This meme will never die.

There are a couple of people who post here regularly who will most likely drop off a long-winded comment showing just how deeply held this religion is.

During his June 2006 confirmation hearing, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said, "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves." The financial information website, MarketWatch, reported this statement as "echoing the opinion of most economists."

I guess Hannity and  Matalin believe the Bush administration is wrong about this.

In neo-con reality, everything is free.

War?  It will pay for itself, in fact, taxpayers could even profit from the oil we steal!

Tax cuts for the rich?  Increased government revenues, because those rich people will want to work so much harder, knowing that they can keep slightly more of their earnings!

$700 billion purchase of bad debt - Taxpayers could profit from this too!  What if every creditee decides to pre-pay their loan balance tomorrow, what with all the free money floating around!

I'm glad the Bush Administration has got all of this under control, otherwise, I might be worried!

I'm glad the Bush Administration has got all of this under control, otherwise, I might be worried

They have everything under control, they are so reliable. Look how they handled Katrina and Iraq.

Maybe in neo-con reality the government never has to pay its debts.  Except, of course, for no-bid contracts with companies owned by those who support neo-con ideas.

You're correct.  Republican and Neo-Con governments like to run on a deficit - and that whole borrow and spend thing.

Righties might call us tax and spend liberals, but at least at the end of our day, the bills are paid (witness: Bill Clinton) and we don't have to worry about saddling our children with debt that we were too irresponsible to pay back in a timely manner.

I may be a bit off-base with that generalization, but in my world, that's how it seems.

The neo-cons "make their own reality".

Bet I can guess who. Perhaps someone we both seem to have in common?

I honestly wasn't thinking of any specific poster. Those parrot-posts sort of blend together in my mind,, I don't really associate them with humans.

the less I make the more I earn!

I think this issue is open to debate. In my law school days, amid many liberal professors, I took a few tax planning and tax policy courses. Originally I was unconvinced entirely with the idea that cutting taxes could actually raise revenue. Just seemed illogical. But some of those otherwise liberal professors actually thought differently, and although I don't remember the excerpts of books and articles they had us read (some of which were authored by said professors), there seemed to be empirical support for both views.

It may not be a liberal college professor, but Wikipedia may have some additional insight for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

• Economics Teacher: In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the... Anyone? Anyone? ...the Great Depression, passed the... Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered? ...raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression. Today we have a similar debate over this. Anyone know what this is? Class? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone seen this before? The Laffer Curve. Anyone know what this says? It says that at this point on the revenue curve, you will get exactly the same amount of revenue as at this point. This is very controversial. Does anyone know what Vice President Bush called this in 1980? Anyone? Something-d-o-o economics. 'Voodoo' economics.

Sorry wanted to say this is from my favorite movie Ferris Bullers Day off.

Yes, Ben Stein peaked in popularity around 1986.  In 2008, Paris Hilton made him cry.

I acutally agreed with Stein for the first time the other day when he was on Larry King when he said that we shouldn't be rewarding rogue gamblers of Wall St.

I have been doing taxes for the last 16 years..... for Jackson Hewitt, H&R Block, and as a very small business.... I also do my own.... manually and then into the computer. I typically will read as much of the 1040 booklet and the many worksheets that are available (Schedule C, etc, etc) depending on your situation.....

And I have come to the conclusion, as it pertains to the tax percentages that we as individuals pay (poor, middle, and rich), the small business, and the corporation....

I gotta tell ya...... it becomes obvious that lowering taxes does only two things and two things only......

1) It allows the rich to keep more money to supposedly reinvest (which as we have come to realize, many do not do this.) within the very society that allows them to make that money in the first place!

2) It ruins the economy because the idea that number one above will happen.... rarely does those with money, spend it wisely and so the trickle down policy of economics only works..... if your  rich already or are willing to sell out, ignore, and turn your back on the very society that helped make you rich!

ps: I'm not sure I wrote this in a precise manner... but I think ya'll get the idea of my thought.

thomp.steve wrote:

>>and although I don't remember the excerpts of books and articles they had us read (some of which were authored by said professors), there seemed to be empirical support for both views.

Funny thing, when I took physics, I had several liberal professors who claimed that gravity doesn't work. I can't remember their names and the books, but there seemed to be empirical evidence for this.

On a serious note, why are people so math illiterate that they think cutting taxes will increase revenue? It is a mathmatical absurdity.

