Interesting article from Slate.com. Sorry about the bad formatting on the table. if you work at it, you can figure it out. __________ chatterbox Repeal All Bush's Tax Cuts We'd still have at least four more years of deficits. But it's a start. By Timothy Noah Posted Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 4:47 PM PT Somebody—I heard somebody say, well, what we need to do is have a tax increase to pay for this. That's an absurd notion. You don't raise taxes when an economy is recovering. Matter of fact, lower taxes will help enhance economic recovery. —President Bush, Sept. 10. So much for Chatterbox's distant hope, expressed in this column two days ago, that Bush would come "to his fiscal senses" and scale back the three tax cuts he's enacted since assuming office. Since then, Chatterbox has been looking at the numbers. Scaling back the tax cuts, it turns out, won't do the job. They have to be eliminated entirely. When you add Bush's $87 billion request, which will almost certainly be approved, to a budget deficit that the Congressional Budget Office had already estimated at $480 billion for fiscal year 2004 (which will begin Oct. 1), that pushes the deficit up to $567 billion. This $567 billion estimate assumes that the economic recovery will accelerate. It does not take into account additional spending for the likely introduction of a prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. Still, for simplicity's sake, let's say next year's budget deficit will be $567 billion. According to Robert McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice, a labor-backed nonprofit whose data on tax policy have proven extremely reliable over the years, the combined revenue loss from Bush's three tax bills for fiscal year 2004 will be $266 billion. Even if the Bush tax cuts are fully repealed, then, the budget deficit for fiscal year 2004 will still be a not-inconsiderable $301 billion. Given the enormous size of the Bush deficit, there seems little point in presidential candidates John Kerry and John Edwards proposing that we cancel some of but not all the Bush tax cuts. What would middle- and lower-income people lose if the pre-Bush tax code were restored? Not much. According to a June 4 study by Citizens for Tax Justice, by the end of this decade the average combined Bush tax reduction for everyone except the richest one percent of the population would be only 5 percent. (That's less than a third of the average combined Bush tax reduction for the richest one percent of the population.) The fact that Bush's tax cuts were heavily tilted toward the rich makes it relatively easy for most of us to ponder giving them up. As for President Bush's worry that a tax hike right now would spoil the current fragile economic recovery, a $301 billion budget deficit ought to provide sufficient stimulus. Besides, aren't we supposed to make sacrifices during wartime? Think of it this way: A $567 billion deficit represents a fiscal emergency no less urgent than the military emergency in Iraq. Just as it won't do for Congress to dither about the money the president needs to bring stability to Iraq and Afghanistan, neither will it do for Congress to dither over how much of Bush's tax policy to repeal. It should chuck the whole thing as of the next calendar year. (It's too late to yank back the tax cuts people are counting on this April 15.) Do you think Chatterbox is being alarmist? Let's match CBO's (fairly optimistic) deficit projections through the end of this decade with McIntyre's estimates of revenue loss due to the Bush tax cuts. The following chart doesn't include McIntyre's calculation that the Bush tax cuts will further cost Uncle Sam $247 billion in interest through 2010. And it makes the improbable assumption that Iraq will be entirely self-governing by this time next year. Here, then, is a Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm version of America's projected fiscal health: 2004* 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Deficit (CBO esti mate) $567 bn $341 bn $225 bn $203 bn $197 bn $170 bn $145 bn Revenue loss due to Bush tax cuts (McIntyre estimate) $266 billion $172 billion $180 billion $186 billion $201 billion $188 billion $234 billion Deficit (or surplus) if Bush tax cuts were revoked $301 billion deficit $169 billion deficit $45 billion deficit $17 billion deficit $4 billion surplus $18 billion surplus $89 billion surplus *Bush's $87 billion request has been added to the CBO estimate. What does this chart say? It says that if we cancel all Bush's tax cuts, we can maybe, using the rosiest possible assumptions, balance the budget within five years. If we don't cancel Bush's tax cuts, the budget deficit will remain in three digits through the end of this decade. (For Citizens for Tax Justice's more pessimistic—and probably more accurate—picture of what Bush's tax cuts will cost, click here.) What are we waiting for? Prominent Democrats in Congress are making empty threats either to withhold the $87 billion Bush requested or to match it with new domestic spending. Well, sure, they're politicians. What about the editorial pages of the liberal New York Times and the less-liberal but fiscally responsible Washington Post? Both this week scolded Bush about the tax cuts' irresponsibility in light of his latest budget request (click here for the Times and here for the Post). But neither editorial page has spelled out precisely how much of those tax cuts we ought to repeal. For that you have to look, oddly enough, at the public statements of presidential candidates Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean, both of whom forthrightly state the Bush tax cuts should be revoked in their entirety. Dean had the best line on this at the Sept. 8 Democratic presidential debate: I'm not going to raise taxes. We're just going to go back to the same taxes that Bill Clinton had, because I think most people in America would be glad to pay the taxes they paid when Bill Clinton was the president of the United States, if they could only have the economy they had when Bill Clinton was president of the United States. Amen.
