Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues

We keep seeing the same liberal argument being played over and over again.  As the mainstream media seek to make their case to the American people that the Bush tax cuts should expire, one of the primary strategies being employed is to claim that Republicans are refusing to “pay for” their extension of the tax cuts.  And that therefore the Republicans will hike the deficit.  The problem is that it’s a false premise, based on a static conception of human behavior that refuses to take into account the fact that people’s behavior changes depending upon how much of their money they are allowed to keep, and how much of their money is seized from them in taxation.

As bizarre as it might seem, it is seen as perverse these days to suggest that allowing someone to keep more of the money he or she invests would stimulate people to take more risks by investing in businesses and products, and that such increased investment in business and products would in turn stimulate more economic growth.  Common sense has become akin to rocket science these days.

Then again, liberals aren’t doing much for rocket science, either.

Let’s take a look at the current facts, and then examine the history of our greatest tax-cutting presidents.

The Falsehood That Democrats Are ‘Cutting’ Taxes

Democrats say they are cutting taxes on “95% of Americans, but argue that giving the same tax cut benefits to the remaining 5% would hike the deficit and be fiscally irresponsible.

Well, for one thing, the Democrats are flat-out lying when they say they are cutting taxes for 95% of Americans.  That can’t possibly be true, because as a matter of simple fact a whopping 47% of American households pay no federal income taxes whatsoever.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it’s simply somebody else’s problem.

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That’s according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization. [...]

The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners — households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 — paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

What Democrats are doing – deceitful liars that they are – is giving Americans “tax credits” and calling them “tax cuts.”

tax cut is a reduction in the percentage or amount of taxes that is being imposed on a citizen.  The government is cutting the amount it had been collecting from taxpayers.  A government cannot “cut” a citizen’s taxes unless that citizen had been paying taxes in the first place.

A tax credit is when you give someone money that has been collected from another taxpayer.  It is redistribution of wealth.  It is what Karl Marx described as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  Do you notice that “to” in the middle?  It means, “transferring the wealth from one government-penalized group of people TO another government-privileged group of people.”  It is what Obama described as “spreading the wealth around.”

What Obama and the Democrats in Congress propose is NOT a “tax cut.”  And it is nothing but a lie to call it that.  And every single journalist who has suggested that it is a tax cut is as much of a liar as the Democrats are.

That’s the first point.  Democrats are advancing a central tenet of Marxism and deceitfully and even demagogically relabeling it as “capitalism.”  And the media helps them get away with it.

The Falsehood That Cutting Taxes For the Rich – But NOT The Other Classes – Contributes To the Deficit

Next comes the idea Democrats argue that tax cuts for the rich contribute to the deficit.

Let’s say for the sake of argument (just for the moment; I’ll prove it’s wrong below) that tax cuts for the rich raise the deficit.  Let me ask you one question: how then do tax cuts for the rest of us not ALSO raise the deficit???

Why wouldn’t raising taxes on the middle class and the poor not correspondingly lower the deficit?  So why aren’t Democrats going after them?

Are Democrats too stupid to realize that there just aren’t enough rich people to pay off our deficit, especially when this president and this Congress have raised said deficit tenfold over the last Republican-passed budget deficit?  The last budget produced by congressional Republicans was in 2007.  That year, the deficit was approximately $160 billion; now under Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid it is $1.6 TRILLION a year as far as the eye can see.

Wouldn’t ANY tax cuts raise the deficit?  And shouldn’t we therefore tax the bejeezus out of EVERYBODY to lower the deficit?  Wouldn’t every single dollar collected reduce the deficit correspondingly?

Let me put it concretely: say I took a $100 bill out of the wallet of a millionaire.  And then say I took a $100 bill out of the wallet of a poor person.  If I took both bills to a Democrat, would he or she be able to tell the difference?  Would he say, “Ah, THIS bill will lower the deficit because it comes from a rich person; but THIS one clearly won’t because it clearly came from a poor person.”

Update, Sep. 10: A study by the Joint Tax Committee, using the same static methodology that I refer to in my opening paragraph, calculate that the government will lose $700 billion in revenue if the tax cuts for the top income brackets are extended.  And that sounds bad.  But they also conclude that the Bush tax cuts on the middle class will cost the Treasury $3 TRILLION over the same period.  If we can’t afford $700 billion, then how on earth can we afford $3 trillion?  And then you’ve got to ask how much the Treasury is losing by not taxing the poor first into the poorhouse, and then into the street?  And how much more revenue could we collect if we then imposed a “street” tax? [end update].

Hopefully you get the point: if tax cuts for the rich are bad because they increase the deficit, then they are equally bad for everyone else for the same exact reason.  And so we should either tax the hell out of everyone, or cut taxes for everyone.  And a consistent Democrat opposed to “deficit-hiking tax cuts for the rich” should be for raising YOUR taxes as much as possible.

Republicans don’t fall into this fundamental contradiction (see below), because they don’t believe that tax cuts create deficits.  Democrats do.  Which means they are perfectly content with shockingly supermassive deficits – as long as its 95% of Americans who are creating those deficits, rather than 100%.

Joe Biden said it was a patriotic duty to pay higher taxes.  And yet Democrats are trying to make 95% of Americans unpatriotic traitors who don’t care about their country?

Now, Democrats will at this point repudiate logic and punt to the issue of “fairness.”  But “fairness” is a very subjective thing, when one group of people decide it’s “fair” for another group of people to hand over their money while the first group pays nothing.  Even George Bernard Shaw – a socialist, mind you – understood this.  He pointed out the fact that “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”

Which is to say it’s NOT fair at all.  Paul may think it’s fair, but poor Peter gets screwed year after year.

And it is a fundamental act of hypocrisy – not to mention advancing yet ANOTHER central tenet of Marxist class warfare – to claim to oppose tax cuts for the rich in the name of the deficit, but not to oppose tax cuts for everyone else.

And for the record, I despise both hypocrisy AND central tenets of Marxism.  Which is why I despise the Democrat Party, which is both hypocritical and basically Marxist.

[Update, September 20] Brit Hume demolished the Obama-Democrat argument regarding the Bush tax cuts being a “cost” to the government, saying:

But the very language used in discussing these issues tells you something as well. In Washington, letting people keep more of their own money is considered a cost. As if all the money really belongs to the government in the first place in which what you get to keep is an expenditure.”

And, again, that mindset about government control and in fact government ownership over people’s wealth represents a profoundly Marxist view of the world. [End update].

For what it’s worth, Democrats will only maintain the massive contradiction of “tax cuts for the rich raising the deficit” for so long.  Obama already admitted he was willing to go back on his promise to raise taxes on the middle class.  And his people are already looking to tee off on middle class tax hikes.  In addition, if you have any private retirement funds, they may well be coming after you soon.

The Falsehood That Tax Cuts Increase The Deficit

Now let’s take a look at the utterly fallacious view that tax cuts in general create higher deficits.

Let’s take a trip back in time, starting with the 1920s.  From Burton Folsom’s book, New Deal or Raw Deal?:

In 1921, President Harding asked the sixty-five-year-old [Andrew] Mellon to be secretary of the treasury; the national debt [resulting from WWI] had surpassed $20 billion and unemployment had reached 11.7 percent, one of the highest rates in U.S. history.  Harding invited Mellon to tinker with tax rates to encourage investment without incurring more debt. Mellon studied the problem carefully; his solution was what is today called “supply side economics,” the idea of cutting taxes to stimulate investment.  High income tax rates, Mellon argued, “inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw this capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities. . . . 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” (page 128).

Mellon wrote, “It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower taxes.”  And he compared the government setting tax rates on incomes to a businessman setting prices on products: “If a price is fixed too high, sales drop off and with them profits.”

And what happened?

“As secretary of the treasury, Mellon promoted, and Harding and Coolidge backed, a plan that eventually cut taxes on large incomes from 73 to 24 percent and on smaller incomes from 4 to 1/2 of 1 percent.  These tax cuts helped produce an outpouring of economic development – from air conditioning to refrigerators to zippers, Scotch tape to radios and talking movies.  Investors took more risks when they were allowed to keep more of their gains.  President Coolidge, during his six years in office, averaged only 3.3 percent unemployment and 1 percent inflation – the lowest misery index of any president in the twentieth century.

Furthermore, Mellon was also vindicated in his astonishing predictions that cutting taxes across the board would generate more revenue.  In the early 1920s, when the highest tax rate was 73 percent, the total income tax revenue to the U.S. government was a little over $700 million.  In 1928 and 1929, when the top tax rate was slashed to 25 and 24 percent, the total revenue topped the $1 billion mark.  Also remarkable, as Table 3 indicates, is that the burden of paying these taxes fell increasingly upon the wealthy” (page 129-130).

Now, that is incredible upon its face, but it becomes even more incredible when contrasted with FDR’s antibusiness and confiscatory tax policies, which both dramatically shrunk in terms of actual income tax revenues (from $1.096 billion in 1929 to $527 million in 1935), and dramatically shifted the tax burden to the backs of the poor by imposing huge new excise taxes (from $540 million in 1929 to $1.364 billion in 1935).  See Table 1 on page 125 of New Deal or Raw Deal for that information.

FDR both collected far less taxes from the rich, while imposing a far more onerous tax burden upon the poor.

It is simply a matter of empirical fact that tax cuts create increased revenue, and that those [Democrats] who have refused to pay attention to that fact have ended up reducing government revenues even as they increased the burdens on the poorest whom they falsely claim to help.

Let’s move on to John F. Kennedy, one of the most popular Democrat presidents ever.  Few realize that he was also a supply-side tax cutter.

Kennedy said:

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference


“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


“Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.


“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill

Which is to say that modern Democrats are essentially calling one of their greatest presidents a liar when they demonize tax cuts as a means of increasing government revenues.

So let’s move on to Ronald Reagan.  Reagan had two major tax cutting policies implemented: the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981, which was retroactive to 1981, and the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

Did Reagan’s tax cuts decrease federal revenues?  Hardly:

We find that 8 of the following 10 years there was a surplus of revenue from 1980, prior to the Reagan tax cuts.  And, following the Tax Reform Act of 1986, there was a MASSIVE INCREASE of revenue.

So Reagan’s tax cuts increased revenue.  But who paid the increased tax revenue?  The poor?  Opponents of the Reagan tax cuts argued that his policy was a giveaway to the rich (ever heard that one before?) because their tax payments would fall.  But that was exactly wrong.  In reality:

“The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.”

So Ronald Reagan a) collected more total revenue, b) collected more revenue from the rich, while c) reducing revenue collected by the bottom half of taxpayers, and d) generated an economic powerhouse that lasted – with only minor hiccups – for nearly three decades.  Pretty good achievement considering that his predecessor was forced to describe his own economy as a “malaise,” suffering due to a “crisis of confidence.” Pretty good considering that President Jimmy Carter responded to a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

Reagan whipped inflation.  Just as he whipped that malaise and that crisis of confidence.

This might explain why a Gallup poll showed that Ronald Reagan is regarded as our greatest president, while fellow tax-cutting great John F. Kennedy is tied for second with Abraham Lincoln.  Because, in proving Democrat policies are completely wrongheaded, he helped people.  Including poorer people who benefited from the strong economy he built with his tax policies.

Let’s move on to George Bush and the infamous (to Democrats) Bush tax cuts.  And let me quote none other than the New York Times:

Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: July 13, 2005

WASHINGTON, July 12 – For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

A Jump in Corporate Payments On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.

Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.

Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be “significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion.”

The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well
.

[Update, September 20: The above NY Times link was scrubbed; the same article, edited differently, appears here.]

Note the newspaper’s use of liberals favorite adjective: “unexpected.” They never expect Republican and conservative polices to work, but they always do if they’re given the chance.  They never expect Democrat and liberal policies to fail, but they always seem to fail every single time they’re tried.

For the record, President George Bush’s 2003 tax cuts:

raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.

These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP, which is half of the average of the past 50 years.

Lower tax rates have be so successful in spurring growth that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the very wealthy has increased. According to the Treasury Department, the top 1% of income tax filers paid just 19% of income taxes in 1980 (when the top tax rate was 70%), and 36% in 2003, the year the Bush tax cuts took effect (when the top rate became 35%). The top 5% of income taxpayers went from 37% of taxes paid to 56%, and the top 10% from 49% to 68% of taxes paid. And the amount of taxes paid by those earning more than $1 million a year rose to $236 billion in 2005 from $132 billion in 2003, a 78% increase.

Budget deficits are not merely a matter of tax policy; it is a matter of tax policy AND spending policy.  Imagine you have a minimum wage job, but live within your means.  Then you get a job that pays a million dollars a year.  And you go a little nuts, buy a mansion, a yacht, a fancy car, and other assorted big ticket items such that you go into debt.  Are you really so asinine as to argue that you made more money when you earned minimum wage?  But that’s literally the Democrats’ argument when they criticize Reagan (who defeated the Soviet Union and won the Cold War in the aftermath of a recession he inherited from President Carter) and George Bush (who won the Iraq War after suffering the greatest attack on US soil in the midst of a recession he inherited from President Clinton).

As a result of the Clinton-era Dot-com bubble bursting, the Nasdaq lost a whopping 78% of its value, and $6 trillion dollars of wealth was simply vaporized.  We don’t tend to remember how bad that economic disaster was, because the 9/11 attack was such a huge experience, and because instead of endlessly blaming his predecessor, George Bush simply took responsibility for the economy, cut taxes, and fixed the problem.  The result, besides the above tax revenue gains, was an incredible and unprecedented 52 consecutive months of job growth.

Update September 12: Did somebody say something about “jobs”?  Another fact to recognize is the horrendous damage that will be done to small businesses and the jobs they create if the tax cuts for the “rich” aren’t continued.  As found in the Wall Street Journal, “According to IRS data, fully 48% of the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000 in 2007.” Further, the Tax Policy Center found that basically a third of taxpayers who are expected to be in the top tax bracket in 2011 generate more than half their income from a business ownership.  And while Democrats love to point out that their tax hikes on the so-called rich only impact 3% of small businesses, the National Federation of Independent Business reports that that three percent employs about 25 percent of the nation’s total workforce.  “Small businesses that employ 20 to 250 workers are the most likely to be hit by an increase in the top two tax rates, according to NFIB research. Businesses of this size employ more than 25 percent of the U.S. workforce.”  So if you want jobs and an economic recovery, you simply don’t pile more punishing taxes on those “rich” people.  Especially during a recession [End update].

We’re not arguing theories here; we’re talking about the actual, empirical numbers, literally dollars and cents, which confirms Andrew Mellon’s thesis, and Warren Harding’s and Calvin Coolidge’s, John F. Kennedy’s, Ronald Reagan’s, and George W. Bush’s, economic policies.

Harding and Coolidge, Reagan and Bush, with Democrat JFK right smack in the middle: great tax cutters all.

The notion that small- and limited-government conservatives who want ALL Americans to pay less to a freedom-encroaching government are somehow “beholden to the rich” for doing so is just a lie.  And a Marxist-based lie at that.

[Update, 12/15/10]: Check out these numbers as to how the Reagan tax cuts INCREASED the taxes paid by the wealthy, and REDUCED the taxes paid by the middle class and the bottom 50% of tax payers:

Income tax burdens (from the Joint Economic Committee for the US Congress report, 1996):
1981: top 1% of earners paid 17.6% of all personal income taxes
1988: top 1% of earners paid 27.5% of all personal income taxes (+ 10%).

1981: top 10% of earners paid 48% of all personal income taxes
1988: top 10% of earners paid 57.2% of all personal income taxes (+ 9%).

So rich clearly paid MORE of the tax burden when their tax rates were LOWERED.

For the middle class:
1981: middle class paid 57.5% of all personal income taxes
1988: middle class paid 48.7% of all personal income taxes (- 9%).

The middle class’ tax burden went DOWN by 9%.  They paid almost 10% LESS than what they had been paying before the Reagan cuts.

For the bottom 50%:
1981: bottom 50% paid 7.5% of all personal income taxes
1988: bottom 50% paid 5.7% of all personal income taxes (- 2%).

So the Joint Economic Economic Committee concludes that if you lower the tax rates on the rich, the rich wind up paying MORE of the tax burden and the poor end up paying LESS.  When you enact confiscatory taxation policies, the people who can afford it invariably end up protecting their money.  They do everything they can to NOT pay taxes because they are getting screwed.  When the rates drop to reasonable rates, they don’t shelter their money; rather, they take advantage of their ability to earn more – and improve the economy by doing so – by investing.  If you take away their profit, you take away their incentive to improve the economy and create jobs.

Some articles to read:

The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates

Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenues and Help Low Income Families

[End Update, 12/15/10]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

413 Responses to “Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues”

  1. ann Says:

    this is the most magnificent article I’ve ever read.

  2. emo Says:

    Its not TAX CUTS that increase revenues or even economic growth. It is TAX RATE CUTS. Some economically illiterate conservatives like GW Bush dont know the difference. This is why Bush was big on tax credits, rebates and light on rate reductions. The former do nothing to increase economic growth and only make the deficit worse. It is RATE CUTS that matter.

  3. Juan Gamboa Says:

    Excellent!!!! Now if it be spread more in the MSM maybe some “dums-dums” may get it. It always amazes me that the left is always claiming they are academically superior yet always fail to make simple empirical correlations.

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    Thank you, Ann.

    I hope you find it useful in teaching people in your influence group the truth.

  5. Michael Eden Says:

    emo,

    I agree with your point.

    George Bush was never a true conservative (which frankly makes it weird that he was so hated by the left); he was a “compassionate conservative.” Bush, for example, was certainly no friend to conservatives when he passed his Prescription Drug bill, when he passed his “No Child Left Behind,” and when he tried to pass his Amnesty bill.

    Many true conservatives would favor a flat tax, with all the credits, rebates, excise taxes, etc. go bye-bye.

    Whether we have an actual flat tax, whether we have 2 or maybe even three progressive rates, the simpler the tax code is, and the fewer games played with it, the better.

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    Intelligence can work for one or against one.

    If one commits oneself to the truth, the smarter you are, the better.

    But, however, if one commits oneself to a radically false and perverted worldview (e.g. secular humanism), the smarter you are, the stupider you become.

    That’s because you engage in incredibly sophisticated rationalizations for why the thing you WANT to believe is true. You end up with these massive rationalizations that require groupthink to buy into.

    In a weird way, your liberal intellectual elite hate the real empirical world; they want to be gods over the abstract theoretical worlds that they create. And they love Utopias, such as what Karl Marx offered them.

  7. El Duderino Says:

    Excellent post!

    I have seen somewhere that numerous studies show that the ideal tax rate is 10%. Not income tax rate, total tax rate. Multiples of taxation are already in place e.g. buying sales-taxed items with post-tax income.

    Anyone else heard of this concept?

  8. Scotty Starnes Says:

    Just point to JFK and his stance on tax cuts when debating lying liberals. Excellent article.

  9. Michael Eden Says:

    The Laffer Curve was an attempt to find the “sweet spot” where the tax rate maximized revenue. Basically, according to Laffer, if you have a 0% tax rate, you have huge economic activity, but the government collects nothing. And if you have a 100% tax rate, you shut down economic activity entirely, and the government collects nothing. So there’s a compromise rate at which the government revenues are maximized because it taxes at a level that allows the market to do its thing.

    And between Andrew Mellon’s study (published in the early 1920s under the title, Taxation: The People’s Business) and the Laffer Curve, we’ve seen that allowing people to hold on to more of their wealth generated better revenues than higher rates of taxation.

    Mellon believed that 25% was about as much as rich people would pay in taxes before they began rushing to shelters and foreign investments and collectibles and tax-free bonds. Not sure what Laffer’s “sweet spot was.

    I haven’t heard the “10%” figure, except in the Bible (“tithe” = tenth). And wouldn’t THAT be cool, to find out that Moses had the right rate figured out more than 3,000 years ago!!!

  10. Michael Says:

    Great article, Michael, but it begs a question:

    I have seen several references to the amount of tax paid by the “top X%” of wage earners etc… but have not heard what % of the wages they earned. I think that would be a key metric.

    Example: If the top 5% of earners paid 50% of all taxes, that would be an impressive accomplishment – unless they earned 75% of all wages.

    Any idea what the actual numbers are?

  11. Michael Eden Says:

    I’m afraid I can’t take the time to try to find out.

    There’s this bit: “The Top 1% of income earners (comprising about 1 million families) earn about 15% of the total income earned by all wage earners in the United States, yet they pay almost 30% of all individual income taxes.”

    And I can also tell you this (which the above illustrates). When you say “If the top 5% of earners paid 50% of all taxes, that would be an impressive accomplishment – unless they earned 75% of all wages”, you’re actually getting it backwards.

    Remember, we have a PROGRESSIVE tax rate system. Which is to say that the rich are being taxed at a significantly higher rate than others. They are punished, and pay a much higher rate on their income than others.

    So in other words, they’re not actually earning 75% of all wages, but something much less.

    In any event, I’m not sure how my article is “begging the question.” You’d have to explain. My article merely points out that you either – as a basic principle – embrace the concept of lower taxes for the wealthy, or embrace the concept of taxing the crap out of everybody. Because it is simply impossible to maintain the fraud that only “rich people money” lowers the deficit, while “middle class money” or “poor person money” would NOT lower the deficit. You’d have to explain how the billions of dollars imposed on them would somehow not help the deficit if you maintain that you have to “pay for” tax cuts.

    Then there’s the fact that I document how tax cuts have historically ALWAYS generated more tax revenue than high tax rates. So, again, I don’t see how I’m begging the question by not addressing your specific issue.

    If we had a flat-tax rate system, it would be pretty darned easy to answer your question, wouldn’t it???

  12. Michael Eden Says:

    It doesn’t work quite as well with young liberals. They barely even know who JFK is.

    But it DOES work with older Democrats who loved JFK without ever understanding what the guy was actually trying to do.

    Reagan was evil for fighting the Cold War and for cutting taxes to these older Democrats who thought JFK walked on water. It’s kind of fun to actually see the look on their faces when you confront them with the facts about how JFK was a Cold Warrior who believed we needed to cut taxes and raise revenues so we could fight the communists.

  13. Ed Says:

    Here’s a concept for you. Tax the poor at 10% (include food stamps, welfare and all other entitlements). Tax illegals at 10%, as they are minimal producers, even if they are working. Tax every one else, rich or middle class, at a 17% rate. Watch how quickly people get off welfare and illegals exit the country.

  14. Tracy Says:

    Mr. Eden,
    OUTSTANDING article! Thank you very much. It seems to me that liberals have always confused ‘justice’ and ‘fairness.’ They throw around the expression “economic justice,” but they really mean (their idea of) fairness. I realize that this article is more concerned with the efficacy of lower taxes, but I find it satisfying to know that true economic justice- property rights, coincide with that which is most efficient and leads to greater prosperity for all… THAT is just… AND charitable. After all, greater prosperity for all not only reduces the need for charity, but provides more opportunity to be a charitable people.

  15. Robbie Says:

    Wow I just bookmarked this website and now I will spend some time reading your archives.

    Thanks for what you do!

  16. Michael Eden Says:

    Ed,

    Benjamin Franklin put it this way:

    I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

    It used to be, before FDR and American socialism, that states, counties, and towns took care of their own. And in taking care of their own, those who gave and those who received were face-to-face. And the people could see who they were helping, how much it helped, and who were and who were not deserving of further help.

    The system worked well. Until Democrats ruined it the way they’ve ruined everything else.

  17. Michael Eden Says:

    Thank you, Tracy, for both your kind words and your wise thoughts.

    We should be asking Democrats to define stealing. Just because your city council pass a law to seize your car, is it right for them to take it?

    If we work hard for our money, why is it justified for a government to come along and seize it in the name of giving it to someone who did not work for it at all?

    Charity is best when those who give can hold those who receive accountable. And the federal government has failed at holding ANYBODY accountable for anything.

    I hope you come back to read this response so you can click on this link and see what Burton Folsom wrote about it in “New Deal or Raw Deal?”

    Government has been giving itself the right to seize their citizens property for nearly 100 years. And nearly all of the time it has been Democrats who have been behind the theft.

  18. Ed Says:

    Michael,
    Well quoted. The new age of personal responsibility is again dawning. Let’s hope it takes hold. Peace be with you. Ed

  19. Michael Eden Says:

    I appreciate your thoughts greatly, Robbie.

    My purpose for getting into blogging was to document the record of the terrible things I saw coming from Obama from the time he was a candidate, and to present the truth.

    I believed this article needed to be written after watching several prominent Republicans utterly fail to explain “how they would pay for their tax cuts.” When the answer seemed so obvious to me as a student of history.

  20. Michael Eden Says:

    And peace be with you.

    I have no fears, because I know whom I have believed in, and where He is going to take me.

    It is refreshing to see more people taking ancient truths (including the truth of personal responsibility) to heart. And I join you in hoping it takes hold, rather than exists as a temporary and passing fad.

  21. Mike Says:

    Michael,

    Excellent blog! I agree fully.

    All the best,
    a secular humanist

  22. Michael Eden Says:

    Mike,

    I’m one of those people who believe in allying myself with those who are on the same page on a given issue.

    It appears you are as well.

    So Christian, secular humanist, Buddhist, or whatever, when it comes to fiscal policy, I’ll come to the table with you any time and work to advance sanity in at least one sphere of life that desperately needs it.

    The more people of the same mind work together to advance ANY good thing, the better.

  23. quilvio Says:

    By all means, lets follow Hardings example that led directly to the Great Depression or to Reagan’s tax cuts that led directly to a massive increase in the deficit. Typical righty spin!

    Let me explain clearly. If you tax a billionaier at 35% he pays $350 million in taxes. If you tax at 50% he plays $500 million in taxes. Yes, I know there’s a difference between nominal tax rates and the exact amount paid in taxes but proportionately they work out the same. Also, the billionaire still has $500 million so I shed no tears for him. The government can more wisely spend the extra $150 million on infrastructure, poverty programs and the like, the rich guy will buy a jet plane.

    The reason you lower taxes on the poorest is they spend almost their entire disposable income. So not only do they buy what they need when their taxes are lower, they buy things that directly help the economy at large. A rich person buying another yacht does zilch for the economy.

    Capitalism 101: Increasing taxes on the rich brings in more revenue and always has. Lowering taxes on the poor increases economic activity which decreases the deficit.

  24. Drew Terry Says:

    Michael, this is a truly outstanding article. Thank you for taking the time to pull all of these FACTS together. I have been making pretty much this same argument to my liberal friends for years with little success. However, your article will “arm” me with a well organized and thought out supplement in my cause. Many thanks.

    P.S. – I hope that you realize that the “ann” that posted above is none other than the great Ann Coulter, whom my wife jokingly (sort of) refers to as my “dream woman.” ;-)

  25. dwayne hall Says:

    Everyone that reads this great article, should post this link in an e mail, to as many people as you can , ASAP.
    Michael, I hope you don’t mind, but I stole your quote, “Common sense has become akin to rocket science these days.”
    This is smart,LOL!!!

  26. Dave, Tampa, FL Says:

    ” believed this article needed to be written after watching several prominent Republicans utterly fail to explain “how they would pay for their tax cuts.” When the answer seemed so obvious to me as a student of history.”

    Could not agree more. A liberal friend of mine doubts me every time I claim the exact points in this article. I have also pointed out how JFK would probably be a moderate republican in todays political scheme… he of course scoffs at the notion, too ignorant to the truth and too lazy to actually look up the facts.

  27. Ken Wilson Says:

    Great analysis. Eliminate deductions and exemptions. Flat tax based on income.

    The issue continues to be spending – Medicare (and now the new HC act) and Social Security are the biggest part of the budget expenses. Setup individual SS retirement accounts with both employer and employee contributions out of the hands of Washington. If a taxpayer wants to stay in the current system, let them. But take the dollars out of the budget. Allow insurers to compete in all states, which will drive costs down. Setup separate accounts for Medicare and use it to buy insurance as opposed to the government dictating what it will pay for services – treat it as a health care savings account owned by the taxpayers. Allow for survivors to keep SS/MC same as an IRA.

    Freeze spending to 2000 levels, adjusted for inflation. Just food for thought….maybe another article, Michael.

  28. Noir Says:

    I am keeping your website bookmarked and will use it in my ongoing efforts to keep my 16 year old son from being “programmed” in “screwl”!
    You`re in with the best in my bookmark folder – Thomas Sowell, Mark Levin, and Andy McCarthy and ANYTHING that talks about the hoax that global warming…cough cough..,uh….I mean climate change (roll eyes) is.

    Thanks for trying to educate the public! We desperately NEED the truth and some common sense told to our population.

  29. Michael Eden Says:

    quilvio,

    You need to go back and take “capitalism 101″ again. I think you walked into “communism 101″ and took the entire course without ever once realizing you were in the wrong classroom.

    If you want to “explain clearly,” you should begin by learning how to spell. That said, you proceed to get dumber as you go. If you tax a billionaire at 35%, he might pay $350 million in taxes. But if you tax him at 50%, he finds it cost effective to hire the lawyer who specializes in a thing called a “tax shelter.” And he puts his money overseas; he puts his money in collectibles like rare coins, art, or baseball cards; he puts his money in tax-exempt bonds. What he doesn’t do is pay taxes with that money. And for all your arrogance, if you understood a thing about reality, you’d know that.

    The other thing is that you’ve decided that the government – which has a 100% track record of fiscal failure – is better at spending money on building the economy creating jobs than the people who have proven that they know how to do it by building jobs and fortunes in the first place.

    Nor did you bother to understand a single fact that I presented in the article. You failed to understand that Harding, Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan and Bush all succeeding in raising MORE revenue with their tax cuts by providing the incentive to take money out of shelters and put it to work investing in expanding businesses and jobs. You failed to understand that these great presidents’ policies also succeeded in causing the rich to pay a HIGHER percentage of taxes, while easing the burden on the poor. You failed to understand that these men’s policies succeeded in expanding the economy and making American the land of opportunity.

    You seem to think that if you sell a hamburger for $1000 dollars, just as many people will buy it as if you sell it for 99 cents. You don’t understand that when the government takes human beings’ money, that human beings will change their behavior. You don’t understand that if you allow us to keep more of what we earn, and reward our risk with a lower tax rate, that we will take greater risks by investing so we can earn even more. But if you punish investment with high tax rates, we will hide our money. I mean, even studies on animals clearly demonstrate that if you increase or decrease risk and reward, they will alter their behavior. But liberals are dumber than lab rats who learn to avoid the electrodes and pursue the food.

  30. Michael Eden Says:

    I do NOW. When I saw “anncoulter.com,” I thought, “Yeah, and the pope at “popebenedict.com” likes my article too. I just assumed that someone had got pretty lucky with a domain – sort of like that gay porn site that supposedly stole the name “White House.”

    Then I saw that I was getting a LOT more hits than normal, and went back and clicked on the link that was generating all the hits.

    Whoa, that was neat!

    I’ve admired Coulter from the moment I picked up my first book from her (“Godless”). I thought she was brilliant and hilarious. And I loved the way she demonstrated factually that liberals were fools, and then mocked them for the fools they were.

    This article was the product of watching two weeks’ worth of Sunday morning political shows, where first Mitch McConnell and then John Boehner utterly failed to answer the question, “You claim to want to lower the deficit, so how do plan to pay for your tax cuts?”

    As you know, we HAVE the facts and the truth on our side. And if Republicans just understood the basics and then stuck to their foundation, Bill Clinton would have been right about Barack Obama serving coffee instead of sitting in the White House imploding Western Civilization.

  31. Michael Eden Says:

    I hope people do what you say, simply because this issue of tax cuts for the rich is going to be a huge battle preceding the November election, and Republicans had better have a better answer than I’ve seen them give.

    I hoped you clicked on the link about how the Democrats weren’t doing much for rocket science, either (remember how Obama decided that NASA’s real mission should be trying to tell the Muslim world they’re not stupid after all?).

  32. Michael Eden Says:

    I agree with everything you say.

    Social Security was a Ponzi scheme from the very first day. And the first people to collect made out like bandits. But, as Walter Williams pointed out, a guy just entering the workforce in 2000 will pay out more than $300,000 more in taxes than he collects in benefits. Assuming of course that there’s even a system at all.

    Democrats use the same argument with the failing SSI system that they use with our failing public schools: if we allow people to leave the system, the whole corrupt boondoggle will implode. And, of course, if its so damn bad that it will implode if you allow people to leave it, then it’s a pretty lousy system, isn’t it? Not to mention the fact that it becomes akin to the Berlin Wall, where people were forced to stay inside the barbed wire until the whole thing collapsed and people discovered freedom.

  33. Tracy Says:

    Michael,
    Thank you for recommending Folsom’s book… had a chance to read a little. It is great, and I will buy it soonest. In the pages I read today (couldn’t read much… middle of the work day here in Korea) I saw that even Roosevelt noticed some of the harm done to society- “…continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of a sound policy.” Many seem to notice the damage done to the recipient of such a “narcotic.” However, this is not the only damage done to the national fiber. When the government takes away our right to choose to be charitable or not, they reduce us to beasts of burden… something akin to a dairy cow. We end-up with folks looking to the government to provide charity. So, if you need it, you don’t look to your neighbor, and even if you could provide it, you abdicate, because after all, that’s the government’s place. Thanks again… Godspeed!

  34. Michael Eden Says:

    Blessings to you in the land South of the one Kim Jong Il and his dad destroyed.

    I went to Talbot School of Theology, which was nearly half Korean in terms of students. And I loved my Korean friends (particularly when I was playing ping pong with them!). Such handsome people.

    I personally guarantee you that you will treasure that book (New Deal or Raw Deal?) if you get it.

    I am a Christian, with a Christian worldview. And realize that socialism/communism is fundamentally incompatible with the Judeo-Christian view of the world, and any serious embrace of the Bible which serves as our foundation.

    Liberals seem to believe that the Bible condemned the rich; but the joke is so on them – it spends much more time condemning rotten kings and unjust judges and corrupt political court officials who made impossible laws they themselves didn’t bother to keep (you know, the “Timothy Geithners” of the day).

    And, of course, the liberals don’t seem to find the places in the Bible that repeatedly listed taxes at 10% of income.

    It comes down to two theories: 1) If you change the heart of man he’ll change his environment, versus 2) if you change a man’s environment, he’ll change his heart. Conservatives believe the first one, liberals the second.

    And that’s why liberals continually fundamentally interfere with the contract of freedom that the Constitution gave us. They’re constantly pushing the buttons and pulling the levers trying to change our environment and thereby create their Utopia.

    Which is why liberals are wrong, and why they will ALWAYS be wrong.

    You sound like a reader and a thinker, so my apologies if you’ve already read this. But it is right up your alley:

    Alexander Solzhenitsyn: “A World Split Apart” address. In it he excoriates Western liberal intellectuals, who betrayed their values and instead embraced the ones that created the bondage of the human spirit that he had suffered under.

  35. Michael Eden Says:

    Noir,
    I take the great burden and great opportunity of helping to educate your son seriously. May he grow up in wisdom and the courage to act on it even when his classmates go off the next cliff!

    I’ve written a number of articles on global warming, but here are what I consider my two best:

    What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming
    What You Never Hear About Global Warming

    You should buy a copy of “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years.” [That's where the first article I wrote above came from]. Your son will be convinced that global warming is a sick joke played on a stupid culture before he’s through with the first three chapters.

    Then show him the Climategate emails, and he’ll never trust pseudo-science or the people who propagate it again.

  36. Keith Says:

    Great post. Laffer and Hayek make the same type of arguments.

    With respect to the Laffer curve, he does not submit to a simple tax rate and advises that monetary policy also effects the result.

    Being curious, I calculated the change in tax revenue (Fed, State, and Local), and the concurrent change in GDP and plotted this against total spending/GDP. I did this for all post WWII years and found revenue suffered if the Spending to GDP ratio exceeded 35%. Since the government now takes above 40% of GDP I don’t see how we will spend our way out of this depression.

    I don’t read too much into this since it is a simple plot and not a statistical test. But, it does make some logical sense. The more the government takes away, the less there is for investment. Also, the incentive for risk taking is reduced. At some point the relationship between revenue and GDP has to break down, in other words, excessive government spending extinguishes the animal spirits.

  37. Michael Eden Says:

    Dave, Tampa, FL

    Dennis Prager calls himself a “Kennedy liberal,” and points out that Kennedy (a Cold Warrior and tax cutter) would be a conservative today.

    One good article from Prager defining what liberalism of the early 60s and modern conservatism have in common is here.

    Another way to understand this degradation of liberalism is that modern conservatives are “classical liberals.” Classical liberalism is a political and economic philosophy, originally founded on the Enlightenment tradition, that tries to circumscribe [draw a line around, strictly define, and limit] the limits of political power and to define and support individual rights. And that’s what conservative Republicans are all about today.

    As for your friend, you can drag an liberal to facts, but you can’t make him think.

    We need to convince the convinceable, and focus on exposing the lies and idiotic underlying premises of those who aren’t convinceable.

  38. Michael Eden Says:

    There seems to be a limit that, if crossed, creates an unhealthy dynamic until the system reaches equilibrium.

    The problem is that liberals keep messing with the system and prevent it from reaching the balance it needs to start whirring along.

    This is a different way to look at the same phenomena, but I think you’d find this article interesting detailing a study that demonstrates that those countries which did not pursue a massive stimulus recovered faster than those that did.

    One quote:

    So why would more stimulus increase unemployment? Spending almost a trillion dollars on various stimulus projects means moving a lot of resources from areas where the private sector would have spent it to the public sector thus eliminating the jobs many people currently have.

    Another way to look at it is that government is so mindlessly stupid that you can paint string yellow and sell to them as gold. And to take money away from wealth-producers and give it to the government is about as dumb as giving sensitive and delicate electronic equipment to kindergartners who are eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

  39. Michael Eden Says:

    Ann,

    I have to apologize to you for the rather lame comment I responded to you with (“Now go out into the world with what I’ve taught you and heal the planet”). It actually would have been okay if you were a DIFFERENT Ann.

    I had no idea that you were THE Ann Coulter, the blond goddess of liberal-skewering.

    Kind of feeling dumb now.

    I found your book “Godless” amazing. My favorite passage was where you utterly dismantled the Darwinist claim to “falsifiability” by replacing key words in Darwin’s standard – (‘If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.’) – with, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by God, my God theory would absolutely break down.” That was just beyond brilliant, as Christians had generally just taken the bait and tried to prove Darwin’s impossible standard.

    Frankly, if my article were the most magnificent article you’d read in the last half-hour, I’d be more than honored.

    In any event, please allow me to eat my previous comment (“I hope you find it useful in teaching people in your influence group the truth”) and instead put it this way: “Ann, your work has been incredibly useful in helping me teach people in my influence group the truth.”

  40. HL Says:

    Michael, glad to see more people have found you and are benefiting from your truthful articles. This one is outstanding and timely.
    Sending this one on in the hopes of educating more people.

  41. kaiology Says:

    Thank you for an excellent and well-researched article that gives Andrew Mellon, among others, his due. The truth is that the fairly straightforward economic laws that should be the basis for any system of taxation are often ignored in the interests of ideology. Therefore I doubt your arguments will make much of a dent in the liberal world view.

    Stop by my Coolidge blog sometime, if you have the time
    http://kaiology.wordpress.com/

    and keep up the good work!

  42. Rod Says:

    Your article makes some interesting points, but still deals with everything in black and white.

    Clinton presided over the longest period of peacetime economic growth. True, it ended when the IT bubble burst but the recession that followed was mild when compared to this one.

    The “greatest president” according to the Gallup Poll doubled the national debt and also raised taxes with the Deficit Reduction Act.

    It was under George W. Bush that TARP was approved, a program hated by both liberals and conservatives and contrary to capitalism. W.’s administration ended with the worst recession since the seventies.

  43. Michael Eden Says:

    HL,
    Thanks for “being there” with me for the long haul. You’ve contributed a great deal with your support. Being a committed blogger in many ways is like being the ugly kid who has to live in the basement. You know, because he’s just so ugly.

    You write alone – or at least you usually WANT to be left alone when you write. And you there aren’t too many people you can share your ideas with; because most people just don’t care enough about what’s going on in politics to want to hear it.

    Most of my friends are Christians; and while some believe deeply that what is going on in politics affects their children’s souls; most just want to focus on “spiritual” stuff instead. And politics is so divisive, yada yada.

    So someone like you, who regularly shares your views with me and offers support and encouragement, really means a lot.

  44. Michael Eden Says:

    kaiology,

    Thanks for the link to your Coolidge blog; the more people who “discover” Calvin Coolidge – and the massive differences between he and Woodrow Wilson before and FDR after – the better.

    I have long since given up the idea of “converting” liberals to conservatism. When I’ve tried to have such discussions, I am misrepresented, my motives are vilified, my facts are dismissed, and so on. What’s the use of that? As Jesus Himself put it in Matthew 7, “Don’t give to dogs what is sacred; don’t cast your pearls before swine.”

    Articles like mine (I hope!) succeed by equipping and arming conservatives with the acts in the context of a coherent argument, and by persuading those who are moderate enough to have their ideas changed.

    At this point in my blogging, I’m not terribly interested in arguing with liberals. And I’m much quicker to just move on to someone I think I can reach.

    Thanks for your encouragement!

  45. Michael Eden Says:

    Black and white is a good thing, as long as you’re accurately describing what is black and what is white.

    As to your comment about Clinton presiding over the longest period of peacetime growth (ignoring the fact that Bush had the longest consecutive record of job expansion in history), let me refer you to an earlier article I wrote, titled, “Obama Turns To Clinton To Advance The ‘Democrats As Party Success’ Myth As His Economy Turns to Crap.” As I make some points in there that clarify a few things.

    I point out, for instance, that it is Congress, and Congress alone, that has the authority to write the national budget. And that the president can’t spend one dime without Congressional approval. So this idea that “Clinton gave us a balanced budget” is just mindless propaganda. Because, NO – the Republicans who took over Congress in 1994, operating under their #1 platform of the Contract with America to balance the budget, gave us the balanced budgets. That is a simple fact, and yet the media deliberately reported a Big Lie and “made” that lie true.

    I also document that Clinton, rather than being fiscally responsible, had to be DRAGGED into fiscal responsibility against his will by the Republicans.

    I also point out in that article just how fiscally responsible Republicans have truly been when they ran things, versus the simply godawful record of Democrats.

    So you should read that article, Rod.

    Clinton was every bit as fortunate as Obama (and Bush II) were unfortunate. We had an incredibly brief recession that lasted about 8 months just prior to the 1991 election, and by the time Clinton took office the country was raging back. The Cold War was over; we had just triumphantly won in Desert Storm; and for the first time in a generation a president could legitimately cut back on defense and use those funds for more popular purposes. Clinton had nothing to do with either; he merely benefited from both.

    George Bush, meanwhile, inhereited a VERY nasty recession created by the Dot-com bubble collapse. That recession wiped away 78% of Nasdaq and $6 TRILLION in wealth like a puff of smoke. It was an AWFUL recession, in point of fact. And then even as we were struggling with that, we suffered the massive 9/11 attack that annihilated the airline industry, the hotel industry, and pretty much the vacation industry for months.

    And yet with all Clinton’s advantages, he was still so unpopular that he brought about the largest midterm defeat in American history for his party.

    I’m glad you don’t deny that Reagan was the greatest president in the minds of the American people. That really should mean something. Clearly Reagan did some things right.

    Reagan was a president in time of the most expensive war in human history (the Cold War, which thankfully consumed vast sums of money, but relatively few lives under Reagan’s skilled leadership). And he had to deal during his administration with a Democrat Congress and make COMPROMISES. Reagan NEVER had anything like Obama’s party domination of both branches of Congress. So sometimes he had to take back with one hand in order to give with the other.

    As to Reagan’s doubling of the national debt, are you aware that FDR multiplied the national debt TWELVE FOLD during his presidency? So if you’re in fact going to say that Reagan was bad because he doubled the national debt, I hope you have the moral and intellectual consistency to believe that FDR was the worst president in American history, and that any policy that smacks of FDR should be abandoned without further consideration.

    George Bush DID approve TARP, and most conservatives opposed it. You’re right. You’ve got me there. And I would acknowledge that George Bush had flaws, and that for the most part he was NOT a true conservative.

    And, yes, his presidency ended with a terrible recession. But it was the housing mortgage bubble that created that recession and the lending crisis that resulted. And in particular it was Fannie and Freddie that created that housing mortgage bubble with their terrible policies. And I point out in a number of articles (such as this one) that George Bush tried SEVENTEEN TIMES to reform and regulate Fannie and Freddie, but that Democrats were totally united in preventing him from doing so.

    Do you know how Bush was to blame for the 2008 recession? He didn’t do a good enough job standing up against despicable and destructive Democrat policies that went back to the CARTER years and which Bill Clinton massively expanded. And he should be blamed for that. But Democrats shouldn’t have the right to say diddly about it, because they were FAR more to blame than Bush.

  46. Rod Says:

    I do not think that Reagan was bad because he doubled the national debt. However, given that Republicans are often labelled as “Fiscally Responsible” it is curious that during the term of the last 3 Republican Presidents the national debt increased considerably, most of all because W. had a majority in both houses for most of his term. You do not need to say that Democrats are worse, since I believe both parties and politicians are terrible.

    I think the subprime crisis is a little bit more than Freddie/Fannie, it also has to do with irresponsible rating agencies that gave a AAA grade to crappy instruments and financial institutions purchasing such instruments.

    I agree with you that policies from the Clinton Administration are partly to blame for the 2008 crisis. The Gramm Leach Bliley Act for example allowed banks to invest people’s savings in other risky businesses or that AIG became heavily involved in the Credit-Swap business which was the main cause for the collapse of the company, since its traditional Insurance Business was fine.

  47. Old Timer Says:

    Wow!!! I came to your article via Ann Coulter’s website, where I never miss her weekly column and updates. Yours is a magnificently stated treatise on the folly of liberal policies, those enacted in the past and those enacted and proposed recently, contrasted with the relative wisdom of conservative policies. I’m 72 years old and only recently (1991) converted by Rush to conservatism from a sometimes wildly/sometimes mildly liberal viewpoint, arrived at in the usual manner: both my parents were union members and Democrats who espoused the old saw that Democrats are for the little guy and Republicans are for the rich guy. I have finally seen the light.

    As for the poster Quilvio who says that a rich person buying a yacht does zilch for the economy, does he think that a yacht appears out of nowhere? What about the materials produced to build it, the skilled men and women who build it, the people in the sales organization who market it, the people who maintain it? He must think they receive no income for their work and, thus, have no contribution to the economy. You’re right, Michael, Communism 101 had to have been the class he took.