100% tax rate = no revenue because of failed economy.

0% tax = no revenue becaue you don't bring in taxes.

So the right tax rate is

0% < right tax rate < 100%

Where that actual rate lies is a matter of debate, but simply saying cutting taxes will increase revenue is as stupid as saying not producing any goods will increase your revenue because it will increase the demand for them.

Basic Rules of Thumb: 1 - If Sean Hannity says it, it's a lie. 2 - If Sean Hannity and Mary Matalin BOTH say it, it's a damnable lie.

HANNITY: We've got to strengthen the dollar, we've got to create investment opportunities. I'd eliminate the corporate income tax -- just get rid of it.

I've got a better idea to generate revenue - how about a 1,000% tax SURCHARGE on all right-wing talk show hosts (especially Jeff Christie, Hannity, Levin, Savage, Ingraham, Glenn BEck, Bill O'Reilly, and Michael Reagan), to cover the damage that they've done to this country???

Nah.  Just make them pay $1.00 for each lie.  We would pay off the deficit in about a week.

Why should the corporate income tax be eliminated?  Most corporations don't pay any income tax anyway.  Besides, I hear Dubai is very tax friendly to what used to be U.S. corporations.

We've read over and over here and other places that 2/3 of corps pay no income taxes.  I wonder how many of that 2/3 number are small family owned corps set up for the sole purpose of tax avoidance?  Does anyone have a number available? Mention corps and the thoughts turn to the ultra large, which although are hugh, are few in number compared to the small corps set up for the purpose noted above.

IMO, the only chance of this pipe dream coming true is if we had a trade policy that favors the American worker and the entrepreneur.  There was a time when we produced most of the goods that we consume in the US.  As long as we keep rewarding companies for shipping good jobs overseas, the weakening middle class will continue to yield less and less demand for durable products as their income shrinks and greater portions of their income are devoured by increasing health care and housing costs. 

What was the right-wing, Reaganomics/Greenspan solution for maintaining demand while reducing the size and income of the middle class?  Give them lots and lots of high interest credit!  Send them offer after offer in the mail, bombard them with advertising and convince them that whatever it is, they can afford it!  Your credit is good!!! Hooray!!!

Worked out great, didn’t it?

Obama is absolutely right.  It is absolutely crucial that this latest economic debacle be the last chapter and final farewell to this ridiculous, unproven notion of building an economy from the top down by shrinking wages and drowning ourselves in massive amounts of debt.

Well said pete.  It has always mystified me how many amongst the middle class will argue so passionately in support of policies that hurt them.  Even in this very thread there are those who are ignoring the evidence of the past near decade to claim that tax cuts at the top are going to help us all at the bottom and the middle. 

Man, pete. I always love your posts. Keep up the good work.

President John F. Kennedy;

"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. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions and any new recession would break all deficit records. 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"

Tommy that was a different era and different economy. We have major issues today much different than the early 1960's.

Yes, we have a much larger, more inefficient, bloated government than we ever have, thanks to Bush, so are you saying we need more taxes to pay for that?  Sorry, I don't agree.

Yes i do believe we all need to pay our fair share.

If I recall correctly, that JFK speech was also about closing the tax loopholes.

Ah, yes, there it is I found the speech you're quoting, Tommy. Kennedy was talking about closing loopholes, which he called privileges, and finding an equity in which those who are favored by the tax code will pay a fair share in relation to those who make less money. His was a plan that was progressive and fair. End the privileges in order to lower the rates across the board.

Here read for yourself.

"Third, the new tax bill should improve both the equity and the simplicity of our present tax system. This means the enactment of long-needed tax reforms, a broadening of the tax base and the elimination or modification of many special tax privileges. These steps are not only needed to recover lost revenue and thus make possible a larger cut in present rates; they are also tied directly to our goal of greater growth. For the present patchwork of special provisions and preferences lightens the tax load of some only at the cost of placing a heavier burden on others. It distorts economic judgments and channels an undue amount of energy into efforts to avoid tax liabilities. It makes certain types of less productive activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings. All this inhibits our growth and efficiency, as well as considerably complicating the work of both the taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service." 

And here is the money shot, Tommy, "These various exclusions and concessions have been justified in part as a means of overcoming oppressively high rates in the upper brackets--and a sharp reduction in those rates, accompanied by base-broadening, loophole-closing measures, would properly make the new rates not only lower but also more widely applicable. Surely this is more equitable on both counts."