Silly, that would be RAISING taxes because the tax rates were higher under Clinton. Tax rate cuts do not affect the economy immediately, but it takes time for them to work their magic. And for all you who just get so mad when the evil rich buy a yacht or a Corvette or a private plane because of increased disposable income due to tax cuts remember: There was a salesman who sold them that boat, car, plane or house. He has more money and more sales. What about the companies who make yachts, luxo-cars and private planes? They are forced to expand to meet demand and hire more workers. So top marginal tax cuts help the common man as much as the rich. Suspend your jealousy of the rich and their money and realize that they mostly had to work their ASS off to get there. Read a book called The Millioniare Next Door . It will change your mind about how you feel about the "rich." I think it is funny that Clinton was the beneficiary of the Reagan tax cuts, as the economy exploded due to them and the new technologies being developed. Clinton (and any other president for that matter) had no more to do with that economy than I did. The only thing a president can do to stimulate economic activity is to cut taxes and that takes time to take affect.
OK. Clinton's the beneficiary of Reagan's tax cuts, but wouldn't he also be penalized by Bush I's tax hikes? Or is that what's wrong now?
Did you read the article at all? Can you make a substantive refutation using evidence or are you going to brush off a well documented economic analysis made by a Princeton Economics professor with two paragraphs that are debunked by the article we are supposed to be commenting on?
It's rather easy for anyone, even one of those Princeton Phd's (Piled-Higher and Deepers) to fit statistics to fit their agenda. Krugman is a classic leftist who believes that you, the individual are too stupid to be entrusted with your own money. Therefore, your caring Big Brother Imperial Federal government knows better than you, so pay up chump. I don't have time to sit there and debunk his piece (along with every bit of liberal b.s. on the opinion pages of nearly every paper in the country, including my own employer ) blow-by-blow, but I prefer to simplfy what he overcomplicates. Sending more money to the Federal govt. is lunacy, plain and simple. I could come up with so much waste, so many agencies that lose millions of dollars and yet Krugman wants us to give them more money to waste! Why do we need Social Security and Mediscare anyhow? I'm tired of having to foot the bill by having my check docked so that lazy SOB's can get a free ride at my expense. If people were forced to take care of things like that on their own, they would find a way to do so, or face the consequences. There is no greater freedom than operating sans a lifeline, because you have no choice but to succeed. When you just give away something, like in the case of Mediscare, people will go the path of least resistance rather than get a job and pay for their own medical care, which, by the way, is not a right at all. As for social security, it was nothing more than a vote-buying scheme by FDR to give the Dems a perpetual issue to bash the GOP on. Social Security should be done away with. Cut it off and let people find a way to take care of their own retirement instead of having more of my money (which I will never see again, invest in the stock market or any other economically stimulating activity) taken out of my check. It is broke and it should be allowed to die. My points are not debunked by Krugman's looooooooong article. What, did you think that his research would repudiate his liberal core beliefs? Of course not. All I'm saying is that he is dead wrong and just because he is at Princeton and is supposedly "highly respected," maybe in lefty, Birkenstock-wearing, America-bashing, tree-hugging, Bush-hating, cougar-cuddling circles doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about.
