Someone Can’t Face Reality
Dec 2, 2011 Political
I received a message via my contact page from someone using the name L-Dog. The message came from an Alaska.gov server. More specifically, it came from the Department of Administration (or through their server, anyway). This is the message I received:
So if tax cuts create jobs, where are they. We have 7 or so years of the bush [sic] tax cuts and no job growth. So stop lying.
A lie, by definition, is a deliberate attempt to deceive. Since I did no such thing, then it is not a lie. But let us explore.
The Bush tax cuts took place in 2003 and went into full force in 2004 so yes, it has been about 7 years though there were earlier tax cuts. After the Bush tax cuts, 5 million jobs were created and the revenue to the Treasury increased. This is not to say things were great because Bush was a big spender. He and Congress spent far more than we took in though now those numbers pale in comparison to Obama.
The linked chart shows that from about 2000 to 2003 revenue decreased. There are a number of reasons including 9/11 and a recession. The Clinton tech bubble was bursting as well and the Federal Reserve raised interest rates 6 times from 1999-2000. From 2003 to 2007 revenues increased as a result of the tax cuts. In 2007 Democrats took control of Congress and revenues again began to decrease. We were also heading into another recession. It is also important to note that the first tax cuts of 2001 were to be phased in over several years and the economy and job production lagged in the early years.
Heritage published a report about the tax cuts and this, in part, is what that organization had to say:
In 2003, capital gains tax rates were reduced. Rather than expand by 36% as the Congressional Budget Office projected before the tax cut, capital gains revenues more than doubled to $103 billion.
The CBO incorrectly calculated that the post-March 2003 tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion. Revenues for 2006 came in $47 billion above the pre-tax cut baseline.
Here’s what else happened after the 2003 tax cuts lowered the rates on income, capital gains and dividend taxes:
- GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1%.
- The S&P 500 dropped 18% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32% over the next six quarters.
- The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
The timing of the lower tax rates coincides almost exactly with the stark acceleration in the economy. Nor was this experience unique. The famous Clinton economic boom began when Congress passed legislation cutting spending and cutting the capital gains tax rate.
In late 2007 the economy began to cool. By 2008, it entered a recession. The housing bubble burst, precipitating a financial crisis. But after 50 months of unimpeded growth, it is ludicrous to insist that the tax cuts caused the recession, let alone the global financial meltdown. Even after the Fannie and Freddie Mac-induced bust, there were still one million net jobs created during the Bush years.
So L-Dog of Alaska, the Bush tax cuts did indeed create jobs. The net gain was 1 million after a 5 million increase that was mostly wiped out by the government (read Democrat) induced trauma known as Fannie and Freddie.
Revenue increased, jobs were produced and the unemployment rate was in the 4-6 range. This happened despite a massive blow we took on 9/11.
Tax cuts, long term ones, create jobs because the private sector employers (government DOES NOT create jobs) know what to expect and are able to run their businesses accordingly. They can hire because they know what their tax burden will be. Uncertainty leads them to stop hiring and take a wait and see approach. Ronald Reagan cut taxes and he had tremendous job growth as well as increased revenue to the government.
If we could get government to stop spending what they take and then some we could get our house in order.
So, if tax cuts do not produce jobs why is Barack Obama running around claiming to be a tax cutter (he has raised them, not cut them)? Why did Democrats fight to keep the Bush tax cuts last year? They cited the problems with increasing taxes in a bad economy and how it would harm job growth so if tax cuts do not equal jobs why would they fight for the tax cuts enacted by a man they absolutely hated? Additionally, why did the Congress cut payroll taxes last year (the Social Security tax) if they thought it would not help.
A lot of things are working against any tax cuts and a major part is the out of control spending and the Keynesian economic policies that Obama embraces. You can’t keep spending money we don’t have to cure a spending problem. Tax cuts with discipline in DC will solve the problems.
When producers are taxed more it leaves them less capital to run their businesses and that means they can’t hire. When the tax situation is uncertain they are afraid to act.
So L-Dog, I hope this clears it up for you. I won’t call you a liar, just misinformed.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: alaska, Bush, department of administration, jobs, l-dog, reagan, revenue, tax cuts
The Debt Debate And Obama Lies
Jul 23, 2011 Political
The debate on raising the debt limit is hitting critical mass and there are a few things that are worth noting on the issue. Talks have reportedly broken down and Obama threw another tantrum last evening. It appears he is having problems because his base wants taxes raised and they insist that it all can’t be done with cuts alone. This is, of course, pure fabrication because there is enough waste in government along with unnecessary programs to balance the budget without raising taxes. Taxes are high enough and it is important to remember that when government talks about balancing cuts with taxes that the cuts take place over ten years and the taxes take effect immediately.
