It was proven wrong then, and it will be proven wrong again.
There are 109 million Americans who have benefited well from the Bush tax cut savings, I among them--about $8700 in the last 3 years. That's real happy spending cash.
Yet, it's the ultimate hypocrisy when I see the people who support kerry (like some Providers) love his plan for higher taxes on the rest of us, but admit they report no income taxes themselves with the IRS. So much for their candidate's useless point of "government need" for programs.
Believe what you want, but money talks & bullcrap walks. Bush has come through big time in putting money back in our pockets (erasing the horrible marriage tax penalty, lowering rates, even eliminating the low wage earners altogether & giving child credits, among other items. Kerry is on record to restore these "terrible tax cuts"). Bush is right about an important point he made in the debates--higher taxes are a promise a politician keeps.
It's Economics 101, stupid. The more we have, it's more that goes around. Or is it another coincidence that Providers' donations have DOUBLED during Bush's 4 years! Look it up. Memo to Providers: Like it or not, you're a business enterprise & if kerry & his high tax plan gets in, your customers will have less to spend with you.
... you have been royally screwed. Additionally, if you are a provider, you have some difficulty because you are running a business that is illegal in 49 states.
Economics 301 (graduate school) shows that a graduated tax policy makes economic sense and that flat tax rates - where the Republicans are going - is poor economics.
High taxes can and do work well in some societies where their is little diversity and where government has a large incentive to be effective. We are not like that, and lower taxes make sense under many circumstances.
There is a big movement within the Republican Party to increase our deficits because that will (in the long run) reduce the government's options. Most of the time, I was much more in tune with the Fiscal Conservative part of the party. It's too bad that they have little or no say anymore.
Harry
-- Modified on 10/23/2004 7:45:25 AM
That's a bold assertion, with no supporting argument.
HarryLime says "if you aren't a provider but a Waitress... ... you have been royally screwed." And how is that, pray tell?
If you are a waitress, and paid any income tax whatsoever, then you likely don't pay anything anymore. If you still pay anything, it's likely at the lowest rate, reduced from 15% to 10% under Bush.
If, on the other hand, you're a waitress who expects a handout from the government, you've not gotten it. That's not "being screwed," an active verb denoting motion. That's "making your own bed and lying in it."
I admit that I don't report any income taxes. But then, you have to have income first.
Not one of Shrub's tax cuts had any benefit for me. I'm not married, so the marriage tax penalty had no effect. I have no children, so the child tax credits had no effect. His "middle class" tax cut amounted to $2/month for me, which lasted less than a year because I lost my job. Those extra Powerball tickets I bought with that extra $2 every month really stimulated the economy. 
~~~
Of course you're giddy about Dumbya lining your pockets because you're apparently in the upper tax brackets where his tax cuts went. It also goes without saying that you'd be furious with Kerry because his proposal is targeting those who got the Shrub tax cuts, i.e., you.
Tax cuts only benefit those that have significant enough income for the cuts to make a difference. An extra $10 per paycheck for someone making $30K/year is insignificant. An extra several hundred dollars for someone making $200K/year is significant. Perhaps if the several hundred dollars you got in tax relief had instead been given to someone who really needed it (the $30K or less/year worker), a real difference would've been made.
Read this- It's a pretty cool email going around
>SOCIAL SECURITY:
>
> Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
>
> 1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
>
> 2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,
>
> 3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
>
> 4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,
>
> 5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
>
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:
>
> Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?
>
> A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate.
>
> Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
>
> A: The Democratic Party.
>
> Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
>
> A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.
>
> Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
>
> MY FAVORITE :
>
> A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
>
> Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
>
> And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it!
>
>
"Perhaps if the several hundred dollars you got in tax relief had instead been given to someone who really needed it (the $30K or less/year worker), a real difference would've been made."
Here we go again with the redistribution of wealth agrument. Beginning in the 1960's with Johnson's Great Society and the War on Poverty there has been a HUGE transfer of wealth in the direction you suggest. SEVERAL TRILLION, YES TRILLION DOLLARS.
What are the poverty rates today? Just about the same as they were in the 60's
If you believe what you said here........"An extra $10 per paycheck for someone making $30K/year is insignificant. An extra several hundred dollars for someone making $200K/year is significant." Then you must also believe that to tax the middle class at a low rate is insignificant whereas taxing 200K plus earners is significant.
When you take too much of a persons personal wealth or take too much of a companies profits thru overtaxation I feel that you increase the pressure to "hunker down" and stop any personal or business investments, such as expansion, which is job creation. It sounds like a recipe for economic failure.
Let people keep and spend as much as possible and you might get a job as a result. I`d rather you pay your taxes and be productive than have to rely on unemployment benifits or government aid to get by. I bet you would too.
demonstrates the intellectual and moral vapidity of the author.