It's rather easy for anyone, even one of those Princeton Phd's (Piled-Higher and Deepers) to fit statistics to fit their agenda bamaslammer Ok, so why don't you try? The only thing a president can do to stimulate economic activity is to cut taxes and that takes time to take affect. bama Econ 101 says government spending stimulates the economy., Therefore, your caring Big Brother Imperial Federal government knows better than you, so pay up chump Sending more money to the Federal govt. is lunacy, plain and simple Why do we need Social Security and Mediscare anyhow? I'm tired of having to foot the bill by having my check docked so that lazy SOB's can get a free ride at my expense. All I'm saying is that he is dead wrong and just because he is at Princeton and is supposedly "highly respected," maybe in lefty, Birkenstock-wearing, America-bashing, tree-hugging, Bush-hating, cougar-cuddling circles doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about So I take it your in the camp of let's deliberately create a huge deficit so that it will be difficult to pay for government programs. Why don't you guys just come out with the plan instead of lying to the American people? Afraid your ideas will be rejected?
bamaslammer, if your objective is to provide a ridiculous caricature of right wing misconceptions and moronic republican platitudes regarding the deficit and tax cuts, you're doing a hell of a good job of it. The very first section of the first Krugman article is entitled "The Cartoon and the Reality" Guess which one you are? Why did you bother posting in this thread about matters which you so plainly know nothing, especially in comparison to Krugman, before reading the article? Case in point, you advance, in one of your posts, the absurd premise that economic growth in the late 1990's is the result of tax cuts in the mid 1980's, saying htat Clinton was the beneficiary of Reagan's tax cuts. The article specifically deconstructs this logic, as, among other reasons, its akin to saying economic growth in the 80's was the result of increased spending by LBJ in the 60's Rather than letting you drag the discussion down any further by arguing with a cartoon, I'm going to suggest you actually read the article, I know its long, but you could probably get through it if you tried, you might learn something. Happy reading!
I read it and I wasn't impressed. Your buddy Krugman twisted the statistics to fit his ideological bent, nothing more. I'm tired of these people telling me that it is not morally correct for me to keep more of my own money, that I'm selfish, greedy, heartless, etc. etc. Damnit, I worked for that money. I went to college, got an education and did it the right way, yet these liberals want MORE out of my pocket? The Imperial Federal Government consumes more of the GDP than ever (thanks a lot Bush for letting the Democrats tell you what to do spending-wise) before while producing NOTHING except red tape and checks to people who aren't willing to make the sacrifices and take the risks I have. All of the spending of the New Deal never improved the economy, but when World War II came along, the massive defense buildup knocked us out the Depression. One thing Krugman misses the boat entirely on is when he accuses us of not having high taxes as compared to the rest of the world. I respond simply, I don't want to be compared with the rest of the world and their devotion to stupid socialism. What about the tax increases under Clinton and Bush the elder, Mr. Krugman? Did you just forget about the largest tax increase in American history under Clinton? The Great Society was supposed to destroy poverty as we knew it. But now, forty years later, the same percentage of folks poor in the sixties are poor now! Why keep feeding the Poverty Pentagon when increased spending on socialist giveaways does no good and increases a cycle of dependency. Also, one could easily fault the Great Society on destroying the black family unit in the inner city, as women found a government check and not a husband to be a more stable source of income to support their child/children. To get rid of those programs eventually is not a hidden goal, but should be strived for by everyone (like myself) who believes in Constitutionally mandated, limited government. The only way to get rid of these useless, wasteful programs that don't work is to starve them into non-existence, which I don't have a problem with. So call me heartless, at least I'm honest. I see that Krugman is engaging the classic lib strategy of scare people into continued support for programs that are useless, wasteful and counterproductive. On education, the local school boards should be able to fund education. Funny thing is that our kids don't get a decent education now and we spend more money per pupil than ever before!!!! What your great liberal deity Krugman fails to mention (illustrating my point about hm) that elderly Americans are the most wealthy of Americans. Go to any casino and you will see the oldsters spending gross sums on gambling, while complaining to me that they "can't afford" to pay for prescription drugs. Where is it said they have a right to take money out of my pocket to pay for their prescription drugs? If they did with ski masks and guns, that would be robbery, but using the police power of government to do it, it's only fair? Sure. And can Krugman explain why Federal tax revenues went through the roof when the amount of deductions was cut along with the top rates? He, of course, doesn't not mention that growing Federal treasury in the eighties because it wouldn't illustrate his point. That proves that supply-side economics does work. People like Krugman who want you and to pay more taxes for the so-called "services" If you want to pay more taxes to a corrupt, bloated Federal govt that has so many agencies that "lose" millions of dollars and have no idea where it went and perpetually will bleed you dry to fund more vote-buying schemes like this prescription drug "benefit" that will bankrupt us, be my guest. But do so voluntarily and let people like me, who believe that they should keep more of their own money (not the govt's money), keep what they slave to earn.
