Fear Of Facts And The 47%

If the recent Romney 47% dust up tells us anything, it’s that we have evolved our political discourse to the point where the truth must be avoided and facts discounted. Despite the fact that experts and pundits of all orientations have pointed out the fact on many occasions; 47% of us don’t pay Federal income taxes and it is roughly equivalent to those who receive government assistance. The fact is of no import; its only important if the candidate actually speaks it. Apparently, somehow, Mr. Romney, by identifying the truth is, well, you fill in the blank; it’s all on the table, from racism to xenophobia.

Should the 47% be upset with Mr. Romney; no!

It is true that 47% of the American people don’t pay Federal income taxes. Yes, yes they pay Medicare and Social Security taxes, money paid for a program that is supposed to end up being paid back to them. The fact that both programs are in dire financial straits does not break through the media’s opportunity to ‘paint’ the politics of it in a negative light.

Mr. Romney is correct, 47% of the folks will not vote for him, it’s no secret to anyone paying attention. The 47% enjoys Government largess of one sort or another and many, in fact, need help. Despite the reality that the economic facts all point to collapse, people want their ‘stuff’.

The 47% should consider that economic crisis will take their stuff away. Not as a function of a slow process but as a straw that breaks the Camel’s back. The ‘stuff’ is paid for with borrowing. The ‘stuff’ is paid for by the other 53% of the population, the ‘stuff’ is a not a permanent condition when trillion dollar a year deficits are in place to pay for it.

Hey, you, the 47%!! You want to keep, at least, some of your ‘stuff’? You want us to help those in need? Okay, we’re with you but a return to fiscal and economic sanity is the only way to accomplish it.

Let’s broaden the argument as food for thought. Nearly every nation on earth suffers crushing debt. Ask yourself, when does global debt crash economic systems to the point where that piece of paper you call money ends up being worthless??? We’ve seen it before; the Weimar Republic comes to mind, the famous photograph where a wheel barrel full of ‘money’ was needed to buy a loaf of bread. We’ve seen it in South America and in Africa where people are walking around with currency that says a piece of paper is worth a million and just 50 of them will get you a gallon of gas. In those cases the crisis was not global but the lesson remains.

Who suffers the worst in a collapse guaranteed by crushing debt and rampant inflation? The 47% does, it has always been that way, the history is clear.

The ‘stuff’ is not akin to the Biblical provision of ‘manna from heaven’. The ‘stuff’ is a function of the economic ability to provide it. We can argue over the validity of entitlements, we can argue over their structure, we can argue over dependency. We cannot argue with the fact that a collapsing economy, riddled with debt won’t deliver ‘stuff’ forever; or at least not much of it.

  • Bones

    If you’re implying that 47% of the population absolutely will simply not vote for Romney due to reliance on the government, then Romney has already lost the game. Because that leaves 53% of voters as free thinking individuals, and he needs to win the hearts and minds of all but 2% of them.

    Of course that’s an idolized view of how it works, and in reality it’s not one man, one vote that elects the president. But all the same, it’s bullocks. 47% of Americans are not needy, greedy, victims who vote for whoever will give them the most handouts.

    Anyone who believes that that’s who half of the American people are, that person doesn’t like America very much. And if that person says he believes America is the greatest country on earth, he’s only thinking about a very few parts when he says it. And if elected president, he will represent, at absolute best, 53% of this country.

  • B Weber

    Romney’s comments about the 47% freeloaders seem like they are those of a coddled rich kid. Yes he does seem out-of-touch with the middle class as advertized which is a pitty as I as a Republican was hoping for a lot more from our candidate. Needless to say I’m very disappointed and hoped for someone more intelligent to lead our party.

  • Landreaux

    Bones,

    My implication is that the 47% has the most to lose in a disfunctional, declining economy. Weather it’s seniors being slammed by inflation or a financial crisis that demands reductions in spending for those in the social safety net no good can come of an economy growing at 1.5% with debt in excess of GDP. The bottom of the economic scale, one way or another, always gets hit the hardest and to support the Obama economic views is to guarantee that the hurt is coming. I’m suggesting that they, the 47%, have another look around them.

  • Landreaux

    B,

    It’s not over yet, despite the Republican ‘establishment’ already beginning to cry doom and gloom. I understand the urgency but we have 10 political lifetimes to go through becore election day.

  • Angela

    I just want to say, that generally this may be true; but as one of those 47% who doesn’t pay income taxes, struggles to make ends meet, and currently receives state health care and food stamps, WE ARE VOTING FOR ROMNEY! We don’t want to be where we are (or as you point out worse!). We have dreams, and goals, and plans. We make sacrifices and work hard to move ahead and to fully provide for our family. We fully realize the dangers that another Obama term pose to not only ours dreams but to the whole country. This isn’t meant to sound deffensive, but to encourage. While the whole 47% thing may be generally true, it’s not entirely true! Keep up the good work here!

  • Bones

    Landreaux,

    My point is that the 47% you are advising here do not exist. They are a myth. A total fabrication, or perhaps a delusion.

    Do you know who the 47% is? They are largely the lowest income earners, combined with the elderly. To say that there are 47% of the population who will vote for Obama to preserve their government subsidies is to imply

    A) There are no poor Republican voters. Literally. None. All Republican voters pay income tax. Those who do not pay income tax are Democrats.

    B) The elderly vote 100% Democrat.

    These claims are so obviously false as to make me feel dumb for discussing them. But a presidential candidate has made these assertions, you are repeating them here, and so here I am trying to take them seriously. But it’s patently absurd, I literally do not understand how any free thinking individual could believe otherwise. The 47% of individuals who do not pay income tax are not a giant herd of Democrats. You may as well tell me that Bigfoot is colluding with Al Qaeda.

  • Nowhere in the article do I speak of voting for anyone and to take the 47% literally is, I agree, a bit of license that I’ve taken to make a point. The point is that a crasing economy hurts the least amongst us the worst and the quickest. CBO economic forecasts get worse and worse with each ‘revision’. I don’t see a macro economic number that shows the trend turning to a degree suffieient to address the morass we’re in. I would add that the contention that any group is 100% this way or that is not a free thinking point of view. The facts argue against it.

  • Bones

    I suppose I was mislead by your statement that “Mr. Romney is correct, 47% of the folks will not vote for him, it’s no secret to anyone paying attention.” But I’m glad this isn’t actually a serious point of discussion.

    On your point that the 47% too poor to have to pay income tax are liable to be the worst hit by economic collapse, I agree with you entirely. However, it seems like you’re asserting here that our economic collapse to the ‘stuff’ our government is giving out. And in my mind it’s important to note that the 47% who are not paying federal income tax are hardly the lone recipients of ‘stuff’.

    Mitt Romney himself received more than $4 million dollars in federally provided ‘stuff’ just last year. Over $4 million to just Mitt Romney and his wife. That’s $4 Million dollars that, had he been taxed at my rate (I work in human services) he would have owed to the government. That’s a lot of ‘stuff’ he’s getting.

    Our government pays out stuff in many ways and to many people, industries, and corporations. I don’t see the virtue in singling out federal income taxes or food stamps as if they’re the primary source of our economic woes. They’re not. They’re one piece in the rather large puzzle that is our economy. Focusing on solely on the 47% just isn’t productive.

  • Santos

    @Bones

    What $4 million are you referring to? Hadn’t heard that before, and I’m very interested to learn more.

    I assume you mean that $4 million was actually given to him, as opposed to just a $4 million tax break. Because a tax break, of course, is not money that is given to someone by the government, but rather, it is just being allowed to keep more of your own money that you earned yourself.

  • Landreaux

    Angela,

    I believe there are many who share your view and your courage. Keep the faith.

  • Bones

    @Santos

    I do mean a tax break. In the same way that the 47% of Americans that the post refers to are essentially being given a tax break. Hence the government is giving them ‘stuff’.

    Landreaux wrote: “The 47% enjoys Government largess of one sort or another and many, in fact, need help. Despite the reality that the economic facts all point to collapse, people want their ‘stuff’.”

    The only stuff all the 47% have in common is a tax break, so that’s the ‘stuff’ I’m talking about.

  • Santos

    @Bones,

    I see your point, but I think it is a gross perversion of the truth to say that receiving a tax break is the same thing as receiving something from the government. There is a huge difference between keeping more of what you earned yourself (ie, a tax break), and receiving a cash/cash-valued benefit from the government. The key difference there is that in the latter case, there is a transfer of wealth from the government to an individual. In the case of a tax break, there is no transfer of wealth.

    Most (but certainly not all) of the 47% are receiving such a cash/cash-valued benefit from the government. The same cannot be said of Romney. Quite the opposite, in fact. Since Romney is tax payer, wealth was transferred from Romney to members of the 47% group via taxation.

    (And on a side note, Romney gave a whopping $4.02 million in charitable donations last year. That amounts to over 29% of his gross income for 2011. He didn’t claim all the charitable tax deductions he could have, and subsequently paid $265,500 *more* in taxes than legally obligated.)

  • Bones

    @Santos

    Your point is well taken. I very much agree that being given something is significantly different than not having it taken away, and having a discussion on the merits of various government programs would be a good thing. The issue I have is that the only thing the 47% all have in common is this tax break. They’re Republican and Democrat, they cone from all parts of the country (naturally, they’re near half the population), they receive this break for a variety of reasons (the elderly who’ve paid in, and the poor who wpuwould love to make enough money to pay federal income tax) so why are they even a point of discussion here?

    The only entitlement they all receive are tax breaks. So if we want to discuss tax breaks, it makes sense to discuss them. If we’re not, I don’t understand where they enter into the discussion except as an excuse to portray half our country in a negative light.

  • dave

    hey where are all the crazies at ? if all people with different political views held discussions in the civilized and respectful manner i see here, the future looks very boring. bright…, but boring.

  • Dave,

    Agree 100%, disagreement does not have to be disagreeable. Our two resident crazies have apparently moved to a different planet. Glad to have you on the site

  • DD.Mao

    Landreaux:
    I have no problem with someone disagreeing with my opinions after all you and I didn’t always agree on everything and we kept it civil.If however defending yourself against constant accusations and losing your temper over them after it drags on and on is a crime then I’m guity.I took them on a daily basis for over a year while you only took it once before getting annoyed.

    I can understand you not wanting to take sides and realize you had no power to control the situation.But not recognizing the origin of the problem after it confronts you directly and then following up with your snide remark to Dave does surprise me.There is no need to concern yourself about me inhabiting your planet.I feel my welcome and respect has disappeared and therefore have no intention of posting on “You Decide” again but simply felt your remark needed to be addressed.

    With respect…..DDM

  • Santos

    @Bones

    That’s a good observation that the tax break is the only thing they all have in common. Good discussion. Thanks.

  • Mike

    The 47% have only one thing in common: they don’t pay income tax. When Romney says they are all going to vote for the president he is NOT speaking the truth. When he says they are all looking for a handout and not taking responsibility for their lives he is NOT speaking the truth. Like millions of Americans, I spent many years working at low-paid jobs and never taking any assistance. No matter how you try to prettify it, you and Mr. Romney are equating being poor with being a social parasite. Yea, we need to work on medicare and social security, but that’s not what the man said. He said that 47% of of Americans are irresponsible freeloaders. I don’t think he believes that; I think he said it to please a group of people who have been taught to believe such nonsense and to resent the vast hoards of leeches who are supposedly preying on them. There are are irresponsible freeloaders, but they are nowhere near half the population. What the man said shows an appalling ignorance about the American people and an arrogant disdain for half of us.