Democrats are in a tizzy and Obama is acting like a spoiled child who can’t get his way. He has resorted to scare tactics to get his point across and it is probably working with some groups of people who are not as informed as they should be. Obama’s tactics are terror tactics designed to gain compliance to his wishes by terrorizing those who have become enslaved to the government. He is also using the word default as in for the first time in our history we will default on our obligations. This is malarkey. We have enough money coming in to service our debt and a default is the inability to do that so no matter how times Sir Golfsalot says it, it isn’t true. We will not default on our debt. We will, however, not be able to pay for some of the things that politicians have promised in order to get votes. We might not be able to afford some of the agencies that are either not needed or have grown way too big and need to be smaller anyway.
No matter what, we will not default on our debt.
Obama is using terror against the elderly, those enslaved to government through forced participation in the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. Obama stated that if we do not settle this he can’t guarantee that Social Security checks go out in August. Really? We take in enough money each month to not only service our debt (which means we won’t default) but to also pay the recipients of Social Security the money they paid into a system that has been mismanaged by politicians. This should actually be a wake up call to the people who believed that government had the money to pay this obligation. The money has not been put away in a special trust fund. The money was moved to the general fund under LBJ, a Democrat, and has been spent on pet projects of politicians. They did what Bernie Madoff did and he is in jail.
Obama claims that he cannot guarantee those checks will go out but this is a lie. He can make that guarantee unless he has decided that there are other entities that need the money more, like say his union thug friends. The reality is that Obama can guarantee the checks go out and he should do that. In fact, the House should call his bluff and pass legislation that says that in the event a deal is not reached then the money must be spent to service the debt, pay Social Security recipients, and pay the military. After that they can do what they want with the rest. That would force the Senate to either side with Social Security recipients (as they claim they do) or vote against them. It would force Obama to do the same.
Republicans should stop playing games with this child and back him into a corner so that he is forced to make tough decisions. Force him to either sign it or screw over the Seniors. Force him and the Senate to make these decisions through legislation because negotiations are getting us nowhere.
Democrats say we must raise the debt ceiling in order to keep from going into default (a claim I have already addressed) but they are in a tizzy because there are no tax increases in these Republican offered bills. That brings up another point. Democrats have offered no solutions and have not offered a budget in two years. The only thing they know how to do is tax and spend. Barbara Mikulski, the gnome Senator from Maryland, is very upset that tax increases are not included in any of the plans. Mikulski is an idiot and should have been turned out to pasture a long time ago. She could not survive in the real world and the morons in Maryland keep reelecting her because she keeps giving them someone else’s stuff. Yes, this is why Babs (and the rest of the Democrats) want higher taxes. They want more of people’s money so they can give it to other people who will then vote for them. It is the same scheme that has caused this problem but she does not care.
I can understand why Obama is upset. He is in the position of having to beg Congress to do what he was unwilling to do when he was in the Senate. He must now admit to the world that the fact we are here asking to raise the debt ceiling is a lack of leadership. Those were his words when he was in the Senate and now he is forced to admit that he has been lacking as a leader. In fact, all Democrats in the Senate voted against raising the ceiling the last time and this is what Harry Reid had to say at the time:
“If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy.
How can the Republican majority in this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it’s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes. That’s what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation’s dependence on foreign creditors?
They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they’re right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it.
Keep in mind that Democrats want to increase the debt limit by 2.5 trillion dollars which is quite a bit more than Reid discussed above. They want to push this issue past the next election so they do not have to deal with it again.
In any event, Obama now has a record and people are far less impressed with his actions as they were with the words. Some folks have figured out that it was easy for Obama to talk but acting on the words was not so easy. They figured out that he was way more radical than he led them to believe and that he is not an effective leader. In fact, it has to be troubling to Obama that Ron Paul is within striking distance in the presidential polls.
So here we have a leader who spent like there was no tomorrow on programs that cost more money and failed to stimulate saying we have to be responsible with the debt while asking us to bump the credit limit another 2.5 TRILLION dollars. They promise cuts that will take place over ten years (and we know that never happens) while taxing us immediately. And yes, the taxes will hit all of us one way or another.
What could go wrong with this plan?