He also said in that same speech, "I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last 5 years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking." 

But I thought we were at war, Tommy? So, how is lowering the taxes that would pay for the cost of the war a patriotic position to take? How Tommy?

Here's another money shot for you (mostly for Hannity who says we are in the fight of our life against Islami extremists), "If the economy today were operating close to capacity levels with little unemployment, or if a sudden change in our military requirements should cause a scramble for men and resources, then I would oppose tax reductions as irresponsible and inflationary; and I would not hesitate to recommend a tax increase, if that were necessary."

Just something for you to chew on, T.

Leave it to Tommy to bring up a 45 year old quote from a different time and a different economic situation to bolser the bullsh!t spouted by Hannity and Matalin 

Why are the Righties always stuck in the past? 

Get over it.  We're in the 21st century now.  The days of Ward and June Cleaver are OVER.  Why can't you retards seem to get that?

Nice rebuttal, darn that Kennedy!

Obviously, you missed my point, so I'll spell it out for you.

Our economy is nothing like the economy during Kennedy's tenure.  I disagree with Kennedy in what he said, but again, different era, different circumstances.  What may have worked then will more than likely fail now.  I don't see why you folks don't see that the policies of the 50's and 60's don't apply in the same manner today as back then.  Again, you're stuck in the past.  Cutting taxes does not increase revenue.  It makes the rich richer and forces the poor to continue to carry the tax burden.  The wealthiest among us deserve to pay their fair share, Tommy.

And what exactly is that fair share the wealthy should pay?  Please, be specific in the amount.

WTF kind of question is that?  How can I be specific in the amount when everyone makes a different wage? What a ridiculous question, Tommy.

Now, if you're asking for a percentage, I can't give it to you.  It would have to be based on our needs as a nation as a whole.  It's not fair for me to pay 32% of my earnings and live on a meager salary, while the guys for whom I sweat, toil from day to day, missing my family, friends, etc. go out and play golf, screw around, live it up and basically do nothing, make 30 times what I make, but pay a smaller amount (not percentage, but AMOUNT IN DOLLARS) than I pay.

Why doesn't that seem wrong to you?

Do you have any idea who pays the vast majority of taxes in this country?  Do we need to put that for public consumption again?  Never mind, go look it up.

And what is the ratio of the percent they pay to the percent they own and control?  The picture isn't as pretty when you look at all the numbers.

 -- What a ridiculous question, Tommy...the guys for whom I sweat, toil from day to day, missing my family, friends, etc. go out and play golf, screw around, live it up and basically do nothing, make 30 times what I make -- commonsenseliberal

Tommy...that's what it usually boils down to...no answer and a healthy dose of poor me. But despite a great numbering system at the library...some still look for the book Cinderella in the history section...rather than fiction.

Maybe Obama really is a fairy godmother in disguise.

Oh, save it, wes. Coming from the kind of guy who blames CRA for the Wall St. disaster instead of taking responsibility for the failures of conservative market fundamentalism, you have no damn credibility on this issue.

CSL, if you are living on a "meager" salary, you certainly aren't paying 32% of your earnings in Federal Income Taxes.  Now, if you are living in MA, NJ, or such, you may be seeing 32% of your income going to taxes (and insurance, i.e. SS). If you know people earning more or paying less, it seems to me that is a Tax Code problem, not a tax rate problem.

Compared to what the fatcats are making, it's a meager salary.  I live in SFCA.  Income levels are a bit skewed here...

My sympathies to you for being "stuck" in SFCA. Perhaps you should look at relocating to a place where your "meager" salary would go much further, say a few hundred miles east where Nevada has no state income tax.

Tommy, says, "And what exactly is that fair share the wealthy should pay?  Please, be specific in the amount." 

The wealthiest 1 percent of our country owns 90 percent of our wealth. 90% sounds like a good tax rate to me.

And it could well be that the Kennedy tax cuts are part of the reason the economy has been more robust since the 70s than before.  Do we need more tax cuts today? Probably not. But in looking at the wiki link posted above, we read that tax revenues have always been about 19% of GDP (formerly GNP), but that spending has almost always outpaced the income. If the tax code were redone, using a flat tax concept, with generous personal deductions, getting rid of loopholes that allow avoidance, what effect would it have on the econmy?