  • Mike,

    You’ve missed my point entirely. My point is that if the economy continues as it is, sliding toward fiscal crisis its the 47% that suffers fastest and the worst. My point is that the folks at the bottom are going to get screwed in a big way if the Obama approach to economic issues continues into a second term. My point is that the 47% should look to economic history to clearly see who takes the worst of it in bad economic times. In fact the evidence is right in front of us, the statistics related to income, housing values, employment etc are all bad. Who’s paying the price? The 47% is! I’ve been poor myself more than once.

    I have no distain for you, I just want you to wake up and see that absent a change in economic policy it gets much worse for you.

    Writers always have second thoughts about how they stage their points, keep in mind this post was written the day after the video came out and contends that facts are facts and the little guy is on the verge of getting an even worse screwing than he’s had in the past three years.

  • Mike

    My friend, you said in the first paragraph that Mr. Romney ‘identified the truth’ in his statement. I say he didn’t. He either outright lied or he showed an abysmal ignorance of America and its people. The statement was nonsense, and it has been proved to be nonsense in the course of this discussion.
    You say I missed your point entirely. As I understand your point, it is this: poor people suffer most in hard times. That’s a little like saying that when you hit your thumb with a hammer it hurts— true, but hardly a revelation. The next step is to show why your candidate’s economic program is better than mine’s.
    It is to explain why more tax cuts weighted to the wealthy will make a healthier economy when they did the exact opposite from 2000 to 2008 .
    It is to explain how these cuts combined with the closing of unidentified ‘loopholes’ will reduce the deficit.
    It is to explain how deep cuts in education will help us fill the over 3 million jobs going begging for lack of trained workers to fill them.
    It is to explain why our health care system, which costs twice as much per capita as European systems, should not be rationalized.
    And while you’re explaining, tell me why a man who says he believes half of the American people are freeloaders should be our leader.

  • Bill Hedges

    mike writes:

    1. “It is to explain why more tax cuts weighted to the wealthy will make a healthier economy when they did the exact opposite from 2000 to 2008.”

    1. “Lying About Bush’s Tax Cuts”.

    “According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total.”.

    “This shift may have occurred because as the wealthy (who are arguably the most industrious and productive citizens) are better-incentivized to be industrious and productive through lower taxes, they create higher incomes for themselves and end up paying more taxes. The Bush tax cuts did shift the tax burden, but not in the direction most liberals think.”.

    “If policymakers intend cigarette taxes to discourage smoking, then they should know that high investment taxes will discourage investment and income taxes will discourage work. Lowering taxes encourages people to engage in the given behavior, which expands the base and replenishes some or all of the lost revenue. This is the “feedback effect” of a tax cut. ”

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html

    2. “It is to explain why our health care system, which costs twice as much per capita as European systems, should not be rationalized.”

    CBO says America can not afford obumacare. Thought Supreme Court ruling HELPED reduce loss for government because States can OPT OUT:

    “Obamacare Hurts Seniors and the Middle Class” — Columbus (OH) Dispatch Editorial”

    “But there are still many largely hidden costs to the legislation that haven’t been highlighted. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to uphold the law, Washington-based Americans for Tax Reform has compiled a list of them. The mandate, which imposes a tax penalty on individuals who fail to buy health insurance and on employers who fail to provide it to employees, is projected to raise $65 billion in the first 10 years after it goes into effect in 2014. But this is just a small part of an estimated $500 billion in new taxes the law will impose.”

    “$13.2 billion generated by a cap on flexible-spending accounts for health care. Using these accounts, families can set aside pre-tax income to pay health-care expenses. The new contribution cap of only $2,500 will mean higher income taxes for any family that previously has put more than that aside in these tax-free accounts. This provision is expected to particularly hurt families with special-needs children, who often use these tax-free accounts to pay for special education.

    $5 billion raised by prohibiting Americans from using pre-tax dollars in health-savings accounts and flexible-spending accounts to buy non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines.

    $4.5 billion from the elimination of the tax deduction for employer-provided prescription drug coverage for retirees in coordination with Medicare Part D. $60.

    $ 1 billion in new taxes on health insurers; based on health-insurance premiums collected, this tax will be phased in over several years starting in 2014.

    $20 billion from a new 2.3 percent tax on medical devices and equipment. Some manufacturers already have laid off workers ahead of this tax taking effect; others warn that they will have to shift production and investment overseas. This tax also will raise the cost of health care and be passed along to those who buy health insurance.

    $123 billion from a new 3.8 percent surtax on investment income for households making at least $250,000, or single-filers making $200,000 or more. This will result in a much higher top tax rate on capital gains and dividends, which could discourage investment by upper-middle class and wealthy Americans. That, in turn, would hurt the overall economy.”

    http://battlegroundwatch.com/2012/07/08/obamacare-hurts-seniors-and-the-middle-class-columbus-oh-dispatch-editorial/

  • Bill Hedges

    Part 2

    3. Mike wrote “It is to explain how these cuts combined with the closing of unidentified ‘loopholes’ will reduce the deficit.”

    “Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy”

    “MYTH: We can only cut taxes if we cut spending by the same amount; otherwise, tax cuts will reduce revenue and cause deficits.”

    “FACT: Historically tax cuts have always paid for themselves. Federal revenue increased after the JFK tax cuts, after the Reagan tax cuts, after the Clinton tax cuts, and after the Bush tax cuts. The problem has not been taxes. The problem has been runaway spending. Total federal spending has not dropped once in over 40 years—not once:”

    “MYTH: Raising taxes in the 1990s caused the boom years of that decade. This proves that raising taxes leads to economic growth.”

    “FACT: Tax cuts, not tax hikes, caused the boom years of the 1990s. The economy grew modestly after Clinton raised taxes in 1993, but the economy grew even more after Clinton signed the tax cuts that were passed by the Republican-controlled Congress under Newt Gingrich’s leadership in 1997.”

    “MYTH: Lower tax rates don’t cause economic growth.”

    “FACT: Even JFK understood that lower tax rates produce economic growth and even higher tax revenue. According to President Kennedy:”

    http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutmyths.htm

  • Mike

    Bill: I must begin by saying how much I appreciate a site where conservatives will talk ideas and policy with me. I’ve grown weary of trying to establish reasoned dialogue with people who seem to be motivated primarily by hatred of the president. That said, I would much prefer a dialogue with you to being given a series of articles from other sites. How about telling me what you think and citing your sources?
    Anyway, I am researching the articles you quoted and will be posting the results soon. In the meantime, a few thoughts and questions for you. The problem with discussing tax policy is the constant temptation to lapse into post hoc ergo propter hoc argument. Tax policy is only one among a plethora of enfluences on an economy. I could point out that high-end marginal rates were positively confiscatory in the 50’s under Eisenhower, and we experienced the greatest economic boom in history during that time. That certainly doesn’t prove that high rates at the high end make for boom times. Claims about given tax rates helping or hurting an economy must always be suspect.
    Concerning health care, I didn’t ask about obamacare. My question is more general than that. We are the only advanced nation in the world without a national healthcare system. People in those countries are happy with their systems and medical care eats less of their GDP. I’ve been to some of those countries and the people are not, and do not feel themselves to be less free than us. Can you tell me why we should not adopt a system that works just as well and is cheaper by half than ours?
    Don’t misunderstand me. I believe conservatism and liberalism are political yin and yang; the total victory of either would sink us into chaos. I am concerned with the natural tendency of democratic government to promise more than it can afford and to borrow its way into collapse. I’m concerned about our declining sense of responsibility, especially as it affects how we raise and educate our children. But I don’t see how the Republican party as presently constituted can do anything about these problems. Which brings me to my last question, the one you didn’t address in your response.

  • Mike

    Landreaux opened this discussion with comments on a statement by Mr. Romney. Let me paraphrase the statement: 47% of the American people pay no income tax. These people are so motivated by a desire for government handouts that they will vote for president Obama for that reason. He will not vie for the votes of this 47% because he cannot convince them to take responsibility for themselves. I believe this is a fair paraphrase of the statement. Please tell me if you disagree.
    Now, here is what I think: no one with a lick of sense believes that nonsense, including Mr. Romney himself. Which raises an obvious question: why did he say it? When a man talks nonsense he doesn’t believe, there has to be a reason. I have an opinion about this, but I am interested in your opinion. Do you agree with the statement, or do you agree with me that it is nonsense? If the latter, please tell me why you think he said this ridiculous thing.
    Thanks for your time. I will be addressing the articles you quoted.

  • Bill Hedges

    Mike

    I write comments here & on a basically liberal site. I try to be factual concerning the President. BUT right or wrong I use variations of his name. Just can’t help it. Most researched subjects for me is Bush, economy, and recession. Will hardly ever discuss Mid East. On other site I found great hatred of Bush along with inaccurate information on economy. I’ll try to regurgitate information then give link instead of constant quotes. Will try but no guarantees. There is no doubt I have given more links on two the sites I visit than anyone else. DO _ appreciate _ your reading my links. I do for those that take the time to give link myself.

    Eisenhower had the men & women coming home from war. AT HOME during war folks had not been buying and plants were building war products & now cars instead of tanks were on lots for sale . Longest Bull market in American history began with JFK & he certainly believed in cut taxes for rich. Make them pay MORE TAXES by cutting. Tax cuts for rich has NEVER HARMED BUT HELPED. IS not “suspect” as my evidence WILL supports.

    My answer on health care IS what it IS. Have no idea what Countries you been to. Can tell you Canada is making move to our way. Canadians come to America for health care. Health care in England limits expensive treatments. A woman with cancer was offered suicide pill in WY I believe it is. They have similar insurance as bumcare. bumcare is advertised as care for larger portion of people and reduction of cost. Latter is NOT TRUE. CBO says WE CAN NOT AFFORD.

    You wrote “I’m concerned about our declining sense of responsibility, especially as it affects how we raise and educate our children.” In DC buma stopped pilot education program that was succeeding . Was run by nuns. They had waiting line, better results, and less trouble in school. Protecting union jobs is buma IGNORING good results. . Good results a trivial matter in comparison. Can expand in many other areas such as Gulf oil spill protecting union jobs, etc..

    Landreaux covers THE 47%. There is Angela who said it better than I can.

    Looking forwards to future comments of yours…

  • Bill Hedges

    America is leader in innovation & drug development. $ 500,000,000 is a starting off point for new miracle drugs. Illnesses that have relatively few future buyers this new drug will help if it approved by FDA and insurance will allow the drug. Few such medicines is without possible harm to some of the population taking that drug. I could be stung by a bee every day of my life. One day it could kill me for example. Same is true in drugs. Even aspirin.

    Unfortunately all these circumstances & more raise the cost of drugs. In most cases they have 20 year window of opportunity to recover cost of this drug that made it to market & pays for research on drugs that didn’t pan out.

    Research & development gets hit hard in Canada. Generic pills are highly desirable. Our health cost rise with these factors & more. This new drug might not even be offered in say Canada & England. Under bumacare TOO. A committee unelected will decide if we are worthy of care…

  • Mike

    I try to be factual concerning Mr. Romney. I can resist calling him direspectful names because he is a fellow citizen and a human being. If you simply can’t resist calling the president of your country disrespectful names, why not be honest and call him the traditional names—maybe sambo or darkie.

  • Bill Hedges

    Mike _ should I pull quotes from liberal site I write on showwing names they call BUSH ? Have you watched the film of Bush being murdered ? Seen signs of him hung ?

    That is some JUMP IN CONCLUSION the names you gave. DEMOCRATS do use racial terms a lot when referring to us (racist). Lawyer buma with Acorn certainly did use racist when getting sub-prime used to promote home loans to unqualified home buyers. A major cause of this recession.

    I give reasons NOT RACIAL TERMS.