First, I question whether someone who posts a review in June has actually lost his job.
But more importantly, KCShyGuy asserts that "you're giddy about Dumbya lining your pockets because you're apparently in the upper tax brackets where his tax cuts went." Sorry, but no one's pockets got lined by the President's tax cuts. Those people were simply permitted to keep what they earned. And therein lies the corrupt premise of KC's post --- that wealthy people are simply targets to be plundered by the greedy hand of government.
Then there's the serial assertions about "Tax cuts only benefit those that have significant enough income for the cuts to make a difference. An extra $10 per paycheck for someone making $30K/year is insignificant. An extra several hundred dollars for someone making $200K/year is significant. Perhaps if the several hundred dollars you got in tax relief had instead been given to someone who really needed it (the $30K or less/year worker), a real difference would've been made." Unfortunately, it evidences fundamental ignorance about the tax code. If you're making $30,000/year, you're probably not paying too much in income tax, if anything. So there's little or nothing to cut.
The simple fact is that the wealthy in this country (top 10%) pay 90% or more of the income tax burden. To have the majority of the budget sustained by such a small percentage of the populace is not healthy for a republic.
Economics 101 is nothing but propaganda by econ hacks. You're willing to think about economics only as far as you find it agreeable.
If tax cuts are the only way to stimulate the economy, then we should dissolve the government and give people 100 percent of "their" money. Tell me why that doesn't work?
You'll immediately find that your money is worth less than its weight in toilet paper. Now, why would that be?
I'm told that I shouldn't blame W for the fact that my salary has fallen by 50 percent since he took office, and that I instead, must feel thankful that I gained 0.4 percent back in tax cuts. I am also told that the only way I ever have a chance of getting by is to make the rich richer until cash "trickles down." This is all bullshit. Other presidents have done something about the economy. Bill Clinton passed the purported "largest tax increase in history" and the economy took off flying. California has a minimum wage a $1.20 higher than the national, and it's the 5th largest economy in the world.
BTW, your observation about providers and tax free money is just moronic. My provider friends aren't happy with my financial troubles. And if most of their clients are going broke, they have less money they could make, tax free or not. Since they work on a cash basis, they feel economic troubles sooner than the rest of the consumer market, which has the price support afforded by credit. Credit is the only thing that's kept the rest of the consumer economy from deflating while oil and medical prices inflate.
/Zin
-- Modified on 10/23/2004 11:51:56 PM
Son, you really haven’t benefited from Mr. Bush's tax cut as you think.
During the past 3 years, the deficit has been around $1.2 trillion, that is $12,000 per household. You said you have saved $8,700 in tax cut, then you are about $3,200 in the hole!
I am not calculating the high price of gas, which is a direct result of his Middle East policies, and higher other taxes.
I indeed benefited from Mr. Bush's tax cuts in a BIG way, but still won't like to see him re-elected, you know why? He has created a universe that is very unstable, and international markets are sloooooowly getting closed to us, cuz, they don't like to buy what we make any more. See record deficits ... NOT GOOD son.
It was proven wrong then, and it will be proven wrong again.
To balance our budget, and stave off the consequences of Reaganism, and you give him no credit.
The "boom" of the Reagan years was dwarfed by the "nova" of the Clinton years. Since 1960, the economy under democratic presidents has dwarfed the economic performance under Republicans, by any standard you want to choose. I remember how Rush Limbaugh was so sure that the economy was going to tank after Clinton's "economic stimulas package" was passed. Rush never ate those words, but I wonder how you regurgitate them?
/Zin
Um, last time I checked the constitution, it's the Congress that has the power of the purse..... oh & odd that the "nova" of the clinton years came after the '94 takeover of the House by Republicans.
To all of the Mensa giants here who truly believe that LESS money in everyone's pockets through higher taxes are a big boon to your economy, NOT ONE OF YOU SENT BACK YOUR TAX REBATE IN "PROTEST". If it's burning such a hole in your man purse, the IRS will be glad to take it back, you know. Go on, send it in just like Billionaires john kerry & ketchup wife did. Ooops, they didn't do it either.
No, in fact they believe so much in higher tax policy, that their 2004 IRS records show they only paid 12%--take note, kiddies--that's 12% on their massive wealth! Yep, let us peons carry the 30%-40% load because "it's the right thing for our economy." Do as kerry says, NOT as he does, lemmings.
Some of you guys are truly a sucker's bet. In fact, it's stunning to see those lost souls who are still mesmerized by clinton's smoke & mirror dot com economy whose "jobs" collapsed faster than a shell game. Heartiest congratulations on your brainwashed logic.
That's who needs to get it rather than the Treasury, which is going to hemorrhage money hoplelessly as long as W is in office. I thought it served my country better to buy a tourniquet.