We had a real manufacturing base to rely on back then, full of strong, middle-class wage earners who had real money to spend, not credit cards.  This was a time when we were producing things and generating real wealth, instead of buying and selling money.

Good point, but the economics of what Kennedy said is still true today.

No it's not.  Not with our current trade policies, job exportation and willful gutting of the middle class. 

No, the context has a lot do with it.  During the time of JFK the top tax rate was 91%.  Now it's 35%.  Clearly there is a huge difference and you must be intentionally ignoring that.

Even if one accepts the Laffer Curve theory it states that there is point on the curve at which taxation becomes so low that government revenue does decline as the rate declines.  Conservatives seem to continuously either leave that part of the theory out or pretend that the point is somewhere near 0.

Looking at today's economy it doesn't take any particularly intense education in economics to realize that the Bush cuts did not have the effect on the economy that they promised.  That money was not reinvested in this country, it did not create jobs here and it definitely did not trickle down. 

And that doesn't even begin to touch how capital gains taxes value investment more than production, a value system that goes a long way towards causing things like major meltdowns due to crazy investing schemes.  I wonder if something like that might happen here?

Only five years ago man learned to write and use a cart with wheels. Christianity began less than two years ago. (JFK)

That was sooo long ago.

Hey, don't blame me that Kennedy is a far cry from todays high taxers in your party.  He knew it stunted the economy, there is no statute of limitations for that philosophy, but it's a darn nice try by many of you to insist that low taxes are from a bygone era and they are no longer relevant, or some such nonsense.

There's nuttin' like a good ole' low tax proponent thread to get liberal's ire all up in arms though, it's nice to see.......

(Kennedy's Tax plan) did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.

Tommy, are you just playing, or do you really not get the difference here? Are you backing a 70% rate?

Come now Colonel, you know exactly what my point is.  Kennedy said it, I copied and pasted it, boldly highlighted it.......read it again.  It's timeless, unfortunately for some of you.

You didn't boldly highlight this part right before where you hit the highlighing action:

"tax rates are too high today"

That is a direct reference to the situation at that time and obviously qualifies the rest of the sentence against being a truism for all times and situations.

I read, and understood, what you pasted, both the highlighted and non-hilighted parts.

I'll have to assume that you make no allowances for different times, different circumstances, and how things like numbers and taxes are all relative to these things.

It's on the record, Tommy, you support a 70% fed. tax rate.

Nice one, Tommy.

You know what the top tax rate was when Kennedy made that speech?

91%. Eisenhower had instituted that rate to help pay off the debt from the war.

You know what kennedy cut that top rate to?

Around 70%.

Different times.

On Hannity & Colmes, Sean Hannity and Mary Matalin falsely claimed that cutting taxes raises revenues. In fact, several former and current Bush administration economists have stated that tax cuts -- including those passed under President Bush -- produce a net decrease in revenue. For example, Treasure Secretary Henry Paulson said during his confirmation hearing, "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves."

More MMFA misinformation. While it is true that a tax cut for business owners (the rich) results in an immediate decrease in tax revenue, the net result after those same business' expand and hire new employees is increased tax revenue.

Complete and utter Schweinerei.  Your trickle down economics theory has (at least) one fatal flaw: the theory doesn't take into account human nature and it's relationship with greed.  The trickle down effect that you believe in is really just the rich folks with their tax breaks p!ssing down your backs and telling you that it's trickle down economics - and that you'll benefit.

You'd think that people who don't want to pay high taxes would rather that those who have the most would at least do their part and help those with the least, you know, the ones of whose backs the rich make their money.

"the net result after those same business' expand and hire new employees is increased tax revenue."

In China, Korea, India, and Mexico.

If those businesses weren't saddled with so much tax burden they wouldn't have to relocate their jobs to those countries, sorry, works both ways.....

That's a B.S. strawman argument.  Companies move manufacturing overseas because  they don't want to pay anyone a decent, living wage and because health care for employees in America costs too damn much.

That's it exactly, Pete.  Companies move their manufacturing overseas because they can pay workers in Asia pennies on the dollar to manufacture $200 pairs of shoes and reap higher rewards.  If they're not careful, they won't have anyone in the States who can afford their shoes.

Then in your scenario businesses should have more revenue due to lower payrolls, which would increase investment and job creation, increasing the tax base more.