    Anyway, thank you for a great article. I’ll email your link to all my friends.

  48. Michael Eden Says:

    Okay, now you’re sounding a little more sane. I appreciate that.

    Republicans are correctly labeled as “fiscally responsible” because they ARE when compared/contrasted with Democrats.

    Republicans are awful; unless you’re comparing them to Democrats. Then they become wonderful by comparison.

    So, yes, “during the term of the last 3 Republican Presidents the national debt increased considerably.” It’s true. And America is facing the situation – due to the fact that just two of the Democrats’ entitlement programs (Social Security and Medicare) now consume than HALF the federal budget – that it is almost impossible not to run deficits. Thank you, Democrat Party.

    But let’s put that into perspective:

    Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov’t Data
    Wednesday, September 08, 2010
    By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

    President Barack Obama speaks in Seattle on Tuesday, August 17, 2010. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
    (CNSNews.com) – In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.

    So three Republican Presidents were bad. But just one Democrat, in only 19 months, was not only worse than all three of them combined, but worse in fact that the previous 43 presidents combined.

    So I mean, I really have to laugh that you would still be complaining about Republican deficits. Republican deficits are like a paper cut as compared to a severed leg and spurting arterial bleeding.

    So, yeah: those three Republican presidents’ deficits were bad. Unless you compare them to just ONE Democrat, who happens to be the only guy we can vote the hell out of office these days.

    Now, when you say, “I think the subprime crisis is a little bit more than Freddie/Fannie,” you are correct. But it was ONLY a “little bit more.” You have to realize a very important few facts. Allow me to quote myself from a recent article:

    It was Fannie and Freddie that expanded and ultimately exploded using dangerous subprime loans (see also here). It was also Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who bundled thousands of bad and good mortgages together into instruments called “mortgage backed securities” and sold them to the private sector. And when no one could separate the good from the bad, uncertainty paralyzed the banking system and led to the crash.

    A brief history of the mortgage meltdown reveals how it was the GSEs acting under Democrat policies that created the housing bubble – (and even Obama economic shill Christina Romer admits “the popping of the housing bubble had serious consequences” which “destroyed $13 trillion of wealth in 2008″) – and the corresponding mortgage crisis which imploded our economy:

    In 1999, under pressure from the Clinton administration, Fannie Mae, the nation’s largest home mortgage underwriter, relaxed credit requirements on the loans it would purchase from other banks and lenders, hoping that easing these restrictions would result in increased loan availability for minority and low-income buyers. Putting pressure on the GSE’s (Government Sponsored Enterprise) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Clinton administration looked to increase their sub-prime portfolios, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development expressing its interest in the GSE’s maintaining a 50% portion of their portfolios in loans to low and moderate-income borrowers.[10]

    As noted, subprime mortgages sky-rocketed during the initial era of loosening of terms throughout the 1990′s. From a low of 5% of mortgages in 1994, to 14% in 1997, to 23% in 2005, subprime mortgages continued to boom in the early 2000′s. Following the 2004 initiative policy change spearheaded by a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital, subprimes became an even greater investment vehicle for investment banks and institutions in the U.S. and around the world. Since 1994, the securitization rate of subprime loans has increased from approximately 32 percent to nearly 78 percent of total subprime originations.[11] This further exposed the financial community to the effects of the coming housing bubble.

    Democrat policies created the housing bubble that Christina Romer acknowledges was the cause of the destruction of the US economy.

    And the refusal of Democrats to reform and regulate Fannie and Freddie exploded that bubble.

    Bush warned SEVENTEEN TIMES that we needed to reform Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae or have an economic disaster on our hands. John McCain urged action to avert an economic disaster. And Democrats refused to budge to deal with the monster they created.

    Again, Bush was right. Democrats were profoundly wrong.

    Subprime loans were directly related to Fannie and Freddie. They had never been used for mortgages before they started being used BY Fannie and Freddie under President Clinton. Furthermore, the mess created by the mortgage backed securities was ALL Fannie and Freddie. They were the ONLY entities allowed to buy mortgages and bundle them into the securities which subsequently blew up and paralyzed the banking institution because no one could tell which mortgages were good and which were bad.

    As for the rating agencies, one of the problems that led to that was the fact that Fannie and Freddie were Government Sponsored Enterprises, and had the backing and support of the US Government. And is the US Government supposed to be good for its debts or not?

    I have heard many attribute a role of The Gramm Leach Bailey Act, but for historical context it was ALSO signed into law by one William Jefferson Clinton in 1999. So it was just another thing that Clinton did, and that Bush inherited.

    As for AIG and all that, it was NOTHING compared to the role that Fannie and Freddie played. Fannie and Freddie controlled more than 60% of the mortgages at the time of the collapse; and they now control more than 90%. So Fannie and Freddie were like the raging gorilla destroying the house entire walls at a time, and AIG et all were like rats nibbling on the wiring.

    It was government policies, by which I mean policies enacted by Democrats during the Clinton and even Carter years, that enabled investment houses like AIG and Lehman Brothers to do what they did.

    Bush tried SEVENTEEN TIMES to reign in and reform and regulate Fannie and Freddie. And other conservatives had been warning for YEARS that exactly what would happen would happen. But Republicans are to blame in that they failed to stand up and scream at what Democrats were doing.

    And Democrats are so responsible for their role that they should be hunted down with dogs and burned alive.

  49. Michael Eden Says:

    My parents were both conservatives, so I was lucky. But I had a beloved uncle who was a Democrat active in party politics.

    Knowing my parents were Republicans from their talking, I once asked my Uncle Don why he was a Democrat.

    He said, “Because Democrats help people.”

    Now, today, I would ask, “Help them do what?” You know: kill more babies? finance more out-of-wedlock sluts in their bar-by-night couch-potato by day lifestyle? Destroy more industries by imposing unionization? But too late now.

    I missed Quilvio’s comment that rich people buying yachts meant zilch. Wish I’d caught that then. But at least you give me the chance to comment on it now.

    Remember this? Apparently, Quilvio doesn’t.

    From the New York Times:

    Falling Tax Would Lift All Yachts
    By AGIS SALPUKAS
    Published: February 7, 1992

    The nation’s luxury-boat builders, many clinging to their businesses after two years of plunging sales, finally got some good news last week.

    President Bush, in his budget proposals, asked Congress to repeal the 10 percent luxury tax on yachts priced at more than $100,000 (and also on private planes that cost more than $250,000). The repeal, which Congress is likely to approve, would be retroactive to Feb. 1.

    Since the tax took effect in January 1990, hundreds of builders of large and small boats have spoken of it as a stake driven into the heart of an industry already suffering from the recession, tighter bank rules on financing and fallout from the gulf war.

    In the last two years, about 100 builders of luxury boats — recreational craft costing more than $100,000 — cut their operations severely and laid off thousands of workers. Some builders filed for protection from creditors under Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code.

    So it turns out that a) yachts most certainly DO matter, contrary to Quilvio; b) the rich most certainly do matter; and c) taxes on the rich most certainly do matter, and most certainly do hurt “the little people.”

    I love it when liberals try to give examples to defend their asinine views, because it almost always gives me the opportunity to bite an even larger chunk of their heads off.

  50. quilvio Says:

    I can spell just fine but can’t type worth a darn and combined with poor eyesight miss a lot of my own typos.

    The top tax rate under Ike was 90% and the 1950′s were a time of broad economic expansion, in particular, of the middle class. While in the last few decades the top 2% have gottne considerably wealthier, the middle and lower class has become significantly poorer. While decrying the redistribution of wealth from the top to the bottom, you aparently have no trouble when it happens the other way. I wonder where the top 2% have gotten all their extra money??? Obviously from the other 98% and most of it from the bottom 50%. No, that’s not class envy. When the CEO of Exxon gets a nearly half trillion dollar bonus while the cost at the pump has increased by 150% it’s clear the money left my pocket and went into his wallet.

    You completely ignore my argument that money spent by the bottom of the economic scale helps the economy very broadly, by buying food, household products, appliances, clothes, cars, etc.. I’m sorry but paying $5000 for a pair of shoes or $500,000 for a fancy sportscar does not have the same effect.

    While you claim the US government has a 100% record of failure, you ignore that 95% of all businesses fail within the first 5 years, producing zero net economic benefit. And last I looked the government is still in business. And when has the private sector built a highway, delivered the mail, delivered on the promise of scientific or medical research. As Nobel prize winner Paul Krugman writes, the private sector hasd never invented anything. Why? Because the private sector isn’t interesting in accoplishing something for the common good but to make profit. So we have 100 different brands of sliced bread but no affordable housing. It’s not interested in fairness. The government, at least Democrats, are all about fairness. Some people say, “I’ve never gotten a job from a poor person.” I say, “I’ve never been ripped off by a poor person.”

  51. Osamas Pajamas Says:

    Great article, I’ll be sending the URL far and wide. Hmmmmmm. Some libertarians, eg: myself, wish to “starve the beast.” So that if raising tax rates denies increased sustenance to the enemy [the government] then higher tax rates are a great thing — except that’s insane….. better to chop Uncle Sam [every level of government] off at the knees.

  52. Michael Eden Says:

    Just picking on you re: your typing. It was your misfortune to talk about being “clear” and then misspell the next thing you said.

    The tax rate was high during the 1950s, and yet things were going fairly well, for one reason and one reason only: we had just one a World War, we were victorious, we were confident, and the rest of the world’s economies were pretty much destroyed while ours was untouched. Have you ever heard that thing about the one-eyed man being king in a world of the blind?

    The funny thing is that it was during this period that American corporations – who had a global market and only one another to compete with – negotiated benefits that were unsustainable, and that we are paying for dearly now with union pensions being hundreds of billions of dollars in the hole.

    I submit that we weren’t profitable because we had a high top tax rate, but in spite of the fact that we had a high top tax rate.

    Now, you move on to say that I “completely ignore your argument that money spent by the bottom of the economic scale helps the economy.” The problem with that is you don’t provide an argument; you provide an assertion.

    And I’m not going to waste my time refuting an assertion. I could just as easily just say the exact opposite, and demand YOU refute it.

    That said, I don’t see how a poor person buying something is better for the economy because a poor person bought it. If I buy a great big mansion, don’t you think that it took a lot of workers and a lot of materials (which in turn were produced by a lot more workers) to build that mansion?

    In one of my last posts I produce a New York Times article that demonstrated that just a 10% extra tax on luxury items like yachts gutted an industry and destroyed a lot of jobs, such that the very Democrats who passed the thing wanted to repeal it.

    Now let me produce an article that basically refutes your assertion:

    August 5, 2010, 12:27 PM ET
    U.S. Economy Is Increasingly Tied to the Rich
    By Robert Frank

    Who cares how the rich spend their money?

    Well, perhaps everyone should these days. Consumer spending accounts for roughly two-thirds of U.S. gross domestic product, or the value of all goods and services produced in the nation. And spending by the rich now accounts for the largest share of consumer outlays in at least 20 years.

    According to new research from Moody’s Analytics, the top 5% of Americans by income account for 37% of all consumer outlays. Outlays include consumer spending, interest payments on installment debt and transfer payments.

    By contrast, the bottom 80% by income account for 39.5% of all consumer outlays.

    Now, the article goes on to say that this phenomena in which the rich spend far more than they have in the past, whereas the poor spend less, is ultimately unhealthy.

    And I would agree. We need balance. And we don’t have it right now.

    But to dismiss the spending by the rich and say it doesn’t help the economy is just stupid.

    The government is “still in business” no matter how badly it fails because there has never existed a monopoly in business the way a government is a monopoly. The worse they fail, the more punitive and tax-happy they become to make someone else pay for their failures.

    Right now we are looking at the prospect of high inflation ahead if the economy begins to pick up. Do you know what the government will do? They will print more money to pay their rising debts. Can a business do that? Of course not. But there’d sure be a lot fewer failed businesses if they could, wouldn’t there?

    And do you know what that government policy of printing money will do to the American peoples’ savings? It will devalue them, as the value of their dollars suddenly dramatically deteriorates. No corporation can rob you of your wealth as can the government.

    If Paul Krugman says that the private sector has never invented anything, he’s even more dumb than I thought he was. Because the private sector has invented virtually EVERYTHING, whereas it is the government that has never invented anything. Was Henry Ford the government? Was Thomas Edison the government? I can go inventor by inventor and ask the same question. You look at the list of patents, and the government’s share of those patents is so tiny compared to non-government people and it’s a joke. What an ignorant thing to say.

    You’ve never gotten a job from a poor person, but I most assuredly have been ripped off by poor people. I was physically assaulted once by several poor people. My house was robbed once by poor people. I’ve had my car broken into at night half a dozen times by poor people. I’ve had two cars stolen in my life. And apparently the guys who did that weren’t wearing three piece pinstripe suits.

    You just don’t live in the real world, do you?

    You really need to move to North Korea where you can live happily amidst your own kind.

  53. Michael Eden Says:

    The only truly successful economic model will feature 1) low tax rates; 2) big cuts in spending; 4) responsible rather than wasteful spending; 5) spending that is based on need rather than on political connections; and 6) consistent, long-term policies – which is the essence of conservatism in opposing the constant Big Brother government meddling – which will signal business that they can expand without fear of what will be imposed on them around the corner.

    Calvin Coolidge maintained that he did not create the prosperity that occurred during his presidency; rather Coolidge allowed the American people to create that prosperity on their own. The improvements didn’t happen because of the government; the improvements happened because the government withdrew and got out of the people’s way.

  54. GEM Says:

    Michael, this is the first article of yours that I’ve read (I linked from http://www.anncoulter.com) and it was awesome. Not only did I enjoy the article, and will send it to all my friends, conservative and liberal alike, but I read through all the comments and enjoyed your responses to them, too! Excellent work!

  55. Michael Eden Says:

    Thanks, GEM (are you into lapidary? My dad was when I was a kid, and we went all over the place pounding on rocks; it was loads of fun!).

    I’ve always tried to respond to comments. I appreciate those who take the time to write to provide encouragement, and I don’t like to allow leftists to post baloney without confronting them. If you come into my house as a friend, I will offer you a drink and a snack and the nicest couch in the house; if you come into my house as a foe, I have artillery for you.

  56. dw Says:

    Could someone get this to obama. He wouldn’t believe it anyway. He stuck on stupid.

  57. dw Says:

    I have often equated the lowering of taxes and its ratio to increased revenue with the setting of pricing margins and its effect on sales volume. As Mellon, in his brillaince, alluded to, there is a point break at which by setting profit margin to high you actually reduce profit. The proper relationship between that margin and sales volume is key.
    That concept is too difficult for the leftist mind to comprehend.
    Your article is brilliant.

  58. Michael Eden Says:

    Thanks, DW.

    Andrew Mellon needs to be re-introduced to Americans. He made predictions based on his studies of the economy and tax rates, and then he was allowed to put his theories to the test. Result: his theories were confirmed. They work.

    I have said a couple times above that my goal was not to try to pursuade the liberal, but that they live in their own fact- and moral-value-free world, and that they were radically committed to a perverted (and frankly depraved) view of the world. It’s kind of what happens if you’ve got your head up your rear end, to put it crassly.

    As an orthodox Christian, I have a world view that results from the Holy Bible (yes, liberals, there’s another book that is ‘holy’) as it has been taught for two millennium. As a result, I have a “God’s eye” view of reality. I see the world (imperfectly, of course), as the Creator of the universe sees it.

    It’s nothing special about me; but about whose worldview I chose.

    Not so liberals. They hate God, hate His Word and hate His ways. They live in a world of secular humanist theories primarily informed by Marxist and fascist thought. And as a result, they cannot possibly see or understand the world as it really is.

    That’s why they don’t get it and won’t get it. They are committed to their terribly flawed worldview. It is a faith commitment that they will cling to (and, yes, bitterly cling to) in spite of a century of genocide and failure.

    I don’t think we can reason with them, but you know what we CAN do? We can make them embarrassed to be liberals, much the same way that they were once embarrassed to openly acknowledge they were homosexuals.

    We need to keep teaching people the truth, and how the truth makes societies that embrace it better and stronger, so that these liberals and their radical and dangerous worldviews are forced “into the closet.”

  59. Robbie Says:

    This is a little off point but any discussion of policy must always return to the reason why we as patriotic Americans must continually set the record straight regarding the history of this great country; and that is liberalism!

    I have found that as humans we are the top of the ladder among animals, mammals etc – obviously – liberals seek to reduce us to an animal status – and would prefer we not believe we are capable of using our moral compasses.

    I honestly think liberals would be happy if we all were a bunch of sexually indiscriminate, baby murdering, Godless, empty headed yielding drones… that must be their goal as what else is the point or end goal of the liberal ideology?

  60. dw Says:

    You are correct in your assessment of the liberal mind, but in addition to their rejection of the christian philosophy they just plain do not account for the vital role human psychology plays in the failure of their communist theory. (I go ahead and use communist because it is the true base of what they want to start with in socialism) Liberal economics fails because it pins its center core premise on the mistaken belief that people are tantamount to a herd of cattle. For them we exist to be engineered through condition response methods and will ultimately accept the idea that through sharing all assets equally we will be satisfied to be be equal no matter our condition. They do not understand and/or refuse to account for the concept of differences in ability and its relationship to the natural human condition that requires motivation through reward. When one individual realizes that by doing nothing he can still gain the same benefits as those that do everything the beginning of a ruinous societal cancer spreads as the resentment of the doers leads to more and more non producers.
    Furthermore the collectivist program, through its centralized authorities requires more and more regulation to control the population which results in an obvious curtailing of individual freedom, then manifest itself in a further depression of economic activity and an overall air of stagnation and societal malaise. That society will deteriorate from within and eat its people as is evidenced by the numerous examples, chief among them the former Soviet Union.
    Well I could go on with this for hours , Michael. I appreciate your response.

  61. Michael Eden Says:

    Progressivism and liberalism (and other “ism’s” they love such as socialism, communism, and fascism) are lies. And so they must be based on lies.

    And so history has to be transformed in order for the lies they seek to advance can have any “legitimacy.”

    In reading New Deal or Raw Deal? I was amazed that basically two handpicked presidential historians created, built, and sustained the entire FDR myth. They were selected to have unique access to FDR, and write his “history.” And then their students picked up the mantle, and so on.

    Had Hitler won WWII, we would have seen the same thing done for everyone’s beloved Fuhrer.

    The liberals, of course, love Darwinism, until you logically apply it to society, in which instead of helping the pajama-clad couch potato, we should allow the struggle for survival of the fittest take its course and let the species go extinct.

    Which is to say, liberals love Darwinism when it undermines God’s place in society, and they love it when it gives them what they want. And then they deny its fundamental premises and disallow its obvious conclusions from that point forward.

  62. Mary Frumkin Says:

    It’s irrelevant whether or not Obama knows the truth about taxation. He will continue trying to punish the “rich”. Look at what he said during the Presidential debates; that he would raise the capital gains tax even though it meant lower tax revenues. It was a matter of “fairness”(read punishing the rich). Of course, diminishing tax revenue punishes everyone, because the missing revenue will mean the usual misguided calls for higher income taxes (for those who still pay them).

  63. Michael Eden Says:

    That’s really well put, DW. I’m pasting it into a word file.

    Don’t forget you’re just a socially conditioned meat puppet and the product of a mindless, nonrational evolutionary process of time, plus chance, plus random mutation, plus nothing. What is this “human psychology” you speak of?

    There’s an incredible passage in Gleason Archer’s Enclyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pages 55-56:

    “But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

    On the basis of his won presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self contradictory and self defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.”

    Which is to say, the assumptions that you so marvelously point out that secular humanist liberal philosophy assumes comes right out of what is an inherently irrational and contradictory set of underlying assumptions about human nature and about the world.

    The even funnier thing is that these elitist arrogant liberals assume that human society consists of near-mindless herd animals that must be constantly guided and prodded along, but that they themselves somehow transcend the very human nature which they so despicably hold to. You and I are meat puppets, but somehow Obama and his liberal ilk are skilled engineers pushing just the right buttons at just the right times.

    I posted that Archer quote in one of my responses to an article I wrote entitled, “Whose Country Do We Want: Our Founding Fathers’ Or Our Secular Contemporaries’?” I think you’d enjoy reading that.

  64. dw Says:

    That is a damn good point. Survival of the fittest is fine if it will dismiss the role of God but completely out of place in helping to understand that humans thrive on the challenge of survival and in doing so seek their own levels of ambition and reward, and by doing so we invariably supplement and compliment each other in talent and ability.
    It is the best and most natural way for a society to develop and ultimately maximize the welfare of the greatest number of its citizens.
    The liberal mind is a cobweb of hypocrisy, existing in a world of denial.

  65. Michael Eden Says:

    You are entirely correct, Mary.

    Obama is a man who says one thing, then says another, and then says, “as I’ve been saying all along.”

    Obama said this earlier about raising taxes on anyone during a recession:

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: “The Last Thing You Want To Do Is To Raise Taxes In The Middle Of A Recession Because That Would Just Suck Up — Take More Demand Out Of The Economy And Put Businesses In A Further Hole.” (MSNBC, 8/5/09)

    So what he said before has nothing to do with what he will say or do next.

    And, yeah, that thing about raising capital gains just for the sake of Marxist redistributionism and class warfare is something else.

    You know what they say: “No brain, no pain.”

  66. dw Says:

    Hey Michael, I am seeing some misspells in my post. I didn’t do a good enough job of editing.

  67. Michael Eden Says:

    I got your back.

    I am missing part of my right index finger. It has not seemed to improve my typing skills. So Mr. Spell Checker and I are good friends.

  68. Michael Eden Says:

    And, of course, survival of the fittest is a useful concept. But as Christians we realize it is not the end-all. That, for instance, there are things worth dying for.

    A number of years back a jet plane crashed on takeoff and went into the river. A husband and wife drowned saving their disabled adopted daughter who was in a wheelchair.

    From a Darwinian “survival of the fittest” mindset, that was stupid. They should have let this disabled kid (who wasn’t even their biological child) die and adopt a “better” one. Their sacrifice was heroic only if we’re created in the image of God, and the malarkey premises of atheism aren’t true.

    But for pseudo-science-loving liberals, evolution and Darwinism are sacred on the one hand, and yet That-which-we-must-not-consider-in-forming-our-leftwing-loon-policies on the other. When for them, of course, it SHOULD be the end-all.

  69. Blacky-O'Blivien Says:

    I consider myself a pretty fair person, and try to read things with an open mind, but when the first link I click goes to a site from discredited hack Andrew Breitbart, and has nothing to do with the claim in the link, it’s pretty obvious you’re writing for the faithful.

    Looks like you fooled Ann Coulter, anyway.

  70. Kevin Myers Says:

    I would like to see a few changes to the “System”

    I would like to see tax day take place six weeks before the General Election (in election years and the same time in non-election years). – I believe this would cause a greater a awareness of the connection between elections and taxes.

    Forbid the Federal government from deducting taxes from your paycheck. Instead they should be required to send each American a tax bill. – If it hurts when you pay your electric bill, gas bill, house payment and auto insurance it should also hurt when you pay your taxes!

    I believe the several states should be responsible for the collection of Federal taxes which the states will turn them over to the Fed. – This would give the states some power over the Fed, something the they sorely need since the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment.

    The Federal Government should be required to pay interest on any overpayment of taxes or the Fed should not be allowed to charge interest no past due taxes. – Interest that is payed only on one side or the other can only lead to abuses.

    Synopsis:

    The Federal Government does its best to stack the deck in their favor. For example, tax day is 6 months, 18 days for election day. This is no accident. Thomas Jefferson said “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”

  71. dw Says:

    The distinction we make to help others and operate from a motive of selflessness is a choice for people. For some it is a cornerstone of their life, for others it is a void in their foundation. I do believe we all know instinctively what Gods lessons are and can choose to implement them on a daily bases. We know when are are right and we know when we are wrong, but many choose to either ignore that inner voice or puposely reject it. That couple had no choice but to save the daughter because their core could not have it any other way and that is the way they conducted their daily lives.
    It occurs to me that the arrogance of the elitist liberal with their attitude of superiority and that ‘all knowing’ behavior they engage in, in terms of manipulating the masses and social engineering human behavior, coupled with the need to run the wealth of the nation through their greedy hands seems like their way of substituting God for themselves. That kind of control is God like.

  72. Michael Eden Says:

    You are an example of everything that can go wrong with the human brain, Blacky.

    The link to Breitbart (which appears as “Democrats say they are cutting taxes on “95% of Americans” in the sixth paragraph of my article), merely served to provide a proof that, yes in fact, Obama and the Democrats actually said they were going to “cut taxes” for 95% of Americans.

    Do you deny they said that, Blacky? Do you like in a cave and cook moonshine in Arkansas or something? Are you that utterly ignorant that you failed to comprehend that Obama’s core promise, repeated over and over again, was that he was going to “cut taxes” for 95% of Americans???

    Here, allow me to give you another source that is even MORE worthy for demonization:

    “Cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples” – Source: “Organizing for America” at BarackObama.com

    Which is to say that what I said was completely true, whether you liked the source or not.

    But you, being a hater of the truth, and a genuine moral idiot, don’t really care about the truth, do you?

    You also don’t much care about logic or reason.

    There is something called the genetic fallacy. You really should look it up. Because you are the poster boy for the genetic fallacy – and you’re probably ugly enough to be the poster boy for prophylactics, too.

    A definition: The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.

    That was a fundamental precept of logic you just stomped all over, you baboon.

    You consider yourself “a pretty fair person,” but you are so profoundly intolerant and so profoundly hostile to the truth that you demonize A PLAIN FACT just because you don’t happen to like Andrew Breitbart.

    So, it’s not that I “fooled” Ann Coulter; it’s rather that YOU are a fool.

  73. Michael Eden Says:

    Kevin Myers,

    Mikey likes it!

    Send Americans a bill for federal taxes, and then give the states the power to collect. And the interest part is pretty nice, too.

    One thing that would be cool about it is to allow the rich to stick a copy of their tax bill right down the throat of the next liberal idiot who says the rich aren’t paying enough taxes.

  74. Michael Eden Says:

    We’re probably dealing more with semantics than disagreement, but reading your first paragraph brought this response to mind:

    Yes, it’s a choice, but it is a choice based on something. We may not brake for moral values, but they are still real things. And I would further argue that we might hear a “little voice,” but that the little voice is either valid or invalid, in that it either corresponds or does not correspond to the moral values that God has revealed and which correspond to His divine character.

    I would also say that those who do not know God or seek Him have depraved moral values (i.e., they think that things that are evil are good, and they think that things that are good are evil).

    A few passages from Scripture:

    Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! — Isaiah 5:20

    Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron — 1 Timothy 4:2

    You love evil more than good, Falsehood more than speaking what is right. — Psalm 52:3

    For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who in their wickedness suppress the truth — Romans 1:18

    Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools – Romans 1:22

    You who hate good and love evil, Who tear off their skin from them And their flesh from their bones — Micah 3:2

    In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe to keep them from seeing the light of the glorious gospel of the Messiah, who is the image of God. — 2 Corinthians 4:4

    From your second paragraph, absolutely. The religious worldview believes in a Creator God, and has a two step theology: “1) There is a God; 2) I am not Him.”

    There’s also the concept espoused by J. Vernon McGee: “Now, you might have a better plan than God, but what you don’t have is your own universe.” On this, the Christian believer is not trying to “fundamentally transform” culture, or to enthrone a messiah as president; we’re trying to live life and forge society based on a God who revealed Himself in His Word and His Son; and our Messiah came 2 thousand years ago.

    The secular humanist mind which rejects God then seeks to take His place. They will not bend the knee to God or His ways; so they elevate themselves to usurp His authority and take His place in their lives and in the society they seek to create.

    Further, they seek something transcendent. But the only thing in their shriveled worldview that has any chance of transcendent is GOVERNMENT. Government as Savior and God; Barack Hussein as Messiah.

    And so we have the heresy of Government creating heaven (that Utopia liberals keep thinking the next iteration of big government totalitarian tyranny will bring).

    And since liberals create this “big G” government, and since Government is God, they become God with total control over the lives of mankind.

  75. master baiter Says:

    No wonder Ann Coulter claims this to be the most incredible article she’s ever read. It’s completely and 100% without any credibility whatsoever. Your own Heritage Foundation chart clearly contradicts your entire argument. Have you ever taken a look at the Treasury Department report from 2006 entitled “Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills”? You Laffer Curve Evangelists fail to realize two important key points: 1) Laffer’s Curve is merely a predictive model, and more imporantly, 2) The model also predicts that insufficient tax rates – below the optimum level for a given economy – will also lead to a reduction in tax revenues. Remember GWBI calling Reaganomics “Voodo Economics”. Reagans own budget director now calls the effect of these policies an Apocalypse.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

  76. Michael Eden Says:

    Maybe if you didn’t spend so much of your time “master baiting” and put your hands on a book instead of what you apparently keep them on, you’d know something.

    First of all, maybe you should actually bother to READ my article before you condemn it. You dwell on my use of and reliance upon the Laffer Curve; when I never even once MENTIONED the Laffer curve. Your “the Laffer curve is only a predictive model” bullpuckey doesn’t much mean diddly, considering that I didn’t use it, but instead spent most of the article citing ACTUAL HISTORY and ACTUAL FIGURES. So I think that everyone should just realize that you offer what amounts to a drive-by comment. You don’t know crap, you didn’t bother to interact with what I actually said, but that doesn’t stop you from expressing yourself. Because you can really only express yourself when you’re “master baiting,” isn’t that right?

    “My Heritage Foundation chart clearly contradicts my entire argument”? Because as we ALL know Heritage is all about spitting out charts that say high tax rates and high taxes is a good thing, don’t we? Maybe you should read the Heritage article and then look at what they’re pointing out so you can actually comprehend the point that you are so ignorantly demonizing.

    I didn’t waste any time, but pointed out in my very first paragraph that government sources use – and have been using – a static model that refuses to take into account the fact that people change their behavior when confronted with different taxation rates. Andrew Mellon made that prediction, as I cited him. And then through the Harding and Coolidge administrations PROVED his theory was correct. And then that proven theory was again tested and proven during the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush administrations. As I demonstrated, with the numbers that you completely ignore.

    Finally, you offer Reagan’s budget director’s turning liberal as a proof that therefore Reagan was wrong. Fine. But long before that occurred, Reagan himself turned away from the Democrat Party, and therefore that likewise “proves” the Democrat party is wrong. And I suppose when Bush’s press secretary Scott McClellan wrote his stupid book, that somehow proved that the entire Bush presidency and in fact all of conservatism itself was wrong, right??? What a profoundly stupid argument you offer!!!

    And, for the record, Barack Obama’s budget director just came out and said the Bush tax cuts – all of them – should be extended. Which is to say maybe you don’t want to put too much stock in “former budget directors,” do you?

    So the only one without credibility is you.

    Why don’t you go back to your “master baiting”??? Apparently, it’s about the only thing you’re qualified to do.

  77. master baiter Says:

    I read your “article”. And all of the comments. Including the one you posted on September 8th regarding the Laffer Curve. I heard about your article on today’s Sean Hannity show (not sure if you know it was mentioned there), and I just had to see what Ann Coulter was claiming to be the most incredible article she’d ever read. Look, I’ll give you SOME credit. Contrary to Sean Hannity, who continually likes to claim that Reagan’s huge tax cuts to the wealthy caused federal tax reveune to “skyrocket”, you posted a chart that clearly (and factually) disputes that as a complete and utter lie. So for that I commend you. But for some reason your own writing doesn’t take into account the facts that you present. Take FY 1981 (constant adjusted) revenue of 1004.6 and compare that to FY 1988 revenue of 1154, and youre talking a paltry 15% increase in the year to year revenue AFTER 8 YEARS! HARDLY the 200% that you hear banted about on conservative talk radio. The day Reagan took office our federal debt stood at just over a trillion dollars. As incurred over the entire 200+ years of our countries history. Reagan was able to nearly TRIPLE that to 2.7 trillion by the time he left office. Fiscal conservative? In fact I’m pretty sure Reagan was the first post war president not to actually reduce the nation’s debt.

    Actually I am an avid fisherman and sportsman; It does not surprise me that you would go directly into a charachter attack.

    Your claim that the huge revenue decreases are actually increases because of changes in people’s behavior has got to be one of the richest things I’ve ever read. Go back and read Stockman’s op ed again. He was one of the actual architects of the supply side theories. Even he knows it’s never done what you’re claiming.

  78. dw Says:

    A true liberal will identify themselves with an undeniable ability to demonstrat their stupidity. First they attack those who might prove them to be wrong and then offer no intelligent counter rational to defend their view. Having invested so much cognitive energy in pusuit of false dogma they must lash out at those who speak varifiable truth that cuts their beliefs to shreds.
    In short, they bring a knife to a gun fight.

  79. master baiter Says:

    DW: Yes Mr. Eden DID do all of those things (attack with no intelligent counter, false dogma, etc). but really, clearly he’s no liberal. That was kind of uncalled for.

  80. dw Says:

    Come on dude even you’re not dumb enough to post that.
    Reagan’s tax cuts did exponentially raise revenue. But the democratic congress spent $1.83 for every new dollar brought in. The more money taken by the public sector from the private sector means the less money availible to invest in economic activities that produce real jobs. Government does not produce anything but bureacracy. It takes money and then uses it with great inefficiency becoming a bloated, starving black hole.
    While people like you may resent the rich, it is never the less the rich who provide jobs. The more they feel financially restricted by government largess the less opportunities for private sector employment.
    It is a symbiotic relationship that must be respected, because it has proven to work far better than marxist economics. Everyone is poor under that system. That has been proven many times throughout history. Study the Soviet Union for one. That was a third world economy that failed miserably.

  81. Noir Says:

    Michael,

    I had to chuckle at your response to Mary. You said: You are entirely correct, Mary.

    Obama is a man who says one thing, then says another, and then says, “as I’ve been saying all along.”

    Don`t forget his infamous “Let me be clear” mantra – as if any clairty whatsoever could be found in all that doublespeak!

    And thanks for the link you provided in your response to me. All the best to you.

  82. Michael Eden Says:

    Actually I am an avid fisherman and sportsman

    I’m sticking with my interpretation. If Stockman’s opinion matters, then so does mine.

    I didn’t know that Sean Hannity referenced me. When it rains, it pours.

    If you’re ticked off by the fact that someone else has claimed that Reagan “skyrocketed” revenue and had “200%” increases, then go bother them. I never made such claims, and so I’m ticked off by the fact that you bring this stuff up to try to undermine my credibility when none of it had anything to do with my article.

    You’re not giving Reagan the credit he deserves. In fact, you’re not giving him any credit at all.

    Let’s go back over the Carter years and their fruit:

    When Ronald Reagan took office from Jimmy Carter, inflation was at a meteoric 13.3% and the country was in the throes of a fierce recession. There was a real question as to whether workers’ wages would keep up with the costs of living, which made people afraid to either spend or save. And nobody knew how to control inflation – which had risen from 1.4% in 1960 to the aforementioned 13.3% in 1980 – causing a real erosion of confidence in the future. Jimmy Carter answered a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

    Oh, and by the way, the interest rate was over 21%, and the misery index was 20.5% – which I believe was the highest ever recorded.

    These were just terrible, godawful numbers. In many ways, Reagan inherited an even worse situation than did Obama.

    And, starting from this terrible place, Reagan not only proved that he HAD an answer for the inflation that neither Carter nor any Democrat had an answer for, but he turned our economy around from a “malaise” and “a crisis in confidence” to the most successful and confident economy in the world.

    Look back at that chart. By the time Reagan left office in 1988, he had created growth of nearly 21% above what he had inherited. And by 1990, when the chart ends, Reagan had set the trajectory for 28% growth above the Carter baseline. Now, you may find that amazing, but the American people do, given their pick of Reagan as the greatest president in American history according to Gallup.

    But that’s not all that Reagan did. He won the Cold War at the same time he was winning the economic war for the American people.

    The Soviet Union had become the mightiest military power in the history of the world while Jimmy Carter was confusing peanuts with the presidency. The USSR had committed acts of genocide that utterly dwarfed anything the Nazis did. They had expanded their influence all over the world. We had to commit vast military resources to Vietnam because of Soviet aid to N. Vietnam. The USSR had expanded into the Middle East, Africa, all of Asia, and were threatening to take over much of Central America right next door to us (to go along with Cuba).

    Reagan saw the handwriting on the wall and understood it. And he made it the major point of his presidency to defeat the mighty Soviet Union. And, amazingly, he succeeded.

    So let’s compare Reagan to another wartime president, FDR. Because that was what Reagan was: he was THE president who won the Cold War, the longest and most expensive war in American history.

    You say Reagan tripled the national debt. That sounds bad. Until you consider FDR.

    Franklin Delanor Roosevelt raised the debt from $22,538,672,560.15 to $258,682,187,409.93.

    Mr. “Master Baiter” (and YOU know what I mean), that is an increase of 1,048%.

    “Triple the National Debt”? FDR didn’t triple the national debt – he multiplied it by 11.5 TIMES. Which is to say that he nearly QUADRUPLED his TRIPLING of the national debt.

    I mean, OMG. If only FDR had only tripled the national debt!!!

    You want to blame someone for all the debt accumulated during the Reagan years, why not blame the Democrat Congress? Why not blame Tip O’Neal? He was the Democrat Speaker of the Democrat House Majority from 1977 until he retired near the very end of the Reagan era. He controlled the purse-strings FAR more than Reagan did. You know, because of that Constitution-thingy. The Constitution gives Congress, and Congress alone, the authority to write the budget and spend money. Remember, Reagan was the guy who wanted to just eliminate the Departments of Energy and Education (and one or two others as well). Reagan had to negotiate with Democrats and compromise with them to spend on THEIR projects – something neither FDR or Obama had to do.

    And it continues to strike me as just hilarious that you liberals still lecture us about deficits.

    You make this statement:

    The day Reagan took office our federal debt stood at just over a trillion dollars. As incurred over the entire 200+ years of our countries history. Reagan was able to nearly TRIPLE that to 2.7 trillion by the time he left office.

    When YOUR guy has THIS on his hands:

    “In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.”

    And if we want to make comparisons to George Bush’s deficits:

    “…from the day Mr. Obama took office last year to the end of the current fiscal year, according to the Office of Management and Budget, the debt held by the public will grow by $3.3 trillion. In 20 months, Mr. Obama will add as much debt as Mr. Bush ran up in eight years.”

    I mean, how does your head not explode from holding in all those contradictions?

    Your last paragraph doesn’t even make any sense: “Your claim that the huge revenue decreases are actually increases because of changes in people’s behavior”??? I never make such a claim. I don’t even argue that tax cuts create “huge” revenue increases, merely that they DO increase revenue; that they essentially pay for themselves. I certainly don’t say “revenue decreases” are “actually increases.” You are misrepresenting me yet again.

    If you don’t think that increases in taxation change people’s behavior, then you should be willing to take part in a little test:

    For the next ten years, give 100% of every penny you receive to the federal government. Let’s call it a voluntary tax, the liberal’s dream: a 100% tax rate. If you show up to work every single day and work your brains out even though you won’t get to keep a single penny of your labor’s value, then you can come back to me and boast that tax hikes don’t affect human behavior.

    On the other hand, most people wouldn’t show up for work the next day, much less keep chugging along for year after year. Because if you tax away their incentive to work, they will quit working.

    You focused on Reagan, and ignored my other examples. But Andrew Mellon explained it all quite clearly – and I quote him doing so in my article: when you raise taxes, you reduce the incentive to work hard and take risks with your money by investing.

  83. Michael Eden Says:

    DW: Yes Mr. Eden DID do all of those things (attack with no intelligent counter, false dogma, etc)

    To put it succinctly, WAH!

    You raised my ire with your very first words to me:

    No wonder Ann Coulter claims this to be the most incredible article she’s ever read. It’s completely and 100% without any credibility whatsoever.

    Your nasty assertion that my work was “100% without any credibility whatsoever” was pretty danged uncalled for, too. But it didn’t stop you from doing it.

    All I did was give you a taste of your own medicine, dismissing you out of hand like you did to me.

    Don’t throw out garbage like that and then whine at my double entendre. It makes you look pathetic. And fwiw, liberals who play whiner judo where they try to make themselves the victim push my buttons pretty big time, too.

    And I think that anyone who reads my responses to you will immediately see the lie in your assertion that I offer “no intelligent counter.”

    Meanwhile, I have repeatedly (something like five times) had to point out that you were inserting bogus straw men into my article while misrepresenting my points. I’d certainly agree with DW that you’ve come up with some “false dogma.”

  84. Michael Eden Says:

    Noir

    One day, not long from now, we’ll be classifying Obama’s rhetoric the way we classify Three Stooges sketches: in terms of comically ridiculous classics.

    Yes, “Let me be clear” is a classic joke – how could I have forgotten that one? That’s almost as bad as forgetting Abbot and Costello’s “Who’s on first?” routine. Both being based on convolution, distortion and doublespeak.

    I love links. And I hope you find the articles useful.

    All the best to you and your son!

  85. Noir Says:

    Thanks Michael. I`d also like to further validate your argument about the change in behavior. My husband and I have done quite well for ourselves despite where we came from. We were in the highest US Tax bracket for many years. My husband is a Swiss banker. Many times we had the opportunity to relocate to London, Singapore or Zurich. I am an American, love my country and wanted my son to grow up there and for these reasons always said I didn`t want to relocate. Then in February 2008 with Hurricane Obama looming on the horizon and having paid attention to what the man was saying and recognizing 2 things about him, (Narcissism and Marxism, a toxic explosive cocktail if ever there was one) at the tender age of 56, I told my husband that I`d be willing to go. We “temporarily” relocated – meaning that we kept our house in the US. By April of 2009, we sold the house and made the move “permanent”. Our overall taxes went from some 40 something % to 31% in the first area we lived in here and now we pay a whopping 18%. Now not everyone can do this but the point is that the opportunity presented itself to me to keep my money from being taken by the government and I took it. I changed my behavior.

    In addidtion my husband who was a green card holder and not a citizen gave his card back and now he can only be in the US for no more than 30 days for the next 10 years or we will be double taxed! Not netted as they do if you work in one state and reside in another but actually double-taxed. He is a Swiss citizen, working in his home country and the US will tax us on day 31 because he worked there for x amount of years.
    What`s the point of all this? More change in behavior. We have a place in the Carribean – and we generally fly into NY (I`m a Brooklyn girl and love to be back in NYC) but since we now have this 30 day time constraint on us, we now fly in to Toronto and spend our money there.

    We also didn`t take our vacation this past summer in the US (hubby is on sabatical) but went to Asia instead.

    Again, all changes in behavior having to do with taxes. That anyone in their right mind (yes liberals this even applies to you too) would think that American citizens are just going to roll over and allow their money to be taken from them when they have worked so hard for it,ESPECIALLY when we are at such a critical if not breaking point in the country they are sick in the head! That this even has to be illustrated and defended just shows you how far from common sense we have come.

    If all this makes me a “greedy”, “rich”, “racists” pig, then so be it. However, there is truly some perverted irony in types like Obama, Pelosi, Kerry – telling the guy who GROSSES just over $250,000. that they are rich when these politicians travel and eat on our dime!

    Michael, bless you again for this article – just……true.

  86. GerriAnne Says:

    An eye-opening article – thank you. I was a teenager during JFK’s term and never, ever heard or read those quotes that you cited.

  87. jerr t. Says:

    I read in the beginning of this long story that you proclaim it is impossible to balance a budget with a tax reduction. but then later in the same long story time line…. you say the 2nd Pres. Bush did just that. Saying Mr. Bush cut taxes and there by created more revenue ! most U.S. citizens over the age of 20 was there and I would assume a majority of them would say they did not see that. the 2nd Pres. Bush did spend massively which did put America in debt. The historical account of finances does not hold true. during Pres. Clinton’s time in office, republicans in congress never agreed with any of his proposals. every “bill” he sent to congress was thrown back by the republicans in congress, and they said out in public “not behind closed doors,” we will not work with this President. It appears this reporter is saying, Mr. Clinton is to blame for our nation’s problems, which is not true either.

  88. jerr t. Says:

    It is easy to build a case for or against some one. many Americans side with Democrats and many side with the Republicans. As a U.S. citizen I witnessed Pres. Reagan illegally selling (arms) to one nation to fund his little war in Central America… has America forgotten all that ? I would assume some one is going to come back and say that has nothing to do with balancing the national budget. but I say every dime any pres. spends is taking away from the finances of the nation.

  89. Michael Eden Says:

    I presume you’re talking about Iran Contra. And other than saying, yes, it didn’t anything to do with the budget deficit, and that it amounts to a red herring, I wouldn’t say anything else. There has never been any proof that Reagan himself was involved, but it was most certainly wrong, and the government shouldn’t have done it.

    So that’s about the extent of my mea culpa.

  90. Michael Eden Says:

    Noir,

    Bless you and your family. It sounds like you have life by the tail; may it ever be so for you.

    I saw the handwriting on the wall and put virtually everything I had in gold right after the August 2008 convention. Because that was the first time I really realized that Americans were actually going to vote for this guy. I have since moved some of my investments, but I have been out of US stocks ever since. I made out well believing that Obama would be a failure and the worst president in history.

    Your story is no longer anywhere near as rare as it once was. And, yes, thank you, it most certainly DOES confirm that people’s behavior changes in ways Democrats simply will never understand (or at least admit they understand).

    Three times as many Americans renounced their US citizenship in 2009 as in 2008. Democrats talk about “exporting jobs” (which is ANOTHER example of how behavior changes when confronted with burdensome taxes and regulations), but here they are “exporting rich people.”

    John Kerry’s behavior changed enough that he purchased and then kept his yacht in a different state in order to pay fewer taxes. The hypocrite.

    We can also talk about the “changes in behavior” of Democrats like Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle, Charles Rangel, and a long list of others.

    I have an uncle who was a senior partner at KPMG. He’s been retired, but he invested VERY well, and would have been rich had he invested badly. He and his wife are hardly misers, but they don’t throw their money away, either. They actually clip coupons!!! They drive a car for 100k-plus miles if they like that car. And believe me, changes in tax rates matter to them. They’re not nearly as uncommon as you think: they grew up in the aftermath of the Great Depression, and DIDN’T have a silver spoon when they started their lives. Far from it. And that experience has never left them.

    For what it’s worth, they are also INCREDIBLY generous people, and have given over a million dollars a year every single year for years.