    Instead of straying far away from the beginning of our discussion, first point I started this exchange was 1. “It is to explain why more tax cuts weighted to the wealthy will make a healthier economy when they did the exact opposite from 2000 to 2008.” I await your “FACTS”

    Instead of continuing expansion of subject matter a MALOR BONE OF CONTINTION between our political beliefs can be discussed. Await you reading my links and answering “It is to explain why more tax cuts weighted to the wealthy will make a healthier economy when they did the exact opposite from 2000 to 2008.”

  • Bill Hedges

    Mike

    When able to defend your first point I answered “It is to explain why more tax cuts weighted to the wealthy will make a healthier economy when they did the exact opposite from 2000 to 2008”. After you read my links. I’ll be around to continue this discussion.

    Sticking with the facts…

  • Mike

    Bill. Others may call Mr. Bush disrespectful names. I don’t and I won’t. I despise that kind of nonsense from either side. If Mr. Romney wins the election, I will refer to him as ‘the president’ because the people will have given him the title, and I respect the people’s decision. I think everyone should do the same. Let’s stop calling names like children and concentrate on issues.
    Since you seem particularly interested in the question of weighted tax cuts I will address that in my next post. Please be patient. I’m on a bucket list trip and will be on the road visiting colonial and revolutionary war sites. The more I learn about the founders, the more I admire them. I’ll try to post tonight or tomorrow. Be well.

  • Bill Hedges

    NOTE: Fox news is showing a documentary on president Sunday night, 8 PM CT; 9 PM Eastern. Lots of rumors … My email is FULL with MUST watch this ….. Prime time Fox New will have more watchers than the other major news medial PUT TOGETHER on cable week to week.. Expect will be MORE SO for this.

    Just want FACTS. I GIVE disputing evidence to your “It is to explain why more tax cuts weighted to the wealthy will make a healthier economy when they did the exact opposite from 2000 to 2008″. Want your evidence. Liberals SIMILAR things LIKE THIS blank statement (no proof) often.

    Explaining (in part) why “healthier economy” WAS LOSS. Wasn’t Bush doing and certainly wasn’t Bush’s tax cuts for rich. That keep economy from being WORSE:

    1. “Pelosi Caught In Major Lie- Says Bush Didn’t Warn Congress About Financial Crisis… Records Show He Warned Congress 17 Times in 2008 Alone“

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2010/05/pelosi-caught-in-major-lie-says-bush-didnt-warn-congress-about-financial-crisis-records-show-he-warned-congress-17-in-2008-alone/

    2. “Pelosi Lies About Bush & Obama Job Creation ” (video)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOWEI9-w8Vk

    3. Non-rich have jobs because rate of tax for rich have been cut. As JFK said many times with slight variations in his words:

    “The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates”

    (A VERY GOOD LINK. Chalk Full of evidence)
    .
    “Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.”

    JFK

    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates

    4. “The Invincible Lie: Part II”

    “As far back as the 1920s, a huge cut in the highest income tax rate led to a huge increase in the amount of tax revenue collected by the federal government. Why?”

    ….”Obama admitted that. But he said that he was for raising tax rates on higher income earners anyway, in the name of “fairness.” How higher tax rates that the government does not actually
    collect make any sense, whether from a fairness perspective or as a way of paying the government’s bills, is another question. The point here is that Obama knew then that tax rates and tax revenues do not automatically move in the same direction.”

    “In other words, he is lying when he talks as if tax rates and tax revenues move together. Ms. Borger and others in the media may or may not know that. So they are not necessarily lying. But they are failing to inform their audiences about the facts — and that allows Obama’s lies to stand.”

    http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/13/the-invincible-lie-part-ii

  • Bill Hedges

    “… colonial and revolutionary war sites…” visiting is on my list of things to do. Friend of mine has lead balls turned white (oxidation) from civil war period.

    Old cowboy & Indian sites as well.

    Am in no rush. Just don’t want POINT ONE COVERED UP and forgotten in clutter of minor points.

    I take my Bush seriously…

  • Mike

    Bill
    I’m going to use your patience a bit. When I said I’m a bucket list trip, I mean a real bucket list. I have an incurable cancer and I’m visiting some places I’ve wanted to see. It’s no big deal; I’m an old man. But I get tired easily, and tonight I don’t have the energy to puzzle over tax policy. I would like to say a few things though.
    In the past year I have traveled some in the eastern part of the country. One was at the national capitol when I stood on the spot where John Quincy Adams was touched by the hand of death in the midst of his long and valient battle against slavery. The other was today when I stepped onto the green at Lexington. It took my breath and brought tears. I was moved by that “…spirit that made these spirits dare to die and leave their children free”.
    Yet I am not proud to be an American. I have no use for that kind of pride. We should be proud only of our own accomplishments. I did nothing to become an American, just got born in the place. It is a type of foolishness to be proud of accidental occurances, like where you were born, or the color of your skin. I am proud of having worked my way through college in difficult circumstances, of raisiing two children to be good productive citizens, of having faced danger for good causes when I was young.
    Thats enough personal pride for me.
    But I am proud of America, which is a very different thing. I stood today on sacred ground, the ground that absorbed the first blood of the revolution. The men who are buried there, whether they knew it or not, furthered the great cause of human progress. There sacrifice helped bring into the world a very important thing—something that is still being born: the free individual. The place is important because of the thing that happened there, but that thing would be just as important if it had happened in some other place, among some other people.
    Now, you may assume that I am a liberal, and you may think you know what liberalism is. You no doubt believe you know what conservatism is, but I suspect you understand neither. You can’t understand them without understanding their history. Please bear with me while I try to explain what I mean.
    Conservatism is as old as history, in fact much older. It is, in essence, respect for an established way of life. Conservatism values and lives by old and tried mores and ways of life. It is a sort of magnetic force at the center of a culture, enforcing rules of conduct and insisting that everyone live according to the established patterns. Parents are conservative when they discipline their children and teach them to behave constructively. Without conservatism any culture would quickly disintegrate.
    It naturally follows that each culture will have it’s own brand of conservatism. Thus Indonesian conservatism will differ from American conservatism which will differ from the conservatism of an Amerindian tribe on the Amazon. They are all conservative, but they each conserve a different set of values and rules. This is what I mean when I say that fundamentalist muslims are conservative; they are protective of the ways of their fathers and hate anything that threatens that old way of life and it’s long established values.
    So, conservatism has always existed. Liberalism, on the other hand, is very new in history. It emerged with the arrival of money economies and the development of scientific methods of thought. You may believe that liberalism is just about taking your hard earned money and giving it to loafers, but it has been and is something much more complicated and interesting than that.
    The west emerged from its ancient feudal system in the vehicle of liberalism. The word didn’t become attached to a body of political thought until the 19th century. You may or may not know that the classical liberalism of that time exists today as the conservatism of our time. Early 19th century liberals advocated property rights, free trade, freedom of speech and press, and votes for all. Conservatives advocated keeping power in the hands of the old landed aristocracy, continuing to do things in the old tried and true way.
    The liberals won, then commenced to split into two groups. One group was happy with what had been won. The other looked at what classical liberalism had produced and saw major flaws in it. The old oppressive aristocracy was gone, but it seemed to have been replaced with a new aristocracy of wealth. The peasants who had worked on the aristocrats’ land now worked in the capitalists factory. Huge cities which were nothing more than reeking slums grew up around the factories. Children of nine or ten were working 12 or 14 hours a day in ‘dark satanic mills’. Those who were happy with the situation were the new conservatives. The classical liberals had become the new conservatives. The new liberals began turning to government as the tool for establishing the reforms they felt were needed.

    I hope this hasn’t bored you. i need to sleep now. Will continue maybe tomorrow if you’re at all interested. If not I can go bore someone else.

  • Bill Hedges

    Mike

    Sorry to hear about the big C. Don’t worry about this political stuff.

    My family was Democrat and ones still living still are but my brother and me. The young kids I don’t know.

    During the times of Martin Luther King my Dad painted a horse tying black man statue to white. We moved to Florida through the hills of Ark.. Seeing men, women, and colored bathrooms. Drinking fountains for whites and one for colored. I learned not to be racist by my Dad’s example.

    Like I have said I know little about Mid East. Never got into it.

    Hope to see your comments on here when you feel like it. In your honor will call Prez bho. If I slip up is old habit. Give me some slack. I am 63 years old…

    You don’t bore me. I won’t tie a hand behind me because of your health problem if talking political issues. Give em’ Hell Harry was from Missouri. I lived up-hill from Harry Truman’s sisters. Couple houses away from my Grandma in Jefferson City. Sorry I never met them.

    Just want to talk that’s different. Can do.

    I’ll do as you asked from now on. Just talk politics without all the links…

  • you have missed the point of what Romney was saying; he was talking about being able to get the vote; not that he didn’t care about them as a whole & being Americans. The biased news blew this out of even being a truth. Obama and the biased news media have lied & covered up all along. Obama doesn’t care about the 47%; he is just using them for votes. The total idea that the rest work to pay for the rest is total socialism. Who wants to work so the rest are paid from our efforts. BUT the government used those who did work; their income for social security when it was time for them, yes some are disabled, he understands all of that. He is not talking about that; he is talking about those who are now on welfare & want their jobs back; he is talking about the ones who have been on welfare for generations. He is talking about the welfare started to assist those of us who need it during hard times; he understands those of us who need it since working their whole lives & paid in & now are retired, he understands those who are handicapped. But i am sure even some handicapped would like jobs too if they had the chance. Obamamaniacs & the biased media have ran off to determine who wins. The BIASED MEDIA is determining too many votes instead of letting Americans choose; remember our Right to Choice? That is being taken away from us by the biased media; who are determining what we as Americans hear & think; bypassing the truth; but instead leads us off to the slaughter of this administration.
    obama’s politics will hurt this 47%; not help them. His plan destroys even more business people & business is what employees. obama says it’s going in to the past going with Romney; actually obama’s plan of socialism is an even older plan than this young United States. It is the United States that has the ‘free’ world at heart. Look at how the other countries fell from their status: they ‘spread the wealth around’; they bankrupt the country; they fell.
    This extremist is out of control & will continue to pass things by executive order & step all over the constitution when it doesn’t suit him. He denounced his Christianity & announced Islam, now back in the campaign again; he confesses Christianity again. BUT arrested Christians in front of the White House & yet invites Muslims in for parties at the White House. BUT he demanded that the cross on a church be covered up before he would enter there to speak. His lies are just so he get’s what he wants and obviously doesn’t care about any of us after that. He says he is for every American; BUT what he really means as long as he not busy with his movie star people & appearances. He was too busy for appropriate handling of the terrorist where Americans were killed, he was too busy to talk with Heads of State at the UN, he was too busy to coming up with the obamamaniac care plan to do his job with many people. The obamamaniac care plan will hurt those 47% seriously and totally. He is an idiot and shows how great his nation is to have voted in a foreign entity into the White House who spent over $1.5M to ‘seal’ all his records. He covered up the bombings, he failed to tell us the truth, he sent his people out to carry on the lie, and now he is covering up the cover up.
    If the biased media would report accurate news instead of also covering for obama; we as Americans wouldn’t have any discussion like this. We would already understand the complete seriousness of getting this man out of the White House & as far away from us as American’s as we can get. This is the most important elections of our lifetimes. If Americans would stop letting the biased media & this campaign of liars stop influencing & telling us what we want to hear & actually let us hear & know the truth there would not be any close race in this election. Too many have a terrible thing to lose (our freedoms) that so many have died for. None of our men died for socialism. Romney; if given half a chance to be heard; you would see is exactly what we need to turn this country around. And four more years of obamamania will kill this nation beyond repair and the greatest power in the world will be gone along with all our constitutional rights. America wake up, America listen and not be lead around by maniacs extremes.