Tommy, you're mixing revenue and net income (revenue minus expense) concepts, and ignoring that by denying wages to your market, the United States, you lower BOTH revenue and expenses simultaneously. Think of it this way: by saving, say, $1,000,000 in payroll in the USA, a corporation has just removed $1,000,000 of buying power from the US markets. If their product is sold in the USA then that's a $1,000,000 less potential revenue in the coffers of ALL companies that rely on the US markets. Multiply that by a thousand companies saving a million each and that's a BILLION dollars missing from the US markets. Furthermore, consider that the jobs people take to replace lost manufacturing jobs pay a fraction of the manufacturing jobs, so that lost BILLION at best is reduced to a lost half a BILLION.

The end result: US companies starve their revenues by reducing expenses. The result is corporate incomes go down. The relationship of revenue to expense is not one to one but on the magnitude of two to one in some cases.

Randy

Small clarification: what meant in the last paragraph is that the loss of jobs helps CONTRACT the economy. A contraction has a ripple effect. Thus revenues lost exceed expense saved for all companies.

Randy

"by denying wages to your market, the United States, you lower BOTH revenue and expenses simultaneously"

Wasn't it Ford who raise the pay for his factory workers so they could afford to buy the cars they were making?

"Then in your scenario businesses should have more revenue due to lower payrolls, which would increase investment and job creation, increasing the tax base more."

In China, Korea, India, and Mexico.

Max Dharma, our new Fiduciary expert, accent on the second syllable.

"More MMFA misinformation. While it is true that a tax cut for business owners (the rich) results in an immediate decrease in tax revenue, the net result after those same business' expand and hire new employees is increased tax revenue."

This kind of "logic" just plain wears me out.  You're a fool if you think giving the rich more money results in more jobs.  Even the rich don't operate in a vacuum.  They don't look up one day and say "Gee, unemployement is high...think I'll go out and hire a bunch more people"

Employment goes up when DEMAND FOR GOODS AND SERVICES go up.  And I don't give a crap who pays the "most" taxes.  It's who spends the most money that drives the economy.  Give the poor and middle class more money to spend and demand for goods and services WILL go up and THEN the rich will hire more people to fill those demands.

Lock the money up in trust funds and bank accounts and the rich will have more money, but it won't be in circulation and the economy WILL falter.  Which to YOU think drives the economy more: 1 millionaire buying a $500,000 car or 6 million middle class wage earners bying 6 million $30,000 cars?  You get one guess, better make it a good one.

the rich will hire more people to fill those demands.

Ah, glad you see it my way

Max, It's futile.  Taxes are to liberals what candy is to a baby.  When you try and tell both of them that enough is enough, and they can do with less, they yell and scream and beg for more. 

It is what it is.........and low sugar candy for everybody.

I doubt that there is a single liberal here that wants the government to take in one cent more in taxes than is needed for its legitimate purposes.

I thnk the argument would be over the "legitimate purposes" of government.  It seems that once a "legitimate" program is in place, the first words that are uttered are "It's not funded at the proper level." or "If we just had a few $$$$$ more, we could get the job done."  What are the legitimate purposes of government? Define that and we may have some common grounds on which to agree or disagree.

I meant the purposes defined by the Constitution, i.e. common defense, general welfare, etc. There are many views on which policies the government should undertake to fulfill these purposes, and that is where the debate should be. Statements like "liberals love taxes" aren't helpful.

And no one likes government programs that waste money. The good news, Oscar, is that both Obama and McCain have promised to go after government waste. So regardless of who wins, that problem will be fixed. ;-)

And that I will believe when I see the results.  Heard the same thing in the past and has anything changed?  Not much.  Government still consumes more than it receives.  I want accountability from my Representatives/Senators instead of the same old story "I've been sent to Washington DC to do good, and I have done quite well, thankyou." Practically the first thing any elected official does after being sworn in is to start running for re-election.

 I can only guess you put that phrase in quotations because of you utter disdain for the notion of anything that doesn't have a profit motive attached to it. The legitimate purpose of government is to do what the conservative profit over people model of economics has failed to do. That is to say the role of government is to help create broad prosperity and opportunity by investing in competitiveness. Education, healthcare, our infrastructure; highways, waterworks, railroads etc. And we may as well start by putting Americans to work on the job instead of selling chunks of our infrastructure, like toll roads,  to private, for profit foreign companies. Just imagine a 700 billion dollar bailout for the working man that was aimed at rebuilding our country?