    My brother is also in that “$250,000 ergo rich” bracket. But they hardly think of themselves as “rich.” They live in a high-property value area, and mortgages are huge. And they have a couple of pretty nice cars. But with two kids (one who plays ice hockey, which is incredibly expensive in equipment and travel, for e.g.,), it’s not like they have a lot of money by the time they’re done paying bills. They can’t afford to do a lot of things they’d like to do. And a few thousand bucks in taxes makes a BIG difference to them.

    But, yeah, I know, that still makes them “racists,” doesn’t it?

  91. Michael Eden Says:

    An eye-opening article – thank you. I was a teenager during JFK’s term and never, ever heard or read those quotes that you cited.

    GerriAnne,

    The book Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg will open your eyes even further. He describes how the left literally altered JFK’s life to make him a “liberal hero” after his assassination.

    Like so many other things, JFK was another example of the liberal rewriting of history.

    They have that in common with the Stalinists.

  92. Michael Eden Says:

    Jerr t.

    I don’t know what you smoked to think I had “proclaimed it impossible to balance a budget with a tax reduction, but then later say…” It is clearly pretty good stuff, though. I would suggest cutting the amount you smoke waaaaay back.

    As for the rest, let me try to explain:

    Tax cuts DO increase revenues collected. I believe I demonstrated that. Lowering tax rates is not the end-all, and that in itself does not guarantee budget surpluses, but it is a very positive step.

    Even with the BEST tax policy, you could well end up with deficits. Let’s say I have a minimum wage job, and I live frugally within my means. But then my rich uncle (I’ve actually got one) offers me a job that pays more than a million dollars a year. And I go a little bit nuts. I buy a huge house, a Ferrari, a yacht right next to John Kerry’s, etc. And then lo and behold, I find myself in debt. Are you seriously going to argue that I didn’t have more revenue in my million dollar a year job, even though I have more deficts (debt)??? I mean, really?

    And that’s what happened during Bush’s term. He DID bring in more revenue with his tax cuts; that’s a matter of simple fact. But spending skyrocketed. Things like two wars, Hurricane Katrina, etc. etc. etc. And so even though Bush’s tax cuts created more revenue, we ended up with deficits.

    Now, we can go back to Clinton and see that he was a deficit-spending liberal until he got his clock cleaned in 1994. And then the Republican Congress – and CONGRESS writes the budget and alone has the authority to spend – FORCED him to be fiscally responsible. And the market liked that, just like it would like it NOW. And even though Clinton’s tax rates were slightly higher, he had low capital gains taxes (which Obama wants to raise in the issue of “fairness”). And that incentivized more investment. Then you combine the fact that Reagan had won the Cold War, and Bush had won big in the Middle East, and Clinton benefited from a “Peace surplus,” too. Part of that “peace surplus” was the result of Clinton cowardly refusing to do anything whatsoever about an increasingly threatening series of attacks by Muslim terrorists. He just handed that off to Bush and Bush was forced to deal with it.

    And things were good until Clinton’s policies gave us the Dot-com bubble that cost the US economy $6 Trillion in wealth, and which wiped Nasdaq away (78% of its wealth vanished). Which was dumped on Bush’s lap in a “Clinton recession” you would have remembered better had the massive 9/11 attack not happened.

    Now, you talk about the Republicans being the “party of no” and how awful that is. But you’re a hypocrite. Because the Democrats were just as bad when Republicans were in charge. Here’s just one example:

    The Left now acts as if this never happened. For instance, in a recent television appearance, liberal commentator Bill Press argued that–rather than noisy disagreement–”Americans want discussion” on health-care reform. Who could disagree with that sentiment–except, perhaps, the Obama administration, which pushed Congress to rush through legislation by early August? This timeline was clearly aimed at preempting discussion and presenting the public with a “done deal” on health reform. As one protester put it, the president spent more time choosing a dog than he did discussing health-care reform.

    Likewise, Mr. Press complained that opponents hadn’t put their own reform plans on the table. “The people who are there to protest–what are they for? Are they for the status quo? The Republicans haven’t put any other plan on the table.” But did congressional Democrats offer their own alternative to President Bush’s 2005 Social Security plan? When a fellow Democrat asked Rep. Nancy Pelosi when their party would offer its own Social Security plan, her answer was “Never. Is that soon enough for you?” Democrats would not even negotiate until personal retirement accounts were taken off the table. Why should Republicans act differently today, regarding the “public option”?

  93. Leland Says:

    To All and Sundry, a point or two. One thing Mr. Eden didn’t address (perhaps he has elsewhere- this is my 1st eden article) is the equally ludicrous mantra that the Bush tax cuts benefited only the wealthiest. Balderdash! I benefited a great deal. So I guess that at 50K/year I am among the wealthiest. So I have absolutely no doubt that as our elected elite have stated that there WILL BE a tax increase on the wealthiest that I will suffer accordingly. I am also waiting on the same group to claim that they would not have to renew the Bush tax cuts if BUSH had not put a sunset date in the bill, so that the necessity for renewal is just one more thing that is of course Bush’s fault. I would almost bet money that will be the next Bush fault chorus we here from the left.
    Mr. Eden, excellent article and I will be visiting archives just as surely as I did Ann Coulters. Thanks

  94. dw Says:

    “The collectivist mindset, as embodied by the necessity to be organized through a centralized, bureaucratically-dominated, legislatively-driven authority, where accountability for individual welfare is subservient to the required acquiescence demanded by the tenets of Marxism, is contrary and in diametrical opposition to America’s core mandate for personal freedom and the naturally inherent psychological need to have ownership in life’s outcomes. The road to dictatorship can start with the most noble of beginnings and can be, ironically, augmented by the very people it ends up controlling. For it is so that an orientation of dependence becomes an addiction to need.”
    O.D. Harrisson

  95. Michael Eden Says:

    Thanks for the comment, Mr. Leland.

    You’re right; I really didn’t specifically mention that Bush’s tax cuts directly benefited the middle class. And they did so in two ways: via the “trickle-down” effect of the wealthy CREATING jobs via their increased investment; and directly via the fact that Bush cut the middle class rates, too.

    You’d think, the way the Democrats deceitfully demagogued the Bush tax cuts, that ONLY the wealthy benefited. And that somehow the rich benefited by being allowed to steal money out of the middle class’ pockets. The reason I have no respect for Democrats whatsoever is their constant reliance on deceit. The truth, of course, as you point out, is that the Bush tax cuts floated all boats. And only Marxist class warfare demagogues don’t like all boats being floated.

    And why are “all boats floated”? Because reduced tax rates across the board put money into the private sector, which any fool should now know is the source of job creation.

    If you’re in the middle class, and you like your job, you should thank the rich person(s) who made it possible for you.

    I had to chuckle at the wink-wink suggestion that Democrats may now “blame Bush” for putting a sunset on the tax cuts that they used to demonize but now increasingly want to keep.

    Like everything else, however, it was Democrats who created the current dilemma of keeping the Bush tax cuts by demanding that sunset date in the first place. When what businesses want MOST is just some long-term certainty about what the government is going to throw at them next.

  96. Michael Eden Says:

    That sentiment reminds me of two other quotes:

    “Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood; it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances; what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?” — Alexis de Tocqueville

    “Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level with those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we ‘ought to have known better’, is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image.” — C.S. Lewis

  97. Noir Says:

    I had read that artile about US citizens renouncing their citizenship. One fact that the article doesn`t mention is the 30% “exit tax” on all GLOBAL wealth. I know, I toyed with the idea when I became a dual national. While 30% is a hefty price to pay, I wasn`t sure in the end that I could bring myself to emotionally separate from the land I love so much. It started to feel like a divorce or a death in the family.

    I`ve lived through the terms of 11 presidents and the one thing I recognize is that they are short timers. They change every 4 or 8 years. I can outlast them. The trick of course is to prevent them from inflicting lasting damage on the country. Unfortunately Obama seems hell bent on doing just this.

  98. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Great job, Michael! I could a little more to what you’ve stated here:
    http://thedauntlessconservative.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/the-reagan-tax-cuts-lessons-for-tax-reform/

    Bush Tax Cuts Worked to bring down unemployment rate
    http://thedauntlessconservative.wordpress.com/2010/08/14/bush-tax-cuts-worked/

    The Bill Clinton Lie
    http://thedauntlessconservative.wordpress.com/2010/09/08/the-bill-clinton-lie/

  99. Michael Eden Says:

    Hadn’t thought about the “exit tax” thing. I suppose you could try to be like “Turbo Tax” Tim Geithner and just conveniently forget that little detail. A funny lawsuit by the IRS took place against a guy who was in the EXACT SAME SITUATION as Geither, but somehow didn’t get let off the hook by the IRS, let alone get made Treasury Secretary. Of course, blatant hypocrisy of the law was deemed no excuse, and they threw the book at him.

    11 presidents? I’ve only got 9 under my belt; that makes me a young punk neophyte!!!

    I think the mindset of “I’ll outlast the bastard” is losing its effectiveness. The reason:

    Serious consequences associated with deficit spending have long seemed like far-off problems, but they are now likely to hit the country with considerable force within the next several years.

    One is servicing the debt itself. Most people don’t pay much attention to the interest payments the federal government makes every year. They haven’t had to. Debt service has been manageable, thanks to low interest rates and consistent economic growth.

    But, according to the Congressional Budget Office, annual debt payments — currently about $200 billion — are set to skyrocket. CBO estimates that interest payments on the federal debt will total $916 billion by the year 2020.

    “Interest rates are going to rise and at the same time, we’re going to have a substantial increase in the size of the debt,” says Roberton Williams, a senior fellow with the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. “We’ll be paying five times as much in dollar terms by 2020 than we did last year.”

    And, like most estimates, it’s probably actually FAR WORSE than that.

    We’re Greece; we just don’t know it yet.

    Think of it! That’s more than Obama’s porkulus, EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Just to pay off the debt. So in just a few years, mostly because of Obama, we’ll be paying for a stimulus every single year – only it will be a stimulus for CHINA!!!

    I’m so angry at Democrats about that. The stimulus did virtually nothing, but our children will be debt slaves and our future will be incredibly bleak. And if that isn’t bad enough, they want to throw more good money after bad and do still MORE “stimuli.”

    I’m afraid that we may well be already dead, but like the headless chicken walking around it’s just a matter of time before we collapse.

    Which is to say, 30% may be dirt cheap.

  100. Michael Eden Says:

    Great job yourself, Dauntless (the hero of the battle of Midway, right?)

    There was a beautiful picture in that first link, suitable for framing:

    Reagan Revenues Soared

    The end gets cropped off (so go to Dauntless’ site to see it); but you get the idea.

    I also liked the last article on Clinton, aka “Slick Willie.” The way the Democrats tell it, Sick Slickie paved the streets of America with gold, and every day dumpling-faced children would come out of their palaces and chop off a few pieces of paving; and then Clinton would re-pave the golden road.

    Those rose-colored glasses would give me a headache.

  101. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Thank you Michael…back to you! Yes, I like the WWII photo too. If I can find one large enough for framing, I will. About the chart, I custom made the chart to focus in on the RR years only…a year or so before and and year or two after into the Recession of 1990. You can custom make charts here:http://research.stlouisfed.org/ Set up a free account. You can select a certain range of data or any area of research. I try to use raw government data to eliminate the bias factor (sometimes I wonder if the data is accurate with this communist administration) but anyway, just be careful with CBO data and charts. They are supposed to be “non partisan” but I beg to differ. I explained it in my post
    here: “There was no Clinton Surplus” http://thedauntlessconservative.wordpress.com/2010/08/14/there-was-no-clinton-surplus/

    You can also get federal revenue/receipt history @ http://www.stlouisfed.org/ click on “Research data”

  102. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Btw, you can export the data to Excel and make you own presentations to use at a Tea Party event Town Hall meeting!

  103. Michael Eden Says:

    I am a lover of the Military History channel…

    That is some excellent information you have (about the charts). I have always waited until such nuts fell off the tree, but armed with your link and some data points…

    “Look out!!! He’s got a CHART!!!”

    The CBO, like many agencies, rely on the belief that if I doubled your taxes, you would not change your behavior in any way, shape, or form. And that the government would collect double the money from you.

  104. Michael Eden Says:

    I’ve never spoken at a Tea Party before (been to a couple, but just as one of the folks).

    But I’ve spoken to the Republican Women (NFRW) a number of times.

    Because the chicks dig me, you know.

  105. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Yes, I like the Military channel too. The St Louis Fed research area rocks. Instead of surfing all over each gov’t agency/bureau for economic data, you can get most, if not all, US economic data in “one stop shop” so to speak. As far as issues with the debt/deficit, I highly recommend to become fluent with data here:
    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
    or http://www.treasurydirect.gov/ then click on Debt to the Penny. Unfortunately, you cannot export to Excel to do calculations. Just drag and copy then paste to Excel. Learning/doing this you can eliminate/see through the spin/bias from MSNBC/CNN/ABC/CBS/ABC/NYT and CBO. Heritage does a great job, but sometimes I don’t think they ayy et al. I am building charts for RR, W Sr, Bubba, and W and obummer. Some it is already posted on my blog. It is tricky to copy and paste from Excel to this blog software.

  106. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Typo correction about Heritage: Heritage does a great job, but a lot of their data/charts come from the CBO and…well……like I said become fluent with the “source” and you can the difference, if any.

  107. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Btw, I meant to answer your question, the photo was not Midway, but a Palau Islands air raid. Good news. You can by a large photo for framing here.

    http://www.life.com/image/72385746

  108. Michael Eden Says:

    Given that 1) CBO scoring has a terrible historic track record, and has frequently been off in estimates by such a factor that heads should have rolled, let alone people should have lost their jobs;

    and given that 2) that they continue to use the aforementioned static model of calculating any tax-related issues, where essentially whatever figure Congress says it can raise they ASSUME will be raised;

    and given that 3) you can paint string yellow and sell it to the government as gold;

    I agree with you about government numbers.

    Sometimes they’re all you’ve got, or the best you’ve got. But that hardly makes them correct.

  109. Michael Eden Says:

    I wasn’t trying to guess which actual battle that the plane in the photograph was taking part in;

    I was just referring to the fact that the Dauntless dive bombers were the planes that sank the Japanese carriers Akagi, Kaga, and Soryu. And that the Dauntless aircraft did themselves proud at Midway.

  110. tony Says:

    Awesome article. I got about 1/2 way down comments and will finish the rest tomorrow but I did a search on “Community Reinvestment Act” that Clinton used to force banks and loan originiators to loan to people of his preferred class (poor, minority, illegal, Dem voters…) regardless of ability to pay.

    Fannie and Freddie were brought online to pass the risk to the taxpayers and the loan originators eventually profited – instead of “x” potential home buyers (who could actually pay their loans) there were now “y” times as many homebuyers – most of the new ones who could only pay as long as prices kept going up by the sub prime loan recipients now flooding the market.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/09/20/ibd-carter-more-blame-financial-crisis-bush-or-mccain

    shorter version of original – which has been moved for some reason:

    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/461199/200809162042/The-Real-Culprits-In-This-Meltdown.aspx

    “Capitalism” didn’t fail – which is the BIG LIE now told by the big liars – government ignoring the laws of the market and forcing businesses to do the same is the real cause – Fannie and Freddie were just the props that strung it out for years and buried the poison pill into the economy via bundled securityes.

  111. tony Says:

    And one more thing I’m not sure was mentioned – Reagan’s deficit was financed with double digit interest rates, increasing the amount of the debt at an accelerated rate which he ridiculously gets the blame for. Rates that were yet another “gift” from that idiot Carter and democrats in congress. Thanks to Reagan all subsequent presidents debt is comparatively understated.

    And despite the economic disasters he inherited – and people make light of it now – the biggest fear Americans had at the time according to polls was the Russians, who Reagan almost uniquely knew how to defeat.

  112. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    “Sometimes they’re all you’ve got, or the best you’ve got. But that hardly makes them correct.”

    True. As I briefly mentioned above, becoming fluent with the gov’t sources like those links/resources on my blog (there’s more I’m sure) you arm yourself with a more keen insight/understanding when the leftists/statists start hawking some chart from the “enlightened” crowd at mediamutters, dailykos, TV news media, et al and you can see who spins and who does not….more of the first than the latter. About revenues, I noticed that it seems to be never mentioned in any media, is that as the unemployment rate drops, that means revenue increases because the tax base has increased with more workers paying Federal, State and FICA deductions from their paychecks. A simple concept that the leftist/statist cannot seem to grasp.

  113. Michael Eden Says:

    Thanks, Tony.

    I thought the deal about income taxes and class warfare was an important subject that few Republicans were even bothering trying to answer. The OTHER such story is with the “Republican policies led to the collapse and terrible economy” load of hooey.

    I’ve repeatedly tried to hit that, and show that it was DEMOCRAT policies that were most responsible for the economy blowing up.

    The following are not necessarily my best articles on the subject, but rather the ones whose titles I remembered:

    With Eyes Finally Wide-Open, Reconsider Why The Economy Collapsed In The First Place

    Who REALLY Exploded Your Economy, Liberals Or Conservatives?

    Biden: We Misread The Economy – And It’s All The Republicans’ Fault

    Want To Know Why Your Economy Blew Up?

    Barney Frank And Democrat Party Most Responsible For 2008 Economic Collapse

    This Blame Bush Crap Has Just GOT To End

    So I’m glad you brought that up.

    The Community Reinvestment Act was a purely liberal program that began under Carter. But Bill Clinton massively increased it near the end of his presidency. He also appointed a terribly corrupt and dishonest weasel named Franklin Raines to head Fannie. And Raines’ singular virtue was in being “the first black to head a GSE.” And George Bush was forced to choose to end the CRA and fire Raines and get called a racist who hated poor people, or keep it going and try to reform Fannie and Freddie. He foolishly chose the latter course, and then beat his head against the wall trying SEVENTEEN TIMES to try to get reform of Fannie and Freddie over steadfast Democrat opposition.

    From the New York Times in 1999:

    In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn

    , prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.“

    ”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.” . . .

    Capitalism fails when Democrats get to decide what “capitalism” is, just as the Constitution fails when Democrats appoint judges who get to decide what “the law” is.

  114. Michael Eden Says:

    Reagan’s deficit was financed with double digit interest rates, increasing the amount of the debt at an accelerated rate which he ridiculously gets the blame for. Rates that were yet another “gift” from that idiot Carter and democrats in congress.

    That’s beautiful. And I hadn’t thought of that.

    When Reagan took over, Interest rates were at 21%, and inflation was over 13%. It was a GIANT problem that the Democrats admitted they had no answer for.

    Reagan did, but it was painful. Just like it would be painful for us to do what needs to be done now.

  115. Michael Eden Says:

    About revenues, I noticed that it seems to be never mentioned in any media, is that as the unemployment rate drops, that means revenue increases because the tax base has increased with more workers paying Federal, State and FICA deductions from their paychecks. A simple concept that the leftist/statist cannot seem to grasp.

    Dauntless,

    As I’m sure you know, that’s why it’s called “supply-side economics.” When you cut taxes, you allow the private sector to keep more of the money that they (NOT the government) earn. When they get to keep more of what they earn, they, the creators of the wealth in the first place (NOT the government) get to decide how that money should be invested to maximize still MORE wealth and profits. Government gets out of the way, and in so doing lowers/reduces barriers for the producers (who, btw, are NOT the government) to actually produce (i.e., “supply”) goods and services. That means more jobs, which in turn means more people paying more taxes.

    Now, the other important point you make is that these statistic nazis pump out biased figures.

    The worst crisis facing the nation is NOT Democrats in Congress; it is liberals in all of these government bureaucracies.

    In the 1930s, FDR stuffed a lot of agencies that were just being created FULL of liberals. And those liberals hired other liberals, and so on. Many of the new bureaucracies that were created were created by Democrats when Democrats ran things. And as a result, Congress changes hands, and the presidency changes hands, but these bureaucracies just stay leftwing forever.

    When Republicans take power, and the Republican president appoints heads to the agencies, those political appointees can’t fire all the people in all the bureaucratic levels underneath. Nor can they change whom the division and the department heads hire. So any change in political leadership only amounts to a surface change – that doesn’t scratch the surface – in the government bureaucracies. The liberals remain, dug in like termites, protected by policies that prevent the chemicals that could drive them out from being used.

    And as a result of that, most of the accounting methods and most of the statistical methodologies and most of the theoretical models give liberals exactly the liberal conclusions they want. It’s just garbage in, garbage out.

    The bureaucracies are a leftwing institution now, and with crap like the unionization of federal employees (and seriously, why do federal employees need unions???), leftist domination will necessarily continue no matter WHICH party is in power (though that trend might speed up when Democrats run the show, and slightly slow down when Republicans do).

    That goes along with the historic liberal dominance and bias in the mainstream media, and “getting the truth” is virtually impossible.

  116. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    How true. I am old enough to remember the RR years and after college working. RR years rocked starting sometime in ’83 and forward. I explained a little bit on my blog about. Eventually, I’ll expand into more detail. Every day driving to and from work…nothing but great economic news…economy expanding, etc. I don’t mean to sound condescending, but the X and Y geners down know jack….save a few young conservatives. Yes, supply side economics. You brought up a VERY important point about the RR years…high interest rates….on the money the gov’t borrows. Speaking of interest rates, you can go here:

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/categories/22

    or

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/ and look for interest rates.

    and retrieve historical interest rates. I have a small chart with average prime rates in my RR post. Speaking of FDR, on the home page of my blog there is a link to the “Great myths of the Great Depression”. It is a long read, but it is in PDF format…bottom line, gov’t was the biggest culprit of the Great Depression…same as today as well as recessions.
    About agencies, the federal gov’t has grown so huge, it would a daunting task to dismantle everything that is not “enumerated” by the US Constitution. That is why we have the 10th. Good analogy…dug in like termites.(chuckle. chuckle). About Republicans…here is my take…you can be the most fiscal and social conservative and win an election for House or Senate, for example, but once you are seated, you are expected to spend money. Over time, the leftist/statist of your local newspaper/TV will drag a conservative across the coals for being Mr/Ms No if you stick to your guns. Especially in a more populated, urban cities. Spending money is the defacto behavior. Instead letting market work most of it, your constituency treats you like a pig trough. Over time, corruption raises its ugly head and whaddayahave…Detroit, Memphis, DC, Philadelphia, New Orleans (before Katrina hit). While it is true government can do some things only to a point as far as large cities go, after that point market forces work that will create the wealth to develop with less govt borrowing/debt. Politics is local, very local.

  117. Michael Eden Says:

    The thing that most people don’t realized is what a massive structural undertaking Reagan had to deal with to chop down inflation and thereby reduce the crippling interest rates. Inflation had been creeping up on us for decades, and no one had ever dealt with it; no one even really knew HOW. And Reagan solved the problem that Jimmy Carter and liberal thinkers had no idea how to solve.

    I’ll file those links on interest rates. I recommend everybody start saving every article that is worth saving, because I have a ready-made, alphabetized arsenal of whoopas now. Sounds like you’ve got one, too.

    I ranted about the fact that we now have the highest poverty rate increase in fifty years thanks to Barry Wan Husseiny.

    And I point out there that a lot of cities have been voting for Democrats for a hundred years now, with nothing whatsoever to show for it, and WHY they have nothing to show for it. I don’t specifically say this in that article, but it’s the vicious infinite regress of “promises.” If you’re cynical enough to promise undeliverable things, and just keep making the promises and making excuses (e.g., “It’s Bush’s fault”), you can keep stringing foolish people along for years. Meanwhile, if you campaign on individual responsibility and actual solutions that take time and involve some hardship, there are a lot of people who will NEVER have the common sense, integrity, or courage to listen to you or support you.

    Obama may have finally done something we’ve not yet seen; so overpromise and underdeliver that people have reached their boiling-over point.

    I was yapping about the liberal-entrenchment of the federal bureaucracies. In one way, the media represents a ray of hope. It was as liberal as the sun is hot for decades. Conservatives absolutely could NOT get a fair shake. And yet most of the country – and even Republicans – trusted liberal crustaceans like Walter Cronkite (who was again as liberal as the sun is hot). And how on earth could that stranglehold be broken?

    And the Fox News and the internet came along, and that lock has been blown off the barn door.

    The liberal elite still controls much of the media, but they don’t own it anymore. And they’re “newspaper of record” is going bankrupt, along with a lot of their top assets losing steam, while Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and conservative bloggers are flying along.

    So, by that analogy, there IS hope for the federal bureaucracies. I don’t know how, but something might well come along and break the stranglehold.

    One thing that would help would be to cut federal worker pay and benefits by HALF and put it in line with private sector pay. Imagine if the Republicans proposed that federal workers didn’t deserve twice the pay that everyone else got for doing the same job!!!

    You make a good point when you say, “… but once you are seated, you are expected to spend money.” That’s because people keep buying into the nanny-state totalitarian government mindset that we should demand and receive goodies from the “goody government.”

    We need to get out of that mindset, or it’s the way of the Dodo bird for us.

    Btw, you just gave me an idea for an article comparing our government to a red giant sun.

  118. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Yes, indeed.

    “That’s because people keep buying into the nanny-state totalitarian government mindset”

    Yes, exactly. Unfortunately, it is part of our culture now, or “institutionalized” and will be very hard to change. It must start in the homes and public schools, but with the leftist/statist that predominately rule the public schools, that will be a challenge. We have generations who think “I am entitled to this or that”. It all started under FDR, but I would argue that it accelerated with LBJ’s Great Society. Billions if not trillions of $ down the toilet for what? Former US Sen. Lauch Faircloth of NC sponsored a bill called Real Welfare Reform Act of 1995 to get recipients out of it and back to work. Obama has reversed it. Now the latest is obama care. Much as been said about the constitutionality of obama care, which IT IS unconstitutional. But so is a host of other gov’t monstrosities. If you study the Federalist Papers about the commerce clause and the enumerated powers and examine the journals, writings of founders, you will not find anything that supports gov’t programs like obama care. There has been some court cases about it as well. We have enough unconstitutional bloated social engineering as it is. The most dangerous concept of passing a bill like obama care is that once the people become dependent on it, if it will be very difficult to get rid of it. Just like SS and Medicare. I’m old enough to remember the only health insurance needed was for catastrophic illness/accidents. My parents paid routine outpatient care for us with cash, for the most part. Now, once gov’t get’s it’s fat nose in it, it screws up the market dynamics and what happens? I could go for days here on this. I am of the school of thought, had not FDR, LBJ instituted this social engineering, and let the people create wealth, stay out of health care industry, let the market forces determine what is needed and what is not, the prices, etc, we would not need as much “health insurance” at the cost levels we have today. We could pay cash routine outpatient care. And, we would not have the unemployment issues, inflation, etc like we have today. We would not have our desktop computer or the nice Blackberry/iPhone had it not been for the “mean ole rich” who risked their capital for R&D, production, distribution and to the market for us to buy. Simple concept the left cannot seem to grasp.

  119. Michael Eden Says:

    You mention the words “constitutional,” which of course brings in the JUDGES (as does the phrase, “social engineering”).

    One of the things that must change is the makeup of the Supreme Court. Right now we have judges who gaze into the Constitution (without bothering to understand it) for “penumbras and emanations” by which they rule however the hell they want to rule.

    Thomas Jefferson’s take:

    “This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.” —Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” —Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

    “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” —Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

    When judicial activist judges usurp the law and impose their own immoral value system upon the Constitution, an effect is produced which often takes decades to undo. For one thing, conservative strict constructionist judges have shown themselves to be less willing to undo judicial activist rulings than the judicial activists are to impose them.

    One can argue as to whether the activist judiciary, the press, or the federal bureaucracy most count as being “the Fifth Column” of the liberal-fascist-socialist state. But they are certainly ALL part of it.

  120. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Indeed. I wish we had a whole court full of Antonin Scalias and Clarence Thomas’. The last 2 that obama appointed was the worst I have seen in my lifetime. I remember Rove v Wade case…same thing…judicial activism…and the left ran with it. That is what the left does when they cannot get its way. Anyway, good quote from TJ. Despite his personal issues, he was an intellectual giant. I took the family once to TJ’s Monticello in Charlottesville, VA. home of University of VA. It would be more than worth your time to spend a weekend there…a weekend history class shall we say? Speaking of activist judges, yes they do treat the Constitution that way. It is not rocket science to comprehend if you study it parallel with the Federalist Papers and the personal journals and writings of the founders. You will have a better understanding of the 18th century prose.

    I highly recommend:
    http://www.monticello.org/
    http://www.hbo.com/john-adams/ I bough the DVD set and made it required lesson for my teenage son.
    http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident Online reference source for the Presidents from UVA
    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/
    http://www.diversitylane.com/
    http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/ UVA Debating Society affiliated.

  121. Sam Says:

    This website is pure gold I have to say. I hope it is archived, it is a great look into the mind of wingnuts of today. It is like you are a Hannity/Ingraham/Coulter wrapped into one mean little pitbull. I thought it could be sarah palin’s site for a second but I quickly remembered she cant read charts, even misleading ones.

    I mean I could go through here and pick out all your hateful and misleading comments but why waste the time? There’s just so many lies and distortions, so many over generalizations and simplifying of complex subjects. You whine about fallacies but use your own in the same exact posts (hilarious btw, keep it up).

    We know half of Americans don’t pay income taxes but they pay other taxes. And specific taxes like excise taxes on unhealthy products have a bigger impact on those poorer people who don’t pay payroll(they tend to buy the cheaper, unhealthier products).

    I mean seriously, you act like all democrats are socialist, communist, athiest traitors who want to destroy America. My parents are kennedy democrats and are very christian, I resent some of these comments. They are hard working middle-class individuals, and they aren’t liberal loons or neocon cooks, they are hardworking Americans. Some other person made a comment about baby murdering too, they don’t support abortion and neither do I. You don’t have to support every single policy or we would never elect anybody..

    And stop this BS about Kennedy would be a neocon today. Do we really need to go into a history lesson about the democratic “solid south” and how racists and anti-civil rights voters switched parties because of the Kennedy’s policies and the “southern strategy”? The remnants of their sentiments are still alive in some tea parties around this nation.

    Ronald didn’t win the cold war with a minigun and six-pack like in Republican’s wet dreams either. It was a succession of presidents that continued economic and proxy pressure on the union, going back to Ike, Kennedy and even Truman and yes up until RR. Ultimately the USSR did the most damage to themselves though, exploding their military (sound familiar?), and endless imperialistic wars such as in Afghanistan(another familiarity?). Hell, Charlie Wilson should get more credit than RR lol. I have no idea why you guys brought up Reagan’s support of actual terrorist murderers in latin america (Oliver North said Raegan was very much aware of the operations and approved iirc). You guys have been busy painting over that for the last quarter century, so why dig it back up?

    Oh yea and all the good stuff during the Clinton administration is because of a Republican congress, none of his policy. All the bad stuff during Bush is the Dem’s fault, even though Republicans basically had control of all branches of government most of his term. And the surplus Clinton created would have never existed if congress had their way, they wanted to spend it. And they probably would have never existed if Clinton didn’t raise taxes before he lost congress(along with Bush senior’s tax increases of course).

    The charts the other guy is posting are funny as well, considering they show that after Reagan enacted one of the largest (100billion?) tax increases and subsequent tax increases(the ones you guys are trying to pretend never happened) that revenues went up up up lol!

    From another article:

    “Everyone remembers Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. His admirers are less likely to tout the tax hikes he accepted as the 1981 recession and his own tax cuts began to unravel his long-term fiscal picture–a large tax increase on business in 1982, higher payroll taxes enacted in 1983 and higher energy taxes in 1984. A decade later, when a serious recession and higher spending began to upend the fiscal outlook again, the first President Bush similarly raised taxes on higher-income people in 1991; Bill Clinton doubled down and raised them again in 1993.”

    It is the height of hilarity that Right-wingers cry every time we rightfully blame Bush for the mess he caused a couple of years back(though not all his fault of course) and yet you guys are still blaming Clinton, and even Carter who hasn’t been president for three decades lol! At least be consistent. btw Bush expanded risky lending that you blame Clinton for as well, but it doesn’t matter because the Fannie/Freddie causing the crash myth has been debunked several times over. They were only a smaller contributor and they actually lost market share after Clinton left up until the crash. It was mostly the private sector toying with these risky tools for profit.

    You also link to all the classic right-wing ideological sites and authors that only appear on fox to avoid challenes to their assertions. Imagine if there was a blog just like this that blamed everything, even WW2 on Bush and it linked to media matters and dailykos, etc lol. My point is, certain far left loons piss you off so much that you go in the opposite direction and become the right-wing version of those loons. Even though I and other more mainstream people may agree with some of what you say, we are alienated by your embellishments, misleading stats, charactarizations, charactar assassinations, etc. The same with Ann Coulter.

    I learned long ago there is no perfect ideology, no single perfect tool that fixes everything that is broken. Cutting taxes in every case doesn’t work, raising taxes won’t work in every case either. You have to analyze the current situation and explore ideas from both sides. Remember that a large chunk of the stimulus package was tax cuts, and I’m sure you consider the package a failure. And taxes have been lower under Obama than they have been in years, yet our recovery has been tepid by many standards. Most of these arguments are about taxes going up next year and beyond, increases that were scheduled a decade in advance in some cases.

    I mean there is so many comments to address, I just can’t find the time. And some of your posts are so hateful and mean. You are calling people names for no good reason, and call Clinton rapist and whatever else nasty stuff you can post in other entries. I honestly don’t know why I wasted the amount of time here that I have but I guess I needed to bring some balance here.

  122. Critical Theory Says:

    This is one of the most remarkable and important pieces on taxes and revenues I have seen in, heck I don’t know how long.

    Andrew Mellon would be proud.

  123. Leland Says:

    Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury let me state for the record that as I read and thought and crosschecked to other sites and back that it was so interesting that not once but twice my lunch had to be reheated……try not to be so dadgummed interesting in the future ok?! Other wise a great way to spend a noon hour, thanks

  124. dw Says:

    “There are many who are losing faith in God and Government. For some, God may be a question, but for all of us Government is a fact.
    Our government was intended by our Forefathers to be a tool of the people, used to facillitate our freedom and provide for our common good. Government was to exist to administer our will, not to become our administrator.

    Because this is the people’s government, not a political party’s government or any one individual’s government, we do not look to it to solve all societal ills or install perfection among us. That is the way our founders designed it, that is the way it has worked for well over two centuries and that is the way we want it.

    When taxed inappropriately we lose our economy, when regulated beyond need we lose our freedom, when treated like children we lose our self respect and when lied to we lose our rights. So when government goes wrong, it is we who are wronged, but also it is we who are wrong for letting it happen”
    O.D. Harrisson

  125. Debt Consolidation Blog Says:

    Great info on your blog for Debt Consolidation. If more people would visit blogs like yours and mine then more people would be living a debt free lifestyle. The info is out there and most are free, they just have to look!

  126. Michael Eden Says:

    And I would add John Roberts (although I have to admit that Scalia is my favorite, followed by Thomas).

    John Roberts said:

    “I had someone ask me in this process — I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?’ And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That’s the oath.”

    Liberals don’t think that way: they think through a Marxist-fascist historical-revisionist double standard that says the group of people they WANT to win should win. And then they cite a bunch of penumbra and emanation mumbo jumbo to justify the conclusion that they wanted to reach all along.

    Liberals don’t give any more of a damn about the oath than they do the Constitution. They’re not bound by it; and they’re certainly not bound by anything approaching a grammatical/historical strict constructionist understanding of the Constitution (which is the view that the people who WROTE the Constitution actually had at least SOME understanding of what their words and their ideas actually meant).

    Conservatives play by the rules, and liberals make up the rules as they go along.

    Excellent links and sources!

  127. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Oh, yeah, Roberts…exactly. Good man. If you go to:

    http://www.democrats.org/issues

    http://www.cpusa.org/

    http://www.sp-usa.org/

    http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

    http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/

    …notice any common threads?

  128. Michael Eden Says:

    Thank you for demonstrating yet again that the quintessential essence of liberalism is hypocrisy.

    You say:

    I mean I could go through here and pick out all your hateful and misleading comments but why waste the time? There’s just so many lies and distortions, so many over generalizations and simplifying of complex subjects. You whine about fallacies but use your own in the same exact posts (hilarious btw, keep it up).

    And anybody who isn’t a complete moral idiot ought to be able to realize that your assertions that I’m “hateful and misleading,” full of “lies and distortions,” etc. are rather hateful thing to say.

    I mean, where’s the love, Sam? I mean, if you weren’t filled with hate, what exactly would you say different???

    It’s like you think that your own damn standards by which you vindictively judge me somehow don’t apply to you at all. Like John Kerry who shrilly argues that the rich should pay their “fair share” of taxes while himself sheltering his fancy yacht. Or I could mention Charles Rangel. Or Maxine Waters. Or Tim Geithner. Or a bunch of other Obama appointees such as Nancy Killefer and Hilda Solis.

    I always wonder how you peoples’ heads don’t just literally explode from all the contradictions. People like you constantly lambast conservatives for how hateful we are, when you just continually drool out the hate. Did I go to YOUR blog and spew out venom? Sorry to point out the actual facts.

    What is funny is that conservatives believe in moral objectivism, and we actually hold people accountable for their own actions. Liberals demonize us for this, and yet somehow they manage – without bothering to have any objective moral principles of their own – to be amazingly judgmental and intolerant.

    Let’s see: Nazism. Nazi = National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party. Hmm. I wonder if that Socialist Workers Party would be more Republican or more Democrat if we had it today? Hmmm. Socialists. Workers. Excuse me, but I’m having a mental block trying to remember which party identifies itself wholeheartedly with those words.

    Let’s see. U.S.S.R. = Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.

    Oh! Republics! That sounds like “Republican!” Republicans are haters! Republicans are haters!

    The most vicious and hateful ideologies in human history came right out of the political left. First leftists came up with communism; but being progressives, they have to keep making things worse. So they came up with Nazism, which is merely “national socialism” as contrasted with:

    “Because workers of the world unite, it’s not just a slogan anymore.”
    – Andy Stern, SEIU President

    Mind you, there’s not a microbe’s worth of difference between Nazism and Marxism when it comes to such remarks as:

    “We kind of agree with Mao that power comes largely from the barrel of a gun.”
    – Ron Bloom, Obama’s Manufacturing Czar

    The political left murdered well over 100 million people during peacetime. And what have liberals done? Call us “Nazis.” When if anybody is a Nazi, it’s obviously them.

    Joseph Sobran pointed out that “At the end of a century that has seen the evils of communism, Nazism and other modern tyrannies, the impulse to centralize power remains amazingly persistent.” And it HAS been amazingly persistent. That’s exactly what Democrats are trying to do to this very day. ObamaCare. The $862 generational theft act otherwise known as Stimulus. Cap and trade. Taxation based on class warfare and demagoguery to punish one group and dole out the ill-gotten gains for political patronage. Just to name a few.

    Violence and hate has always accompanied leftism. Charles Manson’s group. The Weathermen. Students for a Democratic Society. The Black Panthers. And, yes, the Ku Klux Klan, which began as the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party out to intimidate blacks and white Republicans.

    And the left have continued to be the overwhelming source of politically-motivated violence in this country (see HERE and HERE).

    The left continues to be the overwhelming source of hate and violence, along with the radical Muslims for whom liberals serve as “useful idiots.” Just as they had served the hateful ideology of communism before that.

    And then you come here and proceed to generate more leftist hate against me for my telling the truth. And, bizarrely, you show up on an article about tax policy to do it.

    But since this IS an article about tax policy, let me point out that China (which has ten times our economic growth) has lower taxes than WE do. Both their corporate and their capital taxes are lower than the USA’s. And Democrats are using Marxist class warfare and the communist theory of “spreading the wealth around” to raise our taxes even further. And what should I call a party that is even more communist than communist China???

    Now let me move on. You “whine” (that was your word, right?) about any depiction about JFK as a neo-conservative. You can’t dispute the FACT that Kennedy was a hard-core anti-communist Cold warrior. You can’t dispute the FACT that Kennedy was a supply side tax cutter (there are a lot more quotes than the ones I cited). So you dredge up some crap about the South and racism. Mind you, Democrats were the party of slavery, and Republicans were the party that freed the slaves. Mind you, Democrats politically OWNED the south for generations. But that doesn’t matter to you. Mind you, JFK actually voted AGAINST the first Civil Rights Act in 1957. And mind you:

    As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.

    In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

    You demagogically fixate on Nixon’s “southern strategy,” without ever once considering that it was NIXON who invented and first established racial quotas and affirmative action in 1969.

    You forgive a century of the most vile Democrat racism, including slavery itself, the Ku Klux Klan, Exalted Cyclops and Grand Kleagle and honored Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, etc. etc., and yet you can’t give Republicans any credit whatsoever for their consistent positive role in race issues.

    A century of violence and murder. A century of racism. There’s the legacy of the Democrat Party. I could go on with such things as the 1924 Democrat National Convention, which was so dominated by the Ku Klux Klan that it was called “Klanbake.”

    I won’t bother with the rest of the stuff you spew. I documented the facts in this article, and you presented a twisted opinion.

    The one exception will be your statement: “Remember that a large chunk of the stimulus package was tax cuts, and I’m sure you consider the package a failure.” Because at least that dealt with my article. The problem is you’re wrong, as I demonstrated. You can’t give income tax cuts to people who don’t pay income taxes. They are NOT tax cuts; they are tax credits. The “other” taxes that the lower classes pay (such as SSI) have nothing to do with federal income taxes. By Democrats’ very own rhetoric, they’re not so much paying taxes as investing in their retirements. The money they pay comes back to them in direct benefits PLUS. Versus ONLY those who pay federal income taxes, who pay for national defense, entitlements, and the like. And never see a dime back from those income taxes.

    I’ll just end with your comment, “your posts are so hateful and mean.” Which is a hateful and mean thing to say.

    As much as you are willing to demonize and denounce Republicans and conservatives, you seem to become emotionally unglued when someone points a finger at YOUR side and starts ticking off facts.

    You’ve GOT to know about many of the utterly maliciously hateful things that Democrats have been saying about conservatives these last few years (okay, let’s say the last few decades). But now you whine up a blue streak when that boomerang you people threw comes back to smack you in the face.

    I wouldn’t call that “bringing balance.” I would call it the exact opposite.

  129. dwh Says:

    Wow,

    I am sure that, like many other fiscal conservatives who have discovered your blog, I have found distilled here many of the the thoughts and concepts that have bounced around in my head for years. You, Mr. Eden, have taken the time to provide some order and discipline to what till now has been vague recollection and half-conceived political/economic theories. Thanks for providing some much needed clarity and please keep up the fine work!

  130. Michael Eden Says:

    Leland,
    Well, speaking only for myself, I can only say that this is much better than the OTHER way that I’m usually interesting:

    “Daddy, did the hump on that weird man’s back move to his other side?”

  131. Michael Eden Says:

    DW,

    My Christianity informs my political views. And my understanding of politics and political ideologies informs my Christianity. The coming Antichrist will be a political animal, for instance.

    I have come to see “liberalism” and “conservatism” as consistent worldviews that are fundamentally opposed to each other on a spiritual level. And I see “conservatism” as merely the consistent political expression of the Judeo-Christian worldview, properly understood.

    In Washington under the Democrats’ philosophy, letting people keep more of their own money is considered a “cost.” It’s viewed as “lost revenue” for the government. As if all the money we earn really belongs to the government in the first place in which what you get to keep is an expenditure. You’re wading deep into the waters of Marxist collectivism, and the view of Government (big ‘G’ for a reason) as God and as Savior.

    I believe that as Christians we need to fight for our culture on every level that the battle is being fought. If we just fight in “the church” and forget the political dimension, we will ultimately find that we’ve had our knees cut out from under us. We need both.

    I look at what happened as a historical phenomenon as Darwinism began to take over the culture, and too many in the church basically simply retreated into their own “church culture.” And as a result we lost so much influence in society on so many levels. And we never have recovered.

    So I see things that many Christians don’t view as related to our faith as being in fact very much related. And again, as an example, many Christians don’t view income taxes as a religious or moral issue. But when we are confronted with a government that has literally come to view people and their means of production as “property” which IT owns, rather than viewing us as individual citizens with human rights, we’d just better wake up.

  132. Michael Eden Says:

    It was a little confusing for me to remember if I was at “Democrats.org” or if I was at “Communist Party USA.org.”

  133. Michael Eden Says:

    Thank you very much, Dwh. And to you as well, Critical Theory.

    We so desperately need to get back to the fundamentals. And what Andrew Mellon discovered as “taxation” began to become an issue (if memory serves, the USA didn’t even HAVE federal income taxes until 1913!), applies to Americans in this present generation even more than Mellon’s.

    I have part of a quote by Henry Kissinger swimming in my head. On the issue of nuclear weapons and our stupid disarmament policies, Kissinger said:

    Rarely in history has a nation so passively accepted such a radical change in the military balance. If we are to remedy it, we must first recognize the fact that we have placed ourselves at a significant disadvantage voluntarily. This is not the result of SALT. It is the consequence of unilateral decisions extending over a decade and a half. By a strategic doctrine adopted in the ’60s, by the bitter domestic divisions growing out of the war in Vietnam, and by choices by the present administration.

    All these actions were unilateral-hence avoidable. They were not extracted from us by clever Soviet negotiators. We imposed them on ourselves by our choices, theories and domestic turmoil. It is therefore in our power to alter them.

    And if you replace words like “military balance,” “SALT Treaty,” and the like with words like “political balance,” “taxation policy,” and the like, you start to get the force of what is going on.

    Republicans, and even conservatives, are in a war, but we have largely been too dumb to recognize it. And we have simply passively accepted policies in all three branches of our political system that have simply been eating us alive and leaving us (both Republicans and all Americans) in an incredibly difficult position.

    And we did it to ourselves. As the example with taxation, we allowed Democrats to dictate encroaching Marxist terms on us. Reagan shook us for a little while, but we went back to sleep, and meekly accepted philosophical premises that should have been completely unacceptable.

    And now we’re behind the 8-ball, and we have to fight all the harder to persuade a culture that has largely long-since accepted as “truth” the Democrats’ socialist positions.