  • Mike

    No, I didn’t miss the point. I listened to it, read it, thought about it and paraphrased it in my second post. If you would do the same and respond with some reasoned argument, I’d be glad to discuss it with you.

  • Bill Hedges

    Mike

    Maybe the biggest liberal lie is as you wrote ***** “It is to explain why more tax cuts weighted to the wealthy will make a healthier economy when they did the exact opposite from 2000 to 2008.” *****

    Wrong answer I hear from liberals they will use is CBO ESTIMATES WHICH IS SIMPLE math loss of revenue. REAL CBO NUMBERS prove my point every time in past 60 years and before. INCREASING TAXES ON RICH GETS LITTLE IF ANY INCREASE IN REVENUE. TAX CUTS FOR RICH DOES. As laid out in links I gave.

    ***** You haven’t answered this as you promised. ***** I await your proof. Is not my first brush on this with a liberal. Liberals said it often on liberal political site I visited. I can honesty say no liberal has proven their view. You HAVE shied away from giving your proof. Don’t expect you have.

  • Mike

    Bill:

    Lord preserve us from rants….

    I was born in the show me state, but grew up in Arkansas.

    As for not worrying about the political stuff, I can’t stop worrying about it. I’m really concerned about the polarization of the country. We are paralyzed, like a man with two personalities which hate each other. I decided to participate on this site because there are some conservatives here who want to debate instead of just rant.

    I guess what I was trying to do in my last post was convince you that there is value in both sides, that neither conservatives nor liberals are compete idiots and that we need to stop shouting like spoiled children and start debating like adults capable of reasoning together.

    I mentioned earlier that you probably think I’m a liberal. In a sense I am; I find much of value in the liberal tradition. But I’m also critical of it. I think modern liberalism has been careless about encouraging dependency and it has played a destructive role in our educational system.

    I hear liberal pundits talking about working class conservatives “voting against their own interests” and find that sadly arrogant. It assumes that workers have only economic interests. Many working class people are more concerned about the social deterioration they see around them than they are about their individual economic condition, and that’s not a bad thing. I don’t think our deteriorating values can be rejuvinated by political action, but that’s another discussion.

    On the other hand, seeing what’s wrong with modern liberalism doesn’t make me a conservative. I especially dislike the type of rabid conservatism that generates rants like the one above. I’m tired of cheap jokes, insults, unfounded accusations and rants. I think there are too many irresponsible professional talkers on the right whipping up this kind of destructive nonsense. Political debate is not an entertainment or a venue for venting personal frustrations; it’s a crucially important thing, especially now.

    I take it you are an admirer of George Bush. I’m not. I think he was our worst president since Andrew Johnson. But I never thought or said that he was a traitor, or that he had a secret plan to destroy democracy in America. I never heard anyone say these things about him. I think if Mr. Romney loses this election it will be largely because the Republican party has encouraged this kind of extremist lunacy to the point where it has alienated the sensible center of the electorate.

    I promised you earlier that I would address the issue of weighting tax reductions to the high end. I will keep that promise, but it may have to wait till I get home, which won’t be long. I saw plymouth rock today and toured the Mayflower II. It was interesting, but not as moving as standing at the monument to the martyrs at Lexington Green. I look forward to hearing from you.

  • Mike

    Bill

    I didn’t see your last post until I had finished mine. I WILL address the issue as soon as I get off the road. I’m not dodging— I don’t do that.

  • Bill Hedges

    Hammond

    I agree. You have written some fine comments…

  • Bill Hedges

    Mike

    The new stuff you now talk about I won’t get into until POINT ONE is answered. I learned from a guy here the best thing to do is to stay focused.

    With the recent writing you have done you could of given your answer.But understand is fine. I am focused…

  • Bill Hedges

    Mike

    When I said not worry about political stuff I meant your health was # 1.

  • Bill Hedges

    Mike

    After you try and answer point one and we have our discussion, will be more than glad to discuss Bush. Have already given links that shows Bush warned about recession BUT DEMOCRATS didn’t listen. Did I give link that showed involvement of LAWYER bho & Acorn in helping cause recession ? YES. AM fan of Bush

    After point one is settled is only fair you decide POINT 2 if you wish to continue OUR TALKS:

    “Newsweek/Beast Poll: Obama the Second Worst President in American History”

    July 05, 2012

    “In a poll conducted by Newsweek/The Beast, likely voters said Barack Obama is the second worst president in American history, coming in behind Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter. George W. Bush came in last place, the Weekly Standardreported Tuesday.

    http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/07/05/newsweekbeast-poll-obama-second-worst-president-american-history#ixzz287bOnwkX”

    THIS with most of the news media STANDING UP & covering up for bho. You don’t hear from them of Bush trying to stop recession, etc. After bho golf exceeded 8 years of Bush number of holes no more about bho golf. They gave Bush nightmares about all his golf. NOT bho…

  • Bill Hedges

    bho says he backs Israel. READ THE ARTICLE:

    “We Heard What Obama said To Medvedev, BUT What Did Obama Say to Turkey’s Erdogan?”

    “OBAMA CAUGHT ON HOT MIC: TELLS RUSSIAN PREZ HE‘LL HAVE MORE ’FLEXIBILITY‘ ’AFTER MY ELECTION”

    March 26, 2012

    “The exchange was picked up by microphones as reporters were let into the room for remarks by the two leaders.”

    http://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/we-heard-what-obama-said-to-medvedev-but-what-did-obama-say-to-turkeys-erdogan/

  • Bill Hedges

    Mike _ About your “Oct 2nd, 2012 at 1:32 am”

    1. “Lord preserve us from rants….”

    Rants to me are statements without proof. Such as your “It is to explain why more tax cuts weighted to the wealthy will make a healthier economy when they did the exact opposite from 2000 to 2008”. You said it so SHOULD be able to PROVE without reading my links. I did not need to read your proof to come up with my answer with links.

    2. You wrote “I guess what I was trying to do in my last post was convince you that there is value in both sides, that neither conservatives nor liberals are compete idiots and that we need to stop shouting like spoiled children and start debating like adults capable of reasoning together.”

    I will agree with that. BUT. So many of my links conclude liberals LIE WITH evidence.Is like a broken record that keeps getting repeated.

    3. You wrote “In a sense I am; I find much of value in the liberal tradition. But I’m also critical of it. I think modern liberalism has been careless about encouraging dependency and it has played a destructive role in our educational system.”

    There is much more wrong with liberals than education system. Economic. Economic. Economic FOR SURE.

    4. You wrote “It assumes that workers have only economic interests. Many working class people are more concerned about the social deterioration they see around them than they are about their individual economic condition…”

    Reason I believe in another Nov. 2, 2010 is closer to election time pocketbook pulls the voting lever.

    5. You wrote “I especially dislike the type of rabid conservatism that generates rants like the one above. I’m tired of cheap jokes, insults, unfounded accusations and rants. I think there are too many irresponsible professional talkers on the right whipping up this kind of destructive nonsense.

    Already answered first thing. BUT. YOU by your own definition RANTED. YOU have yet to provide any information on your Bush remark. I did without you explaining yours.

    6. You wrote “I think if Mr. Romney loses this election it will be largely because the Republican party has encouraged this kind of extremist lunacy to the point where it has alienated the sensible center of the electorate.”

    Man replacing Teddy in DEMOCRAT own State was AGAINST bumacare. For ***** water-boarding *****. Democrats said Sarah Palin & Fox CAUSED SHOOTING in AZ. TOO BAD NOT TRUE. They said at TEA rally on steps of Congress, said spit and said rracist comments to Democrat Congress members WERE DONE. Of the many microphones & cameras NO SUCH things were heard or recorded.

    Was said we were party of “NO” & “racist”. We said NO as polls agreed with us and Nov. 2, 2010 voters PROVED IT. RACIST for being against bumacare when bumacare gave us big win Nov. 2, 2010. Polls STILL against bumacare. CBO says we can not afford this health plan. We were against Bill C’s health plan. RACIST only in liberals sweetest DREAMS.

    There are many, many, many, many, many bills passed by House. NO VOTE in Senate. Just SITTING. BILLS should be voted on. IF they fail then re-write and sent back to House. IS HOW it WORKS.

    Non-listening Democrats GOT their just rewards…

    .

  • Mike

    Mr. Hedges:

    I explained, I think quite clearly, that I am on the road and have little time for research. I told you more than once that I would address the issue when I get home and could apply myself to it. In response, you have accused me of dodging the issue. I take that as an insult and a challenge.

    You insist that you won’t discuss anything else until this matter is settled. Very well. My next post will be a well researched analysis of that issue. Understand that it will not be based on a couple of knock-off articles from political advocacy sites, so it will take some serious study and time. In preparing my response, I will make some perhaps unwarranted assumptions: that you have some knowledge of macroeconomic theory, that you have a thorough understanding of the Laffer curve and the opinions of various economists about about it, and that you are prepared to engage in a serious discussion.

    Although you have insisted that we discuss nothing else, you have raised some other issues. I’m going to ignore those in in deference to your stated wishes. But understand that since I am going to spend some days preparing, I have the right to a thorough response from you, addressing every point I argue. I assure you this will require some serious work on your part. It won’t be easy reading.

    I consider our discussion closed until I give you what you have so insistently demanded.

  • Bill Hedges

    Ok…

    Be whittling on my stick waiting for your evidence. Done gave big down payment on mine. Guess you are going to disprove me & prove your STATEMENT FINALLY.

    Time will tell.

    I’ll be here…

  • Bill Hedges
  • Bill Hedges

    Going along with previous comment and video (perhaps), TODAY begins ObamaCare Death Squad (un-elected group of people. NO Congressional approval NEEDED). As Sarah Palin foretold ?

    My brother just sent me a email re-affirming what I heard a Congress woman said on CSPAN awhile back. That if/when “The same person has an issue with his heart & re-admitted. The hospital can be fined $125,000.” What is the consequence of such catastrophic actions against hospitals for such common events ? I know what I would do if in charge of hospital. VERY SICK folks who are highly likely to relapse, well, seek help elsewhere IF YOU CAN FIND OPEN DOORS…

    Many hospitals already are losing money on medicare patients. Some hospitals like a few Mayo clinics will not accept medicare insurance. REST ASSURED worse is coming. After election. You thought there wasn’t a good reason why the 4+ year wait for full implication of bumcare ? Is reason I call it bumcare good grief. bho wants 2nd term.

    Pelosi & bho both promised to explain bumcare. NEVER DONE. bho promised CSPAN would cover debate on bumcare. NEVER DONE. bho promised all would sit down openly and discuss. Health companies MEET BEHIND CLOSED DOORS with bho. bho promises NEVER DONE.

    After stealing money from entitlement programs bumcare IS RAISING DEBT. PROMISED would NEVER BE DONE. CBO says we can not afford bumacare. THAT is DONE deal.

    KISS low unemployment GOOD BYE. ENJOY Europe higher level unemployment America. Some Countries will lower hours worked to keep employees instead of laying off. How does 32 hours a eek put bread on your table. THAT’S liberals social caring for your fellow man. Departure from the American way…

  • Bill Hedges

    “State health care plan denies cancer drugs, offers cheaper suicide pill instead” _ A State’s example of ***** ObamaCare Death Squad *****.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/state-health-care-plan-denies-cancer-drugs-offers-cheaper-suicide-pill-instead

  • Bill Hedges

    “During a recent Romney campaign stop, a heckler from the audience hollered, “Hey Mitt Witt, where are you hiding your tax returns? Governor Romney politely responded, “I’ve found a very secure place that I’m certain they won’t be found.” The insistent heckler, then shouted, “And just where is that, dummy”? Governor Romney smiled and said, “They are underneath Obama’s college records, his immigration status as a student, and his funding sources to pay for college. What’s your next question”?”

    http://beforeitsnews.com/election-2012/2012/09/mitt-we-love-you-and-yours-good-job-priceless-during-a-recent-romney-campaign-stop-a-heckler-from-the-audience-hollered-hey-mitt-witt-where-are-you-hiding-your-tax-returns-governor-ro-2445066.html

  • Bill Hedges

    In a previous Presidential election Bush’s military record was insulted. Was proven false.