No, nevermind, don't try to use your imagination. I doubt you'll get past the conjob myth that only business is efficient, that government sucks, despite the fact that the for profit model of healthcare is the most inefficient model in the world. We pay too much for too little.  

Oscar used quotes because he was referring to my use of the phrase.

Highways, waterworks, railroads, garbage collection, postal service should be covered by user fees. Education, I see private schools, charter schools in a lot of places outperforming the public system. (As an aside, I have voted against only two school bond issues in my voting life and only because then I felt the school board was biting off way too much at once.) Healthcare, mixed feelings on this one only because government programs seem to grow faster than projected (i.e. prescription drug program, medicare, medicad).  I'll get past the myth of business is always good just as soon as you get past the myth that larger government is the answer to all the problems.

Whatever, Oscar. You privatization junkies have had it your way for 25 years in our economy and ALL you have succeeded in doing is to allow the rich to get richer. 1% of the population now owns 90% of our wealth. While it used to be 50 to 1, the guy on the top floor now make 270 times the guys on the shop floor.

And back up your claim about charter schools because from where I sit, I see public schools outperforming private schools despite the fact that the public schools are forced to teach the kids that the private schools reject. It's easy to put up good numbers when you have the cream of the crop, homeboy.

I mean seriously, who in the world wants your ignorant pay to play society in which only those who can afford it get to go to the good schools, get the garbage picked up, get clean water to drink and safe food to eat? It's capitalism over democracy, it's profit over people and has no place in a country in which all men are created equal and are guaranteed the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Because in your con-man America, opportunity is constrained by how much of it you can afford.  

But hey, I get it. You apparently don't really love this country like I do. You would rather sell our country to the highest foreign bidder instead of putting Americans to work in an effort to secure our competitiveness in the global market.

You're a good guy, but your ideology sucks.

"Taxes are to liberals what candy is to a baby"

Where did I say that?  Taxes, applied correctly, can help to grow the economy.  But if you starve the middle class of jobs AND effectively raise their taxes by lowering the taxes for the very rich, then you are...in essence...biting the hand that feeds you.

By all means...lower taxes, I'm all for it.  But lower them on the middle class.  Give them the buying power to pay taxes back by spending that extra money.  The rich can never spend enough to compensate for the taxes lost by millions and millions of middle class buyers who CAN'T AFFORD TO BUY.

Another disingenuous, strawman argument from arguably one of MMfA's most obtuse posters, Tommy.

Your comment that taxes are to liberals what candy is to a baby is wrong and you know it.  People on the left fight for equality in taxation.  Those of you on the right want to make the rich even richer, even if it means you as a middle-class individual have to do without the things you need (e.g. health care, etc.).

This whole taxation thing is disgusting coming from the right.  Obama will cut taxes for 90% of Americans.  Why would Republicans have a problem with that?  The whole meme of 'the rich will hre more people to fill...demands is ludicrous on it's face.  It's not the rich folks who do the hiring, it's their minions.  The rich just sit back and reap the rewards of going to a quarterly board meeting. 

It's that fundamentalist dogma. You have to be flippin' dumb to continue believing, after thirty years of growing wealth disparity, that giving tax privileges to the leisure class benefits the working class. Conservative economics have failed to deliver on the promise of entrepreneurial freedom and broad prosperity. Period.

Our economy, like our democracy, is always strongest when the power of ideas, innovation, competition and prosperity grows from the bottom up. It's this top down trickle, this scraps from the table mentality that pervades conservative ideology that is the opportunity killer.

Sure Tommy, and this has absolutely nothing to do with it.

But lets be honest here. Businesses aren't outsourcing because of taxes. And while it's been said that foreign wages are lower, that really isn't it either. No, businesses are outsourcing because quite frankly, there are more people overseas than in the US, and by moving their factories overseas they save a bundle in shipping costs. It's common sense that you want your factories as close as possible to your public, and China has two billion potential customers to the US which has only 300 million potential customers. Its unfortunate, but the american market is technologically saturated now, so business will shift overseas with or without a tax cut.

"Ah, glad you see it my way"

Wrong.  You ceraintly would not be able to actually back up THAT claim...just as you can't back up any other.  Just like your normal, garden variety stuped Repub you take my comment OUT OF CONTEXT. 