  134. dw Says:

    Sam is a complete idiot.
    Just a couple of quick points. First John F. Kennedy would not recognize his little brother Teddy in terms of ideaology. John Kennedy was a communist fighter and Teddy was a communist lover. Their economic philosophy was influenced along similar lines. JFK was a supply sider and Teddy was a anti capitalist socialist, except for when it came to builing his own vast wealth.
    Regarding civil rights, LBJ would not have been able to put forward his welfare state without the support of Evert Dirkson and the republicans in the congress at the time. The southern democrats refused to support the bill due to their outright racist views. Sam look that up. It was republicans that made LBJ’s war on poverty possible.
    My last quick point is that in the late 1850s it was the democrat party under the influence of Stephan Douglas that supported and created policies to not only continue the institution of slavery but attempt to nationalize it. They are the ones, for instance, who ended the Missouri compromise which allowed Nebraska and Kansas to decide by popular deciscion whether or not they would enter the union as slave states or free states. It was Douglas that accused Loncoln of being an abolutionist because Lincoln had said that the Declaration of Independence should apply to blacks as well as whites. Lincoln was a republican and famously stated that our nation could not survive half slave and half black while it was the democrats of the time that did nothing in the effort to eliminate slavery and in fact instituted policy that could have spread it to the new states entering the union.
    Pepole like Sam, who have allowed themselves to be contaminated with marxist dogma and then try to mix it with our original heritage are an example of the danger we face in our country.
    The Kennedy example actually works as an excellent example of how the left has worked their way into American political philosophy. JFK was an American we could be proud of while younger brother Ted became mutated by the leftist cancer that has sickened so many today.

  135. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    “It was a little confusing for me to remember if I was at “Democrats.org” or if I was at “Communist Party USA.org.”

    Yes, indeed. When democrats try to defend themselves against accusations that “we are not socialist” or “you accuse me of being a socialist” or the sort…well, take a good look at the Congressional Progressive Caucus here:

    http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/

    They have a lot of influence.

  136. Robert Says:

    The Democrats already KNOW that cutting tax rates boosts revenues. They just don’t care. They are much more concerned with the power and perks that the current tax structure gives them. That is why you are wasting your breath trying to reason with them: you just have to vote them out.

    As for JFK, he was far more conservative that most of today’s establishment Republicans, including both Bushes.

  137. dw Says:

    For the committed leftist, marxist, liberal progressive, their religion is collectivist based and their god is an authoritarian government whose sacred mission is to provide for their welfare from birth to death.
    The unfortunate mistake their minions constantly engage in, much to their ignorance, is that their god is their fellow man whose only real motivation is to gain prestige, power and wealth. Of course the liberal leadership, full of that superior attitude and brimming with the requisite condescension, is well versed in the tactics necessary to manipulate those who are especially venerable to their siren song.
    And so consistent with that condition, the leftist partisan appears perfectly willing to fork over whatever funds they earn in this endeavor to gain social utopia. Which might be fine except that they strive to dictate their false religion onto the rest of us.
    Christianity is fully consistent with conservatism for is it not written that God helps those who help themselves.

  138. Michael Eden Says:

    Dauntless Conservative,

    It’s even HARDER to tell the difference between the CPC and the CPUSA.

    China has lower taxes – lower corporate taxes and lower capital taxes – than the USA. Right now. And Democrats are using Marxist class warfare to try to raise our taxes even further.

    If you’re more communist than communist China, then you are truly communist indeed.

  139. Michael Eden Says:

    Robert,

    What was it the devil decided at the end of Paradise Lost, after God revealed the truth about everything?

    “Better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven.”

    Liberals would rather rule over a dunghole than participate in governing in a nation that gives the people real power to govern their own lives.

    Dennis Prager has often called himself a “Kennedy liberal,” pointing out that a true Kennedy liberal of the 1960s would be a conservative today. He’s got an article titled “Why I Am Not A Liberal” that explains how the Democrat Party left him.

  140. Michael Eden Says:

    DW,

    What you very accurately and concisely describe is the central flaw of the Marxist (and modern liberal) worldview. They abandon God, and in fact replace God with Government.

    And government becomes God. And proceeds to give itself power(s) that only God should have.

    The problem is that government is run by men; men who have the depraved natures the Bible says ALL men have. So they’re looking for a Utopia that always HAS ended up and will always WILL end up being a totalitarian dictatorship. Their system of government fails to recognize the biblical doctrine of the depravity of man.

    They worship government power, and when they get it, they create not heaven on earth, but hell on earth. Every single time.

    The other point that you bring out was well expressed by Gleason Archer. Go to my previous comment here to read it.

  141. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    About “Kennedy Liberal” I understand where Prager is going. I think a better term would be “classical liberalism”. It was classical liberal thought of the 18th and 19th century that influence a lot of the thinking of the founders here:

    http://www.ncpa.org/pub/what-is-classical-liberalism A long read, pdf.

    http://mises.org/etexts/classical.asp

    Hey, even wikipedia gets it right, for the most part.

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

    That is why I try to refrain from using the term liberal in my writing and speech. A spade is a spade. I call them what they are. Anything but liberal. Understand me here; I know we all here use it, bad habit to break, but think about it. A post modern American self proclaimed liberal is NOT a true liberal, i.e. obama, in the classical sense. You and I and others of like thought are the true “classical liberals”, for the most part anyway. But hey, Adams and Jefferson locked horns sometimes, but in the end, they “hammerforged” a great nation became good friends later in their life and made great contributions. I hope I didn’t scare or confuse anyone of like minds here. (chuckle, chuckle)

  142. Michael Eden Says:

    You make a good point, but liberals made the “liberal” such a bad word that they quit using it, after starting to call themselves “liberals” because they’d made “progressive” such a bad word they had to quit using it.

    It seems like whatever word they use to describe themselves, after a few years they have made that term so shameful that they have to call themselves something else. And it’s hard to even know what to call them anymore.

    I have unpacked the term “classical liberal” on a number of occasions when necessary. But the word is so tainted now I wouldn’t tend to use it to describe myself unless I had a LOT of time to explain how “liberals” ruined the word “liberal.”

  143. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    “I wouldn’t tend to use it to describe myself unless I had a LOT of time to explain how “liberals” ruined the word “liberal.”

    True, I understand your point. I’ve unpacked “classical liberalism” on leftists before and they claim allegience to it, but actions speak lounder than words. Like I said, a spade is a spade. I know I am off topic, but the Delaware primary Odonnell v Castle is exactly what I am talking about. Castle let himself become corrupted by the leftist establishment…just like my previous comment about being the most fiscal/social conservative, once seated, spending money is defacto behavior; it takes a strong conservative stand up against frivolous spending. How conservative Castle was when he first went in, I don’t know. You are treated like a pig trough “we want money” by your constituency and Castle opened up and now eaten alive by Odonnell. Castle has no spine and many others like him. I had to hold my nose when I voted for McCain, but never obama. McCain was a war hero/POW/Navy aviator and God bless him for his service, but he is a RINO.

  144. Michael Eden Says:

    That’s why I have usually sicked “JFK” on “liberals” to try to show them what a REAL “liberal” used to look like before they became despicable.

    Even on this article, I had a “liberal” deny that JFK was any kind of “neo-con.” He couldn’t accept it, no matter how much evidence there is to prove him wrong.

    JFK was a god that “liberals” re-made in their own image. Which Jonah Goldberg proves in detail in Liberal Fascism.

    McCain isn’t always a RINO; but he’s one you just can’t trust. One time, he’s a hero of the Republican positions (like he’s been on ObamaCare); but you never know when he’s going to stab you in the back.

    I voted for him; but my vote “for” him was in the context that, no matter how bad he was, Obama was far, FAR worse.

    I was glad O’Donnell won against Castle, but I also realize that Castle was a better candidate in terms of WINNING.

    I hope that this is a true wave election, and that voters in Delaware vote Republican not because of O’Donnell, but because Democrats have truly failed.

  145. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    “McCain isn’t always a RINO; but he’s one you just can’t trust.”
    Trust; that is exactly why I right him off as a RINO…a little harsh, but frankly, I am had my fill of lackadaisical RINOs.

    I understand your point about Castle in terms of WINNING, and a very valid point. I think Karl Rove was trying to say the same thing this past week when I heard him on Hannity/Greta. I see Rove’s point, but bad timing to say it. Karl has great analytical skills, but this time, it’s not the content of what he said, but the timing of it. O’Donnell’ personal issues is trivial. However, what has/will change the tipping of the scales, is anger of the Delaware voters. If you did not catch the news on it, Castle never gave her a courtesy call to congratulate her nor will he support her. That is a red flag to me and reveals his character and the Delaware voters are not dumb. I predict O’Donnell will win. This time Karl is underestimating the electorate, which, that is not like him to do that. I have been around the block a few times and this is the most angry electorate I have seen in my lifetime except the midterms in 1994 when Bubba got stuck with a Republican controlled House/Senate. This midterm, I predict this electorate is much more angry than in 1994. Let’s hope for the best.

  146. dw Says:

    As if to perfectly illustrate the evil lefts continued strategy to confuse those vulnerable to their manipulations the Obamination administration wants the public to replace the term “Global Warming” with the new Alinski researched term “Global Climate Disruption”.
    Now this covers any change in climate, whether it warms or cools. Of course many do not either remember or chose to deny that 30 years ago it was global cooling that was going to be our demise.
    But now with this change of labeling they can more easily continue their attempts to destroy capitalism while garnering and gaining support from the less cognitively gifted among us.

    The insidious nature of these people is what repulses me. It is why instead of communist they coerced the public to refer to them as liberals, because the average robot will automatically associate that with liberty, which could not be further from the truth. Then they promoted the term progressives so that their policies would then be associated with progress, again a giant oxymoron designed to confuse the dimwitted even more.

    It is very true that the original term liberal, dating to the beginning of our revolutionary war, would by that original standard more accurately describe the conservative of today. Now it describes a dyed in the wool communist.

  147. Michael Eden Says:

    Dauntless,

    I’m actually very angry with Karl Rove. He clearly had some kind of personal animus. And he didn’t just make the (true) point that Castle would have an easier time winning in the general election in a blue state like Delaware; he personally demonized Christine O’Donnell. That was inexcusable; especially if he actually wanted O’Donnell (aka “the Republican”) to win.

    Charles Krauthammer made the same point that he believes O’Donnell will have a very uphill fight to win. But he didn’t say, “Because Christine has personal character issues” the way Rove did.

    I was glad Christine won. And I think if Karl Rove would shut his smug mouth she’ll be able to pull off a win. Because the country is ready for anything that isn’t Obama and Democrat.

  148. Michael Eden Says:

    The global warming (by any other name) crap is just par for the course for liberal pseudo-science pseudo-intellectuals.

    They did the same thing with evolution.

    Ann Coulter pointed it out with the false claim that evolution was “falsifiable” versus any religious claim which was not. Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” And Ann Coulter brilliantly changed a couple of words to demonstrate what a load of crap that was: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by God, my God theory would absolutely break down.”

    In any words, evolution is no more “scientifically falsifiable” than even the most ardent young earth creationist claim. Their standard is impossible to prove. I mean, you show me that God “could not possibly have” created the earth.

    The whole way they sold evolution was a lie.

    Then you’ve got the other problem – which is rather like what you describe. Darwinism is a tautology. Natural selection is the survival of the fittest. But the fittest are defined as those that survive. It’s circular reasoning. You’re saying nothing.

    A case in point is the history behind the scientific acceptance of “catastrophism.” For a century evolutionists had rejected catastrophism, arguing for geologic uniformitarianism. They said that everything had just gradually happened over billions of years. Do you know who argued for catastrophism??? Young earthers who believed in Noah’s catastrophic flood, and who argued – CORRECTLY against opponents who ridiculed them – that geologic structures such as the Grand Canyon could be better explained by catastrophic events rather than by a slow uniformitarian development.

    Then a geologist named Gene Shoemaker came along and argued that earth had been hit with meteors. And he was ridiculed by the evolutionists. Until he PROVED he was right.

    And then all of a sudden the same evolutionary theory that had depended upon uniformitarianism suddenly morphed into a theory that depended upon catastrophism. It morphed so that it was equally true with both polar opposites.

    Nothing falsifies evolution. No matter what happens, it explains everything. And a theory that explains everything explains nothing. Particularly when the whole thing amounts to stories, rather than science (e.g., it may have happened that the first cell arose by…”).

    And that’s the same with global warming. The same top people who today scream about global warming were screaming about the coming ice age in the 1970s.

    And, of course, no matter what happens in the real world, the computer model still manages to spit out exactly what the “scientists” want it to spit out.

    We can go back to Kyoto – or any of the treaties since – and see that this whole “global warming” boondoggle is about redistributionism. The Western nations are supposed to gut their economies and even contribute trillions of dollars to developing nations while those developing nations (and China, and India, and Russia) get to keep polluting like crazy.

    THAT’S communism.

  149. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Michael, your right…maybe I’m little too soft on Rove on my comments because I repected his analytical skills too much. But you’re right, he was smug and stabbed O’Donnell and the is the last thing the Republicans need is divisiveness and Rove sure did not help the situation. But, if you think about, the primary elections have been the most upsetting I have seen in my lifetime. I missed Krauthammer’s analysis…I heard that he raised some feathers about O’Donnell too. I heard Limbaugh’s reaction and he let Rove have it with both barrels. Rove guest host on his show not too long ago. I heard the show driving on a business trip. I bet Rove want be doing a guest host on his show anymore. (chuckle, chuckle). I heard someone say, forget where, that there was a huge turnout of voters in the primary Castle v. O’Donnell. To me, that is a strong hint to what might come in November.

  150. Robbie Says:

    im enjoying reading this thread and hope you,dc continue bantering about current events – as this article is so relevant because it clearly differentiates conservatism (truth) and liberalism (truth is what they say it is) in a way that affects every American or the 53% that pay taxes!

    on another note this weekend at my uncles he brought out his grandmothers school book – US history last year was 1903 on inside cover – i carefully and briefly (due to fragile condition) looked through it and found that events like revolutionary war and civil war – were written in a far more objective manner than i remember my history books in school. i do not envy parents today wondering what in the world is going on at schools with their/our tax dollars.

  151. Noir Says:

    @Robbie,

    What goes on in school is first and foremost an infiltration of sex at the earliest age. Parents are told that our children have to understand that there are “other types of families”. I believe this is just a ploy to further rob our children of their innocence – and as adults we KNOW that there is only one time you can be innocent and that is childhood. Once gone, it can never be gotten back, gone forever. It`s the beginning of the job that Hollywood, TV, and music on the radio will finish.

    When my son was in Catholic school, they tried to implement a “Family Life Curriculum”. Sounds innocent enough eh? I thought it was going to be about the 4th commandment – Honor thy father and thy mother. HA! It was anything and everything but. The book spoke about Aids,(the principal when questioned told me that they had to begin to introduce the subject of “sickness” because the children were dealing with so many grandparents that were either sick or would get sick – I guess somebody forgot that most grandparents will pass from old age, stroke, heart disease, cancer or diabetes!

    I could go on and on with examples about this book but I won`t take up more of your time. What is so insidious about it was the nice glossy cover with the picture of an intact family and the name. Liberals are so shameless for this. Calling it one thing when it is usually the opposite – a la Obama`s “Hope”.

    Now my son is 16 and what passes in English for literature is Michael Moore documentaries – under the guise of course of learning about “video/documentary” techniques – while never addressing if there is accuracy and truth in the documentary.

    The particular video just seen was calling Bowling for Columbine – it had some very graphic images of a suicide of a politician from 1987 in PA. Of course the kids looked for more about it and found a very graphic video of the entire event. It showed the man committing the act and how his face afterward.

    Why are these “dark” things being shown to 16 year olds?? I have a meeting at the school this week and I will question what is coming next. Porn? Images of beheadings? Snuff films?

    This is MY child. These are OUR children, OUR future and they are co-opted for the agenda of the left.

    I am constantly on guard with the curriculum and always trying to insure that my son gets what our family believes and why we believe it.

    So far so good. He leans Conservative.

    Teachers/Academia MUST be held accountable for the rubbish they peddle!

  152. Michael Eden Says:

    Noir,

    The saddest thing of all is that the moral erosion you describe took place in a PRIVATE CATHOLIC SCHOOL.

    There was a time decades back when we could largely trust even our public schools to teach good moral values; now we can’t even count on our PRIVATE SCHOOLS to do it. That is a genuine tragedy.

    Parents must watch over their children like hawks. Because there are many wolves in teachers’ clothing out to attack and undermine their parents’ values.

    A compendium of statements by educators announcing this very intention:

    “How can we ever know how many children had their psychological and physical lives irreparably maimed by the compulsory inculcation of faith? Religion … has always hoped to practice upon the unformed and undefended minds of the young… If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in a quite different world.” – Christopher Hitchens

    “If scientists can destroy the influence of religion on young people, then I think it may be the most important contribution we can make.” – Steven Weinberg

    How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents? It’s one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in? What about bringing up children to believe manifest falsehoods? Isn’t it always a form of child abuse to label children as possessors of beliefs that they are too young to have thought out?” – Richard Dawkins

    “[S]ome children are raised in such an ideological prison that they willingly become their own jailers… Parents don’t literally own their children the way slaveowners once owned slaves, but are, rather, their stewards and guardians and ought to be held accountable by outsiders for their guardianship, which does imply that outsiders have a right to interfere.” – Daniel Dennett

    “Parents, correspondingly, have no god-given license to enculcate their children in whatever ways they personally choose: no right to limit the horizons of their children’s knowledge, to bring them up in an atmosphere of dogma and superstitition, or to insist they follow the straight and narrow paths of their own faith.” – Nicholas Humphrey

    Kenneth Miller admits that “a presumption of atheism or agnosticism is universal in academic life… The conventions of academic life, almost universally, revolve around the assumption that religious belief is something that people grow out of as they become educated.”

    And philosopher Richard Rorty argued that secular professors in the universities ought “to arrange things so that students who enter as bigoted, homophobic religious fundamentalists will leave college with views more like their own.” He noted that students are fortunate to find themselves “under the benevolent Herrschaft of people like me, and to have escaped the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents.” He said to parents who send their children to college, “we are going to go right on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than reasonable.”

  153. Michael Eden Says:

    Robbie,

    Hope you got the chance to see the Fox News program on textbooks and our children’s education.

    Hopefully it will be on again. Maybe this weekend.

  154. Michael Eden Says:

    Dauntless,

    I’ve always thought Rove was brilliant, too (still do; it’s not his intelligence that I now question).

    The thing that amazes me is that Karl Rove CONTINUES to try to undermine Christine O’Donnell. It’s like it is his mission in life.

    It’s one thing to say that O’Donnell isn’t as strong a candidate to win the election. It’s another to steadfastly argue that O’Donnell SHOULDN’T win the election.

    The man is actively seeking to keep her from winning so he can go on the airwaves and say, “I was right all along.” Some conservative he is. He wants O’Donnell to lose, and de facto wants the GOP to lose the Senate. Just so he can growse about having been right, he’s willing to do everything he can to sabotage O’Donnell and prevent the Republicans from coming together.

    I heard Rush Limbaugh point out that all these guys like Rove operate on the margins. Their entire legitimacy comes in being the “experts” that win the “undecided” vote and thus win elections. Which is to say they aren’t about values; they are about weaseling around the margins to win elections.

  155. Robbie Says:

    i will have to see if i can catch that on fox.

    just heard something about republicans and/or newt and another ‘contract with america’

    i say no we already have a contract with america its called the US constitution – when elected Rs (hopefully conservative Rs) should return this country to a constitutional republic as founded nothing less and nothing more.

  156. Michael Eden Says:

    Well, I’d have to disagree with you on the “contract with America” thingy.

    Obviously, the Constitution is sacrosanct. But what a “contract”-type document would do would be to say that these are our specific promises to the people if we retake Congress in 2010.

    For instance, maybe we should all see that ObamaCare is inherently unconstitutional. But does that mean that everybody knows that Republicans are pledging to repeal or at least defund it? Wouldn’t be nice if the GOP (heck, it would be nice if the Democrats) promised to hack that evil monstrosity to death?

    Or, for the purposes of this article, what about taxes? Does the Republican Congress have any specific promises they want to make about taxes, the Bush tax cuts, or tax rates? It seems to me they can’t simply wave their hands at “The Constitution”; they need to say what they intend to do. A promise. A contract.

    Look at the first Contract with America and see if it violated the Constitution, or if it in fact it amounted specific pledges as to how the Republican Party intended to restore the spirit of the Constitution which had been “reinterpreted” via Democrat penumbras and emanations.

    I think a similar pledge would be a great thing.

    Hope you do get to see that Fox special, given your earlier comment. Because it sounds like it would be right up your alley.

  157. Robbie Says:

    good points i guess i would be happy if first they would say they intend to return us to a constitutional republic then via a promise or contract how they intend to do this.

    my problem is somehow i picture mccain and grahamesty getting on tube telling us how they have a contract for us… we all know that would mean nothing! as these two don’t understand (or want to) the constitution and its limits on government.

    i was reminded recently that mexicos constitution was very closely based on ours yet because there ‘piece of paper’ is not held in high regard they have highly corrupt unethical government etc.

    looking back it is remarkable how reagan was able to articulate conservatism to the american people without the internet, cable tv, bloggers etc – and without any promise or contract.

  158. Robbie Says:

    im stuck on reagans style from 1964 – 1980 multiples runs for office some successfull some not – he simply spoke of conservatism vs statism over and over again and after carter America was pining for these values although bush 1 and cronies tried to hijack the 1980 republican nomination from him. didn’t reagan threaten to knock someone out if they didn’t turn on his mic so that he could speak first?

    that being said-

    just read the linked 1994 contract with America – i like it – it was simple well thought out. although i have always voted i have not always paid close attention to politics so i had never viewed this as i was in college at the time.

    something like this could hold rinos to their word. what was the effect of the contract on rino types in 1994?

  159. Michael Eden Says:

    Well, touche on the Reagan sans contract. You’ve got me on that one.

    But, mind you, we would first need another Reagan (and I pray that one comes) who can capture the spirit of the conservative movement.

    The other thing, however, is that this is a midterm election. And you’ve got going on 300 Republicans running. And it would be nice if there was a Contract with America-style document that Republicans could unite around in a statement of what they would do if they got the chance to govern.

    P.S. If John McCain or Lindsey Graham got to write the contract, then I would hope they would do so on toilet paper.

  160. Michael Eden Says:

    what was the effect of the contract on rino types in 1994?

    Well, to put it in a nutshell; do you know how Bill Clinton and every Democrat on earth says Bill Clinton balanced the budget? That was the Republican Congress, acting on the first plank of the Contract with America.

    For the record, my favorite Reagan pre-presidential moment was his 1961 socialized health care speech:

    But at the moment I’d like to talk about another way. Because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent.

    One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

    Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.

    d

  161. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    “they are about weaseling around the margins to win elections.”

    Never look at it that way. (chuckle, chuckle). There is a positive side to this, we are beginning to see everyone’s true colors. Oh, and I did find the clip on Krauthammer’s take on Odonell….sheesh…yet another I respected their analytical skills too. Well, as I said before, I am old enough to remember the RR years and the election campaigns preceding. Many analyst types said he would not win. Before he became president, RR was governor of CA and when he left office, CA was operating in the black.

    Anyway, I meant to pass this on to you. Another source of Federal receipts/revenue with historical data. Some of it you can download in Excel file formats.
    http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/hist.html

  162. Michael Eden Says:

    I don’t mind Krauthammer’s take simply because he doesn’t start listing off the “reasons” O’Donnell can’t (i.e. “shouldn’t”) win. He simply makes a prediction – and predictions are made to be broken.

    I think that Christine O’Donnell has a fair shot at winning – particularly if the GOP actually comes around and supports their candidate rather than help dump on her.

    I wrote my take on what this election is actually about, in an article entitled, “Hillary Clinton Dabbled Into Witchcraft, And Barack Obama And Chris Coons Dived Into Marxism,” that will come out tomorrow.

    I saved one of the charts (spending as % of GDP 1940-2015). Pretty neat. Thanks for the link.

  163. Noir Says:

    Re Rove and Krauthammer, it seems to me there is another agenda here beyond just the high and power that comes from being right in making predictions. It is beyond mere denial about one`s own ego and vulnerability (particularly distressing to witness in Charles, whom one assumes has done “the work” on himself that all good analysts and psychiatrists do).

    Both are good analysts and too smart to not be able to see that the people are fed up and craving AUTHENTICITY. In my mind, too many days have already passed for them not to realize that a mea culpa is in order, and that their support would help her tremendously. 1+1 still = 2 no?? I think that there is something else going on that we don`t yet know.

  164. Michael Eden Says:

    I certainly agree with you re: Rove, that this is all about his being “right.” And, yeah, maybe Krauthammer too, though I hope not.

    Rove has made the destruction of Christine O’Donnell a personal mission in life. And the only thing that makes sense is that he predicted she would not get the nomination, and now he has to undermine her so he can point to her and say, “I was right all along.”

    This fails to see something about conservatism; it is NOT about people or candidates, but about IDEAS and VALUES. We’re not looking for a “messiah”; we’re looking for policies that will restore our Constitution, and which will live up to our founding fathers’ values. Then, and ONLY then does it become about the people, how to best help them within the Constitution. Because we believe our founding fathers’ had the best prescription for the people.

    And last of ALL it is about the candidates.

    I think Rove has this calculus back-asswards.

  165. dw Says:

    The question is why is Rove handing the dumocrats a better commercial spot than they could ever come up with themselves. As you state Michael, there seems to more to this than meets the eye. Why does he not go after the communist she is running against. He seems vunerable on his past but Rove concentrates on her past. Maybe he and Castle were real good friends or?

  166. Michael Eden Says:

    You said “commercial.” And you’re right. The most damning commercial of Jerry Brown in California has been a spot of Bill Clinton taking him to the cleaners in a debate they had.

    The image of Rove attacking O’Donnell would be very damaging. And Rove gave that to them.

    If that happens, the O’Donnell campaign needs to get key Republicans to support her, and also portray Rove as representing the Republican Party machine of the past, determined to hold on to their power and their ways of business.

    Rush Limbaugh said he thought something personal was going on for Rove, given that he didn’t even attack DEMOCRATS the way he attacked O’Donnell.

  167. Robbie Says:

    i say great let rove ramble on and on as everyone associates him with bush – whom i personally do not have a problem with however the media spent at least 6 years demonizing bush to America.

    and isn’t rove the chief of staff who lost the house – ie it was under his watch – let him play the out of touch gop establishment and palin and co ie true conservatives take over the republican party.

    in addition did rove have a financial or business interest in castle meaning was rove or his firm – if he has one – working for the castle campaign and if so that could explain but not excuse his comments.

    one could compare it to palin endorsing mccain? but his comments are so stupid for someone once called the architect what is he now the gop community agitator?

  168. Robbie Says:

    that 1961 Reagan speech is killer! the man understood how to articulate conservatism but as importantly knew how to take apart the liberal statist agenda or arguement with plain spoken everyman language.

    personally i love when he said something like this ‘how can someone look at a fat man and a skinny man standing side by side and come to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by stealing food from the skinny man.’

  169. Michael Eden Says:

    Robbie,

    Rove would be well-advised to do a lot less talking, and a lot more shutting the hell up just now.

    The bottom line, from my point of view, is that Rove may have poisoned O’Donnell’s campaign. But he certainly poisoned a lot of conservatives’ view of him. We used to think he represented the Republican Party and the conservative view. But now it very much seems he has a different agenda.

    I’ll never receive him the same way again.

    As for Ronnie, he was just a great leader and a great president. He was just the man the country needed to get us out of Carter’s “great malaise.”

    Reagan framed political truths in such a memorable and immediately comprehensible way:

    “The closest thing to eternal life on earth is to be a federal program.”

    “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

  170. Vox Clams Says:

    Terrific article on the fact that tax rate cuts have historically increased tax revenues.

    The dramatic growth in total tax revenues from 2003 to 2004 (continuing until at least 2007) is not a coincidence.

    Yes, it is a paradox, but not a difficult paradox, especially when one considers the elephant in the room: we have a voluntary tax system, and at a certain rate (one that I believe W’s team figured out), people game the system and stop paying.

    Of course, it is perfectly legal not to cash out your capital gains because Uncle Sam is going to take 39% – and at 15%, you might not be reluctant to do so. That certainly explains a healthy portion of the increases in revenues immediately after the Bush tax cuts. On the other hand, it is not necessarily legal to increase your 1120S expenses on pseudo-business expenses (part business, mostly personal) so that your K1 1040 taxable income (pass-through) is less.

    A sizable chunk of the total US tax revenues comes from small business owners. I guarantee you that if tax rates go back up to 90%, revenues will go way down. Small business owners simply won’t pay those kind of rates. And they will feel morally justified to cheat on their taxes.

    In other words, if you have reasonable tax rates, reasonable as defined by those who are paying the taxes, you are going to have higher revenues than if you have an ureasonable tax rates – simply because people will be more honest in reporting their income and expenses if they believe that the tax rates are fair.

    If Bush missed the mark on the line where people pay versus they do not pay, he did not miss the mark by much.

  171. Michael Eden Says:

    I don’t even view it as a paradox, simply because of human behavior. But I’ll grant that the word “paradox” has validity.

    Suppose I tell you that I’m going to slap you in the face, but that it’s going to be a pretty gentle slap that won’t hurt you (and you trust me because I’m a really trustworthy guy). My hand comes at your face, and you don’t even flinch. It’s a mild blow, and you have no problem taking it. That’s a low tax rate. Not too much pain; nothing to fear.

    Now my liberal adversary comes in. And you know he’s going to unload on you and slap you as hard as he can. Not only will you flinch, you’ll flat out duck. You’ll want as little contact as possible – and better yet none at all. There’s your punitive tax on the rich.

    That’s the way it is with the rich and taxes. They can retreat or “duck” into shelters to protect their money. And many others simply don’t bother to pay, knowing that odds are they won’t fall prey to an audit.

    Mellon’s study showed that 25% was the ideal rate. Above that rate, the rich at least partly sheltered their assets in a way that lowered overall revenue collected. Below it, they wouldn’t shelter, but the overall collection would also be lower than the “sweet spot.”

    From my memory, I don’t believe Art Laffer actually came up with “a number.” Rather, it was more about a principle that lowering tax rates actually increased revenue. And a number of validating studies based on Jude Wanniski’s and Art Laffer’s work have since come up with that “magic numbers” that optimized tax revenue.

    We also need to realize that the federal government only collects around half of their revenue from the income tax. In addition to state income taxes (states could collect ALL taxes, and then give the federal government a share of the revenue, for example), there are many other sources of taxation: excise taxes, sales taxes, leases, fees, and the like. Which is to say that it’s a complicated world when you consider that you cold lower the federal income tax to zero, and STILL make out better by increasing other government revenue sources.

    This gets to one of the primary criticisms I’ve seen re: my article, namely, that my article is refuted by the fact that a zero percent/0% income tax rate would collect no revenue at all (see here for one such).

    And the criticism is right – in the most juvenile way. My title is “Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues.”

    Their criticism has the advantage of totally ignoring my entire article, and only fixating on the title itself; which of course stems from the difficulty of titling an article in such a way that you say “Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues Until About A Rate Of 25% When The “Laffer-Type Effect” Stops.

    I would respond that my article isn’t about coming up with some magic optimal number, but rather merely expresses a general principle that since the federal government began collecting taxes in 1913, every time we’ve cut the tax rate, we’ve collected more revenue. So your point that “tax rate cuts have historically increased tax revenues” is quite well put. I would also point out that there is no reason – the wording of the title aside – that the claims of my article fall prey to a vicious infinite regress.

    Oh, well, I guess they didn’t ever learn that admonition, “Never judge a book by it’s cover.” And never judge a 3,500 word article by just its title, either. At least never do it if you’re interested in learning the truth.

  172. James B Says:

    Michael,

    Bravo on the blog and all of the commenting going on. I’ve only had time to read about 1/3 of them so I apologize in advance if you have already answered my question!

    How would you reconcile the fact that tax revenues increased ~140% from 1970 to 1979 when tax rates remained for the most part unchanged versus ~100% from 1980 to 1990?

    Thanks in advance for taking the time to interact with your community.

  173. James B Says:

    Michael,

    Let me clarify my previous post, it seems I was reading another article that used a 99.6% growth in tax receipt for the period you are using.

    I am looking at numbers from OMB historical table 1.3 just as you used in your article. For some reason the current numbers seem to be quite different than the ones used by the Heritage Foundation but as this is an acceptable source to you I thought it a fair place to reference. Thanks.

  174. Michael Eden Says:

    James,

    I’m flying a little blind, as I’m not entirely sure where you derived your numbers from (you’ll have to forgive me, but I’ve moved on to other things since I wrote this article). I found these numbers here. With the table on page 25, which seem to correspond to your numbers.

    Using the receipts in current dollars figures, we go from (in billions) 192.8 in 1970, to 463.3 in 1979. Which would be an increase of 140%. And then we go from 517.1 in 1980, to 1,032.0 in 1990, which would be an increase of 99.6%

    I’m guessing that’s where you got your numbers.

    A couple of things.

    1) I would recommend that you do your calculation of revenue increase from the 1996 constant dollar-adjusted column. Because that is going to be more ‘apples to apples.’ When you use that column, you get a revenue increase of 25.9% between 1970-1979, and a 27.7% revenue increase between 1980-1990.

    In other words, using constant dollars, the revenue increase during the 80s was actually greater than the revenue increase of the 70s. So in fact it actually was a larger increase under Reagan in the 80s than under Nixon, Ford and Carter in the 70s.

    2) I would point out that the smaller the number, the bigger the increase relative to the base. For instance, let’s say I go from $1 to $2. That’s a 100% percentage increase. But if I go from $9 to $10, it’s only a percentage increase of 11%, even though you had the exact same $1 dollar increase. So, given the much larger revenues that Reagan had, it was much harder to have a giant increase.

    3) The economy that Reagan inherited was simply awful. 21% interest rates. 13+% inflation. It was bad. Reagan’s numbers actually went DOWN for three years between 1981 and 1984, which didn’t happen in the 70s. Reagan had a huge hole to start from, in other words. And so – like Obama now – he had a HUGE chunk of ground to gain back. [The big difference between Obama and Reagan is that Reagan brought the economy back, whereas we haven't yet seen anything like that from Obama yet].

    When it comes to generating tax revenue, it takes more than just tax cuts. If you’re deeply into a recession, you’re going to have a lot lower tax revenue than if you’re in a surging economy. When things are humming, it takes a lot of monkey wrenches to screw it up; when things are terrible, even the best policy will struggle to improve the situation.

    4) The other thing is that Reagan actually had TWO tax cuts. The first one (ERTA) was a passed in the late summer of 1981, and among other things lowered the top federal tax rate from 70% to 50%. That was good, but 50% was still way too high. It was the SECOND tax cut, the Tax Reform Act of 1986, that had the biggest bang. That one cut taxes from 50% to 28% – which was far closer to the 24-25% that Andrew Mellon theorized as ideal. And it was THAT act that really saw the economy go wild.

    Hope that helps.

  175. StevenH Says:

    Michael,
    [I hesitate to post here as I am clearly not among idealogical friends. However, you seem to be prone to some actual discussion of issues, so I hope you will permit some ideas on your blog that may be contrary to your tendencies.]

    A few points for you to consider:
    1) It is difficult to defend the Reagan tax cuts as an action that increased government revenue, when Reagan was simultaneously proposing massive spending increases which stimulated the economy. Which action raised revenue? As in your example of a poor man’s and rich man’s $100 dollar bill, you cannot separate the benefit to the economy of the $100 bill that came from a tax cut, and the $100 that came from a spending increase. (And please don’t blame the Democrat congress for all the spending. What spending was passed was generally smaller than what Reagan proposed.) What we can see as historical fact is that the Gross National Debt increased as a percent of GDP every year that Reagan (and Bush and Bush2) were in office. This is not a good argument for tax cuts or for their tax policies in general.
    2) Reagan did indeed inherit an economy with many problems. Ha and Volcker should be praised for invoking contractionary monetary policy (high interest rates) which both brought on the 1982 recession but also halted inflation and restored economic growth. This aspect of Reagan’s legacy is often overlooked.
    3) Part of any increase in revenue must be attributed to Reagan’s tax INCREASE of Social Security taxes, which strongly impacted (hurt) upper middle income class, but not the highest incomes.
    4) Comparing Reagan’s and Obama’s inherited bad economies is a worthy exercise, but you are a bit early to say that Reagan’s legacy is superior. At this corresponding point in Reagan’s presidency (1982), unemployment was just about to reach it’s peak (about 10.8%; … higher than now), his popularity was lower than Obama’s and the economy was not yet showing sign’s of recovery.
    5) A primary difference in Obama’s predicament and Reagan’s, is that the Republican’s have exhausted all the easy answers. Reagan could (a) lower tax rates which were high at 70% and (b) whip out the National MasterCard since Debt/GDP ratio was actually lowest since WW2 at about 33%. Reagan, Bush and Bush have all lowered tax rates way to the left of the Laffer curve peak (my opinion, but shared with many economists) and run the national debt over 80% of GDP in 2009.
    6) Wait a minute you say, Obama get’s credit for the 2009 deficit, not Bush. Wrong. See Cato Institute (no friend of Obama’s by the way) for a better explanation than I can provide.
    http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/dont-blame-obama-for-bushs-2009-deficit/
    But briefly, a president’s economic legacy extends to the financial year that began before he left office, and the 2009 financial year began in Oct 2008 while Bush was in office.
    7) One glaring solution has been left for Obama to tap, but it has been politically difficult to do so. The massive redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich over the last 30 years has given the upper 1% of income earners 23.5% of all US income (as of 2007 – last IRS numbers available) and the upper 0.01% about 6% of all US income. This is (respectively) about double and quadruple the shares that those 2 groups had in 1980, or 1970, or 1960, or 1950 for that matter. In other words, the upper 0.01% (approx 14,000 tax filers) would have to take a 75% pay cut in order to have the same SHARE of income that their economic brethren had before Reagan. (BTW, wealth distribution is even more increasingly lopsided than income). So the solution is to raise taxes on this income that is lopsidedly (and unproductively, I might add) going to the upper stratospheres of the wealthy. There is NO evidence that the 3 to 5 percent marginal increases on this group would cause economic hardship or reduce job creation. And it would increase revenue and improve the economy. Raising tax rates always has raise revenue, at least in the last 100 years in the US.
    8) Last point and I’ll wait for a response. Which of the following goals are the most worthy to pursue as we decide on economic and tax policy. (a) maximum GDP increase (to improve economy), (b) maximum increased revenue for gov’t (to pay off debts), or (c) balanced income distribution (to better spread US economic gains among all income classes). I contend that we need to return to the income distribution curve of 1945 to 1982, and that that will best help accomplish (a) and (b). For the last 30 years, GDP has increased, but only the richest have benefited. The inflation adjusted *annual* income increase for the vast majority of Americans over the last 30 years is less than 1% while the upper 1% of Americans have received about 4.5% increases, year in, year out, on average (while GDP increase only about 3%). We have been killing the American Dream for most American’s for 30 years. We need to revive it.

  176. Michael Eden Says:

    StevenH,

    I am a lot quicker to toss my ideological opponents than I used to be. But I am willing to engage in rational discussions with those who don’t post drive by idiocy or who don’t start calling me names. Your post is the kind I am willing to politely engage.

    I’ll take your arguments in the same numerical order.

    1) You almost seem to understand, and then seem to not understand, that you must separate tax revenue from spending. The two are entirely unrelated. If you quadruple your revenue, but octuple your spending, it will appear to the ignorant that you only earned half as much as you did previously, even though in actual fact you multiplied your revenue by 400%.

    There is absolutely no question that Reagan significantly increased tax revenues. Just as there also was for Harding/Coolidge, Kennedy, and Bush II. And that’s all I’m arguing. Cutting tax rates down to a max federal rate of 25% will result in INCREASING tax revenues. Keeping tax rates low results in increased economic activity vs. sheltering of revenue. And it’s good for everybody.

    If bozo politicians then spend five times more, well, we’re going to go deeper into debt, aren’t we?

    So please, PLEASE, don’t just look at the deficit and say, “Reagan increased the deficit, so his tax cut failed.” Because by that logic, if you got a great job that quadrupled your salary, but then octupled your spending, you would say, “I’m running a budget deficit; I’ve got to quit my job and go back to my minimum wage job digging ditches.” When what you should clearly do is keep the great job that provides more revenue, and SPEND LESS.

    2) You’re right. There were other factors than just “tax cuts.” Tax cuts cannot be seen as a panacea. They need to be accompanied, for instance, with spending cuts, as well as intelligent fed policy (e.g. money supply, interest rates, inflation rate), to be maximally effective. So there’s no way I would try to get into an argument re: how much Volcker should be praised, versus how much Reagan’s tax cuts should be praised. It would end up being mostly theoretical anyway.

    There are also cyclical issues. If there’s a global recession, things won’t be as wonderful in the US. If there’s war in the middle east and oil goes up, energy becomes more expensive, and the economy tends to take a dive regardless of other policies.

    But again, what I argue is merely the fact that, when we’ve reduced the tax rates, we have seen that the tax cuts have as a general rule paid for themselves. We actually end up with MORE revenue.

    3) When you say, “part of the increase,” how can I argue? How much of the increase? How does anyone know? It’s not like you can perform such an experiment in a lab, and isolate out everything but the one ingredient you want to test. You might well be right. I wouldn’t even try to argue. Other than to say that, in the end, and overall, Reagan increased tax revenue, and his tax cut was a giant part of that increased revenue.

    4) At some point, you can only do so much by comparing presidents in different eras. I agree with you. Reagan faced very different problems than Obama faces now. As one example, Reagan faced 22% interest rates and 13.5% inflation. How did he bring those down? Obama doesn’t have to deal with those problems. He’s got other problems. But Reagan’s problems were HUGE, and a lot of the same liberal economists who didn’t know how to solve the problems Reagan faced, and who predicted Reagan’s policies would massively fail, have basically pretended that Reagan never had things that bad to begin with. But that simply isn’t true.

    As for the comparison between Reagan and Obama, you’re right again: technically, it’s too early to say as a matter of fact that Obama has “failed.” That conclusion is mostly polemical when stated in absolutist terms. At the same point in his presidency, Reagan was still struggling to solve the economic problems he faced. The difference with Reagan is that we have hindsight – he DID solve his problems, and he DID bring the economy back to life. Whereas with Obama the future is yet future.

    That said, when you take a crucial measure such as unemployment, Reagan brought it down dramatically by the end of his first term, whereas even Obama’s own economists are saying it will still likely be in the realm of double digits by 2012. And Obama got his “solution” (the stimulus) through immediately; whereas Reagan spent months fighting for his solution, and even then got less than half of the cuts he wanted.

    5) I’ll continue from 4). One huge difference between Obama and Reagan is that Reagan NEVER had the sort of partisan advantage in Congress that Obama has had.

    In 1980, the House of Representatives had Democrat control by a margin of 242 to 192 Republicans. Could Reagan do everything he wanted, like Obama could, or even much of what he wanted? No. NO. Versus Obama, who had absolute control in the House. And the Senate? The Republicans won a bare majority – nothing even close to Obama’s filibuster-proof Senate that he enjoyed for most of the last two years.

    So any argument that you submit that Reagan somehow had it better, well, I would argue that that’s just absurd. Obama had total control of the government; whereas if Democrat Speaker Tip O’Neil didn’t like it, it didn’t happen. Reagan had to compromise and cooperate for everything he did.

    Which by the way was a huge reason that the spending shot up so much. Reagan wanted huge increases in the military and defense budget; Democrats wanted huge increases in social spending. Both got what they wanted.

    So it was Democrats who had the “easy answers” under Obama. They had total control. They could impose whatever they wanted. And Obama assured us that his solution would work, and that he would keep the unemployment rate down. He failed.

    The other thing I would point out is that our debt to GDP ratio is so horrendous for one simple reason: the entitlements that Democrats have imposed on America in the form of Social Security and in the form of Medicare and Medicaid. We now have virtually ZERO wiggle room with these programs consuming a giant share of the budget. And you want to blame REPUBLICANS for that? Remember, Republicans were the ones who predicted these entitlements would bankrupt us.

    Entitlement spending constituted 53% of the budget back in 2008. And that doesn’t even begin to include all the other social spending entitlements Democrats have imposed, such as welfare. And that entitlement percentage is shooting up fast now. Because more Americans are tapping into them now than ever before.

    We’re now hearing that the actual debt, with the unfunded liabilities of these entitlements, is actually $200 TRILLION.

    And what did Obama do? He created ANOTHER massive healthcare boondoggle that will crash the system even more. And Republicans warned about that too!

    So complaining about the high debt to GDP is basically saying, “Better never allow Democrats to ever have any control over government again.”

    6) Presidential budgets go from fiscal year to fiscal year. That’s generally true. So you believe that Obama’s $862 billion (and actually $3.27 TRILLION) stimulus was really “all Bush’s fault”? And that we should “blame Bush” for all the bailouts that OBAMA imposed? And as massive as Obama’s stimulus was, it still was merely ONE of Obama’s massive spending programs that HE proposed and that DEMOCRATS in THIS Congress voted for. And which Republicans opposed.

    Something else occurs. When you try to argue that it’s “wrong” to say that “Obama get’s credit for the 2009 deficit, not Bush,” it opens up and interesting new fact. Namely, that Bush was responsible – and most certainly NOT Obama – for “ending the Great recession.” That’s right. If the 2009 deficit is on Bush, so must also be the credit for the recession ending in June 2009.

    So I’m pleased that you embrace George Bush as the hero who successfully led America to economic recovery in 2009.

    But now it’s 2010 in Obama’s Wreckovery Act, and the economy stinks. Too bad Bush isn’t here to lead America to recovery again…

    7) I wish you would get a copy of New Deal or Raw Deal and seriously read it. You can start reading here, just for starters, and scroll around. One of the things that Burton Folsom conclusively proves is that high tax rates invariably result in the poor paying a much higher share of taxes. As the rich shelter their wealth by buying bonds, collectibles, etc., the burden falls more and more on the poor that DEMOCRATS pass in the form of regressive taxes, such as excise taxes on cigarettes and alcohol.

    Another way to ensure that the poor get poorer is to let Democrats impose massive regulations that destroy jobs. Here’s 800,000 jobs killed by Obama with energy regulations, not counting the thousands of jobs he’s destroyed in the Gulf of Mexico. And it’s UNIONS and DEMOCRATS who are screaming about that.

    You can’t stop the rich from getting richer. Unless you become a communist. And then all you do is steal the wealth from those who had created it and make the commissar thieves who seized it rich. What you CAN do is cut taxes (income and capital gains dividend and corporate and inheritance taxes) in such a manner that there is more incentive for the wealthy to INVEST and PRODUCE by allowing them to keep more of what they gain.