You see, you say you read it, but I don't think you actually read it. The whole point of the article is that nobody is trying to take "MORE" out of your pocket. I doubt your pockets are deep enough for that to be the case. See, passages like this are the ones that make me think you didn't read the article: "The Imperial Federal Government consumes more of the GDP than ever" This is absolutely, flat out, 100% dead wrong. The exact opposite is true. Revenues, Outlays, Surpluses, Deficits, and Debt Held by the Public, 1962-2002 Code: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (As a percentage of GDP) Surplus or Deficit (-) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Debt Held by the Public Revenues Outlays On-Budgeta Social Security Postal Servicea Total -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1962 17.5 18.8 -1.0 -0.2 n.a. -1.3 43.6 1963 17.8 18.5 -0.7 -0.1 n.a. -0.8 42.3 1964 17.5 18.5 -1.0 0.1 n.a. -0.9 40.0 1965 17.0 17.2 -0.2 * n.a. -0.2 37.9 1966 17.3 17.8 -0.4 -0.1 n.a. -0.5 34.8 1967 18.3 19.4 -1.6 0.5 n.a. -1.1 32.8 1968 17.6 20.5 -3.2 0.3 n.a. -2.9 33.3 1969 19.7 19.3 -0.1 0.4 n.a. 0.3 29.3 1970 19.0 19.3 -0.9 0.6 n.a. -0.3 27.9 1971 17.3 19.4 -2.4 0.3 n.a. -2.1 28.0 1972 17.6 19.6 -2.2 0.3 n.a. -2.0 27.4 1973 17.6 18.7 -1.2 * n.a. -1.1 26.0 1974 18.3 18.7 -0.6 0.1 n.a. -0.4 23.8 1975 17.9 21.3 -3.5 0.1 n.a. -3.4 25.3 1976 17.2 21.4 -4.1 -0.2 n.a. -4.2 27.5 1977 18.0 20.7 -2.5 -0.2 n.a. -2.7 27.8 1978 18.0 20.7 -2.5 -0.2 n.a. -2.7 27.4 1979 18.5 20.1 -1.5 -0.1 n.a. -1.6 25.6 1980 18.9 21.6 -2.7 * n.a. -2.7 26.1 1981 19.6 22.2 -2.4 -0.2 n.a. -2.6 25.8 1982 19.1 23.1 -3.7 -0.2 n.a. -4.0 28.6 1983 17.4 23.5 -6.0 * n.a. -6.0 33.0 1984 17.3 22.1 -4.8 * n.a. -4.8 34.0 1985 17.7 22.9 -5.4 0.2 n.a. -5.1 36.4 1986 17.5 22.5 -5.4 0.4 n.a. -5.0 39.6 1987 18.4 21.6 -3.6 0.4 n.a. -3.2 40.6 1988 18.1 21.2 -3.9 0.8 n.a. -3.1 40.9 1989 18.3 21.2 -3.8 1.0 * -2.8 40.5 1990 18.0 21.8 -4.8 1.0 * -3.9 42.0 1991 17.8 22.3 -5.4 0.9 * -4.5 45.4 1992 17.5 22.2 -5.5 0.8 * -4.7 48.2 1993 17.6 21.5 -4.6 0.7 * -3.9 49.5 1994 18.1 21.0 -3.7 0.8 * -2.9 49.4 1995 18.5 20.7 -3.1 0.8 * -2.2 49.2 1996 18.9 20.3 -2.3 0.9 * -1.4 48.5 1997 19.3 19.5 -1.3 1.0 * -0.3 46.0 1998 19.9 19.1 -0.3 1.1 * 0.8 43.0 1999 20.0 18.6 * 1.4 * 1.4 39.7 2000 20.8 18.4 0.9 1.6 * 2.4 35.1 2001 19.8 18.6 -0.3 1.6 * 1.3 33.1 2002 17.9 19.5 -3.1 1.6 * -1.5 34.3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Congressional Budget Office. Look at the outlays category. As you can see, the level of spending by the" Imperial Federal Government "to GDP DECLINED throughout the 1990's. For your statement that it spends,"more" than ever to be correct, the outlays category would have to be greater than 23.5%, which was the highest of the last 40 years (under Reagan). Currently, it's at 19.5%. 19.5<23.5, get it? Of course, it's not as low as it was at the close of the Clinton years, 18.4%, but oh well. It has recently increased, due mostly to increased defense spending. That information comes from the CBO, a non-partisan independent government agency whose job it is to know such things. I don't blame you for not knowing this off hand. I do blame you for buying in to the stupid propaganda that this article exposes and using it as a rebuttal thereto. Regarding your point that "One thing Krugman misses the boat entirely on is when he accuses us of not having high taxes as compared to the rest of the world. I respond simply, I don't want to be compared with the rest of the world and their devotion to stupid socialism" Actually, he also compares them to that of Eisenhower-era America, ,and they're about the same as they were then. Which means they are lower than they were at any point