"Employment goes up when DEMAND FOR GOODS AND SERVICES go up.  And I don't give a crap who pays the "most" taxes.  It's who spends the most money that drives the economy.  Give the poor and middle class more money to spend and demand for goods and services WILL go up and THEN the rich will hire more people to fill those demands."

That is the context: when DEMAND GOES UP...employment goes up.  Giving the rich more money has little to no effect on the general economy.

And, BTW, I noticed you dodged answering my question:  "Which to YOU think drives the economy more: 1 millionaire buying a $500,000 car or 6 million middle class wage earners bying 6 million $30,000 cars?"

Go ahead, give it a try and if you actually answer honestly and in context we can all cheer the first time you've ever done so on THIS forum.

The rich may hire more people or they can do what's some have been doing in America since the '80's, increase production and make due with the workers you have.

 -- As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves -- Paulson

Pretty cute effort by mmfa...I'll just add a little more from the Paulson report cited by mmfa...for those who chose not to read it.

He is clearly not in favor of higher taxes...and is a staunch proponent of controlling spending...he stated in the report that his number two priority was to keep taxes low.

From the report:

 -- "I would just say that I think it would be a big mistake to increase taxes" -- Paulson response to Sen.Snowe

 -- "I feel very stongly that we should not be increasing taxes now" -- Paulson response to another Sen.Snowe question

 -- I believe tax increases would be counter-productive -- Paulson response to another Sen.Snowe question.

 -- So again, I would not be increasing taxes. I do not think that is the answer to the issues we are facing. -- Paulson response to another Sen.Snowe question

Raise taxes? Cut taxes? That's just a smoke screen for the real issue...spending is out of control. Our economy has...under various taxing scenarios of raising taxes or cutting taxes...always produced enough revenue to support the govt.'s needs.

But the out-of-control bastards in congress know only one way to accomplish their goals of power and personal wealth...spend, spend, spend...regardless of the amount of money alloted.

Well said Wes.  Paulson will only be used by MMFA when they can cherry pick something they can hang their hat on to support the liberal lovefest over higher taxes, even if it means taking it out of context.  If he speaks of cutting spending and lower taxes, he is useless in this forum.

Kennedy will only be used by conservatives when they can cherry pick something they can hang their hat on to support the conservative lovefest over lower taxes, even if it means taking it out of context. If he speaks of increasing spending and raising taxes, he is useless to them.

Not me, I have much admiration for Kennedy and his far more moderate vews than today's raging liberals.  They could learn much from him, starting with his views on taxes.

I know it's hard to see the links, but I was pointing to this good Slate piece, which says:

"the pro-business rhetoric of the Economic Club speech [the speech you quoted] was largely strategic."

We never see those advocating for higher tax rates come anywhere close to suggesting lower spending rates.  "Can't be done," they say, regarding spending cuts.  I work for a business that has done quite well the last couple of years, and I see the increased spending that has gone along with those increased revenues, knowing full well, that there will come a change in the revenue stream that will create deficits.  But because it is a business rather than government, spending cuts will be instituted (and I could well be a participant in such cuts).  If the will were there, the cuts would be made, but the politicans are more interested in their careers than they are in the public good.

Absolutely correct Oscar, well said.

I like your style Oscar...spending cuts are not something to fear...they just need managed...and they don't have to be draconian.

The budget under Pres.Clinton averaged 3.5%/yr increase...Under Pres.Bush the average increase was 6.6%/yr.

The federal revenue has only failed to increase year over year 5 times since 1960...and three of those were the aftermath of 9/11.

Despite the dotcom bust, 9/11, and the GWOT...had we just maintained a 3.5% yearly budget increase...we would have built a nice surplus.

Yes, it's mostly a spending problem...not a revenue problem.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

I've said before, and I will repeat, cuts in spending may in reality a cut in the rate of growth of spending as you have noted.  Not that there isn't some fat in the budget that could be cut.  Put the two together and the budget could be balanced within a few years without tax increases (or tax cuts). That being said, it looks like we are in a position where government spending will be required to re-prime the pump, but there should be a plan in place to pay for that as a temporary measure, not as a long term government program.

Okay, what EXACTLY are you going to cut - and I don't want to hear that cr@p about eliminating waste/fraud/abuse, I want actual programs you are going to sharply reduce or eliminate.