    “Why Today’s BLS Jobs Numbers Make No Sense”

    http://www.redstate.com/2012/10/05/why-todays-bls-jobs-numbers-make-no-sense/

  • Mike

    Mr. Hedges:

    I returned from my trip in a state of exhaustion. I called the literacy center where I do volunteer work and told them I would be unable to return as soon as expected due to the state of my health. Being civil, well mannered people, they understood and urged me to take as much time as I needed to recuperate.

    I then began to consolidate and study the sources I had collected on the question at hand. Honest, objective research can be tedious work. It’s like mining for gold. I’ve dug through what seems like miles of partisanship and propaganda to collect occasional nuggets of fact and insight. But the work has proved well worthwhile to me, not only because I’ve improved my knowledge of tax policy. I’ve also learned something important about the relationship of tax policy to what I consider the most crucial political issue of our time.

    Our debate began when I said, in response to Landreaux, “It is to explain why more tax cuts weighted to the wealthy will make a healthier economy when they did the exact opposite from 2000 to 2008.” Now, of course I don’t believe that the Bush tax cuts were the single cause of the economic catastrophe we experienced in 2007. They played a part, along with unfunded wars and nation-building fiascos, deregulation of finance capital, decades long encouragement of a national lifestyle based on the reckless accumulation of debt.

    But your response to this sentence narrowed our discussion to a single question: do tax cuts for the wealthy pay for themselves? I didn’t know whether they did or not, and told you I would research the question and give you a response.

    I soon found that it is much easier to find an answer to the broader question of whether tax cuts in general pay for themselves. Numerous Republican leaders, from Kyle to McCaine, Pawlenty and
    McConnel, have repeated this myth, even though it is not supported by any reputable economist. Even supply-side economists who served in the Reagan and Bush administrations and supported the tax cuts deny that they paid for themselves. The politicians who continue to parrot this myth are either misinformed or lying. I won’t cite sources for this, because I believe we agree on this question. On Oct. 4, elsewhere on this site you wrote, “tax cuts for non- rich will loss(sic) revenue. They don’t generally speaking do the investing. Their $$$ is used for living.” So, unless you tell me otherwise I will assume that we agree that tax cuts in general don’t pay for themselves.

    I was left, then, with two questions: do tax cuts for the wealthy pay for themselves and if so, why? As I said above, this was a harder nut to crack than the question of whether tax cuts in general do. It’s a much less discussed and researched topic, so information is harder to come by.

    I could cite a number of sources for my conclusion about the first part of this question, but I think you’ll agree that’s not really necessary when I make your day by agreeing that tax cuts for the wealthy do pay for themselves. Not only the Bush tax cuts, but all the major tax cuts of the twentieth century–the Coolidge-Mellon cuts, the JFK cuts, the Reagan cuts and the Bush cuts all increased the tax base at the highest levels, increasing the collection of revenues from those levels. But before you pull out that bottle of champagne, please bear with me while I address the second part of the question: why did these cuts increase the tax base of the rich?

    The piece from American Thinker which you quoted at the beginning of our discussion attempted an answer to this question: the rich, who are the most “industrious and productive” people among us, are more incentivized to work harder. Inspired by the prospect of keeping more of their hard earned wealth, they work even harder, increasing their wealth and thus their base of taxable income.

    I found this argument to be incredibly sycophantic and entirely unconvincing. What evidence is there that the wealthy are the hardest workers? A percentage of them live on inherited wealth and do no work at all. The CEO of a manufacturing company is usually a hard worker, as is the president of a Wall Street finance bank, but I see no reason to believe that these people are necessarily harder working than an underpaid physics professor who works long hours in the labratory and the classroom and then goes home to pace the floor mulling over some tough problem in quantum mechanics. The office or factory worker who labors eight or ten hours a day, picks up her children at daycare, cooks them a nutritous meal, cleans the apartment, puts the kids to bed and and falls into her own bed exhausted might be said to work as hard as a hedge fund manager.

    But apart from the sycophancy, the argument just doesn’t hold water. The hard working wealthy are usually working about as hard as they can. It’s their nature. A tax cut doesn’t give them any more time to deal with the myriad of tasks with which they are confronted every day. No, the answer American Thinker provides is not only unconvincing, it’s downright silly.

    Unsatisfied with their explaination, I continued to mine for nuggets. What I found was leading me in the direction of the transfer of funds from tax shelters to more lucrative and productive forms of investments when I hit the mother lode, a rich vein of pure gold.

    The vein was in the form of an article by Thomas Sowell. I assume you’re familiar with him. For those who aren’t, he’s probably America’s foremost populizer of Laissez-faire economics. I’ve always enjoyed his concise and lucid style, though I often disagree with his conclusions. You can find the piece at http://www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover%20proof.pdf.

    The article is a masterful defense of the liberal myth of ‘trickle-down economics’ and a defense of tax cuts for the rich. What I found especially interesting and informative here was Sowell’s exposition of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon’s efforts to increase revenues in the early ’20’s. Mellon is always portrayed as a cold plutocratic villian by the left, a man who heartlessly shifted the tax burden from his rich friends onto the backs of the poor. Sowell paints a very different picture of the man.

    Faced with the need to increase federal revenue, Mellon found that the wealthy were hiding their wealth in various tax-sheltered securities. Mellon said, “It is incredible that a system of taxation which permits a man with an income of $1,000,000 a year to pay not one cent to the support of his government should remain unaltered.” He tried to get congress to eliminate these tax shelters, but met with no success.

    In a footnote, Sowell describes the situation: “However economically inconsistent it was to have very high tax rates on high incomes, While providing a large loophole through which the wealthy could avoid paying those taxes, it was politically beneficial to elected officials, who could attract votes with class-warfare rhetoric and at the same time attract donations from the wealthy by providing an easy escape from actually paying those taxes—and sometimes any taxes at all.”

    We can perfect this excellent discription by replacing the word donations with the word bribes.

    Mellon, unable to budge the thoroughly bribed congress, fell back on plan two. He reduced taxes on the rich to draw some of their money out of shelters into more productive and lucrative investments, producing an increase in revenues. This plan two has continued to be the method used by subsequent administrations.

    What a sweet deal. Bribe congress to provide places to hide your money from the tax collector, while all the little people have to pay at the rate required by law. When the government requires additional revenue, it lowers your rate to draw your money into more lucrative investments which it is able to tax.

    Sowell doesn’t address this crooked system any further. He just goes on to extoll the benefits of the tax cuts, apparently assuming, like all subsequent administrations, that Mellon’s plan one is a lost cause.

    I like lost causes. I think it is a disgrace that we have a man running for president who is worth a quarter of a billion dollars and has paid taxes at less than half the rate required by law. I think it is a disgrace that we continue to allow open bribery of our elected officials. I think we need a constitutional amendment to get the bribery out of politics.

    So, Mr. Hedges, I maintain that tax cuts for the rich pay for themselves only because they have bribed government to allow them to hide their money from taxation. That’s not a good argument for tax cuts for the rich. It’s an argument for ending the bribery of our representatives.

    I await your reply.

  • Mike

    In paragraph 13 replace ‘defense’ with ‘dismantling’.

  • Mike
  • Bill Hedges

    1. “I then began to consolidate and study the sources I had collected on the question at hand. Honest, objective research can be tedious work.”

    If you look at Heritage Foundation sources will see government numbers are used. As well as “objective research”. Same for American Thinker which gives source for their CBO real number quotes,.

    2. “I’ve also learned something important about the relationship of tax policy to what I consider the most crucial political issue of our time.”

    So basically your remark about Bush was parroting Democrat rants. Liberals use CBO “estimates” while I use “real numbers” whenever possible. Which is most accurate obviously BY A MILE !!! I’ve been studying THIS FOR YEARS.

    3. “Now, of course I don’t believe that the Bush tax cuts were the single cause of the economic catastrophe we experienced in 2007”

    Bush tax cuts HAD NOTHING to do with recession. The “JFK effect” occurred. MORE REVENUE as my CBO real numbers quote proved. I gave quote while you were off site. If need to re-write I will. Can give JFK quote again.

    4. “unfunded wars and nation-building fiascos, deregulation of finance capital, decades long encouragement of a national lifestyle based on the reckless accumulation of debt.”

    I don’t mind answering this. But let’s stick to what you original said:

    “It is to explain why more tax cuts weighted to the wealthy will make a healthier economy when they did the exact opposite from 2000 to 2008.”

    Bush tax cut for rich INCREASED government revenue as JFK quote said. Played NO PART. But, a hint, WHO ruled Congress during his 8 years. I gave link showing the times Bush administration WARNED of recession but was ignored by Democrats. FRANK said NO PROBLEM with Fannie & Freddy.

    5. “even though it is not supported by any reputable economist. ”

    I DON’T care what a “economist ” says. My link using government numbers shows 20‘s, JFK, RR, Newt, and Bush ALL CUT TAXES ON RICH increasing government revenue. There is the important answer.

    6. “The piece from American Thinker”

    JFK quote:

    “KENNEDY: This administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963. I am not talking about a quickie or a temporary tax cut which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm to ease some temporary complaint. The federal government’s most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities of private expenditures.”

    A good link for you:

    http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutmyths.htm

    7. Rich put their TIME & their money. It doesn’t matter anyhow. You admitted tax cuts for rich works. It was I searched for and found to be true YEARS AGO.

    THIS NOTION BY Democrats that tax cuts for rich MUST BE PAID FOR is using CBO “estimates” and ignoring fact that all the tax cuts for rich INCREASE government revenue IN REAL NUMBERS. Making up for tax cut to non-wealthy…

    8. “What I found was leading me in the direction of the transfer of funds from tax shelters to more lucrative and productive forms of investments when I hit the mother lode, a rich vein of pure gold”

    Bingo…

    9. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon is in one of my commonly used links.

    10. You can stay a liberal and call it a “bribe”. DON’T CARE. TAXES from wealthy are only collected when invested. Rich man can take his money ANYWHERE on THIS earth. Or buy stocks and not sell for years. Collecting NO REVENUE for our government. HE CAN always put it in a low paying savings account. Creating little revenue for government and creating few jobs. Tie his hands and have slow recovery as we have now.

    To create jobs we want him investing in a business. Nearly every bill passed under Democrat controlled congress with buma was anti-business. CBO says we can not afford bumcare.

    WHO do you think gave oild drillers in deep waters of Gulf the tax break. Would it surprise you both Bill C. and Senator buma ?

    If you read my comments while you were gone I believed either you would not come back because I was correct or do as you did.

    Not much on this TOPIC I am not knowledgeable on… I discussed this on liberal site when Bush was President… The best they could come up with sources I used was bias. I then pulled out the sources used by American Thinker & Heritage Foundation. I could use original source HERE but choice not to…

    Any links for things I said you want just ask and will provide…

  • Bill Hedges

    Mike

    I think you are a stand up guy for answering your statement about Bush. That I admire.