Here is an idea. Balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to force them to live within OUR means. Flat tax that all wage earners pay and cuts across the board to government with the elimination of unconstitutional or unnecessary programs and departments.
Until that time we need to take a new approach to slap people like Mikulski back into reality. Obama promised that if he were to get elected it would not be business as usual in DC. With that in mind, let’s do things a little differently. We want the cuts to the budget to be IMMEDIATE and the tax increases to be over ten years.
It is OUR money and dammit, it is time they listened to us tell them how to spend it.
One thing is certain. They don’t want to cut and they want to raise taxes but on August 2nd they are not going to have much of a choice. There will be a lot more cutting than they wanted to happen and it won’t take place over ten years.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Vote Down The Tax And Spend Bill
Dec 13, 2010 Political
The extension of the tax rates issue before Congress is heading toward critical mass because Democrats failed to address the issue prior to the election. Now it is up to the Lame Duck Congress to right the ship before tax increases take place next year. The problem is that the Democrats want to extend the rates only to the middle class while raising the tax rates for the wealthy (defined as those making more than $250,000 a year).
This is nothing more than classical class warfare. The Democrats will be the first to tell us that things were rosy when Bill Clinton was in office. Well, when he was in office the tax rates for everyone was higher. If they truly want to get back to what they perceived as a wonderful time then they should let the tax rates expire and raise taxes on everyone. Then the rates that supposedly brought us prosperity will once again be in place and we will have a wonderful life and Democrats can sing Happy Days Are Here Again.
Tax cuts increase revenue to the Treasury because people are able to keep more of what they earned with their blood, sweat and tears. They can keep the fruits of their labor and then spend the money and produce a vibrant economy. No nation has ever taxed itself to prosperity.
The issue here is nothing more than class warfare where Democrats pit the so called wealthy against the middle and lower classes. This is right out of the Democrat playbook and it is how they keep some members of society on their plantation. Stick with us folks and we will give you other people’s stuff. The unfortunate thing is that we have allowed people to grow up with an entitlement mentality. They feel they are entitled to the money of others. They even call the stuff they get entitlements even though they are forced redistribution of wealth.
The plan put forth is bad. It extends the tax rates (no cuts are made) for two years at which time this fight will reemerge. This is a short term and short sighted solution to the problem which will still leave doubt and uncertainty in the minds of the people who drive our economic machine.
To top it off, the deal comes with increased spending which will add to the deficit. Billions of dollars in spending is included in this plan and that is not good.
To further add insult to injury, the estate tax rate will increase by 35%. Currently, the rate is 0% so people who died (or will) this year were able to pass their wealth, wealth they have paid taxes on while it was being accumulated, without their heirs being socked with a huge tax bill. The deal will allow the government to take 35% of any estate over $5 million. This is a crime and should not be tolerated. What right does the government have to the money that a person accumulates for his heirs? NONE!
Smart planners do things before they die to keep this from happening but they should not have to do so. The government should not be taking this money. It was taxed at least once (and more likely several times) as it was accumulated. The government thinks it has the right to rape people after they are dead.
This deal is a bad deal and Republicans should not even be negotiating. They should tell Obama and the Democrats that the tax rates are to be extended permanently and that is the end of the story. Nothing added to the bill, no spending allowed, no add ons, no estate tax increases, no nothing.
If Obama does not like that then he should remember the words he used when he failed to negotiate with or include Republicans in his prior agenda, we won. It was Obama who made it clear that he was doing things the way he wanted because; “I won.” Well now we won and he will just have to deal with it.
Tax rates permanent or not at all. Let him and his Democrats face the public for allowing the rates to increase. They failed to do anything before the election and now they have to face the consequences of the last election and those consequences are, we won.
Remember, it was the Democrats who kept reminding us that elections have consequences so they would do well to remember that now.
As for the tax rates, they all get extended or none of them do.
If they all end up increasing then Democrats can look forward to the happy days they experienced under Bill Clinton. The old rates are his and Democrats think we did great under them so let’s raise them all.
Let us also keep in mind that Democrats always called the Bush tax cuts tax cuts for the rich. They have never acknowledged that the middle class got a tax cut. When they were running for office none of them ever said anything about the middle class. No, these were all tax cuts for the rich.
So let them expire because it will only affect the rich.
Funny though, the Democrats have always harped on how terrible the Bush tax cuts were but now Obama and Clinton (the co-presidents) are saying that this plan is what we need to stimulate the economy.