    When you invest, you are ALWAYS taking a risk. And when you increase taxes, you create a dilemma in which the rich have more to lose, and less to gain. And so they quit investing to protect their assets.

    Democrats increase corporate and other taxes and increase regulations and impose unionization and businesses just relocate overseas. And the rich stay rich; they just send the money and the jobs overseas. They invest in China; because, incredibly, Communist China is a LOT LESS COMMUNIST than America under Obama and the Democrats. The rich send their money abroad where the new opportunities are; the poor get poorer because Democrats destroyed their jobs.

    Oh, the Democrats are for UNION jobs and for GOVERNMENT jobs that pay incredibly high benefits compared to their non-union and non-government private sector counterparts. But that comes out of the rest of the poor working class suckers who get less and less while the liberal-favored groups get more and more. Government employees now earn TWICE what private sector employees in comparable jobs earn. Meanwhile they collect massive pensions that will destroy America. They produce nothing; they are like leeches; they are a drain on the private sector; they eat up private sector jobs. And who suffers?

  177. StevenH Says:

    Thanks for your reply, and especially being willing to engage in the discussion. There is way too much name-calling and way too little conversation in America these days. I doubt that either of us will get the other to change parties but I expect we might each learn something if we keep our ears and minds open.

    I can’t respond completely to all of your counterpoints because i have some research to do to answer completely. But let me answer tonight what I can.

    1) Yes, tax cuts and increased spending are different and separate actions. But I do not believe you can separate their impact on the economy, and hence on tax revenues, when you impose them at the same time.

    As an imperfect analogy, let’s say you are operating a store. You want to bring in more revenue, so you cut prices and hope that the increase in sales will actually bring higher profits. Simultaneously, your wife starts a promotion in front of the store where she hands out money to customers and hopes they will use some of that money to buy products in the store. The sale seems to be a huge success in that lots of product was sold. After adding up the sales , you are ecstatic how much profits increased. Until you subtract out the money that your wife handed out, which has actually put you deep in debt. But still you rave about your price-cutting technique as if it were a success.

    How much of the increased revenue came from the price cuts and how much from customers spending money they were given? There is no way of knowing! But in combination, when evaluated honestly, the experiment was a dismal failure, because net debt increased!!

    Similarly, the only way that tax revenue can increase as a result of tax cuts is if (a) economy improves and so the GDP goes up and the government’s smaller percentage of the larger pie is bigger than the larger percentage of the otherwise smaller pie, and/or (b) if businesses spend less effort hiding their money from the taxman. I believe most of the tax cut benefit is expected to come from (a). But if you are simultaneously pouring money into the economy with deficit spending, whether it be for military spending or social programs, it is simply impossible to separate which “stimulus”, the tax cuts or the spending, increased the economy, or to assign a credit of some percentage to either one. It certainly seems disingenuous to me to assign all of the increased income to the tax cuts and none to the increased spending.

    I am NOT saying that tax cuts DON’T or CAN’t increase revenue in some circumstances. I even think Reagan’s cut from 70% to 50% on the upper margin was probably a good idea. However, based on the economic experiments of Reagan, Bush and Bush2, i am simply saying there is no possible way to prove that the tax cuts are responsible for all or any increase in revenue, because spending was so out of control during all 3 administrations.

    This is why I consider the economic record of these 3 administrations as a whole quite dismal. The sum total of debt as % of GDP went up a total of more than 55% during those administrations.

    And lastly, in this long response to counterpoint #1, the magic tax rate number of 25% may have some significance in some study, but I think you would agree that this number is not universally agreed or proven to be the optimal tax rate in all studies. There is and probably will always be disagreement as to the optimal rate because of the difficulty and expense of doing national “lab experiments”.

    But please consider that we had a very successful economy from end of WW2 until Reagan (with ups and downs, but generally good) even with upper tax rates at 90% and 70%. As outrageous as those rates seem now, we still managed an average growth rate in real GDP of about 3.3%, pretty much equal to the average growth rate since Reagan, but with much lower income tax rates. [ See http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Growth.aspx?Symbol=USD
    and set the start date back to 1947]. So, remarkably, the growth rate of the long-term economy seems rather impervious to these tax rates that we obsess about. And so if lower tax rates do not significantly increase the long term GDP (size of the pie), how can they possibly increase revenue sufficiently to counter the mathematical fact of the smaller percentage designated as government revenue? I do not see that it is possible.

    It seems to me that our messing with lower tax rates has only short term impact on the total economy, just like spending stimulus. But the lower tax rates can have other negative impacts on the stability of the economy … (more later).

    2) and 3) You and i both basically agree here that the economy has many variables and they are difficult to separate, especially for economic amateurs such as I know i am and i presume you are too (no offense meant).

    I will mention that measurement of increased revenue is a tricky statistic. The population continually increases, and the GDP is prone to increase eventually even with bad economic decisions, so in the long term, government revenue will increase no matter (almost) what you do, as long as you don’t cut tax rates every year. An honest measure would be perhaps to look at tax revenue per “tax unit” for personal and small business income, as well as corporate tax growth rates. I have not yet done or seen that analysis…

    4) Trying to be more brief …
    (a) The Rebubplican to Democrat ratio is deceptive. There were a lot of “Reagan Democrats” in Congress fighting for and voting for Reagan policy. There are no “Obama Republicans” in Congress.
    (b) Obama (with some credit to Bush and the hated but necessary “bailouts” enacted and overseen by both admins) has managed some statistical gains in the economy. Economists say the recession ended last summer ( I know, I know … doesn’t feel like it ended), the RATE of increase in unemployment started a continuing trend of decreasing in early 2009 after months of increases, there are some private sector job gains showing up now, meaning unemployment may start to drop by Obama’s 3rd year as it did for Reagan, and the DJ Average is starting to show signs of life in September after a dismal summer 2010.
    (c) Reagan and Obama’s action toimelines are closer than you think. Reagan’s problems were huge and they were first addressed by monetary policy enacted quickly (in 1981) by Volcker which dealt an initial painful but necessary jolt to the economy, raising unemployment through 1982. Reagan’s initial tax cut bill was enacted Aug 2001, Reagan’s first year in office (though the 1st drop in rate from 70% to 50% occurred in 1982). [see taxfoundation.org ]. Obama’s stimulus bill was passed in Feb 2009.
    (d) Reagan got half the cuts ( a type of stimulus) he wanted, but Obama also about half the added spending (AND TAX CUTS) that he wanted.

  178. StevenH Says:

    … I hit submit early, but that’s OK, it was getting long for one post …
    Note i was not being insulting by typing “Rebubplican” in previous post, it was just a typo …

    (4) (e) Those who denigrate the entirety of the “useless” stimulus but promote tax cuts are perhaps unaware that 36% of the $768 Billion (over 10 years) Stimulus is for Tax Cuts and Credits (including AMT postponement), the majority of which was applied in 2009 and 2010.

    5) Partisan advantage – partly covered in (4a)
    Obama had absolute control of Congress? Not exactly. Democrat Congress under Reagan compromised. Republicans in Obama Congress stonewalled whenever possible, and continue to do so.
    Also, Obama has NOT had a filibuster-proof Senate for 2 years. The fragile Democrat-Independent Caucus has only had a complete 60 members for about 6 non-contiguous months of that time.[Jul 7-Aug 25 2009, and Sep 25 2009 to Feb 4 2010]. see
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

    Easy answers – By easy answers, i meant actual solutions, not how easy it was to pass legislation (which has also not been as easy under Obama as you suggested). Reagan cut taxes when they were very high. It is impractical or at least less practical when they are already the lowest in 80 years. Reagan (and Congress) ran up the debt. So has Obama, but it is more frightening when you start at 80% rather than 33% GDP like Reagan. Republicans did not complain too much about the looming deficit under Reagan. It was a Reagan Revolution. But under a Democrat it is suddenly the end of the world. And yes, 100% GDP Debt is frightening. That’s what I mean by the easy answers being unavailable to Obama.

    6) Many people (and you seem to be one of them?) think that the entire 10 year cost of the Stimulus Bill ($768 Billion or whatever) came out of 2009 budget. It is not true. Only about $185 billion of 2009 budget or deficit was from the Stimulus Bill, because that is the amount of the stimulus spent that year. All of the rest of the deficit that year is pretty much due to TARP and the fact that the GDP plummeted, vastly decreasing gov’t revenue. Yes it belongs to Bush, except for about 0.185 Trillion, much of which i believe is tax cuts by the way. (Don’t you like tax cuts from Democrats? ;-) )

    Entitlement programs – We pay less in % GDP to support our “human infrastructure” than most civilized nations. Our “entitlement programs” only become a problem, in my opinion, when we refuse to provide sufficient revenue to fund them. Which brings us back to upper tax rates being too low. We are not going to agree on this. You don’t want to pay for these programs and I do. However, we should at least be able to agree that given the existence of these programs, enacted by our legal representatives in government, we are obliged to balance the budget and actually pay for them. And if that means raising taxes, we ought to just do that and quit postponing it by charging the national MasterCard.

    7) I have not yet read your references, but I plan to. Meanwhile, I would like to emphasize: It is OK with me for the rich to be rich, and to get rich from their investments and risks. However, I implore that you recognize that it is possible for income and wealth to become too concentrated.

    Now, most of us argue about distribution of income without understanding anything about what the distribution is or where we lie on it. What percentile are you? IRS records are only fully available through 2007 (before our current crash) so I’ll quote a few numbers. If your 2007 tax form AGI was over $110K , you were in the top 10%, over $400K is the top 1%, over $1.9 mill is top 0.1% and over $8.6 mill is top 0.01%. I always thought I was upper middle class, but I was astounded to realize about 92% of all American households make less than I do.

    After some research and spreadsheet crunching, I learned another amazing fact. For only 3 brief time periods in the last 100 years have the top 1% of tax units (households, roughly) received more than a 20% share of national income: For 5 years ending in 1929 (crash), 2 years ending in 2000 (crash) and 3 years ending in 2007 (crash). During the mostly economically stable times of 1945-1980, the upper 1% earned from 9% to 13% of national income. So with history as a lab experiment, that is why i am concerned about income distribution. With a stable distribution, the rich are rich, but everybody gets a % share of the pie when the economy improves. From 1982 to 2007, larger and larger percentages of the improving economy go to those who least need it, and i would argue it goes to the least efficient sector of the economy.

    Last amazing economic fact of the day: Our pay distribution is roughly exponential. That is, in 1950, the upper 10% got about 33% of all income. But then the upper 1% got about a third of that, or about 11%, and the upper 0.1% got a third of that, or about 3.5%. When GDP went up 3.2% a year, everybody got a 3.2% increase. The rich got richer, but generally the income distribution stayed the same. Call this index of distribution, the 33% level.

    We reached the 50% level in 2007, with the upper 1% receiving 23.5% of all income.

    Since about 1982, the income distribution drastically changed. The upper 10% share went from 33% to 50%, The exponential increases at other levels held true as well. (upper 1% gets almost 25% of all income, upper 0.1% gets about 12%.) Thus, between 1982 and 2007, not only did the richest 10% and up get their fair share of the increased GDP, they got a sizable share of the bit that used to go to the lower 90%. Now realize that the GDP did not go up any faster on average after 1982 than before. So it cannot be argued that the rich were benefitting from some new efficiency that they could claim credit for. No, the economy grew at the rate it had been for decades, but 90% of the population saw little benefit. And the further up the income ladder you were, the more exponentially beneficial the new formulas became. The rich were not only getting richer, they were getting exponentially richer.

    This is a problem. Why? it is unstable. Consider that the people making the goods are getting less and less able to buy the goods they are making. The increasing debt of the middle class cannot be shrugged off as some degradation of moral character that newly causes people of the last few decades to overspend. Sure there are lapses of judgment in individual cases. But the economic pressures exerted by our society all compel and pressure people to spend money, even if they do not have it, in order to prop up an economy that then sends increasing income to the people who need it least.

    We must fix it, but how? Increasing GDP, or DJ Average, and even reducing unemployment is not enough. Our scales are off balance and we need to move some weight to the other side. We have had 30 years of redistribution of income to the wealthy. We have tilted the playing field so far, we are all slipping off. And yet, and yet, we cannot increase taxes a mere 3 to 5 % on the wealthiest incomes, which are by all rights, two, or 4 or 8 times what they would have been had the income slope not been changed.

    How do you tell the wealthiest most powerful people in the country that they need a a 50 to 80% pay decrease for the good of the country?

    This is beyond a simple business cycle issue. You may not agree with everything I have said, but I implore that you strive to understand it and discuss it. I think it is important for our country to realize that we need much more than a quick tax cut or a few spending cuts or a few new enthusiastic but inexperienced CongressPeople. Our economy is off-balance. We must fix it, or it will break us.

    StevenH

  179. Michael Eden Says:

    One of the things I’ve written about is how the “Bush derangement syndrome” has come back to boomerang on them. Liberals have been taking to the streets and “protesting” for years. We’d never seen conservatives doing that before. To the extent that conservatives are now “overdoing” it, liberals – who never seem to think about how THEY treated the last Republican president – need to do some looking in the mirror. As it is, the same people who routinely compared Bush to Hitler and the devil are now just appalled that the other side would now do the same thing.

    1) I’m going to argue that (to steal a phrase from Obama) “yes we can” see the impact of tax cuts on the matter where they count most – in TAX REVENUE. That’s supposed to be the purpose of taxes, to raise revenue, right? I provide the facts in my article. Going back to Harding, when he told Andrew Mellon to research income taxes and revenues, and to come up with the best point of taxation. He said he didn’t care what Mellon did – as long as it didn’t reduce federal revenues. And Mellon dramatically lowered the tax rates (across the board) and massively increased them. I provide the amounts. That’s real-world. And I provide the income tax revenue increases for Reagan and for Bush. I even resort to the New York Times to point out that tax revenue INCREASED after Bush’s tax cut.

    When you say of tax cuts and spending, “I do not believe you can separate their impact on the economy,” I won’t disagree. But I’m not arguing that tax cuts in isolation improve the economy no matter what else happens; I’m arguing that tax rate cuts INCREASE FEDERAL REVENUES.

    And the numbers simply speak for themselves. Whenever we’ve cut taxes, we have collected MORE revenue than we had before. And I demonstrate that with Harding, with Coolidge, with Reagan, and with Bush. I don’t show it with JFK; instead, I merely point out that the greatest Democrat president was a firm believer in the same supply-side phenomenon.

    Mellon provided a much better analogy than your situation where you have a wife handing out cash (because I’ve never had a business hand me cash money outside a store): In Mellon’s book, Taxation: The People’s Business, Mellon said:

    It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower rates.” Mellon illustrated this principle with an example from his world of business. He compared the government setting tax rates on income to a businessman setting prices on his product. “if a price is fixed too high, sales drop off and with them profits.” Mellon asked: Does anyone question that Mr. Ford has made more money by reducing the price of his car [from $3,000 to $380] and increasing his sales than he would have made by maintaining a high price and a greater profit per car, but selling less cars?” [New Deal or Raw Deal, p. 129].

    I’m not going to reproduce what I provided in the article. Just go to the section on Mellon. Mellon had a theory, that tax cuts would increase revenues. He tested that theory in the real world. And in the real world, he totally confirmed his theory. He not only massively increased federal revenue by lowering taxes, but the percentage of tax revenue paid by the rich went UP, while the percentage of the poor went DOWN. And I provide the numbers. Chapter 10 of Folsom’s book is filled with evidence of that.

    On the flip side, when FDR raised taxes back into the stratosphere, his policies – again in the real world – did the precise opposite. In 1929, total income tax revenue was $1.096 billion, and total excise revenue (which is overwhelmingly borne by the poor) was $540 million. By 1935, after FDR’s policies took hold, it was the exact opposite. Tax Revenue – BECAUSE OF FDR’s draconian rates which made the rich shelter their wealth – was only $527 million. But FDR was beating up the poor with excise taxes of $1.364 BILLION. That’s on a chart from Folsom on page 125, from the US Bureau of Census. You can scroll to it with that link I gave you in my last comment to you.

    So in the real world, Harding/Coolidge/Mellon proved that cutting tax rates increased tax revenue, and increased the amount paid by the rich. And in the real world, FDR proved that hiking tax rates reduced the amount of taxes paid by the rich, reduced revenues, and spiked the amount of regressive taxes borne by the poor.

    There’s no “theory” to that; it’s just fact.

    You proceed to say something that I just found ridiculous:

    “But please consider that we had a very successful economy from end of WW2 until Reagan…”

    Rally? I mean, REALLY?

    Let’s go back over the Carter years and their fruit:

    When Ronald Reagan took office from Jimmy Carter, inflation was at a meteoric 13.3% and the country was in the throes of a fierce recession. There was a real question as to whether workers’ wages would keep up with the costs of living, which made people afraid to either spend or save. And nobody knew how to control inflation – which had risen from 1.4% in 1960 to the aforementioned 13.3% in 1980 – causing a real erosion of confidence in the future. Jimmy Carter answered a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

    Oh, and by the way, the interest rate was over 21%, and the misery index was 20.5% – which I believe was the highest ever recorded.

    So, you’re literally trying to tell me that “we had a very successful economy” when inflation was 13.3%, when interest rates were over 21%, and when the misery index was the highest number EVER recorded.

    And that Reagan – who inherited all that – made things worse by bringing economy-exploding sky-high inflation down (when Carter and literals had no answer for that dilemma, as Carter’s own words prove), by bringing down shockingly high interest rates that were pure poison, and most of all by putting an end to the “malaise” of a shockingly high misery index.

    Look at the chart I provide in the article. By the time Reagan left office in 1988, he had created growth of nearly 21% above what he had inherited. And by 1990, when the chart ends, Reagan had set the trajectory for 28% growth above the Carter baseline.

    But if you want to believe that “we had a very successful economy from the end of WWII until Reagan,” I can’t stop you.

    You say, “This is why I consider the economic record of these 3 administrations as a whole quite dismal.” But the fact of the matter is that, according to Gallup, you are vastly in the minority. Reagan is considered THE GREATEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY ACCORDING TO GALLUP. And the guy who is tied for second with Lincoln – JFK – believed the same things about tax policy that Reagan believed. As I prove.

    So, again, I just don’t see you as being in the real world here.

    Let me now do two things: a) compare our two rival paradigms for spending/debt/deficit (FDR versus Ronald Reagan); and b) by explaining why things were relatively good in the post WWII years.

    a)

    You argue Reagan tripled the national debt. And that that’s bad. Until you consider FDR.

    Franklin Delanor Roosevelt raised the debt from $22,538,672,560.15 to $258,682,187,409.93.

    That is an increase of 1,048%.

    “Triple the National Debt”? FDR didn’t triple the national debt – he multiplied it by 11.5 TIMES. Which is to say that he nearly QUADRUPLED his TRIPLING of the national debt.

    I mean, OMG. If only FDR had only tripled the national debt!!!

    Furthermore, if you want to blame someone for all the debt accumulated during the Reagan years, why not blame the Democrat Congress? Why not blame Tip O’Neal? He was the Democrat Speaker of the Democrat House Majority from 1977 until he retired near the very end of the Reagan era. He controlled the purse-strings FAR more than Reagan did. You know, because of that Constitution-thingy. The Constitution gives Congress, and Congress alone, the authority to write the budget and spend money. Remember, Reagan was the guy who wanted to just eliminate the Departments of Energy and Education (and one or two others as well). Reagan had to negotiate with Democrats and compromise with them to spend on THEIR projects – something neither FDR or Obama had to do.

    And I return to Obama who has taken the US further into debt than every president from George Washington through Ronald Reagan – COMBINED – and taken us more into debt in only twenty months in office than George Bush did in all 8 years in office. And Obama did this with Democrats in TOTAL CONTROL.

    Here are the facts:

    “In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.”

    And if we want to make comparisons to George Bush’s deficits:

    “…from the day Mr. Obama took office last year to the end of the current fiscal year, according to the Office of Management and Budget, the debt held by the public will grow by $3.3 trillion. In 20 months, Mr. Obama will add as much debt as Mr. Bush ran up in eight years.”

    If you really want to talk about a “dismal” economic record, please make Obama your poster child. Please?

    b) Why was our economy so much stronger in the early post WWII years than they have been in the last thirty years?

    Have you ever seen pictures of the destruction done by WWII? Have you seen pictures of Europe? Have you seen pictures of Japan and China? Have you seen pictures of pretty much the whole planet? Total destruction. Nothing left standing. And then look at the pictures of the United States, where nothing was touched. And that should give you your answer.

    The United States was the ONLY economy left standing. WE produced everything. We had NO rivals. And as a result, we had total market share of everything.

    And with that kind of dominance and advantage, we could shrug off damn near anything.

    Now, if you’re idea is that the US use its nuke arsenal in a surprise attack and wipe out the economies of all of our rivals, then you might be on to something. And we could go back to the crazy policies you’re pitching. But otherwise, let’s go back to the real world today, where the US has virtually NO industrial productivity because of the stupid liberal policies that saw all that go overseas where companies could actually earn this thing called a “profit.”

    When you try to compare the early post-WWII years to the years after Reagan, you’re not just comparing apples to oranges; you’re comparing bullfrogs to elephants. Because in those post WWII years, the US was the greatest industrial power in history, with zero rivals. And our liberal policies that make you so happy had totally blown that by the time Reagan came onto the scene. In fact, as I think I amply demonstrated, our economy had been blown away by the time that CARTER came along.

    The funny thing is that, even if we ignore the fact I point out above, Democrats STILL lose. It was under the presidency of Republican president Dwight Eisenhower that the US experienced “the greatest economic boom in American history” (I’m quoting a liberal from this morning’s edition of the liberal LA Times, btw).

    Capeesh?

    You say, “I will mention that measurement of increased revenue is a tricky statistic.” But you are essentially in the position of explaining away the facts, where I am in the position of citing them. I demonstrate that four times out of four, when we’ve cut tax rates, we’ve increased revenues. Period.

    Now, as to your 4)

    The fact remains that Reagan had far more Democrat opposition than anything Obama has yet seen. That is just a FACT. And has for your saying there were no “Obama Republcians” in Congress, hogwash. Have you ever heard of a guy named Sen. Arlen Specter, who literally BECAME a Democrat? Have you never heard of Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins? Sorry, but Republicans have had all kinds of RINOs. We’re starting to get rid of a lot of them now.

    The problem is that Obama and the total Democrat majority imposed such shockingly partisan ideological bills that even RINOs couldn’t support them. Reagan never tried to be such a butthead. He (and Bush to a large degree) got things done by compromising – a word that Democrats have not understood the last two years.

    b) you keep looking for your rays of sunshine, but unemployment is still shockingly high, and even Obama’s own economic team says it will CONTINUE to remain shockingly high throughout Obama’s term in office.

    d) is just a nice revision of history. There was no argument from Obama that he needed nearly $2 trillion in stimulus prior to passing it. On the contrary, his administration said that the $862 (actually $3.27 trillion) he rammed through Congress would succeed in keeping unemployment down below 8% (it was 7.6% the day Bush left office). If you can show me that Obama said he needed that $2 trillion to succeed prior to January 2009 when he passed it, show me.

    In your second comment (part b), you say that “36% of the $768 Billion” (and here you are just factually wrong, because the stimulus was upgraded to $862 billion, but really will cost $3.27 TRILLION) was “tax cuts.”

    No, it wasn’t. Obama didn’t give ANY tax cuts. What he gives in the “stimulus” is tax CREDITS. I write about that in my very first section.

    “Tax cuts” are what happens when the half of the country who actually PAY taxes get their tax rates cut. “Tax CREDITS” are when Obama redistributes the wealth and calls it “tax cuts” to fool the masses into thinking he’s being “free market.”

    I won’t go on past your 5. You want to say that Republicans “stonewalled.’ I want to say that Obama was so far to the left that he actually had a more leftist voting record than Bernie Saunders – WHO IS A SELF-ADMITTED SOCIALIST. Obama and the Democrats imposed health care that Americans by overwhelming numbers now want to repeal. He imposed the most massive porkulus boondoggle in the history of the human race. He tried to impose a cap-and-trade system that he himself admitted would see energy prices skyrocket and bankrupt the coal industry with provides fully half of our nation’s electricity. Obama tried to impose global warming garbage on America, when the LAST effort was rejected by the Senate 99-0. And even AFTER the Email-gate came out that proved that global warming alarmists were deliberately falsifying their data. Obama has tried to get “card check” through which would have ended any democratic process to unionization – when unions have done more to destroy every industry they have contaminated than anything.

    And if you think that Republicans were “stonewalling” by voting against the most radical government takeover in American history, well, now I know that you are a true liberal and a true ideologue.

    You’re going to try to tell me that the largest party dominance since the Carter years – something that neither Reagan nor either Bush had – was actual not dominance versus the smallest Republican minority since the Carter years. And why? Because you are a rigid ideologue who simply inherently believes that Democrats are more “moderate” than Republicans. In spite of all evidence to the contrary.

    The Left now acts as if this never happened. For instance, in a recent television appearance, liberal commentator Bill Press argued that–rather than noisy disagreement–”Americans want discussion” on health-care reform. Who could disagree with that sentiment–except, perhaps, the Obama administration, which pushed Congress to rush through legislation by early August? This timeline was clearly aimed at preempting discussion and presenting the public with a “done deal” on health reform. As one protester put it, the president spent more time choosing a dog than he did discussing health-care reform.

    Likewise, Mr. Press complained that opponents hadn’t put their own reform plans on the table. “The people who are there to protest–what are they for? Are they for the status quo? The Republicans haven’t put any other plan on the table.” But did congressional Democrats offer their own alternative to President Bush’s 2005 Social Security plan? When a fellow Democrat asked Rep. Nancy Pelosi when their party would offer its own Social Security plan, her answer was “Never. Is that soon enough for you?” Democrats would not even negotiate until personal retirement accounts were taken off the table. Why should Republicans act differently today, regarding the “public option”?

    I can’t take any more time to argue with you – particularly when you resort to sheer demagogic rhetoric by labeling the Republicans as stonewalling etc. when they merely voted the way Republicans should have voted given the most radical leftist agenda since (and even including) the New Deal.

    I point out sheer, brute facts. Such as that Reagan had to deal with a Democrat majority. I even provide a link to show the substantial Democrat majority in the House. I didn’t try to assert that Democrats were nutjobs or knee-jerk opponents; I relied on common sense that should indicate to a rational person that Reagan had to compromise to pass anything. And you in turn give me what amounts to, “yes, but Democrats are nice, and Republicans are evil.” That’s just crap. And it descends to a level where you’re not discussing facts, you’re just asserting ideology.

    I’ve given you the opportunity to make your case, but it takes me way too much time to respond to long comments, when what I really want to be doing is writing articles.

  180. StevenH Says:

    Michael,

    Thank you for your time. I have some lengthy responses but I agree this is time consuming for me also, and so I will largely refrain, at least until i re-appraise your arguments. And BTW. I apologize if you feel I used “sheer demagogic rhetoric” – that is not my intent.

    Let me just rebut one common talking point that is completely disingenuous, and make a few very very brief comments.

    Some say “The stimulus can be said to have failed because Obama promised it would keep unemployment from reaching 8%.” In reality, the skyrocketing unemployment rate passed 8% before the bill even passed, much less before any of it’s policies could be applied. Obama is therefore guilty of underestimating the meteoric rise of the unemployment rate, but saying that “proves” the stimulus failed is just … well “sheer demagogic rhetoric”.

    You seem to admit that you cannot separate the impact of tax-cuts and spending on the economy, and hence I claim it logically follows that you cannot separate the effects of those 2 stimuli on federal revenue, which wholly depends on the economy. But you still arbitrarily give all the credit for revenue increases to the tax-cuts. Revenue increases when the economy improves. You just cannot say with any certainty that tax-cuts increase revenue. You can only conclusively say (at least for Reagan, Bush and Bush2) that tax-cuts combined with large federal spending increases revenue. I know you don’t agree with me, and I have not read all of your articles and references yet, but I just do not see how these 2 simultaneous stimuli and their effects can be separated.

    I received a tax Cut for 2009 when my credits for exemptions increased and when AMT was adjusted/postponed. You likely received a tax cut also. Just because some non-taxpayers received a credit does not prevent it from being a tax cut for the rest of us. Paying less taxes on the same income is always a tax cut.

    I did not mean to suggest Nixon/Carter years were good for the economy. The inflation that rose over 7% in 1973 (Nixon) and went to almost 15% under Carter was devastating. This was a low point. The point of my statement, is that even with Carter years averaged in, the long-term average growth rate of GDP in the 30 years before 1980 and the 30 years after 1980 are essentially the same. The major differences in those two 30 year periods are (a) tax rates were higher before 1980 and we paid off debt, (b) tax rates were lower after 1980 and we ran up debt, and (c) since 1980, the imbalance in percentage distribution of income has skyrocketed to levels not seen since immediately before the Depression. These are incontrovertible historical facts. My humble opinion is that the low tax rates are related to the other 2 effects.

    Please reconsider and read and understand number 7. It is the most important.

    Thanks again for your time.

    Respectfully,
    StevenH

  181. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Hi Michael E.: I’d like to weigh in on a very, very good point you mentioned here: Democrats increase corporate and other taxes and increase regulations and impose unionization and businesses just relocate overseas. And the rich stay rich; they just send the money and the jobs overseas. They invest in China; because, incredibly, Communist China is a LOT LESS COMMUNIST than America under Obama and the Democrats. The rich send their money abroad where the new opportunities are; the poor get poorer because Democrats destroyed their jobs.”

    You are exactly correct. And we wonder why manufacturing has gone overseas. Not long ago, I was in lively discussion with a liberal/democrat that claimed tax rates had no affect on economic behavior. It most certainly does, I reiterated back. The IRS knows this quite well.

    StevenH: A couple of things to bring to your attention about RR years/debt/: 1) The Cold War as sill going on. I was in the US Navy at the time when RR wanted a 600 ship Navy and I remember the robust economy too. Yes, there was much defense spending. 2) Interest rates. I think Michael and I touched on this some time ago. Anyway, RR debt was financed by VERY high interest rates. The average prime rate in 1981 was 18.87%. Here is a pdf file of Oct 31 1981 of Monthly Statement of the Public Debt shows double digit interest rates on various debt instruments. For example, Marketable Treasury Bills were averaging 15.827% ending Oct 31 1981. With the power of compounding, it won’t take very long to see the results. The print quality of the pdf is not too good, but still legible.
    ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdm101981.pdf
    To reiterate what Michael E. mentioned, inflation and high interest rates were killing us when RR took office and for most of his 2 terms.
    3) You mention that the unemployment rate was going up when obama took office. That is true, but the opposite happened when Clinton took office and all the democrats rejoiced and gave him credit. Credit for what? The unemployment rate peaked in June 1992 at 7.8%. Bill Clinton took office in January 1993 with the unemployment rate at 7.3%. The rate continued to drop BEFORE the “Clinton tax increases” of The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993 that was signed in to law in August 1993. The unemployment rate for August 1993 stood at 6.8%. So, how do you justify the democrat position that “Clinton’s tax increases stimulated the economy“? Someone please tell me how confiscating more of my money will make me wealthier? With the the “rich” are already getting soaked with taxes, someone please tell me how soaking them more will make us all better and how will it create jobs?

  182. StevenH Says:

    Dauntless:

    Certainly, tax rates affect economic behavior. Any intelligent person, liberal or conservative, knows this. Talk to your friend and see if he really understood your question.

    I give full credit to some of Reagan’s and Volcker’s policies in bringing down inflation and restoring a growing economy. However, I view the 1986 drop of tax rates as a drag on the long term economy, and probably did more harm than benefit after the first few years’ use as “stimulus”. In my and most economists’ opinions, Reagan moved us considerably to the left of the Laffer curve peak and we really ought to move back more to the right (higher rates).

    I don’t know of anyone who claims “Clinton’s tax increases stimulated the economy”. That’s just silly. What Clinton did was raise the tax rates to a more sane level at a time when the economy could handle it. By the way, The Republican Congress does get credit for holding back spending as well, allowing the income to rise above spending levels. Clinton’s possible oversight was not raising taxes enough to put a brake on the overheating economy. He could possibly then have slowed or prevented the exponential shift of income to the rich which brought about the 2000 crash. Bush hastened a return to crash conditions with his tax cuts that reinforced the shift of income away from the middle class, where it was needed both to reduce consumer debt and prop up the economy with consumer spending, and shifted it instead to the wealthy class which wasted it on unprofitable and risky investments (like the housing market).

    BTW, don’t be fooled by people going on about the government stealing from one group and giving to another. It is perfectly sane to set tax rates to “redistribute income” if it helps the overall economy. In either direction. My objection to the last 30 years redistribution toward the rich is not that I, or other liberals for that matter, hate the rich. It is simply that it has made our economy unstable. Increased GDP is only one economic measure. Even in Clinton years when that was on the rise, our income distribution indices were getting into territory that clearly predicted a crash. I don’t think that the 2000 or 2008 crashes have provided enough of a stabilizing shift back in the other direction, and I am worried that tax-cut advocates will prolong our current crash or hasten the next one by lowering taxes on the rich, keeping the income distribution unstable and gov’t income low and deficits high. Cutting taxes when already on the left side of Laffer is fruitless, except possibly as very short term stimulus. When the economy gets moving again, upper tax rates really need to get back to where they belong, maybe back to Reagan’s 1982 rate of 50%, but in incremental steps, of course. Not a popular course, I know.

    If you are unfamiliar with income distribution indices, I can send some good charts. I know that many conservatives balk at the idea of any group being “too rich”, but it is really possible in our economy to over-centralize wealth and income. Surely you can see that instability must come about at some level of over-centralized income. Well that is where have have been heading since 1982, and where we have been precipitously been sitting since at least the mid-90′s: on a dangerously imbalanced income distribution.

    StevenH

  183. Robbie Says:

    “i know that many conservatives balk at the idea of any group being too rich”

    what is wrong with you liberals…(economic segregationists!)

    it is none of your damn business what people – make – have – leave to there children – charities – or otherwise!

    if any policitician or so called academics as yourself steven h was actually serious about employment and wealth creation for all Americans we would be talking about supporting (long term) a consumption tax and no income tax whatsoever!

    and yes government revenues would likely go up under a consumption tax. so you creepy control freak libs would be happy aside from not having a pseudo centrally planned economy.

    my only question for you is why dont you libs love Nixon – what didnt he do to try and appease/please you people – just to be liked by the liberal progressive stateist marxist left –

    he gave us the EPA, the term hispanic so you libs can now convienantly group any latin person together as one group as you do with blacks, expanded the DOE (whose mission by the way was to reduce our dependence on foreign oil – to date it produces no energy has a budget of $20+ billion, some 20,000 dependents (govt employees) and our dependence on foriegn oil has increased steadily) and on and on…

    the bottom line is anything the government touches turns to crap. this is what Reagan understood.

    self interest is a good thing and leads to wealth and job creation and not dependency – bloated government.

  184. StevenH Says:

    Calm down, Robbie:

    You missed my point and believe it or not, I agree with you, up to a point. Government shouldn’t care what different income groups make or leave to their family. However, government does, and always has, and should care about 2 very important things:
    (1) Is the economy functioning in a way that encourages everyone to work and improve themselves and their country?
    (2) Is the government sufficiently funded to carry out its duties?

    Therefore, the government has no choice but to decide who gets taxed and how. If taxes are over-burdensome on the rich (decreasing useful investment in business and the economy) , then the rich need to be taxed less. If the taxes are over-burdensome on the poor or middle classes (increasing poverty, or reducing the all-important consumer spending that currently powers much of our economy), then taxes on those groups need to be cut. If the gov’t is insufficiently funded, then you either cut programs or increase tax revenue. And believe it or not, *sometimes* you actually have to raise tax rates to increase tax revenue. (The Laffer curve is not a magic wand that allows you to reduce taxes to nothing and still fund the government.)

    So yes the government sometimes has to decide when the economy is out of balance. And income distribution curves are one method of knowing that. The last time we were this out-of-whack
    (technical term ;-) ) with regard to income distribution was 1928 and it took a Great Depression and a World War before we corrected it. It would be nice if we could find a better method to fix it than last time. We need more of a national dialogue than “Cut Taxes. Cut Taxes. Cut Taxes.”

    Your suggestion of a consumption tax is a good start. I have not yet done or read analysis on that approach, but it seems to me that it may be regeressive. It does nothing to address the fact that income from the improving economy (during the times it is improving) no longer flows to the working classes but gets vacuumed out of their wallets and goes directly to the super-rich 1% of this country. If the economy improves 5%, why shouldn’t every working family get a 5% boost, as they did in the 50′s and 60′s. Why should the working class get only a 1% boost and the ultra-rich get a 10% boost and an even higher centralization of wealth. To the government, this is not a matter of caring whether someone gets what they earned, but a matter of stopping a dangerous centralization of income and wealth. Or looked at another way, de-centralizing income also ends up helping to assure that the working class get what they earn AS WELL as the rich. Do you see the point?

    Self-interest IS a good thing. Capitalism is a good thing. But turn a little of your government-paranoia toward the parts of human nature that give us Enron, AIG, Savings and Loan scandals, and Mortgage melt-downs whenever Capitalism is left unfettered and insufficiently regulated. Government and Business are both prone to problems but America is big enough and smart enough to manage them. Neither one is “all crap”. Not really.

    Respectfully,
    StevenH

  185. StevenH Says:

    Dauntless:
    I meant to respond to 2 other points in your post.
    (1) Why do you feel the rich are getting “soaked” with taxes? Their taxes are historically low. Perhaps you have seen comments about how the tax burden (percent of all US taxes paid) on the upper 1% has increased. Those comments usually omit the fact that their income has increased by almost the same percentage. Higher net income begets more taxes paid. The real monetary burden is on the working class who, due to a currently unbalanced economic and tax structure, are being denied a fair income for their labors in the first place.
    (2) I did not mean to seem in my post as if i was personally attacking Reagan or praising Clinton. They each had their strengths and weaknesses and there was much to be admired in each (as in most of our presidents). When I criticize the Reagan *years*, I am focussing on the Debt/GDP ratio which has become such a burden. I wish our government had better controlled the demon then so we wouldn’t have such a hard time fixing it now. And I do wish the infinite tax-cut myth had not been given such strength at that time. I don’t think even Reagan would have supported the mythological version of perpetual tax-cut philosophy that gets touted these days.

    StevenH

  186. Noir Says:

    Stephen H,

    I would argue that government strong arming the banks to make loans to people that cannot afford home ownership is the single most important reason that caused the real estate problem we now find ourselves in.

    Secondly, many of us out here in the top 1% income bracket feel that we pay more than our fair share for a government that funds itself “sufficiently”. I believe that was the word you used. There is an obscene amount of waste and corruption in government and this leviathan needs to be choked.

    As to your point about the government deciding who gets taxed and how, I find it laughable. We are at a point where there is no question that the government, and this current administration in particular, is using their power to re-distribute wealth while creating a dependent class.

    So no, I don`t agree with you about the government deciding who gets taxed and how much especially when they are shameless about doing it. (Think back to Obama`s very telling “spread the wealth around” to Joe the Plumber.)

    Government is inefficient at everything except funding (“sufficiently” LOL) itself, just like a drug addict.

    It is THE PEOPLE who decide what kind of taxes and what kind of government we want. Please don`t tell me that they decided this when they voted for Obama. He is a great liar and con-man as most personality-disordered narcissists are.

  187. Robbie Says:

    how about this monologue “cut taxes, myob, get out of Americans bedroom, health care etc”

    i mean really whats next if my tax dollars without my permission are to provide for subsidized abortions then why not sex – ie government supplied prostitutes (i am sure there are plenty of open minded liberal women available and im sure ugly liberal men would argue its their right – similar to healthcare – as a citizen to sex ).

    once you determine the govt can get involved so intimately (obamacare)in citizens lives there is no limit to what it cant do.

    why is everything class warfare with you – you speak of the working class – karl marx made up the terms ‘worker’ and ‘middle class.’ understanding that he needed to convince the majority. (this so called middle class of the wisdom of marxism) i see only Americans whether rich or poor, white or black, etc.

    and just like its none of our business how much money someone has it is also none of our business how little someone has.

    historically dems and rinos – while JFK, Reagan and Bush II liberated the economy! – love to use the tax system to influence behavior (isnt that creepy)

    and taking from one group for the ‘so called’ benefit (how is it of someones benefit to be economically segregated = eurotrash caste like socialism) of another is a redistributionist policy and it is crappy idea.

    any time you pick winners and losers via govt policy you adversly affect the economy and individual wealth creation. that is a certainty.

    govt paranoia really!

    the history of the world is tyranny not liberty – i have thousand years of history to back my claims that an all reaching govt is a form of tyranny and will always fail.

    you seem educated tell me why would should the US have a socialized healthcare system when it has never had any success anywhere and in fact many like GB, France and Canada are moving to privatize some functions healthcare?

    as for the consumption tax i think it would be 23% of anything consumed with no income tax – so you if you make 70k a year you keep 70k a year. why should income be automatically taxed? thats primitive/regressive isnt it? punish someone for bettering themselves?

    i suppose you dont find it odd that wall street owns the dems. and as for other financial criminal behavior – there will always be thieves its human nature – just as you cannot legislate common sense you will not be able to legislate/ensure moral business behavior 100%.

    i think a start would be the dems holding the wall street pals accountable rather than pretend its the republicans that are in bed with these bankers and oh what about bailing them out to the tune of near trillions of taxpayer money. dont believe look wherer wall street politicals donations go – 3 to 1 or more for the dems.

  188. StevenH Says:

    Noir:

    Gov’t strong-arming banks – That is a politically expedient talking point. It fits in with hating “gov’t intervention” theory. Banks jumped in the lending fray whole-heartedly. They certainly don’t need to be strong-armed when there is a chance to take excess investor money, make loans, sell the risks, and take home the profits. Yes, there were cov’t incentives to encourage loans to poorer folks. That does not excuse the fraud and money mismanagement exhibited by banks and mortgage brokers and it does not speak to the structural problems in the economy that allowed the collapse to actually happen. Fannie and Freddie were a small part of a big collapse. Look up all the causes in Wikipedia and you will find many other factors.

    If you are in the top 1%, congratulations. In 2007, your 1% segment of the economy took home 23.5% of all of the nations income, about double the percentage going to that group from 1945 to 1982. Of course about half of the income in your group went to the upper 10% of your 1%.

    Let’s have a little fun with statistics on your group. Almost everyone feels they are over-taxed. But please realize, that if you and your elite group had received (on average) the same income percentage (not just dollars, but percentage) increases as someone at the 90 percentile point (bottom of top 10%) since 1982, you would probably be making about half what you are now. And frankly, you would still be living an OK life wouldn’t you? Chances are, the crashes of 2000 and 2008 would not have happened either. Wouldn’t that be nice? Finally, if you take all of that money since 1982 that the top 1% earned as exponential income increase over and above the more typical linear increase of about the GDP rate, then that excess amount just about equals the increase in the National Debt (relative to GDP) since 1982. Just think, we have been increasing the National Debt for 30 years just to pour it into your coffers. Are you worth it? Would you mind helping pay back some of that debt now?

    Sorry Noir, just wanted to help you realize how elite your group really is. The rest of us (99% in fact) envy you but we would like to share in the wealth of this country too.

    Dependent class? We have a divided class. It could be said that the last 30 years of government have successfully and dangerously redistributed wealth and income and created a divided class sytem in this country. Not that that was the intention, but it is the result.

    The people are in control and have in fact elected this government, and I still think 99% of the people would like some of their money returned. They’ll be asking for it soon, I suspect.

    StevenH

  189. Robbie Says:

    noir (pinot?) read “rules for radicals” – saul alinsky – this is what obama taught to budding community organizers in chicago in the 1990s and hillary rodham rodham wrote her senior honors thesis at wellessley.

    this disordered narcissism you speak of is an ecouraged behavior of the ‘organizer’ and you can almost pull word for word obamas various catch phrases from alinskys book. very creepy and sickening to read but quite an eye opener.

  190. Robbie Says:

    shouldnt all Americans pay some sort of income tax before you demonize any one group.

    47% of Americans last year paid no income tax whatsoever!

    and yet some received refunds of several thousands.

    thats welfare not a tax refund.

    seems relevant to me.

    i say instead of lower or middle class we call them ‘dependent’ class as they are not pulling their fair (or any) share!

  191. Robbie Says:

    shouldnt all Americans pay some sort of income tax before you demonize any one group.

    47% of Americans last year paid no income tax whatsoever!

    and yet some received refunds of several thousands.

    thats welfare not a tax refund.

    seems relevant to me.

    i say instead of lower or middle class we call them ‘dependent’ class as they are not pulling their fair (or any) share!

    isnt class warfare is fun!

  192. Robbie Says:

    “Fannie and Freddie were a small part of a big collapse. Look up all the causes in Wikipedia and you will find many other factors.” steveh

    fannie and freddie a small part are you f-ing kidding me?

    and wikipedia really?

    well i was right you cannot have an intellectually honest interaction with a liberal!

  193. Robbie Says:

    “The people are in control and have in fact elected this government, and I still think 99% of the people would like some of their money returned. They’ll be asking for it soon, I suspect.” sh

    if the same 47% that paid no taxes and in fact recieved via tax credits several thousands in refunds (its called welfare!)are asking for money back exactly whose money are they expecting to get.

    what kind of collectivist wagon did you fall off of?

    and while i did not vote for this regime they – obama pelosi reid still sworn upon a bible to uphold the Constitution. did they not?

    if in 2008 you are under the impression that winning that election was a mandate to significantly alter the Constituional Republic we have you are sadly mistaken.

  194. StevenH Says:

    Robbie:

    So … you think Wikipedia is part of a worldwide liberal conspiracy? Little paranoid don’t you think? If the whole world is to the left of where you are, maybe they are not the ones off-center …

    And why do you hate the poor and the working class? 47% of Americans don’t make enough money to make it worthwhile to charge income taxes. But they do pay social security taxes, sales taxes and property taxes. And you want to take even more away from them? But it is immoral to increase tax on Millionaires by 5%? Many of that lower 47% are working class Americans probably working harder than you or I. And getting paid a pittance. Who are you to say they are not pulling their fair share of the load? Why do you hate the poor and the working class?

    StevenH

  195. Robbie Says:

    i am sorry i think that sourced information should be something that i dont know virtually anyone with a pc cant influence or alter.

    and yeah its common knowledge that most of the so called “moderators” at wikipedia are liberal.