I was going to endorse my return check this year and send it directly to the Kerry campaign, but the total amount I got back this year was embarrassingly small. Instead, I gave back the last several years of tax cuts, and more with the donations. That's my deficit protest. I've given $250 to the DNC, $600 to the Kerry campaign (so far), $250 to the ACLU, and $250 to Planned Parenthood. This surpasses my tax cuts these last three years, which add up to about $1200.
Error number 2: higher tax rates do not equate to "less money in everyones' pocket," or less wealth. Republicans always obscure this point. The economy did pretty well in the 1950s, despite a 95 percent tax bracket. (No, I don't think we should go back to those days, and yes, I think the tax system must be reformed. But the Republicans are divided between the deceived, the deceivers, and the deceived deceivers. Currently, they are in no state to reform taxes.)
Error number 3: If the Kerry's paid 12 percent of their income (don't confuse "income" with wealth,) they paid a higher percentage than most people in their bracket. (BTW, why the complaint? I thought low taxes for the rich were supposed to stimulate the economy?) I'm lower middle class, and they surpassed my tax payments by a factor of 80. I believe conservatives like to point out that the top 20 percent of income earners pay 60 percent of the taxes? What, a mere three times of the rest of the brackets?
Just by that standard, the Kerrys are overtaxed compared to their bretheren. They are the best of the wealthy. There are some of them...
Error number 4: I believe Reagan's economy had similar "smoke and mirrors" that collapsed pretty damn fast, too. Remember that single day 500 point bust? Remember the junk bond scandles? The S&L scandals? Every booming economy has its share of "irrational exuberence," along with just plain thievery. Reagan's moralism did not spare us from that.
Are you upset that your astounding arguments didn't cause me to prostrate myself in awe? I'm sorry, you've got to work harder, and actually study economics.
I sincerely believe most Republicans, Conservatives, or people with money don't mind paying a progressive tax. They just don't want to pay an abusive progressive tax. If you make over $200K (Kerry's targeted audience) and live in a state w/a high tax rate, what is the incentive to work harder, be more creative, or take risks? With Kerry's plan, (Federal, state & local taxes), you would keep 40 cents on the dollar. Why would I want to work? Would somebody please tell me what would be an acceptable tax rate (fed, state and local) that they would be willing to pay over $200K?
Do you know who I feel sorry for? The small business owner, which I am not. He or she decides to open a small business. They refinance their house, take out a home equity loan, borrow against their credit card, whatever. They work 60 or 80 hours a week to get their business going. Statistically they will most likely lose money in the first 2 years. Finally the hard work pays off, and let's say they make $250K in year 3. Boom, Kerry considers them wealthy and hits them w/the new increased marginal tax rate.
we are doing great. We did very well under the last admin, as well. We have options as to how we set up our business, S corp for me. Bob
I just happen to be that small business owner who has taken the neccessary risks to build a successful business from nothing over the years. I also take the risk of hiring salaried help & paying their benefits, buying inventories, insurance, equipment, leasing offices, pay for accountants, attorneys, advertising, general overhead & more items that are all a blur to kerry's slackers waiting for their handout of free cheese.
So here comes this Doofuss kerry with his tax plan for the "rich" like me who succeed after daily 15 hour work days, ready to chisle out more of my bottom line for his "greater good". Meanwhile, his Queen Teresa pays 12% on $5 million earned in 2004. For Chrissakes, 12%. I want THAT kerry plan!
Again, it's two-faced that those kerryites who are in the so-called underground cash economy & report nothing to the IRS, love his plan to soak the rest of us. (Memo to the unwashed HarryLime: the IRS doesn't care how the money was made, legally or not with providers, they just want their reported cut).
And for the warped who still get a boner over the wonderful thought of fewer bucks in everyone's pocket, you'll love kerry's tax orgy to come on liquor, cigarettes and gas--all of which he has position papers published in the Senate record to "discourage" the use of these sins in our society. Careful what you wish for, kerry klowns.
First, let me say I am not against tax cuts if done at the right time and done properly. When bringing a country into a war, it is not the proper time to lower taxes. It has not stimulated the economy the way it was supposed to. To give people a $400 cash advance and then tax it on the next years tax return is not the proper way to do it either.
I am a small business owner and since the tax cuts, my tax burden has increased. The state and local gov't lost Fed funding due to the tax cuts and the locals had to raise taxes to offset the loss. I am making less money due to the shitty economy, paying more in taxes and still watching current and potential clients file bankruptcy.
Sorry, but it is time for a change. W had his chance, he mucked it up just like every other venture he ever had, only this time daddy cannot fix it for him.
Uh- dude.
But then Bush got into a NEEDLESS war to the tune of about 250BILLION dollars THAT DON'T EXIST IN THE KITTY.
I vastly prefer tax and spend to "BORROW and SQUANDER", Bush's plan!