in between. No, in fact he treats it in subsection 4. Once again, I question whether or not you read the article. That's a nice sermon but has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Discretionary outlays on non-defense fed government programs, which includes everything from law enforcement to NEA spending to homeland security, are at about 3.5% of GDP, down from a high of around 5% They've risen from 3% at the end of the Clinton era, btw. As much as you don't want to believe it, programs that you support, such as invading Iraq, buying bombs, etc, cost money too. Once again, I doubt whether or not you read the article. And how will they do that? Magic beans or raising your property taxes? You won't mind when they do, right? Isn't that what your governor just tried to do, raise money on the local level? I know, it seems like President Bush's "Leave No Child Behind Act" is a big waste of time and money with a snappy slogan!!! Yes, those gambling oldsters stealing my money for nitroglycerin..they suck...wait, what? Oh yeah, we were talking about macroeconomics here. Again, I doubt you read the article. Again, I point you to subsection 4. I'm not going to do your work for you. Read the article. Blah, blah, lah, blah. Have you cited one iota of factual proof throughout this entire missive? No? Ok then. Look, it's obvious you have an agenda, anybody who goes around blabbing about the "imperial federal government" usually does. You can believe whatever propaganda you like, but don't whine when you get the bill. I don't. THe problem is this: Republicans are increasing spending, and decreasing revenues, knowing that it will ceate a massive debt disaster, to prove a point, that life in the 1920's and before worked better than in the 1960's. I don't feel like funding their little experiment. Do you?
your joking right? that is the only conclusion i can come to for this serverly ignorant statement. Reagen era of supply side economics = huge debt, high crime, recession.. Clinton era of responsible and REALISTIC taxation and spending = economic boom, crime droping, and reducing poverty levels...
Where'd you go to school? It wouldn't be a state college partially supported by federal research dollars would it? Did you pay tax-payer subsidized in-state tuition? Did you pay all by yourself or did you take advantage of student loan programs? Did you drive to college in a safe vehicle while using state and federal roads? Did you eat federally inspected foods at college? Did you breathe clean air? Drink clean water? Did you know when to wear a raincoat? Did you ever visit a national or state forest or park during spring break? Did you ever fly on an airplane to visit relatives? Have you died of malaria or contracted polio?
Fantastic points, rimrocker. Nobody makes it on "their own." We *all* got help along the way, be it free public education, subsidized immunizations, food banks, libraries or federally subsidized college loans or grants. If one person makes it, it's because of hard work, yes, but also due to help from countless others -- taxpayers who helped with your college bill, teachers who pushed you to work, judges who kept your street clean, health care workers who provided service to disadvantaged people who, in turn, were healthy enough to build your house, etc. Most of our success is traced to our parents' socio-economic status, but every single person reading this post has gotten help through federal and state programs at some point. Maybe *you* only needed "some" government assistance, but that doesn't mean others had your advantages. It's disturbing that once people "get theirs," they run inside, slam all the doors, and lock all the windows.