    47% i would argue many are gaming the system which is what happens when you try to control others. another reason for a consumption tax.

    i personally know some people who ‘keep’ their reportable income low so that they can get up to $7000 in a ‘refund’ while not paying income tax.

    i have been poor and moderatly weathly and never once was i concerned with what the ‘rich’ were or werent paying in taxes but i was concerned with what the govt was or was not doing to adversly affect my chances of increasing my wealth.

    so sorry i dont buy into the class warfare strawman.

    less govt = more wealth its as simple as 2 + 2!

  196. StevenH Says:

    Robbie:
    Thanks for returning to an “intellectually honest” conversation mode. I was thinking this thread had devolved into sniping mode.

    Anybody can edit Wikipedia, but in fact you don’t know the credentials of any web page author, so in that sense it is no different. I usually find Wikipedia to be more diverse in information provided and hence more balanced. I can usually multiple sides of any debate there with a good set of search references for all views gathered in one place. Pages are even labeled when there is accusation of bias, and the entire change history is available. That’s why i have a hard time imagining it as biased. If you think some page is incomplete, you can always join and add more info to help keep it balanced.

    There are hedge fund managers, I hear, who game the system to live by borrowing on their investments with no reportable income. If they are part of this statistical “lower 47%”, then yes there is a problem. Fix the system to tax these “gamers”. But I suspect they are the exception rather than the rule. I feel no need to take more money away from the workers who clean my hotel room and empty my trash at work. We could force business to pay them more and then take it away as tax, but that seems like a pointless exercise. I just don’t understand why people get mad about the legitimately lower-paid working class not paying income tax. It’s like they think these folks are living high on welfare. Some may be but not many I wager.

    And again, I am more concerned with balancing the budget and balancing the tax and economic structure so that everyone has incentive to contribute and means to live. That’s all. Let the rich be rich. I know many entrepeneurs who work their @ss off for their business. But Government cannot just shut down and let capitalism run wild. That just Enronizes the economy. So it just has to decide how and who to tax to finance the Gov’t. That’s not so ominous and evil, really.

    StevenH

  197. Michael Eden Says:

    Steven,

    I see that there have been a couple others who have responded to you – which makes my heart glad – and so I am noting that I am responding here only to your 10/3 8:24 a.m. comment to me.

    what I referred to as “sheer demagogic rhetoric” coming from you was this:

    Democrat Congress under Reagan compromised. Republicans in Obama Congress stonewalled whenever possible, and continue to do so.

    And I’m going to state again that that was an entirely demagogic argument. And false. I provided a quote from Nancy Pelosi. I could provide quotes from Democrats like Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Alan Grayson, Pete Stark, Jan Schakowsky, and a host of others all day long to demonstrate that they were hardly “compromisers.”

    And when you try to maintain that Reagan had it better by having only 192 Republicans against 243 Democrats in Congress versus Obama who has 235 Democrats against only 199 Republicans – and a Democrat-controlled filibuster-proof Senate to boot – is so completely full of crap on its face that it is positively unreal.

    Reagan and Republicans were the ones who were forced to compromise in 1980. Obama and the Democrats REFUSED to compromise in 2009. The stimulus bill? Republicans weren’t even consulted. But it gets worse: no body even got a chance to actually READ THE BILL. Health care? Even Democrats were often in the dark as Democrat leaders made all the decisions behind closed doors. I wrote about that in much more detail here. Republicans were shut out of the entire process of two of the most massive spending projects in human history. And you blame them for stonewalling bills they didn’t even get to see, much less take part crafting???

    I have no reason to believe that you are capable of having your mind changed when you make the kind of statement that you made above. You simply reveal that you are a hard-core ideologue who MUST justify Democrats regardless of the facts.

    You now say, “I did not mean to suggest Nixon/Carter years were good for the economy.” But then why on earth did you say this:

    But please consider that we had a very successful economy from end of WW2 until Reagan (with ups and downs, but generally good) even with upper tax rates at 90% and 70%.

    That was a comment absolutely without justification or reason.

    And nothing irritates me more than having to refute absolutely irresponsible bullcrap like that.

    I’ll now move on to what you just said:

    Some say “The stimulus can be said to have failed because Obama promised it would keep unemployment from reaching 8%.” In reality, the skyrocketing unemployment rate passed 8% before the bill even passed, much less before any of it’s policies could be applied. Obama is therefore guilty of underestimating the meteoric rise of the unemployment rate, but saying that “proves” the stimulus failed is just … well “sheer demagogic rhetoric”.

    Consider the following.

    From the very pro-Democrat Huffington Post:
    The forecasts used to drum up support for the plan projected today’s unemployment would be about 8 percent. Instead, it sits at 9.4 percent, the highest in more than 25 years.

    From the reliably pro-liberal NPR:

    President Obama is being forced to wade into a domestic economic debate that just won’t go away: As the unemployment rate rises, there have been calls for a second round of stimulus spending.

    Obama is in a difficult position. He has to defend his $787 billion economic stimulus package at a time when there are few visible signs that it has had an effect. Unemployment is at 9.5 percent, even though the White House predicted in January that with the stimulus bill, it would rise to only about 8 percent.

    Here’s why the White House made those predictions:

    To make the case for a big stimulus package, they released their economic forecast for the next few years. Without the stimulus, they saw the unemployment rate — then 7.2 percent — rising above 8 percent in 2009 and peaking at 9 percent next year. With the stimulus, the advisers said, unemployment would probably peak at 8 percent late this year.

    And here’s how the Wall Street Journal described Obama and his “projections”:

    President Barack Obama has turned fearmongering into an art form. He has repeatedly raised the specter of another Great Depression. First, he did so to win votes in the November election. He has done so again recently to sway congressional votes for his stimulus package.

    And that stimulus was a failure, and only the most dishonest recognize it was a failure. As Gateway Pundit demonstrates:
    Just 6% of Americans believe the $787 “stimulus” boondoggle created any jobs according to a recent New York Times/CBS poll.

    Only 6% believe stimulus created any jobs

    Then, even as it became increasingly obvious even to fools that the stimulus had failed, Obama was inventing a never-before-seen category of jobs “created or saved.” The White House pulled numbers out of their butt to “prove” their failed stimulus had worked. Prompting this refutation by economists:

    Harvard economics Professor Gregory Mankiw said, “there is no way to measure how many jobs are saved.” Allan Meltzer, professor of political economy at Carnegie Mellon University said “One can search economic textbooks forever without finding a concept called ‘jobs saved.’ It doesn’t exist for good reason: how can anyone know that his or her job has been saved?”

    So you accuse me of “well ‘sheer demagogic rhetoric’” to point out the facts which even LIBERALS acknowledged, and it just again 1) makes you a laughingstock and 2) dismisses any credibility you might have had.

    You still don’t comprehend the need to differentiate between tax cuts and spending. You still refuse to see that tax cuts have raised federal income tax revenues every single time they have been tried. Regardless of whether government increased spending or not. You say:

    You can only conclusively say (at least for Reagan, Bush and Bush2) that tax-cuts combined with large federal spending increases revenue

    But that simply isn’t true, either. Because you omitted the presidencies of Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, which facts I provided. You also omitted John F. Kennedy. As a result of the Kennedy 1964 tax cut, real income tax revenues went up sharply (54.6%) from 1965 to 1969.

    In other words, every single time we have cut taxes, actual tax revenues have gone up. We have a 100% track record of success. And your argument amounts to, “It was a just coincidence every single time.”

    If you don’t pay taxes, and the government gives you money in the form of a tax credit, it cannot be a tax cut. If I paid 0% federal income taxes, how can the government “cut” my taxes? Go ahead and cut “0″ and tell me what it is after you cut it. What you actually have is a redistribution of wealth by which people who didn’t pay taxes get money. And to call it a “tax cut” is akin to relabeling “communism” as “capitalism” because the word “communism” is out of favor and deliberately lying is a good way to sell failed policies.

    Your number 7 is merely a statement that the disparity between rich and poor have increased. And that’s a crisis if and only if you accept the Marxist notion that wealth is represented by a pie, and that the size of the pie can’t be increased. But in point of fact we can make lots of pies.

    Some of the things that I’ve demonstrated in my tax cut article, and in my comments to you, are that tax cuts actually have the ability to encourage the rich to pay a larger percentage of the taxes. And the poor to pay a smaller percentage of taxes. How is that not good? And when liberals have used class warfare and Marxist redistributionism to “punish” the rich, the rich paid less and the poor paid more. How is that not bad?

    I am not someone who practices either tactic/mindset of Marxism. I don’t CARE if the rich get richer. All I want is for the poor to have the jobs that will allow them to climb up in their own wealth and dignity if the government will quit trying to confiscate the rich’s money and allow them to be rewarded for investing and creating jobs.

    And I just fail to understand how punishing the rich into sheltering their money is supposed to help the poor. It hurts the poor.

    For the record, I’ve had quite a few jobs in my life. And a poor person never gave me a single one of them.

  198. Michael Eden Says:

    Steven,

    I read Dauntless, and saw your response to him. Among other things, I note that you don’t consider his argument about the 21% interest that Reagan had to deal with that made financing the U.S. debt a catastrophically-expensive proposition, or how that would have artificially penalized his debt-to-GDP ratio. Because you faulted Reagan for that again in a subsequent post.

    That aside, you say,

    Certainly, tax rates affect economic behavior. Any intelligent person, liberal or conservative, knows this. Talk to your friend and see if he really understood your question.

    And then we have to ask whether liberals qualify as “intelligent.” Because most liberals DO refuse to understand this. The CBO, and most other government bureaucracies staffed mainly by liberals have an analysis that refuses to recognize that as tax rates increase, people’s (especially the rich’s) behavior changes.

    That’s why I began this article which you are commenting to by saying:

    We keep seeing the same liberal argument being played over and over again. As the mainstream media seek to make their case to the American people that the Bush tax cuts should expire, one of the primary strategies being employed is to claim that Republicans are refusing to “pay for” their extension of the tax cuts. And that therefore the Republicans will hike the deficit. The problem is that it’s a false premise, based on a static conception of human behavior that refuses to take into account the fact that people’s behavior changes depending upon how much of their money they are allowed to keep, and how much of their money is seized from them in taxation.

    As bizarre as it might seem, it is seen as perverse these days to suggest that allowing someone to keep more of the money he or she invests would stimulate people to take more risks by investing in businesses and products, and that such increased investment in business and products would in turn stimulate more economic growth. Common sense has become akin to rocket science these days.

    It’s like you literally helped me prove my point that liberalism is a form of mental illness, when you acknowledge something that “any intelligent person” would understand, but which liberals as a whole refuse to accept as a premise.

    When we see the CBO report that the Bush tax cuts would “cost” the government $700 billion over ten years, that is based on the mindset that the rich would NOT change their behavior, and so the government can increase the income tax percentage, and get the same percentage back in increased revenue.

    And, by the way, the same study concludes that the tax cut “costs” the government $3 TRILLION if given to the middle class. The assumption is that if the government increases our taxes by 10%, they will collect 10% more revenue, because nobody is smart enough to change their behavior in any way.

    Thank you for agreeing that liberals are stupid people who refuse to believe what “any intelligent person” would believe.

    I point out in another article that the government is not merely intrinsically Marxist, but literally views itself as god, by believing that allowing people to keep their own money that the people earned represents a “cost” to the government. And letting people keep their own money is no more a “cost” to the government than my letting my next door neighbor keep all his possessions is a “cost” to me.

    Now, you’re willing to make sense when you dismiss the notion that Clinton’s tax increases did not help the economy. I would go a step further and say that they HURT the economy, but that the economy following our victory in the Cold War was flying high enough that it could absorb what was clearly a negative thing.

    If I’m strong, I can withstand a certain amount of arsenic. But that doesn’t mean that I should increase my arsenic level in a sane world.

    But two things need to be mentioned about the Clinton years: 1) The Republicans who dominated Congress during the time when things were going so well forced cuts in capital gains and corporate taxes, which provided incentives for investment. And Obama is NOT going to do those things now. Which means you can’t compare Obama’s tax hikes to Clinton’s, because Clinton’s were not NEARLY as harmful as Obama’s will be. 2) The Republicans forced Clinton to apply the revenue from his tax cuts to the deficit. Which isn’t a dumb idea, of course. Which is another thing that Obama won’t do.

    The last thing I’ll point out is when you say:

    BTW, don’t be fooled by people going on about the government stealing from one group and giving to another. It is perfectly sane to set tax rates to “redistribute income” if it helps the overall economy. In either direction. My objection to the last 30 years redistribution toward the rich is not that I, or other liberals for that matter, hate the rich. It is simply that it has made our economy unstable.

    You are first factually wrong. Liberals actively demonize the rich, and refer to them as greedy people who are racist, who don’t care about poor people, and who came about their wealth illegitimately. Obama’s favorite theologian says, “You got to give back what you took.” Obama’s pastor for 23 years says “White folk’s greed drives a world in need.” So you are simply wrong.

    Second, you are expressing that you are a Marxist. You believe in the redistribution of wealth as a central economic tenant. You are not now and have never been a capitalist. You believe that Karl Marx, not Adam Smith, understands the pathway to economic success.

    And, again, you are factually wrong. Go back to Warren Harding, to Calvin Coolidge, and to Andrew Mellon.

    I quoted from New Deal or Raw Deal:

    “As secretary of the treasury, Mellon promoted, and Harding and Coolidge backed, a plan that eventually cut taxes on large incomes from 73 to 24 percent and on smaller incomes from 4 to 1/2 of 1 percent. These tax cuts helped produce an outpouring of economic development – from air conditioning to refrigerators to zippers, Scotch tape to radios and talking movies. Investors took more risks when they were allowed to keep more of their gains. President Coolidge, during his six years in office, averaged only 3.3 percent unemployment and 1 percent inflation – the lowest misery index of any president in the twentieth century.

    Furthermore, Mellon was also vindicated in his astonishing predictions that cutting taxes across the board would generate more revenue. In the early 1920s, when the highest tax rate was 73 percent, the total income tax revenue to the U.S. government was a little over $700 million. In 1928 and 1929, when the top tax rate was slashed to 25 and 24 percent, the total revenue topped the $1 billion mark. Also remarkable, as Table 3 indicates, is that the burden of paying these taxes fell increasingly upon the wealthy” (page 129-130).

    I cold have quoted from Amity Shlaes in The Forgotten Man.

    We had the highest standard of living we’ve ever had, and the poor had it the best, when we were employing the exact opposite economic approach you are embracing. And we can go to FDR and show that we had it the WORST we ever had when we were employing the economic system you are embracing.

    What was it FDR’s Treasury Secretary said?

    “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong… somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot!” – Henry Morganthau, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, May 1939

    In April 1939, unemployment was 20.7%

    At the very core of your philosophy is the belief – a religious belief, I would even say – that the government is inherently superior in seizing wealth from producers and distributing it to non-producers. Rather than understanding that government is almost inherently corrupt, and partisan, and ideological, and will give money to special interests rather than to the poor ten times out of ten, you have a total devotion to the hypothesis that Democrats care nothing about pork, or special interest, or using money for political patronage.

    And that is just false.

    FDR used money for political patronage to an amazing extent. I so wish you would read New Deal or Raw Deal to get the facts. And billions and billions of dollars were just pissed away. And the poor got nothing but empty promises.

    We will not have a thriving private sector until people who think like you are thinking are driven out of government. When we invite job creation – and reward the creators of jobs by allowing them to keep their profits instead of punishing them for creating jobs by confiscating their increase – we will be able to see once again that the private sector is the engine we need to feed. NOT the government.

    Right now the Post Office is broke. Do you know that they are protected by law from competition? Do you know that they gave those tasks to UPS, FED EX, etc., that were LEAST profitable to the Post Office, but that UPS and FED EX are now sailing profitability circles around the Post Office? While the Post Office can’t succeed even when holding on to – and having a government-imposed monopoly – on the things that were supposed to be the most profitable?

    But you simply can’t see that. You have this radical faith commitment that government will somehow do it better. No matter how wrong that belief is. Your “redistribute the wealth” mantra is like a gambler who could lose everything he’s got, but he still thinks he’s got a system that will work. But it doesn’t.

  199. Robbie Says:

    i must confess i have a liberal snitch a spy if you will and it seems you are all pushing the same crap – however the following are two new points within the last few weeks.

    wikipedia as a valid reference.

    (i see it as facebook with a topic! anybody out there in college and if so will your professors accept wikipedia as a source? and if so i would check and see if your credits are transferrable to another learning institution!)

    conservatives are angry, crazy and paranoid of (govt) (latter is new)

  200. Noir Says:

    Stephen H,

    I don`t do Wikipedia for obvious reasons. Anybody can add to that site and Robbie`s comments would be my own. Any garbage can be posted there till the liberal editors get there to clean up the posts. I forbade my son to research ANYTHING on wikiipedia.

    Elite class? LOL I am the daughter and grandaughter of immigrants, I worked my a** off to get where I am….and btw, I now live in Switzerland where I pay 18% as my tax rate. I droped my rate 30% when I moved in June of 2008.

    You dismiss my argument re Fannie and Freddie as a “talking point”. It is not that at all but nothing more than simple math. You cannot pay for something that you cannot afford.

    You want to talk about “your group” – what is the/your fascination of your group about segregating? As my truck driver father would say, “All men pull their pants on the same way”.

    What is an “OK life” is up to me to decide and not you.

    “Elite”, “your group”, “talking point”, my dear Stephen, why don`t you just admit who you are by being honest?

    You come through loud and clear despite your respectfulness!

    @Robbie – totally with you my brother!

  201. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    StevenH said:”However, I view the 1986 drop of tax rates as a drag on the long term economy, and probably did more harm than benefit after the first few years’ use as “stimulus.”

    How can you call it a drag? The most important economic statistic to me is the UNEMPLOYMENT RATE. In January 1983 the unemployment rate stood at 10.4% and started a downward trend until March 1989 at 5.0% into the GHW Bush admin. Now, what happens next, Steven? Those hires that have been added to payroll pay what, Steven? They pay Federal, State, and FICA taxes which translates into increase in revenue streams. Now that we have revenue streams increasing, what does Congress do? They SPEND. They have a insatiable desire to spend, spend, spend. While increase in revenue streams is a positive sign, they will spend and borrow regardless.
    2) StevenH said: “Why do you feel the rich are getting “soaked” with taxes? Their taxes are historically low.”
    Because they still carrying the heaviest tax burden. Just ask the IRS. http://www.irs.gov; it is all there. Remember we have a progressive income tax system. If Congress has the power to tax income, then EVERYBODY, even the “poor” should pay SOMETHING. THEY are the ones that are NOT paying their “fair share”.
    3)Tell me StevenH, why are democrats/liberals/ obsessed with everybody’s income? Income distribution? There are FAR more important things that government should be concerned about that how much the citizens earn. And we conservatives/Republicans are accused of being “control freaks?” I am trying to remain civil here, but it is hard to do when someone is obsessed with who makes what and how much of millions of workers.

    This report from the US Treasury is a few years old, but it gives you a reasonable idea. This is the most recent that I can find:
    http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/factsheetwhopaysmostindividualincometaxes.update.pdf

  202. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Btw, you can go back as far as the 1953 and see public debt statements/data and see interest rates for each month.

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/mspd.htm

  203. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Michael E: I meant to tell you this a while back, but I think a more accurate approach when computing debt as a percentage of GDP should be to back out the interest on the amount borrowed or principal, because interest distorts the true picture. I have been trying to find historical data that shows principal and interest broken down separately, but no luck yet.

  204. "when freedom shivers in the cold shadow of true peril it's always the patriots who first hear the call..." Says:

    @3:40 JFK exposing the very content of what Ann Coulter – conservative goddess has called the most magnificent article she has ever read.

    http://www.breitbart.tv/a-new-tea-party-anthem-never-gonna-stand-for-this/

  205. StevenH Says:

    Wow, Michael
    [responding to 3:27 post]
    I was enjoying the give and take on this board, and then you come back after accusing me of demagogic rhetoric and you question whether any liberal can be intelligent? Really? When did conservatives obtain the only access to the Tree of Knowledge?

    i am neither Marxist, Ultra-liberal, Socialist, Idiotic or any other pithy insult that too many far-right conservatives use to brand people who don’t buy completely in to their own brand of political or economic faith. I know you are intelligent even though I disagree with you and will probably always disagree with you on many points. Are you really in the habit of labeling anyone whose opinions vary from your own as stupid? I hope not. I still respect your perspective, and I will answer your post on the assumption that you have some actual interest in discussing the points you have raised.

    OK, sorry for the outburst. Had to get that out of my system.

    First of all, the statement you found so offensive as demagogic rhetoric was intended as the most innocent inoffensive statement imaginable. You may think I am being false, but I was actually surprised you took offense. i kind of thought the Republicans in Congress were proud of how they were pulling their troops together, speaking with one voice (with only an occasional dissenter) and preventing or stalling Obama from passing anything on his agenda. I even admired the political discipline of the whole affair, though I rather thought, for the country’s interests, Congressmen should be allowed to vote their conscience and not tow a party line. I thought they were falling in line with Limbaugh who wants Obama to fail and fail dramatically at everything he attempts. Really, truly, cross my heart, i was astounded and surprised that you were offended. i apologize, because offense was not my intent. Funny how perspective on such a simple matter can be so different.

    The whole discussion confuses me more because i never meant to bring it up in the first place. I mentioned “easy solutions” and you thought I meant that Reagan had an easy time passing legislation. I don’t care whether Obama or Reagan had an easier time of passing legislation and i don’t care to research the issue enough to argue it. I’ll give you this: Reagan had an easy-going grandfatherly personality that appealed to the public and as such he was better than Obama at getting his ideas into legislation. I’m not saying it was easier. I’m saying he did something better than Obama OK?

    The only point I want you to acknowledge, just as a matter of documentable fact, is that Obama did not have a filibuster proof Senate for 2 years. According to the records I found, and calculations I made, Democrats, along with the 2 independents they caucused with, had 60% of the vote for only about 6 months over 2009 and early 2010. If I am wrong, show me the reference and I’ll back off.

    Last thing about that subject is my own personal speculation that any party is less willing to compromise when they have more legislative control. Maybe Reagan compromised more with the Dem Congress, as Clinton did with the Rep Congress, because they both had to. Obama didn’t because the votes were so d@mn close with Dems only. Maybe that made the Dem positioins tougher for the Reps to accept and they just looked stubborn. I’m just speculating. No judgment here, i think either party generally takes the expedient route to get their legislation passed.

    Ok, one more, sorry. By easy solutions, I did not mean that Reagan’s task at taming the 1980 economy was easy. But the solutions he applied (lowering very high tax rates, and increasing deficit spending) are less practical and less politically palatable now as solutions for Obama because tax rates are already quite low and debt is much higher. That’s all.

    If you find any of the above offensive, then I’ll just shut up about it, because it’s not important to me anyway.

    [Deep sigh.] Are we done with that one?

    This is already long. I’ll continue in next post …

  206. StevenH Says:

    … continued reply to Michael’s 3:27 post

    Quote from my earlier post: But please consider that we had a very successful economy from end of WW2 until Reagan (with ups and downs, but generally good) even with upper tax rates at 90% and 70%.

    Michael: That was a comment absolutely without justification or reason.

    =====

    OK, here, at some expense of time and effort is some research to justify my statement.

    I didn’t think I had to justify the late 40′s, 50′s and 60′s. I thought it was generally agreed those were good economic years. The latter 70′s were partly crappy but I was just averaging them with the rest to handicap or lessen my own argument (so I wouldn’t be accused of cherry-picking years), … not to be controversial.

    Here is some averaged GDP data, based on inflation adjusted 2005 dollars derived from the usgovernmentspending.com site and averaged in my own spreadsheet. The same data should be available from other sources. I’ll send the spreadsheet if you want to check it, but i don’t think it is controversial and you should be able to reproduce it easily as long as you use inflation adjusted dollars.

    inflation adjusted annual GDP gain, averaged over 10 year period shown,
    along with highest marginal tax rate(s) for period (in time order)
    [Tax rates reference: taxfoundation.org]
    Year GDP Gain Tax Rates (from xxx1 to xxx0)
    1940-50: 5.96% 81%, 88%, 94%, 91%
    1950-60: 3.55% 91%, 92%, 91%
    1960-70: 4.22% 91%, 77%, 70%
    1970-80: 3.21% 70%
    1980-90: 3.27% 70%, 50%, 38.5%, 28%
    1990-00: 3.41% 31%, 39.6%
    2000-10: 1.58% 39.1%, 35%

    By the way, I didn’t pick 10 year periods for any nefarious reasons, it was just a convenient way to summarize. The possibly surprising thing here, is that the 70′s and 80′s had almost the same average GDP increase. If this seems suspicious, it’s not. 5 year averages would show the late 70′s had a small GDP downturn, but the early 70′s were strong. The 40′s were exceptionally strong, but I appreciate your observation that the American post-war economy was the only game in town and that uniquely explains that time period. After the unique 40′s, the 60′s were the strongest economic decade on the list in terms of inflation adjusted (aka “real”) GDP growth. Looking at these stats, i see that pre-Reagan decades with 70-91% upper tax rates had equal and even better growth (see the 60′s) than Reagan and post-Reagan decades with upper tax rates of 50% to 28% (as of 1982 and later). The 2000′s are, not surprisingly, the crappiest decade in the list. They include 2009 which had the largest GDP drop (-2.4%) since 1946. The 1 year downturn during Carter (1980) was only
    -0.27%. The 1982 downturn (invoked by monetary policy to halt inflation) was about -1.94%.

    I’m just making observations here, and I don’t pretend to know all the extenuating circumstances and explanations that might be appropriate to better understand these stats. Every decade has it’s own unique circumstances and i understand that. From a raw perspective however, if lower tax rates were the panacea sometimes described by the most adamant proponents, I would have expected the 80′s and 90′s with their low tax rates to have scored dramatically better than the 50′s and 60′s. As it is, the 80′s barely beat the 70′s and the 90′s still did not beat the 60′s. or the 50′s. I expected to see some benefit in these stats from the low tax rates, didn’t you? Are there some other long-term stats (on the order of 10 or 20 years) that would give a better perspective?

    StevenH

  207. StevenH Says:

    Trying for a better view of my table.

    Avg GDP increase; Tax rates (upper margin)
    1940-50: 5.96% 81%, 88%, 94%, 91%
    1950-60: 3.55% 91%, 92%, 91%
    1960-70: 4.22% 91%, 77%, 70%
    1970-80: 3.21% 70%
    1980-90: 3.27% 70%, 50%, 38.5%, 28%
    1990-00: 3.41% 31%, 39.6%
    2000-10: 1.58% 39.1%, 35%

  208. StevenH Says:

    Robbie and Noir,

    Regarding Wikipedia:
    This one is hardly worth the effort of argument.

    Suffice it to say that i find the paranoia about Wikipedia about as comprehensible as if someone said Hamlet was originally written in Klingon or if someone said the government is really run by aliens from Alpha Centauri.

    I have a 14 yr old son and one of his teachers does not like Wikipedia because it is “unreliable”. However, any website by Joe Friggin Anonymous is OK as a reference. Go figure.

  209. StevenH Says:

    Oh and Robbie,
    If the liberals are all spreading crap about conservatives being crazy and angry, maybe its because they are hearing more conservatives being paranoid about Wikipedia. [Don't take this too seriously, I'm having fun here.] I heard months ago that some dude was going to start a conservative Wiki because Wikipedia was too liberal. As I said before, “If the rest of the world is all to your left, maybe they aren’t the ones off-center.”

    ‘Nuff about that. Just to let you know though, I’m not the one who brought up the credibility or lack thereof, of Wikipedia, and I do try to come up with my own ideas. I’m not subscribing to whatever talking point newsletter your liberal “snitch” friend is privy to.

    StevenH

  210. StevenH Says:

    Noir,

    I was being a bit abrupt in my earlier post to you, but I see you have the grit to handle it. Never-the-less I’ll revert to a more courteous tone. I do wonder though what you think I need to admit that I am. I see myself as a concerned citizen, with ideas way more liberal than most on this site, but still way more conservative than many folks. [Try not to laugh.]

    As for the “elite” designator, I had no intent to imply that you have not worked hard for what income, wealth, and position you have obtained. But, frankly, if the upper 1% of the richest country on the planet aren’t elite, then who is? (I did not mean the label as an insult, but I seem to be unintentionally insulting many people today. Must be a liberal-conservative culture clash or something.) I think it must be like the label “rich” or “upper-class”. There is an implied snobbery in those labels I suppose, that makes everyone want to avoid them. “Rich” is always someone who makes a bit more than yourself, right? But I want to label …. I must …

    All right, it’s too much, I’ll have to admit it now. I have … the knack. i am an engineer. A spreadsheet-loving data-wonk. A died in the wool Dilbert-esque nerd. It’s so embarrassing, but there it is. And you know what engineers like to do, they classify, and label, and calculate. We can’t help it.

    So when i look at the lower and middle and upper parts of something, I call them lower, upper and middle and i divide them equally. By that measure, the lower class is the one third of people (or households, or tax units, depending on the data source available) , The middle class is the middle third and the upper class is the upper third. For the record, I am at about the 91st percentile of income (by tax unit or submitted tax form) which puts me in the upper half of the upper class. Surprising, because i always thought i was upper middle class. i look around my house and find it amazing that I am in the upper tenth of the income earners in the good old US. Maybe some would call me elite, and i suppose i would balk at the label too.

    But I digress.

    The point is that a graph ( I love graphs) of the rise of the upper 1% of incomes (about $400K plus in 2007) over the last century shows an amazing correlation. Every time it rises above a certain point the economy crashes. When it is in a different range and holding steady for thirty or forty years or so, we have a good stable economy. i think about this for awhile, come up with some theories why this might make sense, and then go online to check for other research. Other people are making some of the same speculations and have insights which build upon my own.

    This is not some wild-eyed liberal crusade I’m on, it’s a math puzzle. And embedded in the math is a warning that goes something like this: 1% of the population should not receive 23.5% of the total US income, or even 20% of the income and probably the optimum number is 15% or less. 9% may be too low, based on the decade of the 70′s. My guess is the sweet spot is 11-14%. That’s the compressed version of my arguments, and maybe now that you know “what i am” maybe you won’t be so paranoid about my agenda.

    Or maybe you’ll whack me with your “fists of death”. (reference to Dilbert cartoon, in case you’re not a fan). Your choice.

    Respectfully as always,
    StevenH

    PS How’s the weather in Switzerland? Hope it’s nice.

  211. StevenH Says:

    Michael, I’ll get back to your other points, but it’s late and I’m tired. Don’t worry, I won’t forget about you. Might be Wed or Thur before i make it back though.
    StevenH

  212. Michael Eden Says:

    Beautiful quote, Mr. “when freedom shivers in the cold shadow of true peril it’s always the patriots who first hear the call…”

    It’s on the site I linked to in the article, but I didn’t quote it directly. Here it is:

    “A bill will be presented to the Congress for action next year. It will include an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in both corporate and personal income taxes. It will include long-needed tax reform that logic and equity demand … The billions of dollars this bill will place in the hands of the consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits to our economy. Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy.”

    – John F. Kennedy, Aug. 13, 1962, radio and television report on the state of the national economy

    Too bad today’s Democrats utterly despise John F. Kennedy.

    It’s a shame what Democrats have become. A crime, even.

  213. StevenH Says:

    Michael,
    Ok I’m still awake.

    Why do you pretend to know what liberals or Democrats think when you ignore everything they actually say?

    “today’s Democrat’s utterly despise John F. Kennedy.”
    “It’s like you literally helped me prove my point that liberalism is a form of mental illness, when you acknowledge something that “any intelligent person” would understand, but which liberals as a whole refuse to accept as a premise.”

    Talk about sheer demagogic rhetoric!

    Kennedy reduced taxes from 91% to 70% and the economy improved. In fact it did very well. Extremely well. WITH THE UPPER TAX RATE AT 70%!!!
    Reagan lowered taxes from 70% to 50% and it seemed to boost the economy, just like any tax cut will TEMPORARILY boost the economy (same as any other stimulus) but it’s hard to tell how much it helped because deficit spending also boosted the economy. Every tax cut since then has been accompanied by massive deficit spending, and the decade of the last tax cuts was the worst economy since the Great Depression. Tell me again how those Bush2 tax cuts help to prove your case. By the way remember that tax revenues almost always go up. If I stand below a rising balloon and every time i blink my eyes, the balloon goes up, does that prove that blinking my eyes makes the balloon go up?

    I’ll be more polite next post if you will.

    Good night,
    StevenH

  214. Noir Says:

    Stephen H,

    I wouldn`t know how the weather is in Switzerland at the moment. I`m not there, I`m off living my elite life in some place warm at the moment. Might want to check your precious Wikipedia for the weather in Switzerland. (Gaaa….just writing that ” pedia” name makes me feel dirty all over.)

    Stephen, have you ever considered that you might have an issue with being passive-aggressive? I do mean that sincerely and with all respectfulness. But a quick look at the tone of your posts belies what you claim about your intent.

    Perhaps that`s the reason you are more comfortable around graphs? You know being so mathematical as you are.

    You want correlation? I`ll give you correlation! LOL, let us begin with something not exactly considered higher math. The age-old concept of the plus (+) and minus column (-).

    When the (-) column is greater than the (+) column you will have more outflow than inflow. If you try to fix that problem by doing more of the same, (and only liberals could try to give us that with a straight face!)you will go bankrupt. At the point of desperation, you will then have to “loot” from those that worked and saved and are trying to eek out a little “pursuit of happiness” for themselves.

    Graph that my friend.

  215. Michael Eden Says:

    Steven,

    I don’t know how to say this, but I’m not overly concerned if you’re not “polite.” I’m more interested in the facts, and getting to the truth.

    In your last comment you went after my remark -

    “today’s Democrat’s utterly despise John F. Kennedy.”

    - for disapproval. How could I be so mean, you asked.

    Very well, Steven. Please provide me the list of elected Democrats who affirm this statement from JFK:

    “Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy.”

    Is it your contention that Nancy Pelosi, elected by Democrats as the Speaker of the House of Representatives, affirms this statement, that “every dollar released from taxation … will help create a new job and a new salary.”

    What is your evidence that I am wrong, and the woman who represents every Democrat in the House affirms this statement?

    Is it your contention that Harry Reid, elected by Democrats to represent the majority of Democrats in the Senate, affirms this statement? And what is your specific evidence that Harry Reid wants to release dollars from taxes and put them in the hands of the private sector?

    I would very much like to hear that. Don’t tell me I’m not polite; explain how I am wrong by showing me that the Democrat leadership affirms the Kennedy position that I argue they despise.

    Now in a previous post, you complain:

    I was enjoying the give and take on this board, and then you come back after accusing me of demagogic rhetoric and you question whether any liberal can be intelligent? Really? When did conservatives obtain the only access to the Tree of Knowledge?

    I don’t argue that Republicans are smart; I merely point out the FACT that Democrats are dumb.

    You are, of course, referring to my comment in which I completely agreed with you that “any intelligent person” knows that tax rates affect economic behavior.

    I hope people go back to that, because it came in the context of pointing out that very few Democrats and even fewer liberals affirmed or agreed with the very thing you yourself said that “any intelligent person knows.”

    So I’m just agreeing with you – and taking your point to its logical conclusion:
    1) Any intelligent person” knows that tax rates affect economic behavior
    2) Democrats actually say that isn’t true at all.
    3) Ergo, Democrats are not intelligent.

    Is there something wrong with my syllogism? Are you claiming that you can find me a statement by the woman chosen to represent Democrats in the House of Representatives or the man chosen to represent Senate Democrats that an increase in taxes on the rich will cause them to change their behavior such that they will not collect the tax revenues which the liberal-created static model of taxation (which does NOT take human behavior into account when higher tax rates are imposed) says they will collect?

    Cause I’d really like to see where these two acknowledge this, such that my statement is wrong. Otherwise, barring your evidence, I am entirely correct based on your own statement about “any intelligent person” that Democrats are stupid people.

    I mean, I was just agreeing with you, is all.

    As for your talking about Kennedy’s tax cuts,
    1) You seem to forget that this is a proof for me, not for you. Tax rates were cut, and revenues were increased. EXACTLY AS I AM SAYING. When you say, “Kennedy reduced taxes from 91% to 70% and the economy improved,” YOU ARE PROVING MY POINT FOR ME. So it seems rather crazy to me that you are acting like the rates somehow prove your case, when they in fact disprove it. For what it’s worth, Kennedy (“Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary”) wanted much lower rates, but these were the best he could get. And I imagine that JFK would agree with me that if he could have passed lower tax rates through Congress, the economy would have improved EVEN MORE.

    2) When Kennedy reduced the tax rate from 90% to 70%, he got some improvement – as you acknowledge. Why did he get some improvement? BECAUSE TAX CUTS INCREASE REVENUES; THEY HAVE ALWAYS INCREASED REVENUES. Just like I’ve been saying all along. Do you seriously think you somehow refuted my argument? And when Reagan lowered taxes from 70% to 50% (in 1981), it – in your words – “seemed to boost the economy.” Why did he get that boost? BECAUSE TAX CUTS INCREASE REVENUES; THEY HAVE ALWAYS INCREASED REVENUES. Just like I’ve been saying all along. But the real blast off point for Reagan – as the chart I posted shows – came after Reagan was able to drop the rate from 50% to 28%. He got MASSIVE revenue increases then. And why did he get those massive increases? BECAUSE TAX CUTS INCREASE REVENUES; THEY HAVE ALWAYS INCREASED REVENUES. Just like I’ve been saying all along.

    Is there a way I could BE more right? And I’ve got you on the record now admitting it (“and the economy improved,” “and it seemed to boost the economy”).

    Then you get kind of dumb again. You say, “Tell me again how those Bush2 tax cuts help to prove your case.”

    Well, shoot, how about if I just let the New York Times do it FOR me????

    Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit
    By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
    Published: July 13, 2005

    WASHINGTON, July 12 – For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

    A Jump in Corporate Payments On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.

    Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.

    Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.

    The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be “significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion.”

    The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well.

    THAT is how “those Bush2 tax cuts help to prove my case,” Steven.

    And why did Bush get a leap in tax revenues? BECAUSE TAX CUTS INCREASE REVENUES; THEY HAVE ALWAYS INCREASED REVENUES. Just like I’ve been saying all along.

    So I’ve got what – at least four separate income tax cuts from three different presidents – and I’m four for four. PLUS you still haven’t considered the tax cuts passed in the Harding and Coolidge presidencies, which prove my case even more.

    I’ve got a big problem with you: I can’t be right more than the 100% of the time that I can show that I’ve been right. But my being right 100% of the time over a century doesn’t seem to matter to you.

    You say, “Every tax cut since then has been accompanied by massive deficit spending.” Because this simple concept is like – as I said in the intro to this article – rocket science to you. It seems to be your understanding that if you have a minimum wage job, but live in your parents’ basement and drive a 75 Pinto, and have no debt, that you actually earn a higher salary than if you were to have a million dollar a year job but spent a lot of money and have debts.

    It’s the same thing. If you are earning higher revenues from tax cuts – as I have conclusively proven you do – then you are making more money. And the obvious answer to anyone who has at least two functioning braincells is to reduce spending, not to make less money by having higher tax rates. How is it that can’t understand this?

    Maybe, just maybe, if Democrats hadn’t passed $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities- not including the horror that ObamaCare will be – our balance sheet would look better.

    So your conclusion is to put the Democrats in charge so that they will jack up the tax rates – so we collect less revenue – and then on the other side spend more than Republicans ever dreamed of spending. Take in less money, but spend more.

    As for your complaint that you’re not a Marxist, you are on record now standing firmly behind the redistribution of wealth. That is Marxism, whether you like the word or not. And the fact that you are bent on denying reality doesn’t mean that I’m going to help you deny reality.

    “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” As I point out in this article, that is redistribution of wealth. It is spreading the wealth around. And the “to” in the middle refers to the seizing of wealth from one group the government disfavors and giving it to another group that government favors. That is the redistribution of wealth, and it is class warfare. It is Marxism.

    If you explain to me how someone who firmly believes that “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” would NOT redistribute wealth, I will quit calling you a Marxist.

    But I have a feeling that instead of Jan Brady saying “Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!” it will be Michael Eden saying “Marxist, Marxist, Marxist!”

  216. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    StevenH said:
    ” Avg GDP increase; Tax rates (upper margin)
    1940-50: 5.96% 81%, 88%, 94%, 91%
    1950-60: 3.55% 91%, 92%, 91%
    1960-70: 4.22% 91%, 77%, 70%
    1970-80: 3.21% 70%
    1980-90: 3.27% 70%, 50%, 38.5%, 28%
    1990-00: 3.41% 31%, 39.6%
    2000-10: 1.58% 39.1%, 35%”

    I assuming your data is correct, but you did not address the “why” did this happen. I would argue that the reason the GDP decreased is because the USA has shifted from manufacturing based economy to a service based economy. I would also argue that manufactoring based economy creates more jobs that a service based economy can. Despite the lower tax rates since the 40s, it is still insanely high. Large manufacturers have a huge supply chain they work with, outside contractors/consultants, etc. Next, other economic factors are not factored into your data such as population growth, price of a barrel of crude oil or energy, to name a few. Public corporations are double taxed; the stockholders are taxed on their capital gains and the corp income tax return. That is where you real drag is at.

  217. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    “Manufacturing is not the total answer to a declining middle class; but for every eight manufacturing jobs created, six other jobs are created in the economy.”

    http://www.mbtmag.com/Content.aspx?id=916

  218. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Another factor to consider is NAFTA. In the 40s, the USA was heavy agrarian and manufacturing based economy, somewhat isolationist. It is just the opposite now.

    The high price of ‘free’ trade
    http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/briefingpapers_bp147/

  219. "when freedom shivers in the cold shadow of true peril it's always the patriots who first hear the call..." Says:

    I like how liberals are completely oblivious to disconnect in their thinking/discussion.

    If I was Steven H I would be concerned about my friends and family seeking a conservatorship.

    Reread the give and take a few times and most would come to the conclusion that this SH belongs in a mental institution or under some sort of counseling.

    Really how do you go buy a simple cup of coffee in the AM Steven?

    Or Steven H you are EXTREMELY disengenuous! (sophist!)

  220. StevenH Says:

    Noir,

    Real quick. Thanks for you concern about me, but be concerned about michael, too. He was the one who got all weepy when i inadvertently slighted Uncle Ron, and then promptly turned around and attacked all liberals as idiots and mentally diseased.

    Michael,

    i have been respectful in this forum, and you don’t have to worry about hurting my feelings … heck, its the web … but i abhor the two-faced attitude exhibited when someone requests respectful dialogue without returning the favor. i am here for a dialogue, a give-and-take of ideas. I expect some stubbornness and disagreement and the rise of adrenalin because that is part of arguing, and i also hope to learn something and maybe even provide some useful tidbits of knowledge for you to chew on. When you turn to juvenile name-calling, it just tells me your ideas probably don’t stand up to real scrutiny.

    When I return, after reading through the USEFUL comments left in the thread. i will post some USEFUL comments in return.

    StevenH

  221. Robbie Says:

    yep you are a sophist i know its true cause i looked it up on wikipedia!

  222. StevenH Says:

    Noir,

    You said: “When the (-) column is greater than the (+) column you will have more outflow than inflow. If you try to fix that problem by doing more of the same, (and only liberals could try to give us that with a straight face!)you will go bankrupt.”

    In other words, if you do the same thing, you will get the same result. As in “if you put the Republicans in control one more time, they will cut taxes again, they will cut social programs when they can get away with it, they will claim that cutting taxes will increase revenue, but meanwhile there will be a deficit, and the increased revenue will never quite cover the government spending, and when the economy is boosted (as sudden increases in deficit spending always boost the economy, they have always boosted the economy) they will refuse to raise taxes back to a level that will fund the government, and they will wait til the next downturn, which is inevitable to happen very soon because the middle class, the real engine of the economy, is getting less and less able to support themselves and the economy, and the elite 1% have all of the money, but none of the actual labor as engine power to keep the economy moving, so thy will push, once again THE SOLUTION, the only solution they have to every problem, and that is to cut taxes, because you know, taxes can never be low enough.” I’d say that would be like last time, and the time before that. And the time before that. More of the same, which in your very words, is what we should NOT be doing. because as you so astutely observed, if you do the same thing, you get the same result. I think you pretty much said that if we put Republicans in control one more time, we will go bankrupt. I couldn’t agree more.

    StevenH

  223. StevenH Says:

    Michael, i am disappointed in you on three simple points, side-issues really, not important to the meat of this economic discussion, but they illustrate how false and disingenuous you can be and have been at your worst. (1) What evidence do you have that “Democrats believe tax rates don’t affect behavior.” None, because it not any kind of tenet of liberal or democratic thought. It’s your imagination of what Democrats believe. It is perhaps your extrapolation of how models (such as used by the CBO, a non-partisan organization by the way) may sometimes simplify prediction problems by ignoring the human reaction to policy changes . Why would they do that? Because the degree to which people react is not easily predictable. Will some people hide their money if taxes go up? Yes. How many? how much of their money? What is the impact? Less certain. And I don’t know but what some of this is factored into some of the modeling. And I’m pretty sure you don’t know either. So you can blather on about how only Republicans are smart, but it really just makes you look like the exception to that “rule”. (2) Bush’s economy crashes, and unemployment goes up to 8.9% before a stimulus bill can be passed, and you want to claim it has failed because at some point, i won’t even bother to look up when, Obama predicted the stimulus would help keep unemployment below 8%. Really. This is your great proof. Because Obama can’t invent time machines and apply the stimulus funding before it was passed? What you quote is just a babbling talking point, completely disingenuous, and you bloody well know it. Yes you do. I don’t care how many quotes you dredge up of people buying into that nonsense. Don’t waste my time or yours defending such utter nonsense. (3) You say that the stimulus did not cut taxes, because you want to play pedantic word games about whether it is a cut for this person or a credit for that person. But then you say

    “What Obama and the Democrats in Congress propose is NOT a “tax cut.” And it is nothing but a lie to call it that. And every single journalist who has suggested that it is a tax cut is as much of a liar as the Democrats are.”