I'm not saying that there isn't any w/f/a in government but, the kind of spending reductions you're talking about are going to require more than that.

Tax cuts have worked so well so far. Just look at what kind of deficits that we're running under tax cuts, and look at what we had under tax and spend liberal Bill Clinton, I mean, it's pretty easy to see what works, and what doesn't.

That wretched hive of liberal villainry the Cato Institute published a few papers on the theory that tax cuts encourage deficit spending.  In summary, the idea is that if those proposing new spending items don't have to account for the costs and get to promise tax cuts they have no incentive to show fiscal responsibility.  Ballooning deficits under Reagan and Bush II bear out this theory pretty well.

The logic of a tax break raising revenues flies in the face of reality when the highest government income tax rate sits at 35%. Taxes under Eisenhower were downright confiscatory. Yet nobody suggests that Eisenhower was a communist. Nor does anybody refute that Eisenhower oversaw one of the top three stretches of growth in US history. Clinton, who raised taxes to 39.4%, oversaw the meat of the longest growth period, a 300% increase in the DJIA, balanced the budget and handed Bush a surplus. So much for that conservative pap.

Randy

Myth 1:  Tax cuts “pay for themselves.”

“You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase.”  —  President Bush, February 8, 2006

“You have to pay for these tax cuts twice under these pay-go rules if you apply them, because these tax cuts pay for themselves.”  — Senator Judd Gregg, then Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, March 9, 2006

Reality:  A study by the President’s own Treasury Department confirmed the common-sense view shared by economists across the political spectrum:  cutting taxes decreases revenues.

Proponents of tax cuts often claim that “dynamic scoring” — that is, considering tax cuts’ economic effects when calculating their costs — would substantially lower the estimated cost of tax reductions, or even shrink it to zero.  The argument is that tax cuts dramatically boost economic growth, which in turn boosts revenues by enough to offset the revenue loss from the tax cuts.

But when Treasury Department staff simulated the economic effects of extending the President’s tax cuts, they found that, at best, the tax cuts would have modest positive effects on the economy; these economic gains would pay for at most 10 percent of the tax cuts’ total cost.  Under other assumptions, Treasury found that the tax cuts could slightly decrease long-run economic growth, in which case they would cost modestly more than otherwise expected. (http://www.cbpp.org/7-27-06tax.htm)

The claim that tax cuts pay for themselves also is contradicted by the historical record.  In 1981, Congress substantially lowered marginal income-tax rates on the well off, while in 1990 and 1993, Congress raised marginal rates on the well off.  The economy grew at virtually the same rate in the 1990s as in the 1980s (adjusted for inflation and population growth), but revenues grew about twice as fast in the 1990s, when tax rates were increased, as in the 1980s, when tax rates were cut.  Similarly, since the 2001 tax cuts, the economy has grown at about the same pace as during the equivalent period of the 1990s business cycle, but revenues have grown far more slowly.  (http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm)

Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - TAX CUTS: MYTHS AND REALITIES

Sorry. Here's the correct link to the source.

sean hannity is dumb as a stone, if he said the sky was blue, i'd check for myself. he probably actually believes this nonsense. mary matalin on the other hand, is smarter than that. she knows better, but pushes the classic, reagan-era meme, long since disproven, that lowering taxes increases revenues. as a cpa, with a specialty in fed. tax law, i've heard this BS for 30 years. it wasn't true when i first heard it, and nothing's changed in the intervening period to make it so now. just common sense dictates that if you decrease something, you don't get more of it as a result, fantasies notwithstanding. there is NO empirical data to support this "theory", none, nada, zippo! the single instance where it might be (briefly) true, is the capital gains tax. if lowered, it might cause an increase in sales of capital assets, resulting in a one-time infusion of extra taxes. then, it will drop back to normal. aside from that, the common sense reaction to this absurd assertion is correct: hogwash!

sorry, there were actual paragraphs in my previous post, i have no clue what happend to them!

I think you should state where these revenues will be raised or not raised. If the tax cuts were for a businedd, then it would raise their revenue.

These idiots have been pushing the same garbage for a long time. They dont realize that cutting taxes provides a very short term  bump up in revenue,then over the long haul ,the money drops off and we end up with large deficites. (check the deficites ran up under REGAN, BUSH1 ,and W).