    Have ran into MANY who WOULD NOT DO AS YOU DID & reply. MOST simple ignore and MOVE ON…

  • Bill Hedges

    Part 3

    “The tax cuts of the 1920s
    The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.”11

    11. Source “Joint Economic Committee, “The Mellon and Kennedy Tax Cuts.”

    “This surge in revenue was no surprise to Mellon”:

    “he History of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.” 5

    5. Source “Andrew Mellon, Taxation: The People’s Business (New York: Macmillan, 1924).”

    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1996/07/bg1086nbsp-the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax

  • Bill Hedges

    Part 4

    Mike wrote:

    “We can perfect this excellent discription by replacing the word donations with the word bribes”

    “Bribe” is your substitution word. Use of “perfect” is your politics. When you cut the probability of making a profit in business with HIGH taxes or government anti-business bills by Congress risk are too great to invest. Threats of tax hikes on rich doesn’t help either.

    If window for profit is SOO small why risk it ? Investors are risking their money, other people mony, and maybe their own homes used as collateral…
    .

  • Bill Hedges

    Part 5

    “TAXATION: THE PEOPLE’S BUSINESS ”

    BY ANDREW W. MELLON

    http://archive.org/stream/taxationthepeopl033026mbp/taxationthepeopl033026mbp_djvu.txt

  • Bill Hedges

    Part 6

    Mike

    Thomas Sowell & Andrew Mellon both support my position. This “bribe” thing of yours needs more explaining to convince me.

    You wrote:

    “Bribe congress to provide places to hide your money from the tax collector, while all the little people have to pay at the rate required by law. When the government requires additional revenue, it lowers your rate to draw your money into more lucrative investments which it is able to tax.”

    This makes NO SENSE whatsoever. The “little people” pay less taxes. More pay no taxes because of rich paying more taxes at reduced rates:

    This link is FULL OF real number data:

    “In sum, the tax cuts enacted by Reagan and Bush have benefited the poor and middle class more than the wealthy. Their taxes have been cut more drastically than wealthy Americans, and many have been taken off the tax rolls altogether. In 2009, a majority of Americans paid no federal income tax. The poor and middle class also pay a far lower percentage of the total revenue pie now. Despite across the board tax cuts, revenues have remained essentially constant. Unfortunately, our spending has ballooned, and is only projected to increase with time.”

    http://www.policymic.com/articles/3701/who-really-benefited-from-the-bush-tax-cuts

  • Bill Hedges

    Part 7

    In my last comment link simple press the blue to get CBO source or whatever source was used to substantiate the data. Wish all links did this…

  • Bill Hedges

    Part 8

    Why would rich want to hide their money when they can make MORE MONEY WITH reduced tax rates ? RICH don’t want loopholes.

    Why would Congress want to give loopholes to rich when government wants increased revenue they get keeping rates low for rich ?

    According to buma ***fairness***. In other words class envy. Liberals say tax cuts for rich COST government revenue. As proven IS LIE. Class envy for votes. TEA only care for rich !!! Proved THAT WRONG. Middle class and poor pay less taxes. More pay NO TAX. PURE contradiction to what liberals preach…

  • Mike

    Mr. Hedges:

    I am going to ask you to be a ‘stand up guy’ and answer two simple questions.

    I refer you to the paper by Thomas Sowell. I quote: “…the cost of making up such tax losses by the government must fall on those other, non-wealthy taxpayers ‘who do not or cannot take refuge in tax exempt securities.’ Mellon called it an ‘almost grotesque’ result to have ‘higher taxes on all the rest in order to make up the resulting deficiency in the revenues.’ “. Mellon refered to “the evil of tax exempt securities,” and he, ” repeatedly sought to get Congress to end tax exemptions for municipal bonds and other securities.”.

    My first question is this: Was Mellon wrong to consider these tax shelters an evil, and was he wrong to try to get Congress to eliminate them?

    I refer you now to the footnote on page four of Sowell’s piece, which I quoted verbatim in my last post.
    He writes that elected officials, “attract(ed) donations from the wealthy by providing an easy escape from actually paying those taxes—and sometimes any taxes at all”. My dictionary defines a donation as “a gratuitous gift or free contribution”. If I donate my spare change to a Salvation Army bell ringer or give a box of canned goods to a food drive, those are donations. There is no exchange involved. I expect and recieve nothing in return. If I give money to a politician in exchange for a tax shelter or any other benefit, that is a purchase, not a donation.

    Since the described exchange is clearly not a donation, but the purchase of favors from elected officials, which is the commonly accepted definition of bribery, I call it bribery. You disagree.

    Will you please tell me, then, what word you would use to describe it?

  • Bill Hedges

    Mike _ Never have run from answering my QUESTIONED comments

    DID YOU READ MY Part 6. ? FLIES in the face of “…the cost of making up such tax losses by the government must fall on those other, non-wealthy taxpayers ‘who do not or cannot take refuge in tax exempt securities.’ Mellon called it an ‘almost grotesque’ result to have ‘higher taxes on all the rest in order to make up the resulting deficiency in the revenues.’ ”. Have you IGNORED ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT GAVE to the contrary of this quote ? The quotes by Andrew Mellon that I gave ? The link by Andrew Mellon from 1924 ?

    What I have read from Andrew Mellon & Thomas Sowell they agree with me. Check my PART 3 for Mellon.

    Then read my Part 8. mMy part 6

    THIS is really getting FAR OFF TRACK of your statement of “It is to explain why more tax cuts weighted to the wealthy will make a healthier economy when they did the exact opposite from 2000 to 2008.”

    Once you clearly state without reservation you were wrong what you said about Bush, will then be glad to respond to your last comment and any other questions in more detail. Now you sound like you still believe. Ignoring all the data provided.

    You wrote when you came back “I was left, then, with two questions: do tax cuts for the wealthy pay for themselves and if so, why?”. “if so why ?” doesn’t matter. It worked in 20‘s, JFK, RR, Newt, & Bush…

  • Bill Hedges

    I have ALWAYS been about tax cuts for RICH not ***loopholes ***. Did you NOT READ my Part 8 ??? Your Bush quote talked about TAX CUTS not *** LOOPHOLES ***…

  • Bill Hedges

    Part 3

    If and win you denounce your Bush quote, will be glad to discuss Andrew Mellon & Thomas Sowell quotes on TAX CUTS not *** loopholes ***. After that, we can discuss *** loopholes *** if you wish…

  • Bill Hedges

    Not “win” but “when”

  • Bill Hedges

    Part 4

    As I have proven tax cuts for rich INCREASES GOVERNMENT revenue paying for tax cuts for lower incomer groups. Non-rich pay less tax and many more pay no tax whatsoever. In fact many of them get government checks for whatever reasons such as very low earnings or whatever.

    Bush warned of recession MANY, many, TIMES but IGNORED by Democrats. This answers your IMPLIED trouble with Bush:

    “Pelosi Caught In Major Lie- Says Bush Didn’t Warn Congress About Financial Crisis… Records Show He Warned Congress 17 Times in 2008 Alone”

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2010/05/pelosi-caught-in-major-lie-says-bush-didnt-warn-congress-about-financial-crisis-records-show-he-warned-congress-17-in-2008-alone/

    Note_ Not talking about “loopholes”…

  • Bill Hedges

    You wrote :

    “Thomas Sowell. I quote: “…the cost of making up such tax losses by the government must fall on those other, non-wealthy taxpayers ‘who do not or cannot take refuge in tax exempt securities.’ Mellon called it an ‘almost grotesque’ result to have ‘higher taxes on all the rest in order to make up the resulting deficiency in the revenues.’ “. Mellon refered to “the evil of tax exempt securities,” and he, ” repeatedly sought to get Congress to end tax exemptions for municipal bonds and other securities.”.

    If you wish to discuss now ok.

    Tax cuts for rich has lowered the taxes of non-rich. They pay less or no tax whatsoever. Rich pay far more % of taxes COLLECTED by government_ “99.1% of the total” under Bush. See number in my American Thinker article by CBO. Gave CBO link as well. My data given supports this. You gave___ NO DATA ___ just quotes. True even with the “loopholes” now in place. “loopholes” apply to both rich & non-rich. I am not wealthy but have bought municipal bonds & other securities. AS I have ALREADY stated lower taxes for rich takes rich $$$ out of hiding & to work creating jobs. That gave us longest Bull Market in America’s history:

    “According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total”

    http://www.cbo.gov/publication/18278

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html

    Have given other sources giving data on this…

  • Bill Hedges

    Mike

    In “The Debate” you wrote:

    “Once again, Hedges, I follow through on my promises. Unlike you, my idea of proof is not material lifted from partisan sites wholesale. When my piece is finished, it will be thorough, cogent, carefully reasoned and cite numbers only from non-partisan sources. I know it will be wasted on you, but I made a promise. I take comfort from the fact that I have learned a good deal about tax policy from my research so far.”

    Where are your “NUMBERS” from “non-partisan sources” ??? You said you will “ follow through on my promises”. None quoted in your comments. All I seem to do is provide numbers. None disproven by you. Did you even comment on them ???

    Instead you go off on “loopholes” which was not part of your statement about Bush. You are not being “thorough, cogent, carefully reasoned and cite numbers only from non-partisan sources.”
    What you are writing so far IS “WASTED” on me.

    Your defense of your Bush statement is sinking to bottom of ocean like the Titanic after hitting the iceberg. Bush tax cuts for rich MORE than payed for themselves. Democrats not listening to Bush’s warnings helped cause WORSE disaster than necessary. Cause of recession had NOTHING TO DO WITH BUSH.

    Mike, so far, you HAVE NOT “follow through on … promises”. Take this to task and follow through. This going off tract is tedious…

  • Bill Hedges

    Not “payed” but “paid”…

  • Bill Hedges

    Oh yeah. Show SOME SIGN you have read AT LEST some of my links…

  • Bill Hedges

    Not “lest” by “least”…

  • Bill Hedges

    Mike wrote:

    “Now, of course I don’t believe that the Bush tax cuts were the single cause of the economic catastrophe we experienced in 2007”

    How is Bush tax cuts for rich ANY CAUSE of this “economic catastrophe” ??? It brought in MORE REVENUE !!! Are you one of those people who can not admit to saying a __ lie __ about Bush ???

    Prove ANYTHING done by Bush that caused this “economic catastrophe”…

  • Bill Hedges

    Collapse started with interest rates going up. Sub-prime loans to unqualified home buyers to get them qualified WENT BELLY-UP with higher monthly payments required. Was Bill C. & Lawyer buma with Acorn that got those bad loans pushed through. Fannie & Freddy sold bundle of mixed leveled loan paper to Wall Street (junk paper with better rated home loan paper). That caused Wall Streets knees to bucket & land on floor. Amount of bundles sold to Wall Street was tremendous. Bush tried to start another housing program without these poison pens.

    Barney Frank condemned Bush for saying there was a problem. Democrats didn’t listen to the many warnings by Bush

    Of course this is a simplified explanation.:

    “Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown” video

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

  • Bill Hedges

    Mike

    With loopholes & tax cuts, in place, non-rich DO NOT PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE OF TAXES WITH “top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total” under Bush. SOURCE given recently.

    A loophole is good if it addresses a DESIRED RESULT. CLINTON & Senator buma WERE FOR loopholes for oil. Bill C. wanted loophole for deep water oil drilling in GULF. Before drilling was done in shallower waters were cost were much lower. To get very expensive drilling done loopholes was given including concessions on royalty payments to government on each barrel of crude pumped from deep waters when lucky enough to strike black gold. Non-rich & rich alike found this makes this risky drilling more pliable to invest in (I did & invested). Everyone gets loopholes for home buying, alternative energy use, and vehicles, etc. buma has, for use at his own discretion, ability to grant $$$ billions anyway he wants. Unfortunately some of the $$$ going to friend’s companies whose companies go belly-up.

