Another government Stimulas package

[run_to_win]

Funny how when the GOP is in power and they have the ability to curb spending, it's all about tax cuts+foreign wars. 

Tax cuts for people who pay taxes tends to increase government revenues.  http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=676

Too bad the "rhinos"didn't combine tax cuts with reduced spending. 

Foreign wars?  How many 2/26s, 11/13s, 6/25s, 8/7s, 10/12s and 9/11s are you willing to take?

The majority of us supported Iraq based on the evidence at the time.

[Spider-Dan]

Here's the thing: Democrats don't pretend to be the party of fiscal conservatism and limited government.  Obama was pretty upfront with his plans to increase taxes on the upper tiers of earners, and also pretty upfront with his plans to significantly grow the gov't.

I grow tired of the GOP crying "tax cuts, less gov't!" to try to get into office and then spending just like Democrats when they get in.

[run_to_win]

I grow tired of the GOP crying "tax cuts, less gov't!" to try to get into office and then spending just like Democrats when they get in.

You ain't the only one!

The GOP does deliver on tax cuts though, it's the less gov't and less spending where they fail.

[Dphins4me]

Here's the thing: Democrats don't pretend to be the party of fiscal conservatism and limited government.  Obama was pretty upfront with his plans to increase taxes on the upper tiers of earners, and also pretty upfront with his plans to significantly grow the gov't.

I grow tired of the GOP crying "tax cuts, less gov't!" to try to get into office and then spending just like Democrats when they get in.

Not disagreeing with you on this. 

Again my question.  Where is this money coming from?  We are spending ourselves into oblivion.

[Spider-Dan]

So then, if you are concerned with fiscal policy, shouldn't you be more in favor of the Dems than the GOP?

Democrats tax-and-spend, but that's still better than borrow-and-spend.

[Dphins4me]

So then, if you are concerned with fiscal policy, shouldn't you be more in favor of the Dems than the GOP?

Democrats tax-and-spend, but that's still better than borrow-and-spend.

Nope.  They have both been in power for decades & they both have over spent with extreme focus on growing the Gov.

[Spider-Dan]

Yes, but one of them is upfront about it.  The other one tells you that they are going to shrink gov't and cut spending, then does the opposite.

[run_to_win]

So then, if you are concerned with fiscal policy, shouldn't you be more in favor of the Dems than the GOP?

Democrats tax-and-spend, but that's still better than borrow-and-spend.

That statement just shows that democrats don't understand how tax cuts/increases affect revenue.

From 1997...

Tax Cuts vs. Government Revenue

In each of the last three cuts in marginal tax rates, revenues received by the U.S. Treasury have increased. Coolidge cut income tax rates in the 1920s, Kennedy cut marginal income tax rates in the 1960s, and Reagan cut them in the 1980s.

Under Coolidge, marginal income tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 24%. The economy rewarded this policy by expanding 59% from 1921 to 1929. Revenues received by the federal treasury increased from $719 million in 1921 to more than $1.1 billion 1929. That's a 61% increase (there was zero inflation in this period). Growth averaged more than six percent annually. We are currently growing at 2.5%.

Under Kennedy, marginal income tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. In real dollar terms, the economy grew by 42%, an average of 5 percent a year from 1961 to 1965. Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury increased by 62%. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third.

Under Reagan, marginal income tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1997, Office of Management and Budget. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990.

In each case, the personal income taxes paid by "the rich" increased when their tax rates were cut.  The top 10 percent of earners in the Reagan years paid 48% of the income tax burden between 1981 and 1988.

Regarding your remarks about tax hikes, there is a correlation between the Bush and Clinton tax hikes and a change in the revenue received by the Treasury. Martin Feldstien, professor of economics at Harvard, estimates that the U.S. Treasury would have collected two-thirds more revenue during the first three years of the Clinton presidency had his administration NOT raised taxes. It should be stressed, however, that the economy of the 1990s has grown moderately, in spite of tax increases, not because of them.

The reason that much of this data is ignored in debates is politics, pure politics. It pays to engage in class warfare if you are a politician because it divides voters against each other. When the perception is that only the "rich" will profit from a tax cut, such policies become difficult to sell because those labeled as "rich" tend to be in the minority.
 
In addition, politicians have a stake in keeping the tax code complex because it allows them to extract campaign donations and favors from people and corporations who derive huge benefits from special tax laws and exemptions in return.

http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=676

[bsmooth]

Tax cuts for people who pay taxes tends to increase government revenues.  http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=676

Too bad the "rhinos"didn't combine tax cuts with reduced spending. 

Foreign wars?  How many 2/26s, 11/13s, 6/25s, 8/7s, 10/12s and 9/11s are you willing to take?

The majority of us supported Iraq based on the evidence at the time.

The mob wanted blood, and our elected leaders failed to do what they are supposed to do, make rational decisions based on fact and not which way the polls point.

[Dphins4me]

Yes, but one of them is upfront about it.  The other one tells you that they are going to shrink gov't and cut spending, then does the opposite.

  Not deny that.  The GOP created their own mess.  They promised to do away with the Dept of Education & expanded it beyond the realm of reasonable.

IMO both parties, even though they are at odds have the same motive.  Control the people.  The sad thing is the people are to interested in American Idol to care.  They turn a deaf ear of this, then bitch about it when its done.

[Spider-Dan]

That statement just shows that democrats don't understand how tax cuts/increases affect revenue.

Why are you citing figures on revenue instead of, you know, actual national debt accrual?

If you are "increasing revenue" but you are simultaneously setting money on fire MUCH faster than you're bringing it in, and you ran your campaign on a promise to reduce spending and shrink gov't, how can you possibly claim that you are doing what you were elected to do?

Isn't the national debt the bottom line?

[Dphins4me]

  Well, it looks like the Government Growth Package will pass soon.   Its a sad day to be an American.   One day maybe when times get bad enough the people will actually start holding their elected officials to a standard in performance, but that is not today.

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul


I guess Obama's fear mongering worked to help get this done.

[run_to_win]

Isn't the national debt the bottom line?

It should be.  Is it not as simple as taking in more revenue than your spend?

Revenues need to be increased.  Lowering taxes accomplishes that is most scenarios.

Spending needs to be curtailed or even reduced.  This is where government traditionally fails.

[run_to_win]

Its a sad day to be an American. 

I don't know that it's a sad day, but is a scary day with an uncertain future.  Some economists claim that we've already begun to right the ship.  For example, housing sales are actually up in many areas. 

I've heard that without any government action this would have lasted 18 months at most.  With government action ... all I can think about is FDRs New Deal extending the Great Depression by 7 years.  WWII ultimately pulled of out of that - in large part because approximately 20% of the work force got drafted and were put to work over the course of the war. 

I vaguely remember the Carter years and the claims of "here comes inflation on steroids" sends a chill down my back. 

[bsmooth]

I don't know that it's a sad day, but is a scary day with an uncertain future.  Some economists claim that we've already begun to right the ship.  For example, housing sales are actually up in many areas. 

I've heard that without any government action this would have lasted 18 months at most.  With government action ... all I can think about is FDRs New Deal extending the Great Depression by 7 years.  WWII ultimately pulled of out of that - in large part because approximately 20% of the work force got drafted and were put to work over the course of the war. 

I vaguely remember the Carter years and the claims of "here comes inflation on steroids" sends a chill down my back. 

Actually things were improving from 33-36 until FDR caved to pressure from the other side and made cuts. This started a new recesion.