Rimrocker....... Just because I happen to travel on interstates or went to school on the GI Bill mean that govt and not myself is responsible for my success. What does the govt have to do with me not wearing a raincoat or not. I passed all the tests. I interviewed for my sportswriting and radio gigs. So what if I went to a public school? My wife and I paid for everything else while I was in college, even while supporting two lovely children. We sacrificed personally for me to get where I am today. There are some legit things that the Imperial Federal Govt does. The interstates was one of them. Our defense dept. is another. But there are so many unnecessary things like prescription drug benefits, Social Security and other entitlements that are simply a way for people to use the vote box to get treasure transferred from those who sacrifice for success to those who simply exist for a handout. So I'm by in large responsible for my success. So what does that mean to all those who support the govt. digging deeper into my pockets because you're jealous? It means, keep out! Go sacrifice and earn YOUR own money. Quit relying on the govt to sweep up behind you and pay for things you should take care of.
Originally posted by bamaslammer I'm tired of these people telling me that it is not morally correct for me to keep more of my own money, that I'm selfish, greedy, heartless, etc. etc. Damnit, I worked for that money. I went to college, got an education and did it the right way, yet these liberals want MORE out of my pocket? Good point, RR. While we're at it though, since we're taking our money back, I'm going to request that Bamaslammer write out a check to me. Why? As I live in Manhattan and am taxed heavily for it, I am distressed to learn that crappy, poor, backwards Deep South states like Alabama siphon money away from rich states like my own and pay very little into the federal till in comparison. And they're still bankrupt! If Alabamans are too stupid and poor to make money, that's their own problem. I'm tired of these people telling me that it is not morally correct for me to keep more of my own money, that I'm selfish, greedy, heartless, etc. etc. Damnit, I worked for that money. I went to college, got an education and did it the right way, yet these poorly educated irresponsible, no money having Alabamans want MORE out of my pocket? BSlammer, I expect alabama's check to be in the mail. Soon.
Sure, you'll see my check to your sorry Manhattan-living, overpriced, living in sterotypes ass when: hell freezes over...... we elect Jerry Lewis president......... The WNBA becomes the most popular sport in America...... An Ivy League team wins the national championship in football...... It's your fault as a Manhattanite that your taxes are too high. If you keep electing socialists, that's what you're going to get. More taxes and less services. So I don't feel one bit sorry for you. Just because you live in that dirty hellhole of a city (I've lived there) doesn't mean you can look down upon the South. The only ignorance I see here is you. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
No, it's not. It's the fact that federalism, the fact that we allow for the electoral college, geographic representation in the senate, etc, is set up so that poor crappy states with rural populaces can live off of my hard earned dollars. Federal tax rates are the same in Alabama and NY. But since Alabama takes in more federal spending than it contributes, you make out like a bandit, while NY is the opposite, and I get screwed. It's a welfare system. And I can't do a thing about it next time Senator so-and-so from bungusville, AL decides that Alabama needs a new highway or a federal prison or munitions plant. Unfortunately, due to vagaries of our constitutional system, I can't vote in Alabama elections. So next time you are driving on a federally funded highway to your office or school or church or whatever, send me a thank you note. After all, I paid more for you to use it than you did.
For starters, I don't even live in AL anymore. I live roughly between Chattanooga and ATL (I work in both towns) and I lived a good bit of my life in Alabama. But I think about it this way. Imagine if the big states owned the purse strings. The poor would get poorer and the rich would get richer. That would not be correct (as far as representation is concerned) either. We are both equally represented in Congress for a reason. Junking our system that is worked for years and years because you don't like the fact we get more highway dollars or whatever is illogical.
Exactly! That is the best post you have had all day, and reason number 101 why the federal government is not a bad thing. That is the point I have been trying to make all day long, that there is room for government even in a capitalist system, that htere are public goods, with which we cannot do without, that private incentives will not create. There is hope for you yet.