    Are there loopholes that should be banished off the books ? YES !!! ARE non-poor paying THEIR fair tax burden rich should be paying ? HELL-O NO NO NO. NOT after tax cuts in 20’s FOR SURE. Not under JFK, RR, Newt, nor Bush. Never after JFK as far as I know. Before that I have not studied except when tax cuts were given in the 20’s.

    Loopholes had NOTHING to do with this discussion from your original Bush statement. UNTILL you found out tax cuts for rich WAS LOSING BATTLE for your politics. Now when you hear your president or Democrat Congress person say must pay for loss of revenue for those tax cuts for $$$ millionaires & $$$ billionaires YOU KNOW is a bunch of crap to push CLASS WARFARE and get votes…

    Unless you have real, hard data this discussion on this subject is over. You have not been forthcoming on proof SO FAR on TAX CUTS FOR RICH. OR even Bush having anything to do with recession (another liberal claim never proven)…

    So prove your statement about Bush’s tax cuts for rich. If you don’t WAS A LIE. SO far NO PROOF given by YOU . I’ve proven Bush tried to stop recession & Bush had nothing to do with recession. CARE TO PROVE ME WRONG ???

  • Bill Hedges

    NOT:

    “… shallower waters were cost… ” Instead “where”…

  • Mike

    My My…Such twisting and contortions, such ranting and raving to avoid answering two simple questions. The questions are perfectly easy to understand and were presented in a friendly and polite fashion.Please answer them.

  • Bill Hedges

    You have yet to answer:

    “It is to explain why more tax cuts weighted to the wealthy will make a healthier economy when they did the exact opposite from 2000 to 2008.”

    I have proved rich, with tax cuts, did increase revenue and their share of the tax burden.

    YOU PROVED NOTHING. YOU WROTE:

    “My next post will be a well researched analysis of that issue. Understand that it will not be based on a couple of knock-off articles from political advocacy sites, so it will take some serious study and time. In preparing my response, I will make some perhaps unwarranted assumptions: that you have some knowledge of macroeconomic theory, that you have a thorough understanding of the Laffer curve and the opinions of various economists about about it, and that you are prepared to engage in a serious discussion.”

    Where is this wonderful WORK OF ART COMMENT of yours ???

    You can say whatever you want about my information. (MUST have hit home since such language has gotten bad. But you don’t disprove it (can NOT). I have discuss loopholes. You haven’t proved your Bush statement. How did I know from the beginning YOU WOULD NOT.

    Which came first ? Bush statement or loopholes ? Yes Bush. So answer first your bush statement. You can not as you say you will…

  • Bill Hedges

    I explained & provided evidence why the economy went under(not “healthier” as you say). DEMOCRATS… Not Bush nor the cat cuts for rich caused…

  • Bill Hedges

    Not “cat” but “tax”…

  • Bill Hedges

    Is disconcerting you will not prove your Bush statement AS PROMISED but insist THIS new wrinkle concerning loopholes be immediately answered…

  • Bill Hedges

    I have played with liberals before. Get me off track of your Bush statement and discuss SOMETHING ELSE. NOT happening until you prove your Bush remark. Which you can’t prove…

  • Mike

    Mr. Hedges:

    You seem to live in a constant state of anger and agitation. How’s your blood pressure?

    When I need information, I turn to experts. If I want to understand something about physics, I find a textbook written by a qualified physicist. Likewise with any of the hard sciences or social sciences. If I want to understand something about economics, I turn to qualified economists. Before I began this discussion with you, I was reading a book by two well qualified economists about the recent economic collapse and how to avoid a recurrance. I was learning from it and therefor enjoying it. I need to get back to it.

    When researching the matter in question, I turned first to conservative, supply-side economists. I found that none of them supported the contention that tax cuts pay for themselves. In fact, quite the opposite. Go to youtube and punch in ‘tax cuts pay for themselves’. You will easily find Bruce Bartlett of the Reagan administration explaining why the contention is nonsense. Likewise with Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Paulson and numerous others. Greg Mankiw, George Bush’s apointee to the chairmanship of his Council of Economic Advisors said that people who contend that tax cuts pay for themselves are “cranks and charlatans”. http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/07/on-charlatons-and-cranks.html. I will say I don’t think you are a charlatan.

    I am not enterested in any more links to sites that ‘prove’ that tax cuts pay for themselves by ignoring inflation, the normal increase of GDP, and the massive concentration of wealth at the top over the last 30 years. I’ve wasted enough time on that nonsense.

    This process has not been an entire waste of time for me. I now understand how tax cuts at the high end increase revenue by drawing assets out of tax shelters provided to the wealthy by our bribed national legislature.

    As I said, I have a book to get back to. I am prepared to continue this dialogue if you will do two things:

    1. Provide me with the name of one notable economist who contends that tax cuts pay for themselves. I would prefer a supply-sider who has served in a Republican administration.

    2. Answer the two simple questions I have asked you twice to answer. This is not rocket science, Mr. Hedges. Any reasonably intelligent high school student could have disposed of these questions in a fraction of the time you have taken dodging them.

    perhaps I should help you with this:

    With the first question, you can either agree with Secretary Mellon that tax shelters are an evil, or you can disagree with him and state your reasons.

    With the second question, you can either agree that ‘donations’ given to lawmakers in exchange for tax shelters are in fact bribes, or you can disagree and state your reasons.

    See? It’s easy

  • Bill Hedges

    Mike _ So much *** OFF TOPIC***. CUT the chase not filler & provide MORE substance please… This is not a social event…

    1. “You seem to live in a constant state of anger and agitation. How’s your blood pressure?”

    Distracting with immaterial things you have no knowledge of.

    Only expect you to stay *** ON TOPIC *** of our discussion. You promised “well researched analysis of that issue. ” Where is it ?

    My health unlike yours (as you say) is fine. Thanks for the sincere concern.

    2. “When I need information, I turn to experts”

    YOU USED Mellon *** off topic***. I used Mellon *** on topic*** who agreed with ME.

    3. “If I want to understand something about physics, I find a textbook written by a qualified physicist. Likewise with any of the hard sciences or social sciences. If I want to understand something about economics, I turn to qualified economists. Before I began this discussion with you, I was reading a book by two well qualified economists about the recent economic collapse and how to avoid a recurrance. I was learning from it and therefor enjoying it. I need to get back to it.”

    Filler, off topic, and immaterial. Like your number *1* point.

    3. “I found that none of them supported the contention that tax cuts pay for themselves. ”

    As I have shown, THAT IS A LIE. OFF TOPIC you talked of LOOPHOLES by Mellon. On tax cuts for rich, ON TOPIC, Mellon *** COMPLETELY *** agrees with ME. Have quoted Mellon in my comments.

    4. “I found that none of them supported the contention that tax cuts pay for themselves. In fact, quite the opposite”

    I only check links that you give. You know the drill of how to do that.

    I checked your one link given. THIS you call superior un-bias source ? Where is his *** DATA PROOF *** ? WITHOUT is an opinion piece & waste of my time. Have given links using government data & CBO real numbers that _ sub·stan·ti·ates _ my position and makes fool of person writing article in your link.

    5. “I am not enterested in any more links to sites that ‘prove’ that tax cuts pay for themselves by ignoring inflation, the normal increase of GDP, and the massive concentration of wealth at the top over the last 30 years. I’ve wasted enough time on that nonsense.”

    a. You have provided *** NOTHING ***. A LINK with no data. CBO REAL NUMBERS over a short period of time “inflation” is _ in·con·se·quen·tial _.

    b. What does “massive concentration of wealth at the top over the last 30 years” have to do with:

    “It is to explain why more tax cuts weighted to the wealthy will make a healthier economy when they did the exact opposite from 2000 to 2008.”

    Your problem is I disproved your Bush statement. You want to bring in collateral material which I won’t allow. You wish to expand topic. Trying to muddy the water.

    YOUR MAN Mellon wrote:

    “The History of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.”

    Data was given along with Mellon’s quote in Heritage link of mine. He obviously didn’t think “inflation” was a mitigating factor. You are attempting to distract from data offensive to you unsupportable liberal belief. Data WHICH is coming out at a slower pace than a dead turtle moves.

    My evidence has already destroyed the NO DATA you have provided.

    6. “This process has not been an entire waste of time for me. I now understand how tax cuts at the high end increase revenue by drawing assets out of tax shelters provided to the wealthy by our bribed national legislature”

    You don’t read with comprehension what I write so will explain AGAIN to you. Good loophole is a necessary mechanism. Bill C. & Senator buma both supported oil loopholes. In Bill’s case breaks for oil companies drilling in deep waters of Gulf. Such expensive exploration needed that step.

    Rich need no loopholes to stay away from HIGH TAXES. They have option of taking their money overseas, tax free bonds will always exist as means of small governments securing money for much needed projects, buy stocks holding for long period of time thus no taxes to pay until advantageous, and then there is low yielding but safe saving outlets. Rich adapt to the ways at their disposal.

    7. “1. Provide me with the name of one notable economist who contends that tax cuts pay for themselves. I would prefer a supply-sider who has served in a Republican administration.”

    Unnecessary. Data proves tax cuts for rich increases government revenue. You “promised” to prove:

    “It is to explain why more tax cuts weighted to the wealthy will make a healthier economy when they did the exact opposite from 2000 to 2008.”

    If you can not prove then GIVE UP. Have expected it from the very beginning.

    8. “2. Answer the two simple questions I have asked you twice to answer. This is not rocket science, Mr. Hedges. Any reasonably intelligent high school student could have disposed of these questions in a fraction of the time you have taken dodging them.”

    As I stated. first things first. Prove:

    “It is to explain why more tax cuts weighted to the wealthy will make a healthier economy when they did the exact opposite from 2000 to 2008.”

    I have discussed the *** off topic *** loopholes.

    I agree with Secretary Mellon that TAX CUTS FOR RICH IS GOOD.

    I agree with Bill C. & lawyer buma that breaks for oil was good. Especially tax breaks for deep water oil drilling.

    Was “easy”. Is why I have previously answered…

  • Bill Hedges

    Just because my answer does not meet with your approval does not mean I didn’t answer…

  • Mike

    Of course. You have made a fool of the Harvard professor who engineered the Bush tax cuts. You are able to do that because you know more about economics than Alan Greenspan, Secretary Paulson a nd every other qualified economist who has commented on the issue.How could I doubt you?

    I’ve wasted enough time on this crackpot nonsense. Besides, trying to decipher your sentence fragments gives me a headache. You can now proudly announce that you’ve driven another ‘liberal’ from the field of battle with you impeccable logic and unsurpassed knowledge of economics.

  • Bill Hedges

    1. Your link gave NO DATA. In your book you call that PROOF ? I don’t.

    2 “Alan Greenspan, Secretary Paulson a nd every other qualified economist who has commented on the issue.”

    Un-named economist MEAN NOTHING. Like I told you:

    I only check links that you gave. You know the drill of how to do that. You gave no link for Alan Greenspan or Secretary Paulson.

    3. “How could I doubt you?”

    I gave data proof. You gave NONE. LOTS of filler and concern for my blood pressure.

    4. “trying to decipher your sentence fragments gives me a headache”

    New insult as you throw in the towel after no data given by you. Data I provided shows you WRONG :

    5. You hardly touched the subject matter:

    “It is to explain why more tax cuts weighted to the wealthy will make a healthier economy when they did the exact opposite from 2000 to 2008.”

    Or followed your mission:

    “My next post will be a well researched analysis of that issue. Understand that it will not be based on a couple of knock-off articles from political advocacy sites, so it will take some serious study and time. In preparing my response, I will make some perhaps unwarranted assumptions: that you have some knowledge of macroeconomic theory, that you have a thorough understanding of the Laffer curve and the opinions of various economists about about it, and that you are prepared to engage in a serious discussion.”

    Not once did you mention “ Laffer curve”.