So once again, all or nothing. Let the rates go up. Obama will be a one term wonder and the country will be in the dumper and America will finally see what a failure Democrat economic policies really are.
Related:
The Hill
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: bad deal, Clinton, lies, Obama, tax cuts, tax increases
Who Are The Super Rich?
Oct 1, 2010 Political
Congress adjourned before getting to the Bush tax cuts because it is particularly volatile and these cretins have no spines so they could not take a chance on something that might cost them their jobs. Of course, if they did what their constituents wanted they might actually get reelected.
The Democrats had time for a Comedian to come in and waste time and money but had no time to work on the tax cut issue OR to even pass a budget.
The tax cut issue is contentious not only because of the Democrat definition of rich but also because of their idea that the rich can and should pay more. If you are an individual who makes more than $200,000 or a family that makes more than $250,000 congratulations, you are rich. Even though your largest single expense is likely to be your tax bill, they still want more from you. Even though you are nowhere near rich, they want to treat you as rich to get your money.
One of Obama’s neighbors explains it:
The biggest expense for us is financing government. Last year, my wife and I paid nearly $100,000 in federal and state taxes, not even including sales and other taxes. This amount is so high because we can’t afford fancy accountants and lawyers to help us evade taxes and we are penalized by the tax code because we choose to be married and we both work outside the home. (If my wife and I divorced or were never married, the government would write us a check for tens of thousands of dollars. Talk about perverse incentives.)
The piece is a good read and explains how people in this income bracket are not rich and how they cannot afford to pay more to the government, particularly when government is their single biggest expense.
The Democrats want to tax you to death and they want to run everything. Despite what the moron Robert Shrum says, Democrats will pay for this and will lose at least the House.
People are tired of being abused by government and they are going to make someone pay for this.
Many once safe Democrats are looking at dwindling poll numbers and many surprises could come in November’s election.
And that would be just fine.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Bush Tax Cuts Were For The Rich
Jul 16, 2010 Political
For a very long time we have heard the Democrats lie about the Bush tax cuts. They always characterize those cuts as tax cuts for the rich. In reality, the middle class and those who pay no taxes made out better than any other group and the rich still pay most of the taxes in this country. That has not stopped Democrats from describing the tax cuts as cuts for Bush’s rich friends.
The Bush tax cuts are set to expire which should not be a problem because the tax cuts were only for the rich. The Democrats have no problem raising taxes, especially on the rich, so allowing the tax cuts to expire and thereby raising the taxes of the rich should be a no brainer for Democrats.
But this is an election year so reality is setting in. The Democrats are now discussing extending the tax cuts for the middle class. In June Steny Hoyer said that tax increases would eventually be necessary in order to get our debt under control but that he expected Congress to temporarily extend the middle class tax cuts:
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Tuesday that tax increases will eventually be necessary to address the nation’s mounting debt, raising a difficult election-year issue as Democrats fight retain control of Congress.
~snip~
Tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush are scheduled to expire at the end of the year, affecting taxpayers at every income level. President Barack Obama proposes to permanently extend them for individuals making less than $200,000 a year and families making less than $250,000—at a cost of about $2.5 trillion over the next decade. Breitbart
So there you have it, an admission from a Democrat that the Bush tax cuts were not for the rich. The middle class had cuts as well as demonstrated by Hoyer. Certainly the rich had their taxes cut, everyone who pays taxes did (and those who do not got rebates and credits) and since they pay most of the taxes theirs went down as well.
So the next time a Democrat claims the tax cuts were for the rich ask him what he would say if it were an election year.
And while we are busting myths, let us look at the idea that tax cuts do not stimulate the economy. Democrats believe that taxing (especially the rich) is the way to pay the bills and that cutting taxes does not stimulate the economy.
They believe that until there is an election ahead at which time they talk about tax cuts to stimulate the economy. With regard to the middle class tax cut extension:
“What you want to do is stimulate at this point in time, so you certainly do not want to increase taxes on the middle class, middle-income working Americans,” Hoyer told reporters. Reuters
What you want to do is stimulate so you CERTAINLY DO NOT want to raise taxes.
This rests the case. Tax cuts, not tax increases, stimulate the economy.
If they would have practiced this instead of passing a trillion dollar stimulus we would be well on our way to recovery.
Rush Limbaugh laid out that plan and Obama should have listened.
Speaking of Limbaugh, where is the outrage from liberals who get their panties in a wad when conservatives talk about people and death?
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Bush, election, lies, middle class, Obama, steny hoyer, stimulus, tax cuts