    So you go from saying that, because the tax cut that is implemented as a credit is sometimes technically, by your definition (not theirs), not a tax cut, then it is never a tax cut. By your own standards and definitions you are in fact the liar. It IS a tax cut for me by any definition because it caused me to pay less taxes, and presumably you got a tax cut too (unless you paid no taxes). But you say that it is not a tax cut for me, just because some other person gets it as a credit without paying a tax. Liar. You said it not me. Well, OK i also said it. But you said it first.

    Lastly, any credible economist will tell you that the stimulus helped the economy, because a stimulus always helps the economy, it has always helped the economy. The most credible accounts i have seen indicate that the difference in unemployment was at least 2% points better now than what it would have been. GDP is better than it would have been too, I’m not looking up how much, because you won’t believe it anyway, because in your imagination world there were no tax cuts in the stimulus (even though there were) and only the almighty tax cuts can save us all.

    StevenH

  224. Noir Says:

    Ok Stephen. You have shown yourself for the troll that you are. I think we are done here.

  225. Robbie Says:

    gates, buffet, and bloomberg these liberal billionaires really crack me up!

    found on ann c website:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882404575520241519315372.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion

  226. Michael Eden Says:

    Steven,

    You ask and answer:

    “What evidence do you have that “Democrats believe tax rates don’t affect behavior.” None.

    Only, you are entirely wrong.

    Now, first of all, you didn’t take my challenge and show me JUST ONE TIME where the Democrat leadership has explained that they do understand that if they tax the rich, the rich will change their behavior in a way that will undermine tax collection and undermine the economy. Unlike me, as a conservative, who can offer all kinds of evidence that Republicans understand that simple truth, you have absolutely nothing. That’s one.

    I offered you a challenge, you failed to meet it. It took me about ten seconds to find this from Mitch Mcconnell:

    Obama said Sept. 8 that the country can’t afford to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because of the deficit. Proponents of keeping the lower rates for all income levels such as Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky have said raising taxes will slow job creation and limit consumer spending. A BMW Z4 Roadster convertible, for example, has a starting price of $46,000, according to the website of the manufacturer, Bayerische Motoren Werke AG.

    In other words, Steven, if you raise the rich’s taxes, they will CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR from creating jobs and spending to NOT creating jobs and spending.

    Second, I most certainly CAN show that Democrats have never learned this basic fact. I just recently wrote an entire article about Democrats – yes, Steven, STUPID Democrats – refusing to understand the very point you yourself said “any intelligent person” would understand. And that article documents the pain Democrats are inflicting on entire states with their refusal to be “intelligent people.”

    Here is a classic case of Democrats viscerally refusing to understand common sense and basic intelligence:

    Starting in 1991, Washington levied a 10% luxury tax on cars valued above $30,000, boats above $100,000, jewelry and furs above $10,000 and private planes above $250,000. Democrats like Ted Kennedy and then-Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell crowed publicly about how the rich would finally be paying their fair share and privately about convincing President George H.W. Bush to renounce his “no new taxes” pledge.

    But it wasn’t long before even these die-hard class warriors noticed they’d badly missed their mark. The taxes took in $97 million less in their first year than had been projected — for the simple reason that people were buying a lot fewer of these goods. Boat building, a key industry in Messrs. Mitchell and Kennedy’s home states of Maine and Massachusetts, was particularly hard hit. Yacht retailers reported a 77% drop in sales that year, while boat builders estimated layoffs at 25,000. With bipartisan support, all but the car tax was repealed in 1993, and in 1996 Congress voted to phase that out too. January 1 was disappearance day.

    Here’s more on that massive stupidity to understand that taxing the rich will cause the rich to CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR – AND HOW THAT CHANGE IN THE RICH’S BEHAVIOR WOULD HURT THE LOWER CLASSES:

    The tax had been aimed at the small number of Americans rich enough to afford the kind of boats Ms. Ott helps assemble in an area where boat building offers the only year-round jobs outside of those available at the Atlantic City casinos, about 15 miles south. Hurting ‘Working People’

    “You had to be an ignoramus to believe the luxury tax was only going to soak the rich,” Ms. Ott said as she brushed a sealer on the door of a passageway aboard a 50-foot fat-beamed boat nearing completion after three months of fabrication. “The only people it hurt was working people like myself,” she said, slapping the sealer against the wood paneling in short, angry strokes.

    A single parent with three children, Ms. Ott survived on unemployment benefits of $287 a week for the nearly two years she was without a job. At the same time, her former husband could not pay child support, she said, because the recession killed the small business he ran.

    Do you hear Ms. Ott, Steven? Democrats are ignoramuses. Stupid ignoramuses who hurt people with their stupid policies.

    And now here the Democrats are repeating the exact same stupid mistake all over again, only this time on a vastly more stupid scale.

    So as has been the case, you are factually wrong. The Democrats CONTINUE to fail to understand that if they hike taxes on the rich, they will change their behavior. They will shelter their money. They will buy tax exempt bonds, they will send their money overseas, they will buy collectibles. And they WILL NOT pay the higher taxes, or invest, or create jobs. In other words, Democrats as a whole are pathologically stupid people.

    Second, the CBO Is NOT “non-partisan.” They have been using unrealistic liberal assumptions to calculate their stupid always wrong calculations since they were created. They are a bunch of big government union bureaucrats, just like most of the other agencies stuffed full of big government union bureaucrats. But I’ll get into that another day.

    Next, you claim:

    Bush’s economy crashes, and unemployment goes up to 8.9% before a stimulus bill can be passed

    Bullcrap. Just bullcrap. The stimulus was passed on February 13, 2009.

    Unemployment reached 8.1% in February

    Which is nearly a full point below what you claim.

    You are factually wrong. Again. Unemployment did not reach 8.9% until two months AFTER Congress passed the stimulus. And I have more than lost my patience with you.

    Do people like you ever get tired of being wrong? I mean, because if I were you, I’d be really tired with it, and I’d try really hard to be right at least once in a while.

    You whine, “and you want to claim it has failed because at some point.” Damn it, how many times were you dropped on your head as a baby? THE STIMULUS FAILED BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S VERY OWN METRIC. It was the Obama administration that made that claim that they could keep unemployment under 8%. In a previous comment I cited the quite liberal sources that reported this fact. Now you are essentially bitching about the FACT that Obama was proven to be a complete failure so quickly and so completely that it stuns even liberal diehards like you. You literally think that the FACT that Obama was utterly, totally, completely wrong right from the very outset of his policy should somehow count as an excuse. That has simply got to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

    Next, in addition to be a pathetic whiner, you go on the attack and claim I’m a liar. But it’s only because you are – as usual at this point – too ignorant to understand basic distinctions.

    The Making Work Tax Credit is by the very definition of the title of the damn thing a tax CREDIT. The kind of “tax cuts” you are conflating have nothing to do with whether someone even FILES INCOME TAXES.

    Here’s the basic distinction between a TAX CUT and a TAX CREDIT. If you cut someone’s taxes, that person pays less in taxes, and it doesn’t cost anyone else anything. But regarding your TAX CREDIT, you get more money back from the government that you never gave them in the first place – goody for you – but IT CAME OUT OF AN ACTUAL TAXPAYER’S POCKET. The government redistributed the wealth to give you your “tax credit.” And you choose to call it a “tax cut” only because you are completely fine with seizing someone else’s hard-earned money and putting it in your own pocket.

    So the problem isn’t with me being a liar, it is with you being just too damn ignorant to understand the most trivial of distinctions. Your definition of “tax cuts” leaves open the mathematically-impossible situation of a person who pays no taxes at all receiving a “tax cuts.” And I challenged you before to explain to me how you can “cut” zero. Rather, there are people who are paying no federal taxes whatsoever – not even SSI taxes because they don’t have a job – who are receiving tax credits. 47% of Americans are getting “tax credits” because SOMEBODY ELSE TOOK THE HIT IN THE FORM OF HIGH TAXES ON THEM. And it is frankly asinine for you to call that a “tax cut.”

    I’ll try to make it even simpler, know how hard it is for you to understand these concepts: A tax cut is when a person’s income tax rate is reduced, so he or she pays less in taxes. A tax credit is when the government takes money from one person and hands it out to another person.

    It’s too bad you lack the intelligence to understand terms like “circular reasoning,” because you are its POSTER BOY, given the following statement:

    Lastly, any credible economist will tell you that the stimulus helped the economy, because a stimulus always helps the economy, it has always helped the economy.

    And any credible expert will tell you that I am always right and you are always wrong, because I am always wright and you are always wrong, and I have always always been right and you have always always been wrong. So how on earth could I possibly be wrong now?

    And, of course, you have defined “credible economists” to count ONLY those economists who must necessarily arrive at your preordained conclusion. So economic policy experts such as Brian Riedl – who wrote, “Why Government Spending Does Not Stimulate Economic Growth: Answering the Critics,” can’t be a credible economist.

    But Brian Riedl is far from alone. He’s joined by another financial expert who wrote, “The ‘Stimulus’ Actually Raised Unemployment,“ which I provide in an article of my own.

    And then there is “Why Our Unemployment Rate Is So Much Higher Than Others” by economist John Lott

    But then comes the avalanche of economists who prove that you again are spewing out bullcrap.

    President Obama and many of his propagandists have repeatedly stated that “economists from across the political spectrum agree” on the need for massive government spending to stimulate the economy. In fact, many economists disagree. Hundreds of them, in fact, including Nobel laureates and other prominent scholars, who signed a statement that the Cato Institute placed in major newspapers across the United States. And since that ad came out, many more economists have come on board to oppose the Obama stimulus. Here’s the statement and the list of signers.

    That’s right. StevenH is the type of standard issue liberal imbecile who says that hundreds of highly competent economists aren’t “credible” because they don’t live in a bubble of circular thinking like he does.

  227. Michael Eden Says:

    Referring to your comment:

    i have been respectful in this forum, and you don’t have to worry about hurting my feelings … heck, its the web … but i abhor the two-faced attitude exhibited when someone requests respectful dialogue without returning the favor. i am here for a dialogue, a give-and-take of ideas

    However, you also proceed to say:

    So you go from saying that, because the tax cut that is implemented as a credit is sometimes technically, by your definition (not theirs), not a tax cut, then it is never a tax cut. By your own standards and definitions you are in fact the liar.

    So you might want to go back to your hole and rethink that “two-faced” thing. Maybe when you look in a mirror, only one of your faces is visible to you?

    I don’t just run around calling Democrats stupid. I document factually how they are stupid, and THEN I call them stupid.

    One of my pet peeves is somebody who uses rhetorical judo to cast themselves as the victim. And it’s amazing how often liberals try to do this – even after they’ve thrown out all sorts of invective themselves.

    Somehow liberals seem to think that if they can just cast themselves as the victim in a debate, their stupid arguments somehow magically become true.

    You have also presented some very foolish arguments. And foolish arguments quickly become annoying. And on top of that, you have made a number of claims which are simply factually false, to go along with making arguments (such as your point about Democrats being nice and reasonable, versus Republicans who are mean and stonewalling) that simply have no place in the kind of discussion you have claimed you wanted to have.

    Someone made the observation that you seem very “passive aggressive.” I think that boot fits your foot.

    So let me just say, “Wah.”

  228. Michael Eden Says:

    Robbie,

    Good article (how could it not coming from Art Laffer?).

    It’s amazing how multi-billionaires think that people who make a couple hundred grand a year can afford to pay huge tax increases.

    Especially when the very same multi-millionaires who think people who make $200 thou can pay those taxes then proceed to do everything they can to shelter their money (like JOHN KERRY).

  229. Michael Eden Says:

    Steven,

    You say this:

    In other words, if you do the same thing, you will get the same result. As in “if you put the Republicans in control one more time, they will cut taxes again, they will cut social programs when they can get away with it, they will claim that cutting taxes will increase revenue, but meanwhile there will be a deficit

    Kind of funny, coming from a guy who thinks the party that has given us trillion-dollar budgets as far as the eye can see.

    The LAST TIME Republicans ran Congress, they passed the FY2007 budget which had a deficit of $160 billion.

    The VERY NEXT YEAR, Democrats passed their FY2008 budget which featured a deficit of $459 billion – nearly three times the last Republican deficit.

    Last year, Democrats passed a budget with a $1.6 TRILLION deficit – ten times the deficit of the party you mock for having deficits.

    In the 12 years that Republicans controlled the House, the average deficit was $104 billion (average of final deficit/surplus FY1996-FY2007 data taken from Table F-1 below). In just 3 years under Democrats, the average deficit is now almost $1.1 trillion (average of final deficit/surplus FY2008 and 2009 data taken from Table F-1; FY2010 data taken from Table 1-3). Source: CBO January 2010 Budget and Economic Outlook

    The old annual deficits under Republicans have now become the monthly deficits under Democrats.

    So I just don’t know where your arrogant smack-talk comes from. It clearly doesn’t come from reality.

    You make a gigantic assumption that is truly breathtakingly stupid: you believe that we conservatives want a government that spends as massively as you liberals spend.

    You blame us for cutting taxes – which I have conclusively demonstrated for you increases government revenues. And then you proceed to blame Republicans for the $200 trillion black hole of unfunded liabilities that Democrats have imposed – even though Republicans opposed those massive social spending programs and warned that they would one day destroy our way of life.

    Please understand: we want to CUT spending. In fact, we want to GUT spending.

    Tell me that you will stand with those of us who would remove every single federal spending program that can’t be directly traced to the Constitution, and I’ll stop laughing my ass off at you for accusing conservatives of any conceivable problem we have with deficits.

    This will shock you silly, but somehow the United States of America managed to survive without any permanent federal income tax until 1913.

    Somehow – and frankly in a manner that fundamentally refutes everything you argue – this country managed to survive for close to 150 years without the redistribution of wealth.

  230. StevenH Says:

    Well Michael, just when I was ready to give up on you, you come back and spend a lot of time responding to me and show that you really care about the issues after all. I know you are getting frustrated with me and I with you. We can’t seem to agree on some basics so I’ll try instead to see if I can at least summarize what each of our perspectives are, and you can tell me if I’ve got that much right.

    This is in no particular order and i am easing in with the minor issues first.

    1) Stimulus and unemployment rate:
    (a) I say that you cannot judge the success of the stimulus (or any legislation) based on it’s failure to prevent something that has already happened by the time the legislation passed.
    (b) You say the stimulus is proven a failure by the fact that it failed to achieve a goal (less than 8% unemployment) that it’s proponents predicted it could achieve.

    [BTW, both of our sources were wrong about the number. According to Bureau of Labor, unemployment was 8.2% in Feb 2009, not 8.1 or 8.9. In all cases it was already above 8%.]

    2) Stimulus Bill and tax cuts
    (a) I say that the stimulus includes tax cuts because the provisions in the bill have reduced taxes on most taxpayers.
    (b) You say that it is wrong to describe the stimulus as containing tax cuts because the changes are (mostly) credits which are allowed to be “refundable”; i.e. they can sometimes be refunded to households that did not pay an income tax.

    3) 95% of Americans vs. tax cut
    (a) I say that when Obama claims the Stimulus Bill provides a tax cut for 95% of Americans, he is using imprecise language in the same typical way that most politicians do use language in a speech. The statement is true in spirit and actually communicates the idea better to a general audience than more tedious precise language like a “tax benefit” or “a tax cut or credit depending on your household monetary situation.”
    (b) You say that Obama lies by claiming that the Stimulus bill gives 95% of Americans a tax cut, because a significant portion of American households do not pay tax and therefore cannot get a tax cut.

    4) Short and long-term impact of lowering taxes
    (a) I say that abruptly lowering taxes will produce a kick to the economy that can help reverse a downward trend or accelerate an upward trend, but that this is little different than other stimulus such as deficit spending, and that the overall long-term benefit to the measurable economy (e.g GDP gains) of retaining those tax cuts is minimal.
    (b) You claim that lowering taxes provides short-term, but also permanent long-term benefits to the economy, including increased government revenue.

    5) When to lower taxes
    (a) I say that lowering taxes was effective for Kennedy and Reagan when they lowered them from 91 to 70 and then to 50%, but that as the upper marginal tax rates get lower and lower, there is less and less benefit. The short term-boost has to now be supplemented with deficit spending in order to get the desired effect on the economy.
    (b) You say that we have not yet reached the optimal low tax rate, and that cutting upper tax rates even lower will continue to pay for themselves.

    6) When to raise taxes
    (a) I say that you have to raise taxes sometime (and probably now) because i believe we are way to the left of the Laffer peak, and also because the Laffer peak probably moves to different optimal levels in different economies.
    (b) You say we should never have to raise taxes. We just lower them to an optimal level and leave them there.

    7) Impact of raising taxes.
    (a) I say that gradual increases in broad-based taxes like income tax will allow the government to increase revenue, while minimizing the pain of those increases, and still minimize negative reaction (income-shielding) to an acceptable level. [not ignoring or eliminating, but minimizing].
    (b) You say that any measurable increase in taxes on high-earners will instantly cause them to change behavior so dramatically that the government will see no benefit, and the economy will instead be harmed.

    That’s enough for now. How did I do on stating your opinions?

    StevenH

  231. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    StevenH: The only tax cut in HR1 is this: “Rescinds taxes on up to $2,400 of unemployment benefits (Division B, Sec. 1007)”
    The rest is “tax credits”. Tax rate cut and tax credit are entirely different.

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1&tab=summary

    You still have not quantifiably demonstrated how deficit spending gets people back to work and increases revenues. I have demonstrated here:
    http://thedauntlessconservative.wordpress.com/2010/08/14/bush-tax-cuts-worked/
    http://thedauntlessconservative.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/the-reagan-tax-cuts-lessons-for-tax-reform/

    Notice the unemployment rate drop soon after the bills in both RR and W years. Getting people back to work is THE number one priority. Revenue and GDP will follow. The unemployment rate is still hovering between 9-10%, i.e. STAGNANT. Federal revenue has gone up, but not at the levels after JGTRRA of 2003. The JGTRRA was successful to get unemployment down and revenue up.

  232. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    continued: When a company reduces its workforce, that is a savings on an account called payroll expense, which in turn increases their net income, which in turn helps keeps the company in the black/afloat during a recession. Industries like retail and manufacturing make inventory adjustments at the beginning of the year which is partially explains the slowdown in GDP at the beginning of year. Once a business has a grip on their expectations for the year, they can plan according to purchase inventory and hire. Hiring is definitely stagnant. As Michael E. mentioned a few times, there is the human factor, i.e. human creativity in make things happen. Something you cannot quantify in numbers in Excel, but it cannot be negated either.

    FRED Graph Observations
    Federal Reserve Economic Data
    Link: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2
    Help: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/help-faq
    Economic Research Division
    Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

    FGRECPT Federal Government Current Receipts (FGRECPT), Billions of Dollars, Quarterly, Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate

    Frequency: Quarterly
    observation_date FGRECPT
    2006-07-01 2547.4
    2006-10-01 2575.1
    2007-01-01 2642.8
    2007-04-01 2658.5
    2007-07-01 2651.5
    2007-10-01 2666.1
    2008-01-01 2640.7
    2008-04-01 2412.6
    2008-07-01 2506.1
    2008-10-01 2452.9
    2009-01-01 2223.9
    2009-04-01 2191.2
    2009-07-01 2176.3
    2009-10-01 2231.7
    2010-01-01 2322.8
    2010-04-01 2346.5

  233. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    StevenH: Unemployment is still stagnant. Change is anemic at best. Tax cuts are far more cost effective than obumbo stimulus.

    FRED Graph Observations
    Federal Reserve Economic Data
    Link: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2
    Help: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/help-faq
    Economic Research Division
    Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

    UNRATE Civilian Unemployment Rate (UNRATE), Percent, Monthly, Seasonally Adjusted

    Frequency: Monthly
    observation_date UNRATE
    2003-05-01 6.1
    2003-06-01 6.3
    2003-07-01 6.2
    2003-08-01 6.1
    2003-09-01 6.1
    2003-10-01 6.0
    2003-11-01 5.8
    2003-12-01 5.7
    2004-01-01 5.7
    2004-02-01 5.6
    2004-03-01 5.8
    2004-04-01 5.6
    2004-05-01 5.6
    2004-06-01 5.6
    2004-07-01 5.5
    2004-08-01 5.4
    2004-09-01 5.4
    2004-10-01 5.5
    2004-11-01 5.4
    2004-12-01 5.4
    2005-01-01 5.3
    2005-02-01 5.4
    2005-03-01 5.2
    2005-04-01 5.2
    2005-05-01 5.1
    2005-06-01 5.0
    2005-07-01 5.0
    2005-08-01 4.9
    2005-09-01 5.0
    2005-10-01 5.0
    2005-11-01 5.0
    2005-12-01 4.9
    2006-01-01 4.7
    2006-02-01 4.8
    2006-03-01 4.7
    2006-04-01 4.7
    2006-05-01 4.6
    2006-06-01 4.6
    2006-07-01 4.7
    2006-08-01 4.7
    2006-09-01 4.5
    2006-10-01 4.4
    2006-11-01 4.5
    2006-12-01 4.4
    2007-01-01 4.6
    2007-02-01 4.5
    2007-03-01 4.4
    2007-04-01 4.5
    2007-05-01 4.4
    2007-06-01 4.6
    2007-07-01 4.6
    2007-08-01 4.6
    2007-09-01 4.7
    2007-10-01 4.7
    2007-11-01 4.7
    2007-12-01 5.0
    2008-01-01 5.0
    2008-02-01 4.8
    2008-03-01 5.1
    2008-04-01 5.0
    2008-05-01 5.4
    2008-06-01 5.5
    2008-07-01 5.8
    2008-08-01 6.1
    2008-09-01 6.2
    2008-10-01 6.6
    2008-11-01 6.9
    2008-12-01 7.4
    2009-01-01 7.7
    2009-02-01 8.2
    2009-03-01 8.6
    2009-04-01 8.9
    2009-05-01 9.4
    2009-06-01 9.5
    2009-07-01 9.4
    2009-08-01 9.7
    2009-09-01 9.8
    2009-10-01 10.1
    2009-11-01 10.0
    2009-12-01 10.0
    2010-01-01 9.7
    2010-02-01 9.7
    2010-03-01 9.7
    2010-04-01 9.9
    2010-05-01 9.7
    2010-06-01 9.5
    2010-07-01 9.5
    2010-08-01 9.6

  234. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    FYI
    From the IRS: “Understanding Taxes”
    http://www.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/student/index.jsp

  235. StevenH Says:

    Dauntless:
    I wanted to respond to, and thank you for, your useful comments back on the 5th. I don’t know all the reasons the economy may have shifted as per income centralization through the 70′s and 80′s til now. Tax changes are likely a big part of it. Your comments about NAFTA and the shift away from manufacturing are very likely correct as also being part of the reason. Robert Reisch’s new book “Aftershock” is supposed to discuss economic changes from WW2 time period through today and I have heard it gives a good analysis.

    StevenH

  236. StevenH Says:

    Michael,
    What is an example of Republican’s ignoring human behavior of reacting to legislation?
    How about the Republican push to easily cut health costs by allowing competeition across state lines? Sounds like a nice competitive market-driven solution doesn’t it?

    But it ignores the insurance companies’ very predictable reaction:
    All companies instantly move to incorporate in the state with the least regulatory restrictions. Every state moves to cut regulations in order to be the one state that the insurance companies move to. Coverage goes down, costs go up, and customer service goes down the toilet. Very Predictable. But the Republicans touting this don’t see it.

    “If it’s too good to be true, it isn’t true.”

    StevenH

  237. StevenH Says:

    Dauntless:

    Re: the IRS publication on Understanding taxes.
    i like how the first fun activity listed is “Balance the National Budget”.
    Maybe some 12 yr old will figure all this out for us.

    Steve

  238. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    StevenH said: “Your comments about NAFTA and the shift away from manufacturing are very likely correct as also being part of the reason. Robert Reisch’s new book “Aftershock” is supposed to discuss economic changes from WW2 time period through today and I have heard it gives a good analysis.”

    Well, I never agreed with Reisch on much, but if he is saying essentially the same thing as I am, then I agree with him at least on this one. Think about it…as Europe/Japan/etc began to rebuild in post WW2, USA started to import durable goods from these countries, which gave way to competition and today a “global economy”. I would argue that economic pressure, called competition, drove the demand/lobby for govt to reduce high tax rates of 40s-60s in order to compete with foreign competitors, i.e. “emerging markets” as we call it today. As the markets developed, coupled with high corp tax rates, paved the way for a gradual shift of manufacturing of durable goods overseas. I can remember as a boy, everything I bought was made in USA…school supplies, toys, my bicycle, etc. When I was in high school, I bought a new VW Beetle, 100% German made. No US car maker was making fuel efficient cars until the 70s. Price of a barrel of crude was low for years until the 70s. The high tax rates of the 40s also had deductions on a corp tax return which reduced much of that 70-90% tax rate. Despite the trend downward in corp tax rates, we still have among the highest in the world. Not to mention overburdensome regulations. Michael E. is correct. No wonder the “rich” move their capital overseas to invest in manufacturing. We are digging our own graves and Congress/POTUS is too stupid to see it. Insane.

  239. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    StevenH said: “Maybe some 12 yr old will figure all this out for us.”

    Well, the so called “adults” in Congress/WH CAN figure it out, but they refuse too. The USA total Public Debt as been growing/accruing since 1791:

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

  240. Michael Eden Says:

    1 a) How about this: you can hold an administration responsible for its very own promises. The only reason you refuse to do so is because you are an ideologue. Your entire argument boils down to, “Obama was too incompetent to understand that his promises were a giant load of crap.” He was too profoundly stupid to understand reality, and so made a bunch of promises that he couldn’t fulfill. And you ask, “Why are you holding Obama responsible for being the most incompetent failure since Carter?” And I answer, “Please quit being asinine.”

    1 b) I don’t know where you’re getting your “8.2%” from. Here are the mainstream news reports of the unemployment rate at the time: New York Times: February unemployment = 8.1%; Bloomberg February unemployment = 8.1%; CNN February unemployment = 8.1%; foreign sources such as the United Kingdom and China reported our February unemployment was 8.1%; even your own fellow SOCIALISTS reported that unemployment in February 2009 was 8.1%.

    If the Obama government has changed the numbers which I (again unlike you) accurately reported, and for which I have universal substantiation, then the Obama administration is are all the more corrupt and all the more untrustworthy.

    Anyway, please quit the crap. I was right (again); you were wrong (again). You reported an ultra-high figure to give your ridiculous claim some kind of artificial credibility.

    In reality, the unemployment rate was as about close as it could be to the 8% figure that the Obama administration said its massive $3.27 TRILLION never before seen in human history porkulus boondoggle Generational Theft Act would achieve. And Democrats failed, FAILED, FAILED. We’ve had unemployment near 10% for two years as a legacy of the stimulus that was supposed to keep it below 8%.

    Do Republicans have the freedom to invent their own numbers to justify their own rhetoric when they take power the way you’ve done for Democrats???

    You have more than once whine about me not being respectful, but when you first report a completely bogus number as fact, and then try to argue that I was possibly trivially wrong, so your being massively wrong is okay, merits the opposite of respect.

    2) This isn’t “I say tomato, you say tomahto.” This is a matter of basic fact. There are two separate taxation concepts here: tax cuts versus tax credits. The two are NOT identical, or we wouldn’t have the two separate terms. You are conflating the two terms, and arguing that getting a handout from the government is identical to getting the tax rate which you are forced to pay the government being reduced. You are factually wrong. You are a sloppy thinker. Just like your fellow Democrats, who are about to pay dearly for two years of this same sort of rank bullcrap.

    3) It’s just too bad your fellow Democrats weren’t so generous and forgiving with “popular language” when Bush said his administration could show there was WMD in Iraq. During the Bush years, Democrats nailed him for every i that wasn’t completely dotted and every t that wasn’t 100% crossed. In 2000 Democrats went after every single hanging chad with a vendetta. But let’s change standards now and give our president every break. As for me, I’m beyond tired of apologists coming in after the fact and saying, “What the president MEANT to say was…”

    Here’s the skinny: Obama is a liar with his “tax” promise. Just one example is more than enough. The Obama administration is now admitting that the massive $6 trillion in “mandates” forcing Americans to purchase health insurance is in fact a tax. It is not a matter of semantics, and it is a sick joke that you claim it is; rather, Obama will make nearly every American pay increased taxes to fund his socialist takeover of health care.

    I’m going to take your point as an implicit acknowledgment that you know Obama lied, but you simply lack the ability to fully admit it.

    4) Reagan’s policies fundamentally transformed the economic “malaise” that he inherited (and which even CARTER acknowledged he was leaving behind), which resulted in this:

    Although he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression, Ronald Reagan boldly pushed through his programs. He made a deals with the Democrats to lower tax rates and save Social Security for another generation. Soon communism collapsed and the threat of nuclear annihilation receded. The economy grew, with a couple minor hiccups, for the the next twenty-five years. It was not only morning in America; it was a new dawn for the world. In the dark days of 1980, nobody would have predicted this happy outcome.

    Ronald Reagan so positively changed America that he is recognized as THE greatest president in history.

    And it is because Reagan’s policies produced long-term benefit that he is so recognized. Whether you – a liberal ideologue – are capable of recognizing it or not.

    And again, I have a 100% record, with tax cuts by Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, JFK, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush to prove my case. And disprove yours.

    6 a) What you say is bunk. I prefer what Andrew Mellon said. He performed a science experiment, as I detail in this article. He theorized that a low rate of 24-25% would maximize federal revenue. He proceeded to reduce the top tax rate to that amount. And his theory was factually proven correct. Versus your “I say” baloney.

    6 b) What I said I didn’t just say: I factually and historically documented and demonstrated it.

    I also say that people are DESPERATELY WANTING some sense of permanence so that they have some idea what Obama is going to throw at them next, and they are tired and paralyzed into inaction by Obama’s constantly moving policies. I also say that because of shocking Democrat incompetence, the American people as of now don’t have any idea whatsoever what their taxes will be in just a couple of months – and that that is beyond STUPID.

    7 a) What you “say” is hogwash, given the fact that I wrote a 4,000 word article that disproved your claim. And you’ve got nothing but “I say.”

    7 b) I don’t “say” that a tax cut will “instantly” make the world wonderful. I don’t even say that tax cuts alone will make the world wonderful. If Stalin and Hitler had given tax cuts, they would still be evil unless they changed in numerous other ways, too. Tax cuts are a fundamental part of a set of economic policies that recognize human freedom and responsibility within a free market system.

    I say that it is fundamentally and inherently Marxist to believe that somehow the government owns virtually everything people work for and earn, such that they can take 70% of what we produce. I say that it such thinking is part of a truly perverted mindset crushes the human spirit. And I say that the policies that our founding fathers (who wanted a small, limited federal government, and who did NOT authorize federal income taxes), Adam Smith, and Andrew Mellon are vastly superior to the policies of Karl Marx.

    You look to the socialism of Europe for answers. I look to the superior thought of Thomas Jefferson, who said:

    “With all the defects in our Constitution, whether general or particular, the comparison of our government with those of Europe, is like a comparison of Heaven with Hell”

    Since you seem to think that tax hikes won’t result in the people affected changing their habits and sheltering their money, would you please begin sending me the difference between whatever you pay in federal taxes and the 70% rate that you seem to think is ideal? Because based on what you’re claiming, you won’t even notice that money gone.

    Of if you don’t want to give it to me (and I’m guessing you don’t), how about if you document that you are forking over at least 70% of your income to the government? You want other people to do it, so please have the integrity to do it yourself.

    I’m guessing if you ever actually performed that experiment, you’d come to the same damn conclusion that Andrew Mellon came to in 1920. It is only because you won’t hold yourself to the same confiscatory policies that you would like to hold your betters to that you will never come to the correct conclusion.

    But as long as you don’t have to live in the real world, you can keep dreaming your crazy little dreams.

    Your statement of my opinions leaves out way too much. For instance, I also say the stimulus is a proven failure because it has proven to be a failure. Not only did it fail to keep unemployment under 8% – as the Obama administration said it would when they passed it – but it has never done a damn thing to reduce unemployment since. Two years later, we are about to see the unemployment rate go up AGAIN Friday, from all accounts. Furthermore, the American people overwhelmingly recognize that the stimulus was a failure. I showed you the poll that said only 6% of Americans believed it had created any jobs. And beyond that, I have provided you with evidence that the stimulus ACTUALLY RAISED the unemployment rate. Just as I have provided you with evidence that every single country that did NOT enact a massive stimulus have fared better than countries like the US which did enact a massive stimulus.

    You stated my “opinions” poorly, simply because you are trying to make our differences a matter of “opinion,” which omits the fact that I have massively substantiated my FACTS whereas you have your “I says.”

  241. Michael Eden Says:

    Dauntless,

    That chart simply has to be wrong.

    09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
    09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
    09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
    09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
    09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
    09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
    09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
    09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38

    Because if the numbers are correct, it would mean that Clinton really DIDN’T reduce the debt, as Democrats always claim.

    And remember, never think. Because if you think, you might recognize that it was the Republican-controlled Congress that actually deserves credit for any budget balancing, acting as they did under the first platform of the Contract with America. You know, the thing that Democrats have mocked and opposed both at the time and forever since.

    And if you think, you’d realize that the Republican Balanced Budget Amendment failed only because of overwhelming Democrat opposition.

    And thinking is clearly bad. Because ignorance is Democrat.

  242. Michael Eden Says:

    But it ignores the insurance companies’ very predictable reaction:
    All companies instantly move to incorporate in the state with the least regulatory restrictions. Every state moves to cut regulations in order to be the one state that the insurance companies move to. Coverage goes down, costs go up, and customer service goes down the toilet. Very Predictable. But the Republicans touting this don’t see it.

    I see. My actual factual example straight out of the pages of history is refuted or rebutted by your hypothetical “very predictable reaction” that you believe would happen because of your Marxist distrust for the free market system.

    Do I get to replace my prejudiced hypothetical assumptions for facts whenever I don’t have an actual case???

    Or do you have a time machine that explores alternate realities, so you can actually prove your assertion???

    Let’s review. You said ““What evidence do you have that “Democrats believe tax rates don’t affect behavior.” None.” And in my response I factually DOCUMENTED for you that Democrats in fact refuse to believe that tax rates don’t affect behavior. Which is to say I factually refuted you. And then I further demonstrated that Republicans DO accept what you yourself said that only intelligent people accept. And which (again) Democrats DO NOT accept.

    You don’t bother with the fact that I proved you wrong. Again.

    You’re a demagogue. You can’t stand the free market, you can’t stand capitalism, you can’t stand competition, and you demand big-government control over everything. I get that.

    The Obama administration claimed it wanted “more choice and competition” in health care. They just didn’t mean it. Because the president is a shameless liar.

    There is only ONE health insurance company in states like Maine and Pennsylvania (and others, but I don’t have time to research how many). If my memory is correct, there are only four insurance companies allowed to do business in the entire state of California. State politicians and the insurance companies have colluded to create a system with so many regulations and requirements that it is impossible for competition to enter.

    People like you, Steven, have created a system that has nothing whatsoever to do with the free market. And then you use the fact that it is failing as a justification to socialize entirely an already mostly socialized system.

    So, we go back to Marxism and statist control of everything. You believe it is okay for the GOVERNMENT to “compete” in health insurance, but refuse to allow private companies have the right to compete. Why? Because what Marxist DOESN’T know that private companies are evil, whereas government is good?

    Keep pumping that Marxist nonsense, Steven.

    Let me solve the problem for you. Since you love government regulation so much, couldn’t the federal government provide some very basic requirements, by which insurance companies which would then be free to compete in all 50 states for customers would be required to meet?

    Why would competition be such a terrible thing, against a system based on virtual monopolies that can pretty much do what they want because they’re all we’ve got??? And, of course, if the federal government took everything over, like Obama wants, wouldn’t we simply have an even BIGGER monopoly that NO ONE could leave???

  243. StevenH Says:

    Hmmm, so Michael, are you saying you never make factual errors since you have eaten from the Republican Tree of Knowledge? … The following is a just an amusing little exposition, but since you are so damned adamant about this issue, you may need to be enlightened, … because the apple you ate from the Tree must have had a worm in it.

    Factual Error:
    Michael says (from article… all you readers remember the article? It’s way up at the top of this page …):
    “What Obama and the Democrats in Congress propose is NOT a “tax cut.” And it is nothing but a lie to call it that. ”
    … and Michael’s definition of a tax cut is:
    “A tax cut is a reduction in the percentage or amount of taxes that is being imposed on a citizen. The government is cutting the amount it had been collecting from taxpayers.”

    From the article, what Michael objects to among the “tax incentives” in the Stimulus Bill are the “refundable tax credits” (IRS term) which can result in “negative tax” being paid as a refund to those persons who are just too damn poor to pay taxes. [For some reason, the existence of people who are just too damn poor to pay taxes seems to really P.O. the true conservative. And the devil take you if you should want to give these people any money. ]

    So by Michael’s definition of tax cut, the IRS terms of “rate reduction”, “deduction”, “non-refundable tax credit”, “increased exemption” all count as tax cuts because they only apply to actual taxpayers, that is the ones actually paying taxes, and they all reduce the amount of money paid by said taxpayer.

    So does the “Stimulus Bill” contain any tax cuts? Because if it does contain even one, Michael will be wrong. Here is some of what is in the Stimulus Bill.

    references:
    http://thefinancebuff.com/2009/02/tax-cuts-in-stimulus-bill-updated.html
    http://tax.cchgroup.com/Legislation/House-Senate-Recovery-Act-2009.pdf
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#cite_note-handwritten1-28

    (1) Here’s a good one. Biggest Tax Incentive in the bill:
    “Making Work Pay”; type: non-refundable credit
    Cost: $116 billion:
    For 2009 and 2010, $400 per person tax credit for AGI under $75,000; phased out to $95,000 (double everything for married filing jointly). (Cost $116 Billion) “Only individuals with earned income would qualify for the Making Work Pay credit, which would effectively offset an individual’s share of FICA payroll taxes for the first $6,452 in earnings ($12,904 for couples).”

    Bad news Michael, that’s clearly a tax cut. You know it only applies to people actually making money. It’s non-refundable, so you don’t get back more tax than you put in. But maybe that’s the only one. No …

    (2) AMT patch for 2009:
    Cost: $70 Billion
    increase AMT exemption amount from 2008 levels by $500 per person or $1,000 per couple.

    Man that one is straight out of the Republican playbook. A bona fide straight up tax cut if I ever saw one. Everybody hates the AMT and this tax cut only applies to folks making a pretty good income. Non-refundable too. Hmmm…

    We can stop right there. That’s $186 Billion out of the $237 Billion of individual incentives, just in those two major items. Some of the remaining are also true tax cuts and some of the others are non-refundable tax credits and some are refundable tax credits. And we don’t even have to discuss the fact that the vast majority of the value of the refundable tax credits will likely go to the people who are NOT too damn poor to pay taxes, making them Tax Cuts for those people who actually paid taxes.

    So let’s review:
    (1) Michael says “it is nothing but a lie” to call anything in the Stimulus bill a tax cut.
    (2) Michael says “A tax cut is” [i.e. equals] “a reduction in the percentage or amount of taxes that is being imposed on a citizen.”
    (3) The facts indisputably show that some of the provisions in the Stimulus Bill are equal to “a reduction in the percentage or amount of taxes that is being imposed on a citizen”.

    It follows from (2) and (3) that Michael is equivalently saying “Some of the provisions in the Stimulus bill are a tax cut”. But that conflicts with (1).

    Only two possibilities exist. Either (1) is wrong or (1) is right. (2) is just a definition and must be assumed to be right … by definition. (3) is already shown to be fact and is therefore not wrong. If (1) is wrong, then Michael is just wrong about the Stimulus Bill and in order to clear his conscience, he should clearly state that “I was wrong. The Stimulus Bill contains some Tax Cuts. In fact most of the money that is used for individual tax incentives in the Stimulus Bill goes to Tax Cuts.” If, however, (1) is right, then Michael has not only just called himself a liar, but he has to go see a psychiatrist for schizophrenia because he has simultaneously claimed that a tax cut both is *and* is not equal to a definition that he himself defined.

    Now this is just about as perfect and infallible an argument as you can find.
    So which is it Michael?
    Are you just wrong?
    Or are you wrong, a liar, and schizophrenic?

    We’ll all forgive you for being wrong, it’s OK, happens to us all. But you are wrong. Just admit it.

    StevenH

    PS as for your logical syllogism about Democrats and intelligence, you make the rather obvious logical omission of not stating whether “Democrats” means “Some Democrats” or “All Democrats”. If you mean “Some Democrats”, and thus conclude “Some Democrats are not intelligent” then your conclusion is likely true but trivial, since there are some people in any large group who are not intelligent, … and then of course you are only wrong (again) in how you constructed the wording of your syllogism. If you mean “All Democrats” then, you are doubly wrong, because you have then also extrapolated the actions of a small percentage of a group into a generalization of a larger group – an egregious logical error if there ever was one. Unless of course you are prepared to list every single Democrat in the US and account for how they each are not intelligent.

  244. StevenH Says:

    Dauntless:
    The IRS term “Tax Credit” is not a “Tax Rate Cut”, but as long as it is not “refundable” (meaning able to be given as a refund even if you pay no tax), then it clearly meets Michael’s definition of a Tax Cut in his article: “A tax cut is a reduction in the percentage or amount of taxes that is being imposed on a citizen.” Note the qualifier “or amount”, which means the “tax cut” definition discussed here is not restricted to tax rate reductions, but also includes deductions, exemptions, and non-refundable tax credits, AND even refundable tax credits, but only as they apply to people actually paying taxes.

    StevenH

  245. StevenH Says:

    Andrew Mellon was a brilliant man who managed to help bring on the roaring 20′s. Many of his theories proved correct in the short term. But you cannot glorify his accomplishments without following them to their end. The very policies that you admire in the 20′s may have brought about their doom. The end of the 20′s, you know, 1929. That little thing called the Great Depression.

    We certainly don’t have time here to discuss the Depression at length and i need to study the period more. I do know this. The Roaring 20′s echo our modern age from the 80′s through the 2000′s way too completely with regard to tax policy, pro-business bias, centralization of income and wealth and resulting economic collapse. What happened in 1920-1929 happened again in 1980 to 2000, and 2001- 2008. The fact that we forced a quick recovery after 2000 and collapsed again so soon tells me we may have a structural problem in our economy that quick fixes like another taxcut won’t be sufficient to patch.

    The problem is that lowering taxes is kind of a one or two trick pony. You keep beating up on me how it is never ever possible to raise taxes, but what Mellon’s Grand Experiment with the 24% rate seems to prove is what I have been trying to say all through this thread. Lower taxes and keep them very low and centralization of income results. Centralize income and economic collapse results.

    StevenH

  246. StevenH Says:

    Insurance companies could conceivably compete across state lines, but only with reasonable minimum standards, and sound national regulation. The problem with state regulation is the same as the problem with state to state variation in tax policy. Raise tax rates in one state, people go somewhere else. Increase regulation in one state and insurance companies go somewhere else — if they can sell across state lines with state regulation that is, which they can’t. I believe private competition with minimum national standards was pretty much what Obama proposed wasn’t it? But Repubs didn’t like that idea …

    StevenH

  247. StevenH Says:

    One of my posts is waiting for moderation. Does it do that when i use “D@mn” but with an a instead of @?

  248. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    StevenH said: “The IRS term “Tax Credit” is not a “Tax Rate Cut”, but as long as it is not “refundable” (meaning able to be given as a refund even if you pay no tax), then it clearly meets Michael’s definition of a Tax Cut in his article:”

    Yes, I know. Tax rate cut and tax credits are not the same, and yes there are refundable and non refundable tax credits. On the Individual 1040, most of the tax credits are refundable. There are so many tax credits in HR1 and it is not mentioned to my knowledge which type of tax credits they are, refundable or non refundable.

  249. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    MichaelE said: “That chart simply has to be wrong.

    09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
    09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
    09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
    09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
    09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
    09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
    09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
    09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38

    Because if the numbers are correct, it would mean that Clinton really DIDN’T reduce the debt, as Democrats always claim.

    And remember, never think. Because if you think, you might recognize that it was the Republican-controlled Congress that actually deserves credit for any budget balancing, acting as they did under the first platform of the Contract with America. You know, the thing that Democrats have mocked and opposed both at the time and forever since.

    And if you think, you’d realize that the Republican Balanced Budget Amendment failed only because of overwhelming Democrat opposition.

    And thinking is clearly bad. Because ignorance is Democrat.”

    MichaelE: I checked my bifocals (LOL), and yes it is. Maybe I need to explain the chart a little better. Yes the numbers are correct. 1)My chart starts at FY93 and goes downward for ease of illustration and I included FY01. 2)You’re correct, the debt still went up, but at a SLOWER pace. And you are correct, a Republican controlled Congress did this, not Bubba. Go back to the “There was no Clinton surplus” page and look carefully and the far right column in red numbers. As you can see, notice the numbers in red are getting smaller/trend downward each year until FY01. What I am illustrating is twofold: there was no surplus and there was a trend downward in the debt/deficit.
    For example start with FY94 and subtract it from FY93 and the difference is in RED. Next, subtract FY95 from FY94 and the difference is in RED. Keep doing this all the way down. These numbers in red are the yearly deficits. I don’t disagree with you except that the numbers are correct…maybe I wasn’t too clear on presentation.

  250. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    MichaelE: According to Bureau of Labor Statistics, Feb 2009 unemployment rate stood at 8.2% not 8.1%. Why the mainstream media reported 8.1%, I don’t know. Regardless, the trend is still upward and it not good. However, I would not rule suspicious gov’t activity at BLS, especially with the administration.

    Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
    Original Data Value

    Series Id: LNS14000000
    Seasonally Adjusted
    Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate
    Labor force status: Unemployment rate
    Type of data: Percent or rate
    Age: 16 years and over
    Years: 2008 to 2010

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
    2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.9 7.4
    2009 7.7 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.1 10.0 10.0
    2010 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.9 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6

  251. StevenH Says:

    Re: Unemployment rate – Several charts throughout the web have different rates, I found upon checking. My 8.9% number was bad, read off a graph from some other guy’s analysis rather than an official table. I should have known better. 8.2% seems to be the official number from the gov, maybe adjusted later as stats got refined, most probably nothing nefarious. In any case, it’s still over 8.0% in the month the stimulus passed which was my point.

