the deceit defends the liberal point of view.
Perhaps bar stool economics is something even these poor souls understand? However, explaining how reducing taxes for everyone causes an increase in tax revenues to flow into the public treasury may be a bit formidable even for bar stool economics. I think that may be a task even Thomas Sowell would find difficult. Anyone have any ideas?
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men - the paying customers?
How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100%savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, liberal boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
ref. to post #54
Curious, though, they were also quite high in the Clinton years (and at other times in the post war era).
Anyone know what's up with that?
To begin with, BUSH is not your man when it comes to cutting spending. He has YET to see a spending bill he won’t accept, and you know it. The only way it will happen is if we elect a President who vetoes EVERY SINGLE spending bill until Congress gets the idea that he’s serious and cuts out the illegitimate stuff... If you accept the legitimacy of such spending or sigh wistfully that you wish it would stop but it can’t, then it never will. Because the ones who WANT it speak far louder than your wimpy “I wish.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.