    6. “You can now proudly announce that you’ve driven another ‘liberal’ from the field of battle with you impeccable logic and unsurpassed knowledge of economics”

    Will quote you often.

    A little data would have helped prove your impossible case to prove. A link with just opinion not backed with ANY data to prove it IS worthless. Don’t care about his/her experience or titles following his/her name. Is why I like the Heritage link I quote SO OFTEN. When it says something it is followed with data to support their claim.

    Sorry I forced you to stay *** on topic *** AND not rant off into the swamp concernong loopholes and the rest you tried. As you wrote proving my contention:

    “tax cuts at the high end increase revenue by drawing assets out of tax shelters…”

    Your other conclusions in that sentence I have disproven including rich use other methods besides tax shelters. “Tax shelters” are not dirty words. Building affordable housing for poor seems a noble cause. Helping local government finance a new water shelter or treatment plant is good.

    Your “well researched analysis” of your statement of “It is to explain why more tax cuts weighted to the wealthy will make a healthier economy when they did the exact opposite from 2000 to 2008” was as useful as a tit on a male hog.

    My pleasure to supply a wealth of data eradicating your untrue Bush comment…

  • Bill Hedges

    Not “concernong” but concerning…

  • Bill Hedges

    “Of course. You have made a fool of the Harvard professor who engineered the Bush tax cuts”

    If that is the guy who wrote article you gave link for, he provided no data. Without data supporting his words then article is a MERE opinion piece. Worth less than nothing…

  • Mike

    Check out this video on YouTube:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urHjjIdbMQ8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    Sent from my iPad!!

  • Mike

    Of course you’re more qualified than all these top supply side economists because you read a deeply flawed propaganda piece from the Heritage Foundation which ignores inflation and normal growth of GDP. I should believe you instead of them because you assert that you are “very knowledgable” .

    I had always accepted the liberal myth about ‘trickle-down economics’ until I read the Sowell piece, and he convinced me that there never has been such a theory. That’s because I don’t think I know everything. When you already know everything, you can’t learn anything.

    You’re a garden variety idealogue. Your mind is closed. You get all your information from people you already agree with; you never change your mind and because you never learn anything new. I got something from this process; I learned things. I didn’t set out to defend a position. I actually wanted to know if it could be true that cutting taxes on the wealthy could increase revenue. I was surprised to find that it was true, surprised and pleased—pleased because I had learned something. I couldn’t buy the article’s ridiculous explaination for why it happened, so I went looking for that too, and found it. I enjoyed the process because I love to learn. I think learning is the best thing a human being can do.

    I don’t think you can name a single thing you learned here. I actually feel sorry for you. I love being proved wrong, because every time I’m proved wrong, I learn something new. You waste your time trying to convince yourself and others that you have all the answers when you could be exploring and learning. it’s sad.

    You are in the sorry position of supporting a myth cranked out by a political propaganda machine—a myth which no qualified conservative economist supports. You’re wrong. But I don’t think you’ll even begin to admit that possibility, because that would make a little dent in your precious ideology, the ideology that keeps you from venturing out and learning anything new.

    I don’t think yuo’ll be hearing from me again. My time grows short, thus more valuable. The world is full of intrersting things to explore. i have nothing against you, Mr. Hedges, and I wish you well.

  • Bill Hedges

    1. How does liberals prove tax cut for rich do not pay for themselves ?

    Listen to Democrat talking points.

    2. How do I prove tax cuts more than pay for themselves ?

    Real numbers from government revenue that CBO reports and other government agencies.

    3. What numbers did Mike give in this article ?

    NONE

    4. What numbers did I give ?

    Too numerous to mention.

    5. Waiting for Mike to pull the numbers. Not really given in his video. Wait. Mike waited to dig and get those facts and then was going to report them. Why didn’t he ???

    Mike’s statement that started this discussion:

    “It is to explain why more tax cuts weighted to the wealthy will make a healthier economy when they did the exact opposite from 2000 to 2008.”

    Reason for Mike‘s long delay after vacation. Why didn‘t he do this ? :

    “My next post will be a well researched analysis of that issue. Understand that it will not be based on a couple of knock-off articles from political advocacy sites, so it will take some serious study and time. In preparing my response, I will make some perhaps unwarranted assumptions: that you have some knowledge of macroeconomic theory, that you have a thorough understanding of the Laffer curve and the opinions of various economists about about it, and that you are prepared to engage in a serious discussion.”

    Not once did you mention “ Laffer curve”.

    Mike’s Hail Mary throw is this video. Which is very short of data. Not talking GNP but increase in government income tax by the rich. Which rich paid larger portion of total revenue & non-rich paid much less of the total revenue collected. THAT FACT NEVER MENTIONED in video… Is in CBO report. I have been saying that ALL ALONG…

  • Bill Hedges

    Sorry Mike not throwing INSULTS back at you…

    1. How does liberals prove tax cut for rich do not pay for themselves ?

    Listen to Democrat talking points.

    2. How do I prove tax cuts more than pay for themselves ?

    Real numbers from government revenue that CBO reports and other government agencies.

    3. What numbers did Mike give in this article ?

    NONE

    4. What numbers did I give ?

    Too numerous to mention.

    5. Waiting for Mike to pull the numbers. Not really given in his video. Wait. Mike waited to dig and get those facts and then was going to report them. Why didn’t he ???

    Mike’s statement that started this discussion:

    “It is to explain why more tax cuts weighted to the wealthy will make a healthier economy when they did the exact opposite from 2000 to 2008.”

    Reason for Mike‘s long delay after vacation. Why didn‘t he do this ? :

    “My next post will be a well researched analysis of that issue. Understand that it will not be based on a couple of knock-off articles from political advocacy sites, so it will take some serious study and time. In preparing my response, I will make some perhaps unwarranted assumptions: that you have some knowledge of macroeconomic theory, that you have a thorough understanding of the Laffer curve and the opinions of various economists about about it, and that you are prepared to engage in a serious discussion.”

    Not once did you mention “ Laffer curve”.

    Mike’s Hail Mary throw is this video. Which is very short of data. Not talking GNP but increase in government income tax by the rich. Which rich paid larger portion of total revenue & non-rich paid much less of the total revenue collected. THAT FACT NEVER MENTIONED in video… Is in CBO report…

    “According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total”

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html

    Ther was little inflation from 2000-2004

    I just want to talk about your Bush statement. Not interested in expanding into RR or anyone else. Only so much of a liberal I want to be tied to in discussion. Always links like one with no data just their opinion. And Mike’s remarks when things don’t go their way like:

    “I’ve wasted enough time on this crackpot nonsense. Besides, trying to decipher your sentence fragments gives me a headache. You can now proudly announce that you’ve driven another ‘liberal’ from the field of battle with you impeccable logic and unsurpassed knowledge of economics”

    In last remark again Mike gives no data. Data was my trademark in nearly very one of my comments.

    No Mike just throws his liberal insults:

    “Mike Oct 20th, 2012 at 5:31 am”

  • Bill Hedges

    Fact left out of video:

    Rich paid larger portion of total revenue & non-rich paid much less of the total revenue collected. THAT FACT NEVER MENTIONED in video… Is in CBO report I recented provided again. I have been saying that ALL ALONG…

    In another link I gave amount of taxes paid by non-rich has been going down. Larger number of non-rich pay no taxes. Some of them is given money. Possible because rich are paying more taxes.

    Why wasn’t THIS in video ?

  • Bill Hedges

    Mike wrote

    About the GREAT Fed. Chairman you talk about. That knucklehead in olden times would have been hung. I don’t LIKE HIM. LOANED $$$ 16 trillion HE (SEVERAL Fed Chairmans) PRINTED UP with no payment plan & no interest charged. NO approval by Congress. Fed Chairman keep this secret. Only when Republicans DEMANDED AUDIT, did THIS come out. I wouldn’t be quoting Fed. Chairman AS ECONOMIC specialist myself:

    “Audit: Fed gave $16 trillion in emergency loans”

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/21/audit-fed-gave-16-trillion-in-emergency-loans/

    No CBO numbers nor Heritage numbers did you disprove. YOU GAVE SO FEW data I DON’T RECALL YOU QUOTING ANY NUMBERS.

    Proving your Bush statement ??? OF COURSE *** NOT ***… CBO quote I gave said rich paid more revenue to government after tax cut. Paid larger % of total revenue than non-rich. Inflation DIDN’T cause THAT.

    Taking down your smoking mirrors your statement has a much substance as COTTON CANDY. That’s not much…

  • Bill Hedges

    Should have read:

    Inflation DIDN’T cause THAT or change that. Inflation doesn’t change the fact THAT WITH TAX CUTS rich paid larger % of total revenue. UP nearly 5% to over 91% of to revenue collected…

  • Bill Hedges

    Mike let’s talk about your LIES:

    1 “I didn’t set out to defend a position”

    YES you did. To defend your statement:

    “It is to explain why more tax cuts weighted to the wealthy will make a healthier economy when they did the exact opposite from 2000 to 2008.”

    Reason for Mike‘s long delay after vacation. Why didn‘t he do this ? :

    “My next post will be a well researched analysis of that issue. Understand that it will not be based on a couple of knock-off articles from political advocacy sites, so it will take some serious study and time. In preparing my response, I will make some perhaps unwarranted assumptions: that you have some knowledge of macroeconomic theory, that you have a thorough understanding of the Laffer curve and the opinions of various economists about about it, and that you are prepared to engage in a serious discussion.”

    Mike why didn’t you do this ???

    2. “You are able to do that because you know more about economics than Alan Greenspan, Secretary Paulson a nd every other qualified economist who has commented on the issue”

    I know when you used Mellon to support you view Mellon was talking about “loopholes” (in your material) which was immaterial to your Bush statement which had to do with *** tax cuts for rich ***. Mellon agreed WITH ME concerning those tax cuts and not with you. Same for the other economics that you took the time to quote WITH Mellon. Guess at least 2 of the “qualified economist” agree with me. Haven’t researched Paulson. WHY did you bring this up ? Already told you this. Have told/proven a lot of things. But as Judge Judy says “you don’t have your listening ears on”. You hear what you want to hear !!!

    3. Was best you left QUICKLY after submitting that video. WITH LITTLE or no data on video has as much nutricanal value as COTTON CANDY or granite…

    4. Besides your allegations were FLYING HIGH on LSD or shrooms…

  • Bill Hedges

    It is true inflation & higher GDP will raise government revenue. When DID growing GNP OCCUR ??? Tied to implication of tax cuts for rich & the subsequential lowering of the tax rate for non-rich ?

    BUT, as my data with links PROVE, for past 60 years, Tax cuts for rich has raised the % of revenue rich pay. While % of tax paid by non-rich falls. Supporting from 40-50% of non-rich paying NO TAXES and some receiving money AS WELL.

    INFLATION or GNP didn’t cause THIS. RICH INVESTING lead to growing GNP and LONGEST BULL MARKET in our history. Bill C. administration PROVED THIS. He raised taxes on rich & expected revenue increase failed miserable. BUT not Newt’s tax cuts for rich. There is your prosperity under Bill C.

    Naturally these government numbers, just like government numbers in Heritage Foundation link, will be *** dismissed *** BUT not disproven BY MICK.

    Mike has a severe allergic reaction to DATA & hard facts…

  • Bill Hedges

    Mike

    Topic of our discussion was YOU PROVING “ tax cuts weighted to the wealthy will make a healthier economy when they did the exact opposite from 2000 to 2008.”

    You DID NOT PROVE “did the exact opposite from 2000 to 2008.”

    I see you are STILL commenting on this site AFTER waving bye-bye. WISH to fulfill your ***** promise ***** & do so finally ???