    Re: Debt getting paid off
    There are 3 common ways to plot or chart the debt. “Current” dollars, dollars adjusted for inflation to some year, and most typically as a percentage of GDP. I think sometimes i see it scaled per capita as well. The Debt/GDP ratio is most typical because it compensates for inflation, the size of the economy, and the population at the same time. Immediately before Reagan, the debt was sometimes going up in absolute terms but down as a fraction of GDP. During Clinton, Debt/GDP went down dramatically as the GDP went down and spending was limited. There is no Democratic deception here, you just have to be careful to understand the terminology. I try to always express when i am referring to Debt/GDP ratio and not absolute GDP.

    Re: Tax Credits. One of these links describes which credits are refundable and which are not. The other just describes enough detail that you can generally figure it out. Many, maybe even most credits, are non-refundable (hence they count as a tax cut all of the time by Michael’s definition) but i haven’t done a detailed tally.

    references:
    http://thefinancebuff.com/2009/02/tax-cuts-in-stimulus-bill-updated.html
    http://tax.cchgroup.com/Legislation/House-Senate-Recovery-Act-2009.pdf

    StevenH

  252. StevenH Says:

    Hmm … why are my posts getting delayed for moderation now?

  253. Michael Eden Says:

    I’m responding to StevenH’s comment here.

    This is really amazing. Steven says:

    Hmmm, so Michael, are you saying you never make factual errors since you have eaten from the Republican Tree of Knowledge? … The following is a just an amusing little exposition, but since you are so damned adamant about this issue, you may need to be enlightened, … because the apple you ate from the Tree must have had a worm in it.

    Some delicious context:

    Steven is referring to my response at the end of this comment.

    Steven had claimed:

    Lastly, any credible economist will tell you that the stimulus helped the economy, because a stimulus always helps the economy, it has always helped the economy.

    And I had responded:

    It’s too bad you lack the intelligence to understand terms like “circular reasoning,” because you are its POSTER BOY…

    And any credible expert will tell you that I am always right and you are always wrong, because I am always wright and you are always wrong, and I have always always been right and you have always always been wrong. So how on earth could I possibly be wrong now?

    Now, what I am doing is mocking Steven for his profoundly ridiculous circular reasoning (” the stimulus helped the economy, because a stimulus always helps the economy, it has always helped the economy”). And I offer the same sort of circular reasoning “proof” of my infallibility to point out how truly stupid he is being.

    On top of that, I also demonstrate that Steven – who is wrong virtually every time he says ANYTHING – is once again totally factually wrong. I point out economists who argue that stimulus spending did NOT create growth. I point out that there are economists who demonstrate that the stimulus actually RAISED unemployment (and I cite that “credible economist’s” article and say more about it here). But to put the icing on the cake, I cite that HUNDREDS OF CREDIBLE ECONOMISTS opposed the Obama stimulus.

    I factually blow Steven’s ridiculous and asinine claim out of the water (which, like always, he constantly fails to acknowledge). But it gets far worse for an assessment of Steven’s intellect.

    Not only does Steven hold the profoundly moronic – yes, moronic – Obama rhetoric about all “credible economists” being hard core Keynesian liberals. Not only does he demonstrate that he lacks the capacity to understand circular reasoning and how terribly flawed it is. Not only that. But he can’t even understand that after I cite his circular reasoning, that I am mocking him. And he takes my open mockery of his asininity seriously, as though I am actually claiming my own infallibility using circular reasoning immediately after pointing out his stupid circular reasoning.

    It’s like I’m watching a Monty Python skit about over-the-top twits. Only in this case, my twit is actually real.

    Before interacting with Steven’s twisted logic in his complaint about the fact that tax cuts are entirely different from tax credits. I’ll just give an example that is in the news.

    Approximately $18 million worth of stimulus funds went to Americans who are dead, according to report released by the Social Security Administration’s inspector general released Thursday.

    More than 89,000 payments worth $250 each, taken from the $787 billion stimulus package, were doled out to either dead people or prison inmates. Seventeen thousand incarcerated Americans received an aggregate $4.3 million from the economic relief package.

    Now, for the record, if you were to give a TAX CUT, only living, non-incarcerated, WORKING people who pay taxes could receive the benefit. They wouldn’t get a check in the mail FROM the government; they would have to send in a lower check TO the government. But because the stimulus checks are not in fact a tax cut at all, but a TAX CREDIT, by which one group of people is taxed so that OTHER people can get their checks in the mail, dead people and incarcerated prisoners get such checks.

    Now, I explained to you how a TAX CREDIT can go to a dead person, Steven. It’s just a matter of getting a check in the mail from Obama.

    A dead person can get a tax credit. We see that. It actually has happened. But how does a dead person get a tax cut???

    Explain to me how this dead person was out there working, earning money, giving his or her all at the job, such that said dead person finds out that Congress has cut his tax rate, so he won’t have to pay as much out of his earnings next year. Maybe he’s a zombie who has a little business harvesting brains???

    Alas, Steven thinks he’s got me. But he STILL CANNOT UNDERSTAND THAT IN ORDER TO GET A TAX CUT, YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY BE PAYING TAXES. FEDERAL INCOME TAXES, TO BE PRECISE. He does not understand that if you are NOT paying federal income taxes, and you receive a check from the government, it is a TAX CREDIT, and not a tax cut. He lacks the capacity to understand that.

    Steven says this:

    For 2009 and 2010, $400 per person tax credit for AGI under $75,000; phased out to $95,000 (double everything for married filing jointly). (Cost $116 Billion) “Only individuals with earned income would qualify for the Making Work Pay credit, which would effectively offset an individual’s share of FICA payroll taxes for the first $6,452 in earnings ($12,904 for couples).”

    Bad news Michael, that’s clearly a tax cut.

    NO IT ISN’T, YOU STUPID DUMBASS!!! IT IS A TAX CREDIT. IT EVEN CALLS ITSELF A TAX CREDIT!!!

    Even the tax code example that you are alluding to recognizes a difference between tax cuts and tax credits. WHY DON’T YOU FOLLOW THE LEAD OF THE VERY DAMN SOURCES YOU ARE CITING AND DO THE SAME????

    Someone (I think Dauntless, but I’m not sure) early on used the more precise term “tax rate cut.” I did not think to use that term. It helps clarify the mental retardation of your view. On your view, there is no difference whatsoever between my federal income tax rate being reduced from 35% to 32% on my income which I WORKED to obtain, and my getting a damn $250 stimulus check in the mail even though I haven’t held a friggin’ job in five years.

    A further point that apparently needs to be made is that I am talking about Obama’s statements about federal income taxes. My article was SPECIFICALLY written regarding the BUSH TAX CUTS. Steven is either dishonestly or ignorantly trying to make a “definition” that I made specifically within the context of the argument over extending the Bush tax cuts generically apply to all tax situations, rather than to THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX RATES as my “definition” was actually attempting to describe. And Steven is throwing up bullcrap because that is what he does, and frankly all he is capable of doing.

    You’re wasting my time. I’m going to block you if you keep wasting oxygen. If I turn into a schizophrenic, it will only be because I tried too hard to follow your twisted logic.

  254. Michael Eden Says:

    Steven says:

    Re: Unemployment rate – Several charts throughout the web have different rates, I found upon checking. My 8.9% number was bad, read off a graph from some other guy’s analysis rather than an official table. I should have known better. 8.2% seems to be the official number from the gov, maybe adjusted later as stats got refined, most probably nothing nefarious. In any case, it’s still over 8.0% in the month the stimulus passed which was my point.

    Re: Unemployment rate – YOU WERE WRONG.

    I still haven’t seen anything from the government saying unemployment was 8.2% – and not the 8.1% that I showed you was reported by major news sources all over the place.

    I did see this headline:

    IRS Inflates Employment Numbers Using Poll Workers

    So I know that Democrats are dishonest enough to do anything, including do the 1984-style Minitrue revision of reality.

    But for the sake of argument, let’s assume an 8.2% unemployment rate. You continue to desperately cling to the idea that if the unemployment rate was one- or two-tenths beyond the figure that Obama told us his stimulus would keep unemployment under, that he is somehow not responsible for the fact that not only did unemployment NOT stay down, but actually went UP 23.2% (i.e., the % change as unemployment went up from 8.2% to 10.1% (in Oct 2008)AFTER Obama’s stimulus).

    And OMG, I just found out that Obama’s stimulus that was supposed to be able to keep unemployment under 8% was SUCH a failure that two years after it was enacted, the unemployment rate is now being reported as 10.1%. So we’re back to 10.1% again. And they say it will probably get worse.

    And the underemployment figure increased to 18.8 percent in September, up from 18.6 percent in August. Welcome to Obama’s Great Depression.

    Let’s put on our thinking caps, Steven. If Obama’s stimulus was supposed to keep unemployment under 8%, but unemployment was actually at 8.2% when it passed, shouldn’t it at least have been able to keep unemployment under 8.3%????

    It failed. It horribly failed. Obama failed. The Democrats who were in total control of Congress failed. And now we are $3.27 TRILLION in the hole just from this one massive failure.

    Obama took money that could have helped our economy and pissed it away. And now what are we going to do???

  255. Michael Eden Says:

    Dauntless,

    Referring to your comment in which you said:

    MichaelE: I checked my bifocals (LOL), and yes it is. Maybe I need to explain the chart a little better. Yes the numbers are correct.

    I was making a joke. If you look at the debt figures, you see that every single year that Bill Clinton was in office, the debt went UP. Every single year. The debt did not go down at any time Clinton was in office.

    I was giving the version of, “If the facts get in the way of my liberal theory that Bill Clinton was wonderful, then so much the worse for the facts.”

  256. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    MichaelE said “I was making a joke”

    I kinda thought that…but there for a second I thought you were pulling a Bubba Clinton on me (LOLOLOL).

  257. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    MichaelE said: “And if you think, you’d realize that the Republican Balanced Budget Amendment failed only because of overwhelming Democrat opposition.”

    My memory has faded a little, but I do remember hearing something about it in the news. Thanks for the link on it.

  258. StevenH Says:

    Michael,

    You have many intelligent arguments about several subjects, and so I get really baffled when you go off on a tangent and say things that don’t make sense. The quality of these posts, mine included, and sometimes yours, have varied back and forth from intelligent analysis to rabid name-calling, and for what it’s worth, I am going to try to cut back on the adrenaline and keep ANY further posts I place here on a strictly intellectual level.

    I would like to correct you on some errors and point out some information you may have missed.

    1) You say you don’t know where I am getting my unemployment figure of 8.2% in Feb 2009. Dauntless and I have both pointed out that that is the value listed in tables at the Bureau of Labor and Statistics web site. Dauntless even posted the table in an earlier post on this thread. BTW, I am not saying you made some egregious error in referencing the multiple articles that stated 8.1%. I’m sure at some point in Feb 2009, it passed through 8.1% … It was, at that time, still rising at approx. 0.3% per month as it had since early 2008. But the official number is 8.2%. [By the way, I really don't understand why you are so irritated by this minor difference in statistic. The small difference doesn't really impact the discussion one way or another.]

    2) You said “My article was SPECIFICALLY written regarding the BUSH TAX CUTS. Steven is either dishonestly or ignorantly trying to make a “definition” that I made specifically within the context of the argument over extending the Bush tax cuts generically apply to all tax situations, rather than to THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX RATES as my “definition” was actually attempting to describe.”

    If you were trying to describe “Tax Cuts” as only applying to the “Federal Income Tax Rates”, then you certainly failed to mention that in your argument, and it was completely omitted from your definition.

    In fact, I pulled the definition from the section in your article above that was specifically about “The Falsehood That Democrats Are ‘Cutting’ Taxes” and it was specifically defining the difference between a tax cut and a tax credit, and how to determine if Obama and the press were lying. Your definition in said article, the way to distinguish a tax cut from a tax credit was:

    =========Beginning of article quote==========

    A tax cut is a reduction in the percentage or amount of taxes that is being imposed on a citizen. The government is cutting the amount it had been collecting from taxpayers. A government cannot “cut” a citizen’s taxes unless that citizen had been paying taxes in the first place.

    A tax credit is when you give someone money that has been collected from another taxpayer. It is redistribution of wealth. It is what Karl Marx described as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Do you notice that “to” in the middle? It means, “transferring the wealth from one government-penalized group of people TO another government-privileged group of people.” It is what Obama described as “spreading the wealth around.”

    What Obama and the Democrats in Congress propose is NOT a “tax cut.” And it is nothing but a lie to call it that. And every single journalist who has suggested that it is a tax cut is as much of a liar as the Democrats are.
    ======== END of quote =========

    I am accurately and appropriately using the definition of a tax cut that you provided and I am NOT trying to bend or twist anything around. Your definition of a tax cut is resonable and is is certainly what most people would understand a tax cut to be. Your point that a person receiving a tax refund that exceeds anything they paid in taxes is not, by your definition a tax cut, is expressed clearly and it makes a reasonable point.

    The tax code of the IRS however, has it’s own set of technical definitions and when they say “Tax Credit”, it is not ALWAYS the same thing as your definition of a tax credit. When the government offers a “non-refundable tax credit” of $400, that means the taxpayer gets to subtract $400 from the owed tax after he/she calculates it. Because it is non-refundable, the taxpayer does not get a refund of that amount beyond what he/she has already paid in taxes. It is like a deduction, except that a deduction is generally subtracted from AGI BEFORE the taxes are calculated, and thus a $400 deduction may only reduce the tax payment by a fraction.

    I’m not trying to be difficult or patronizing about this. An additional IRS “tax credit”, if it is non-refundable, is exactly equal to what almost anybody would define, and is in fact what you DID define, as a Tax Cut. Why? Because, as you said, “A tax cut is a reduction in the percentage or amount of taxes that is being imposed on a citizen.”

    If you really intended to say that Obama did not cut tax RATES, you would still only be partially correct, because the changes to the AMT did effectively alter tax rates for 2009 taxes for some taxpayers (though certainly not 95% of taxpayers). Or maybe you are not even willing to conced that point since I have not actually seen your definition of a tax rate cut.

    However, even if you disregard the AMT tax rate cut as a valid tax rate cut, altering your wording in your argument from “tax cuts” to “tax rate cuts” completely destroys the point of your argument. Because Obama and the press have not, to my knowledge, been describing Obama’s “tax cuts” as “tax rate cuts”, and it is impossible to call him a liar for saying he is giving tax cuts. He has simply claimed to reduce taxes on many taxpayers, which can be done via deductions and non-refundable tax credits just as effectively as with a cut in the percentage rates in the tax tables.

    I fully expect you will take great offense at all of the above and that you will continue to call me a liar and bonehead and dumb-@ss and that I am somehow mangling your argument. But I am not. I am making a very reasonable argument here. I am interpreting your article and definitions exactly as youi have stated them, and I can find absolutely no basis to say, as you did in your article that “What Obama and the Democrats in Congress propose is NOT a “tax cut.” And it is nothing but a lie to call it that.”

    Of all the arguments in this thread, this is one of the very few that can be resolved withiout opinion or statistics being involved. It is a fact that the Stimulus Bill contains tax cuts, according to your definition of tax cuts, which I most definitely did NOT take out of context or twist to anything other than its most straightforward meaning.

    … (after rereading that section of the article several times to see if I missed something …)

    Now PERHAPS what you meant to say, after arguing that tax cuts did not go “to 95% of Americans”, was the following modification of one your paragraphs. Here is the original and the modified version.

    ====Original
    What Obama and the Democrats in Congress propose is NOT a “tax cut.” And it is nothing but a lie to call it that. And every single journalist who has suggested that it is a tax cut is as much of a liar as the Democrats are.

    ====Modified
    What Obama and the Democrats in Congress propose is NOT a “tax cut” for those 47% of Americans who do not pay taxes. And it is nothing but a lie to call it that. And every single journalist who has suggested that 95% of Americans are getting a tax cut, is as much of a liar as the Democrats are.
    =====

    Now this is a real stretch to get to the meaning of the modified version from the way you originally stated it, and I had to reread the paragraph several times to even imagine that that may have been what you meant. It had certainly sounded as if, after arguing your point that 95% of Americans were not getting a tax cut, that you were further arguing that the bill contained no tax cuts whatsoever. If that section of the article does not clearly say what you meant, I would respectfully suggest amending the article to make it more clear. If it does say exacly what you meant, then I can only say it is factually incorrect.

    Respectfully,
    StevenH

  259. StevenH Says:

    Michael,
    I was worried after my last post and as I left the house, thinking about the arguments, I thought that perhaps I had really had misunderstood you and you were indeed talking about extending Bush tax cuts in your article. But as I reread it again just now, I see the article referenced the quote about cutting taxes on 95% of Americans. The only place i have seen that quote is in regard to what Obama said the stimulus bill would do. I don’t see where you reference extending the Bush tax cuts in that part of the article. Is there something I missed?

    StevenH

  260. Robbie Says:

    yes contrarian i believe you have missed the point entirely.

    ill summarize when people pay less in taxes government revenues increase – they did under JFK, Reagan and Bush.

    there is a well written article titled “Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues, They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues” at the beginning of this massive thread which includes someone’s polite mindnumbing sophist dribble that is meant to create doubt in readers eyes – much like a criminal defense lawyer will use misdirection, antics to cleverly hide the fact that their client and evidence indicates extreme guilt.

    its a shame you have nothing better to do with your time.

  261. Robbie Says:

    54% of Americans are conservative and 18% are in a creepy cult!

    steven if you are ever asked to put on white tennis shoes and drink koolaid – dont do it (oops forgot you began drinking koolaid in 2008!)
    run away as fast as you can as there is no spaceship coming to take you to another planet.

    from CNS news

    “Based on polling conducted Sept. 23 to Oct. 3, Gallup now estimates that 54 percent of “likely voters” for the Nov. 2 election are self-professed conservatives.

    If Gallup’s estimate holds up, self-professed conservative voters in this year’s midterm congressional election will outnumber self-professed liberals (18 percent of Gallup’s “likely voter” pool) by 3-to-1, and self-professed moderates (27 percent of Gallup’s “likely voter” pool) by 2-to-1.

    The 54 percent of likely voters who Gallup says are conservatives also out-number the Republicans, whom Gallup estimates make up 39 percent of likely voters.

    Independents, according to Gallup, account for 31 percent of likely voters, while Democrats account for 30 percent.

    In the previous four midterm elections, according to Gallup, conservatives have never been a majority of the likely voters.”

  262. Michael Eden Says:

    1) I saw Dauntless’ post. AFTER I responded to you and AFTER I accepted an 8.2% unemployment rate for the sake of discussion in my response. Why don’t you mention the fact that I went ahead and assumed what you are bitching about? Dauntless did something you rarely ever bother to do; he actually backed up what he said with facts, whereas you merely make assertions.

    The other thing I don’t see in your point here is that you DIDN’T say unemployment was “8.2%”; you said it was 8.9%. You were WAY off, and now you try to make it seem like I’m quibbling over a tenth of a percent, instead of the way-off-base figure you provided. Furthermore, I provided ALL KINDS of documentation to demonstrate that the officially reported rate in February (when it really mattered most, fwiw) was 8.1%; and the “new” number is that “seasonally adjusted” crap that makes it more meaningless because Obama is so prone to playing games with statistics.

    You say, “I am not saying you made some egregious error.” What you DON’T say is that you’re damn right I didn’t make an “egregious error”; YOU DID. You reported totally out of line bullcrap; I accurately reported the official unemployment figure for the month in question as it was widely reported at the time.

    You make no mention here of the fact that I DID say, “Let’s assume 8.2%” – and that I then STILL blew your quibbling out of the water.

    You say you want an “intellectual level.” I find that hard to believe, when you ignore refutations and then go on as though you never heard the points that blew your argument away. That’s not intelligent; that’s just vapid.

    What did I say? This:

    But for the sake of argument, let’s assume an 8.2% unemployment rate. You continue to desperately cling to the idea that if the unemployment rate was one- or two-tenths beyond the figure that Obama told us his stimulus would keep unemployment under, that he is somehow not responsible for the fact that not only did unemployment NOT stay down, but actually went UP 23.2% (i.e., the % change as unemployment went up from 8.2% to 10.1% (in Oct 2008) AFTER Obama’s stimulus).

    But instead of dealing with my argument – which is that if the stimulus was ever going to do any good, and if Obama’s promises mean anything at all, it should have kept unemployment at least down to 8.2% – you pretend all I did was whine about the difference of .1%. And that is neither honest nor “intellectual.”

    Gallup is using the raw numbers to accurately report that unemployment is 10.1% now. And they say it is almost certainly going to RISE MORE. And they also reported that nearly one-in-five Americans are underemployed. And they point out that many people who are not being counted at all have just given up. Just at what point are you going to hold Obama responsible for holding unemployment down as he promised? Does the rate have to double to 20%??? On your ridiculous argument, Obama cannot possibly fail; and why? Because the unemployment rate was 2/1oths of 1 percent higher than what he promised he could keep it under?

    [I put this in parenthesis because I'm adding it into my argument about how bad things truly are now - how much worse they are than the "9.6%" "official" rate suggests. Consider this:

    Employment in local government decreased by 76,000 in September with job losses in both education and noneducation.

    As states and municipalities around the nation start running out of money, they’re going to fire people; this is only the beginning. And if October is any indication, the job losses in the local government sector are going to be at least as big as the job gains in the private sector. No wonder the number of discouraged workers is up a whopping 71 percent even from the grim days of September 2009:

    Among the marginally attached, there were 1.2 million discouraged workers in September, an increase of 503,000 from a year earlier. Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them.]

    AND NOT ONE SINGLE ONE OF THOSE DISCOURAGED WORKERS IS COUNTED IN THE BLS UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS. THE ACTUAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS FAR WORSE THAN IT APPEARS.

    The terrible rate now has nothing whatsoever to do with the unemployment rate being one- or two-tenths of a percentage point higher than the 8% rate Obama promised to keep unemployment under. Which is why your argument is so totally full of crap. Things are bad. And the stimulus utterly failed.

    You don’t even WAVE at my argument. Instead, you keep talking about fractions of a percent, when unemployment has now been over 9.5% – WAY OVER WHAT OBAMA PROMISED HE COULD KEEP IT UNDER IF WE PASSED HIS STIMULUS – for over 14 months now. And that 14 months of massive unemployment is ALL on Obama’s record.

    Nor do you deal with another previous refutation of your argument, namely that, if Obama massively underestimated the state of the economy when he was making his promises, WHOSE FAULT IS THAT???

    Which is why I call you out as being a fraud. And why I will continue to call you a fraud and an idiot until you respond to my points, rather than pretending you never saw them.

    2) Here we go again. You say,

    You said regarding my statement that “My article was SPECIFICALLY written regarding the BUSH TAX CUTS.”

    If you were trying to describe “Tax Cuts” as only applying to the “Federal Income Tax Rates”, then you certainly failed to mention that in your argument, and it was completely omitted from your definition.

    I have to say the word “dumbass” again. Read the VERY FIRST TWO SENTENCES IN MY ARTICLE:

    We keep seeing the same liberal argument being played over and over again. As the mainstream media seek to make their case to the American people that the Bush tax cuts should expire, one of the primary strategies being employed is to claim that Republicans are refusing to “pay for” their extension of the tax cuts.

    Here’s my second paragraph (after a very short first paragraph) following the heading of the section in question: “The Falsehood That Democrats Are ‘Cutting’ Taxes”:

    Well, for one thing, the Democrats are flat-out lying when they say they are cutting taxes for 95% of Americans. That can’t possibly be true, because as a matter of simple fact a whopping 47% of American households pay no federal income taxes whatsoever.

    The first block quote I cite is ENTIRELY about federal income taxes.

    And then – and ONLY then – do I give my definition.

    WHAT THE HELL DID YOU THINK I WAS WRITING ABOUT??? I certainly wasn’t writing about refundable versus non-refundable tax credits. I wasn’t even writing about tax cuts for the middle class, given that virtually all Democrats were agreeing that those should be extended. I was writing SPECIFICALLY ABOUT the issue that the Bush tax cuts for the rich should be extended.

    You have a disgusting habit of just ignoring whatever you don’t want to consider.

    Case in point. You say:

    The tax code of the IRS however, has it’s own set of technical definitions and when they say “Tax Credit”, it is not ALWAYS the same thing as your definition of a tax credit. When the government offers a “non-refundable tax credit” of $400, that means the taxpayer gets to subtract $400 from the owed tax after he/she calculates it.

    And again, the IRS may have their own set of “technical definitions.” But they STILL “technically define” it AS A TAX CREDIT, DON’T THEY??? YOU ARE PROVING YOURSELF FACTUALLY WRONG BY THE VERY THING YOU CITE!!!

    And even YOU acknowledge that you are quibbling when you say, “it is not ALWAYS the same thing as your definition of a tax credit.” Nearly always, yes. But not ALWAYS. So you think you get to make a giant mountain out of what even you recognize is a mole hill.

    At best, you’re being just like the guy who buys a shotgun and then sues the manufacturer because the instructions didn’t specifically say NOT to stick the barrel up your butt before pulling the trigger. I swear you’ve got the same basic philosophy, the same basic argument, and the same basic refusal to deal with common sense that “Mr. Suehappy Colostomy” has.

    There are tax credits that are good. I like giving parents with children a tax credit. BUT IT IS STILL A TAX CREDIT. EVEN THE IRS SAYS IT IS A TAX CREDIT. As you yourself note.

    So, again, I spend paragraphs setting up the fact that I am specifically dealing with the Bush Tax Cuts – and even more specifically that I am dealing with the Bush federal income tax rate cuts – before I give my definition of a “tax cut.” I can only apologize that I didn’t make the definition bonehead dumbass proof. It frankly didn’t occur to me that someone would take it to such an extreme length as you did. Anymore than it occurred to the shotgun manufacturer that somebody would stick the barrell of the shotgun up his ass and then pull the trigger.

    It was someone named EMO who said in an early comment to this article:

    Its not TAX CUTS that increase revenues or even economic growth. It is TAX RATE CUTS. Some economically illiterate conservatives like GW Bush dont know the difference. This is why Bush was big on tax credits, rebates and light on rate reductions. The former do nothing to increase economic growth and only make the deficit worse. It is RATE CUTS that matter.

    And I responded to his distinction by proclaiming the following:

    emo,

    I agree with your point. [...]

    Many true conservatives would favor a flat tax, with all the credits, rebates, excise taxes, etc. go bye-bye.

    Whether we have an actual flat tax, whether we have 2 or maybe even three progressive rates, the simpler the tax code is, and the fewer games played with it, the better.

    So your entire discussion about my definition is a red herring. I agreed that my definition could have been more specific by adding that term “rate” to “tax cuts” the very same day I wrote the article.

    And when I said to him, “the fewer games played with it, the better,” YOU COME TO MIND. BECAUSE THAT’S ALL YOU’RE DOING NOW.

    Dauntless correctly pointed out that:

    Tax rate cut and tax credits are not the same, and yes there are refundable and non refundable tax credits. On the Individual 1040, most of the tax credits are refundable.

    Which is to say that MOST of the tax credits are NOT even what you are talking about. Which goes hand in hand with your admitting that the IRS doesn’t ALWAYS agree with me – just almost always). Which is to say again that you are quibbling.

    My ENTIRE argument in this article deals with the question as to whether the federal income tax rates ON THE RICH should be continued. In other words, my article deals with whether the income tax rate should be kept at 35%, or if it should be pushed up to 39.6%. And I might throw in capital gains tax rates, which would go up from 15% to that same 39.6% for the rich – destroying their willingness to take risks investing. It never even occurred to me that somebody would come along and interpret the “tax cuts for the rich” debate into a microscopic distinction between refundable versus non-refundable tax credits.

    You have taken a discussion about the question of tax cuts – and specifically tax cuts for the rich – and perverted it into something it was never intended to be, and something which is so trivial as to be meaningless. It has NOTHING to do with the argument I was making. It is a waste of time. It is a complete waste of oxygen.

    So please don’t call yourself “intelligent” when you either fundamentally cannot understand the argument I am making, or that you are so deceitful you make the argument about some dumbass fine point, rather than face the basic facts, in order to avoid meaningful discussion of the important issue at hand.

  263. StevenH Says:

    Robbie,

    I am politely trying to resolve the specifics of some points about one section of the article, not restate the title of the article and its summary.

    I have been accused of being a dumb-@ss for not understanding what a tax credit is, when I think I have demonstrated that I know exactly what a tax credit is. I also understand, and have clearly described that Michael’s definition of a tax credit, while reasonable, is not the same thing as the IRS technical term “tax credit”, and so you cannot arbitrarily equate them. As i said, the IRS term “tax credit” is often the same as (meaning indistinguishable from) what Michael calls a tax cut. I have been accused of possessing the lowest levels of stupidity for this statement, and I would like to politely disagree. If Michael would like to hold to his opinion that I am a dumb-@ss for some other reasons, that is his right, but I would prefer that he have that opinion based upon some legitimate disagreement on policy than for a trivial mis-understanding between us of technical terms. Michael and I have many disagreements on which we cannot come to terms. However, I hold out some hope that we can come to agreement about the meaning and clarity of these few paragraphs of his article. As it sits, his point (that Democrats are not cutting taxes) and proof of his point are not convincing and do not seem IMHO to be logically sound.

    What do you think, Robbie? Suppose you were able to subtract $400 off of your tax bill in 2009 (that would otherwise have been more than $400), and you had not gotten to do that subtraction in 2008, would you call that a tax cut in 2009 relative to 2008? Is that $400 essentially “a reduction in the percentage or amount of taxes that is being imposed on a citizen”?

    Steven H

  264. Michael Eden Says:

    Robbie,

    Thanks for bringing that Gallup poll to my attention.

    Amazing. Since 2008, we’ve gone from not quite a 2-1 advantage in conservatives over liberals to having a full 3-1 advantage.

    I suppose that’s why liberals have to cheat and demonize so much.

    Hopefully, this will translate into a HUGE win for conservatives in November.

  265. Michael Eden Says:

    StevenH said,

    I was worried after my last post and as I left the house, thinking about the arguments, I thought that perhaps I had really had misunderstood you and you were indeed talking about extending Bush tax cuts in your article. But as I reread it again just now, I see the article referenced the quote about cutting taxes on 95% of Americans. The only place i have seen that quote is in regard to what Obama said the stimulus bill would do. I don’t see where you reference extending the Bush tax cuts in that part of the article. Is there something I missed?

    You are just demonstrating something beyond profound idiocy at this point. And I am more than 95% of the way to blocking you as someone who is simply not fit to comment to an intelligent discussion.

    Allow me to cite a WSJ article that took me all of ten seconds to find – which is to say you should damn well do a modicum of research before you spout out dumbass drivel after drivel after drivel as you do.

    This WSJ article which I cite in its entirety is dated October 2008; whereas Obama didn’t reveal his $787 billion stimulus plan until more than two months later, as the following article demonstrates.

    December 9, 2008
    Barack Obama reveals stimulus package that could exceed $1 trillion

    Barack Obama unveiled another huge government spending programme yesterday aimed at reversing America’s high unemployment rate — a recognition that the issue of job losses poses the greatest threat to his presidency. Mr Obama, speaking in Washington, proposed a series of measures intended to stimulate job creation and bring down the country’s 10 per cent unemployment rate, the highest for a quarter of a century.

    Beyond merely proving that you are entirely wrong – as you are ALWAYS entirely wrong – in asserting that the “Obama tax cuts for 95% of Americans” revolved around his stimulus; and beyond the fact that I have already demonstrated that yes, in fact, my article WAS strictly about extending the Bush tax cuts; this WSJ article also just factually refutes you regarding tax cuts and tax credits.

    OCTOBER 13, 2008
    Obama’s 95% Illusion
    It depends on what the meaning of ‘tax cut’ is.

    One of Barack Obama’s most potent campaign claims is that he’ll cut taxes for no less than 95% of “working families.” He’s even promising to cut taxes enough that the government’s tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% — which is lower than it is today.

    It’s a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he’s also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of “tax cut.”

    For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase “tax credit.” Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

    - A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to “make work pay” that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

    - A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

    - A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

    - A “savings” tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

    - An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

    - A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

    - A “clean car” tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

    Here’s the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be “refundable,” which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer — a federal check — from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this “welfare,” or in George McGovern’s 1972 campaign a “Demogrant.” Mr. Obama’s genius is to call it a tax cut.

    The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

    The total annual expenditures on refundable “tax credits” would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as “tax credits,” the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.

    The political left defends “refundability” on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.

    It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit — his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We’ve written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain’s proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don’t now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn’t create a new one.

    There’s another catch: Because Mr. Obama’s tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge “marginal” tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.

    Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of “making work pay,” but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you’re a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery — among many — of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama’s 95% illusion to go unanswered.

    So, to summarize: 1) You are wrong in contending that Obama’s “95% of Americans will receive a tax cut” crap was in fact NOT in regard to his stimulus. Further, 2) You are wrong in claiming that my article was not about extending the Bush tax cuts to the rich. And even beyond that 3) You are wrong in the constant drivel you have been spouting about conflating tax cuts and tax credits.

    This Wall Street Journal article slams the toilet lid on your neck.

    Now, I don’t know what more can even be said. Your quibbling and trivial distinction between tax cuts and tax credits stands utterly refuted.

    Here’s the deal, Steven. I don’t like to block people, and have done so pretty infrequently. But if you try to make one more mention of this tax credit bull, I will make sure you can’t waste anybody’s time on this site ever again.

    There is simply no point in having any discussion with someone who refuses to give up a point even when they have clearly been proven to be wrong. So either move on to another issue (and don’t come back to tax credits), or just go away.

  266. StevenH Says:

    Michael,

    You wonder why i do not answer the substance of your arguments. Excuse me for being blunt, but you have often tended to litter the substance of your arguments with irrelevant insults and inaccurate accusations.

    For instance you claim I did not quote my source for the 8.2%, but, for the record, i most definitely did tell you that I got the 8.2% from the Bureau of Labor site the very first time i mentioned it [Oct 5, 11:19 pm post]. If I do not always provide links, it is because your site software seems to delay posting any posts in which i provide links. But i do often, though not always, reference the sites by name.

    You say I did not mention or apologize for the 8.9% and I most definitely DID apologize later for the 8.9% number which i said I had read off a bogus, non-official site [Oct 7; 3:23 pm post].

    And can you let go of the whole 8.1/8.2/8.9% thing? It’s just not that important. And I know that it is difficult keep track of all the posts and respond with full awareness of the most recent info. For instance, i just responded to Robbie’s post, but my response showed up after your recent post, so it just appears that i am ignoring you when i am not.

    Take this whole bit about this entire article section called “The Falsehood That Democrats Are Cutting Taxes”. You spend 7 original paragraphs and 3 paragraphs of quote, presumably to make a point that will further your larger argument, but in fact it seems the whole existence of the section is just because you seemingly enjoy saying that Democrats lie and the media lies because they are not giving tax cuts at all, but tax credits.

    When I conclusively, absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt disprove the statement that is actually the title of this whole section, you say “You have a disgusting habit of just ignoring whatever you don’t want to consider.” and then you promptly go on to ignore the thing YOU don’t want to consider that THE IRS TAX CREDITS ARE ALWAYS TAX CUTS IF THEY ARE NON-REFUNDABLE, and the corollary REFUNDABLE TAX CREDITS ARE STILL TAX CUTS TO THE PERSON WHO ACTUALLY PAYS TAXES. The Making Work Pay Tax Credit is always a Tax Cut BY YOUR DEFINITION, no matter what technical term the IRS gives it. And therefore the Democrats are not lying when they say they are providing tax cuts. The very title of your article section is WRONG.

    You say that I acknowledge i am quibbling when I did not. You say that the IRS definition of a tax credit is “nearly always” the same as yours but it is not. You quote Dauntless to prove most of the tax credits are refundable when all he offered was an opinion and no proof. I proved and quoted and cited that the vast majority, by dollar amount, of the individual tax incentives in the Stimulus are either NON-REFUNDABLE TAX CREDITS (which is precisely the same as a Michael Eden defined “Tax Cut”), or the AMT extension which is a TAX RATE CUT. And by the way, most of the refundable ones are Michael Eden tax cuts because they go to actual tax paying taxpayers.

    Then you say yes, you should have said tax rate cuts, not tax cuts, but as I then had already pointed out, that would not have afforded you the opportunity to claim Democrats were LYING, so the section title would still be wrong.

    But then you go on to say the whole issue is moot and trivial and not worth discussing because that isn’t important to the larger argument anyway.

    And it’s somehow MY FAULT that you included an ENTIRE SECTION that did not apply at all to the larger point of the article and was only there so you could inaccurately not prove that Democrats were lying.

    If you wanted to focus on tax cuts for the rich then don’t include irrelevant insulting sections and complain when people discuss and disprove them.

    Here is YOUR statement about me, but which applies most accurately to you and the very existence of the article section at hand:
    =====
    You have taken a discussion about the question of tax cuts – and specifically tax cuts for the rich – and perverted it into something it was never intended to be, and something which is so trivial as to be meaningless. It has NOTHING to do with the argument I was making. It is a waste of time. It is a complete waste of oxygen.
    =====

    So if I do not answer the substance of your arguments, perhaps it is because the substance is so hard to find among all the chaff.

    I have tried really hard to attempt to communicate with you about your article specifically and about economics in general. However, it is just way too much effort. Between your lies and your insults, and your stubbornness, and your reluctance to consider any information or opinion that is not your own, it appears that this experiment was a bad idea. There are a few nuggets of information I obtained, and for that, despite all the pain and needless insult I have also obtained here, i will thank you for allowing me to speak and listen.

    It’s unlikely I’ll post here again. It’s unlikely you will miss me. Enjoy preaching to the choir. They don’t care if you lie to them.

    StevenH

  267. Michael Eden Says:

    StevenH,

    You whine, “Between your lies and your insults, and your stubbornness…” I am always amazed at how you liberals who just whine and whine in order to somehow make yoursselves the victim – which you pervertedly think means you won the debate – can be such hypocrites. It was just a couple of comments ago that you called me a liar and said I was insane, suffering from schizophrenia as I was. You then asked me, “Or are you wrong, a liar, and schizophrenic?” And it was just a couple of comments ago that you correctly said that you yourself had participated in what you called “rabid name-calling.”

    Now you’re back to whining again. You can give it out, but if you take any, you start crying like a pathetic little puke.

    You bleat, “You wonder why i do not answer the substance of your arguments. Excuse me for being blunt, but you have often tended to litter the substance of your arguments with irrelevant insults and inaccurate accusations.” Which is to say, the fact that I call you a waste of oxygen because you never bother to deal with all the facts I present to destroy your pathetic remarks is somehow a good excuse for you to not deal with my arguments that prove you are the very names I call you in the first place.

    It IS very unlikely that you will post here again, Steven. Because I’m blocking you.

    I warned you. After putting up with your nonsense for twice as long as I should have, and after supplying abundant evidence that your contention was simply factually wrong, I told you to knock it off or I’d block you. But you just couldn’t help yourself.

    I produced an article from the Wall Street Journal that did a pretty good job of documenting how I was ENTIRELY correct in referencing Obama’s bullcrap “tax cuts for 95% of Americans” and the fact that there is a clear difference between tax cuts and tax credits. Now I shall produce still more, to shut the coffin on your crap.

    Here’s another article that simply bears out the fact that you are entirely wrong in your confused thesis:

    Obama tax cut ‘refunds’ those who don’t pay
    By Donald Lambro
    October 13, 2008

    Barack Obama says he will give 95 percent of all American workers a tax cut but does not mention that his plan would send checks to tens of millions of tax filers who pay no personal income taxes – payments that critics say look “suspiciously like welfare.”

    Mr. Obama’s campaign promise, which he has repeated in his speeches and in the presidential debates, stems from his “Making Work Pay” tax cut that will give a $500 refundable tax credit to every worker or $1,000 to each working couple. But because this provision in his economic-recovery plan is “refundable,” a large number of middle- to lower-income workers who have no income-tax liability after taking tax credits and deductions the that Internal Revenue Service allows, will be given the equivalent of the tax cut in the form of direct payments from the U.S. Treasury – funded by higher-income taxpayers.

    Because the IRS says that nearly 46 million tax filers – one-third of all filers – had no tax liability in 2006, there is the question of how millions of Americans can receive an income “tax cut” when they pay no taxes.

    “It’s got to raise alarm bells when you claim you are going to cut taxes for 95 percent of working families when more than 40 percent of them pay no income taxes,” said Phil Kerpen, policy director at Americans for Prosperity, a grass-roots free-market advocacy group.

    “What he’s really talking about doing is mailing a check, and to me, that looks more like a welfare program than the kind of real tax relief that would encourage work, savings and investments,” Mr. Kerpen said.

    The freshman senator’s campaign Web site defines the Democrat’s tax-relief proposal only in terms of offering workers “middle class tax cuts” and “for 10 million low-income Americans, will completely eliminate their federal income taxes.”

    But in a recent research paper on federal taxpayers, Scott Hodge, president of the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, said, “There will be 47 million tax returns with zero-income tax liability in 2009 under current law. That’s one-third of all tax returns and those 47 million tax returns represent 96 million individuals.”

    Mr. Obama repeatedly says in his speeches that almost all workers and “working families” will benefit from his “tax cuts.” In last week’s second presidential debate with Sen. John McCain in Nashville, Tenn., he said, “What I want to do is provide a middle-class tax cut to 95 percent of working Americans.”

    At another point in that debate, he enlarged the universe of his tax-cut recipients, saying, “I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans.”

    Investor’s Business Daily pointed out earlier this month that Mr. Obama’s ” ‘working families’ does not include all households. Throw in singles, retirees, students and the unemployed, and the share getting some tax-related benefit is a good deal less.”

    And here’s another article, this one the aforementioned Investor’s Business Daily:

    Obama Tax Plan: Back To Welfare?
    By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, October 02, 2008 4:20 PM PT

    Obamanomics: To those of us who can still tell the difference between a tax cut and a government handout, the Democratic plan for “relief” looks more like a blueprint for dependency.

    In the first presidential debate, Barack Obama repeated a claim he has made many a time — that his economic plan would cut taxes for “95% of working families.” But is this really so? Yes, more or less, but only if you accept Obama’s definition of a tax cut. And doing that may force you to leave your common-sense zone.

    First of all, “working families” does not include all households. Throw in singles, retirees, students and the unemployed, and the share getting some tax-related benefit is a good deal less. The Tax Policy Center, a group affiliated with the center-left Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, says only about 80% of households would get a cut.

    Then there’s the difference, not acknowledged by the Obama camp, between a real tax cut and the type of “tax relief” that looks suspiciously like welfare. A true tax “cut” is a reduction in the taxes you’re paying. In contrast, much of the “relief” in Obama’s plan consists of “refundable credit” — payments you get even if you owe no taxes at all.

    The plan does have some real tax cuts, such as the extension of President Bush’s cuts for families making under $250,000. This relief is significant — though John McCain would go further and provide it for everyone. However, so are Obama’s new or expanded refundable credits. These include, with five-year costs estimated by the Tax Policy Center:

    • The “making work pay” credit of 6.2% up to $8,100 of earnings. Cost: $323.7 billion.

    • A “universal mortgage” credit equal to 10% of mortgage interest for income-tax filers who don’t itemize. Cost: $54 billion.

    • An expansion of the child and dependent care credit, which would rise from 35% to 50% of expenses and would be refundable for the first time. Cost: $10.6 billion.

    • The “American opportunity tax credit” to replace the (non-refundable) hope credit with a refundable credit of $4,000 for college costs. Cost: $58.2 billion.

    • Expansion of the earned income tax credit to lower-income workers. Cost: $19.3 billion.

    That’s $465.8 billion in all over five years, all transferred from the $250K-plus set and going mostly to lower- and lower-middle-income Americans.

    Millions of those in line for these benefits pay no income tax, and Obama’s plan — both through these credits and a pure-pander policy of eliminating taxes for 7 million seniors — would increase the nontaxpaying class by millions more.

    The Tax Policy Center estimates that the share of households not owing income tax would rise from 38% under current law to 48% under the Obama plan.

    Another think tank, the Tax Foundation, says the number of nonpayers would rise from a third of tax filers to 44%.

    So how many will get “tax relief” that is really just welfare? The number is impossible to pin down exactly, but it’s likely to be huge.

    Start with the nonpaying class of 48% or 44%, depending on whose calculation you use. That’s well over 60 million tax filers. Many, if not most, of these would probably qualify for at least one of the Obama credits, because it doesn’t take much, other than low income, to qualify.

    For one of those credits, dependent and child care, you don’t even have to have a job. You can simply be looking for one. Taking college courses (and agreeing to 100 hours of community service) qualifies you for the “American opportunity credit.”

    The most expensive credit, “making work pay,” is aimed at low-wage workers but will have to be phased out at higher income levels. As the Tax Policy Center notes, the resulting jump in marginal tax rates in the phaseout zone “might actually give workers an incentive to work less.”

    What happens to our society and politics when so many Americans no longer expect to share the income-tax burden and instead think “tax relief” means getting checks extracted from “the rich”?

    The country is on dangerous ground at such a point, because there may be no stopping the zeal of politicians to pad their majorities even more by squeezing the wealth producers and buying the votes of a new welfare class that once was proud of paying its own way.

    Here’s the bottom line. Regardless of how good a job I did writing my first section – “The Falsehood That Democrats Are ‘Cutting’ Taxes” – there is simply no rational question whatsoever that many of Obama’s “tax cuts” are NOT in fact tax cuts at all. Which was my primary point in that section. And those three articles abundantly testify to the correctness of my statements.

    But given that you are the type of debater who feels that he is warranted totally ignoring refutations of his position if he feels he was called a name, you simply inoculated yourself against fact, logic and reason.

    So go away crying like a baby. Just go away.

    And please take the time to have someone change your diapers. Maybe you can get a tax credit for it.

  268. Noir Says:

    Thankfully the troll is gone! All`s well that ends well. And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming ;))

  269. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Everyone: A few comments from the article by Donald Lambro. He stated:
    “But in a recent research paper on federal taxpayers, Scott Hodge, president of the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, said, “There will be 47 million tax returns with zero-income tax liability in 2009 under current law. That’s one-third of all tax returns and those 47 million tax returns represent 96 million individuals.”

    Mr Lambro is absolutely correct. Don’t you think the 47mil should pay their “fair share” of taxes?. It is only fair if these so-called “poor” pay SOMETHING in income taxes. Not only that most if not all of that 47 mill have no checking account. I wonder why. 2)Tax credits: income tax preparation is part of what I do for a living. I cannot count the number of single mothers with a carload of kids, mostly mexicans, will come in our office, we do the tax return, and walkout with $2k-$4k tax refund. After running the numbers, almost all of the “refund” is some form of refundable tax credits and pay no taxes and the parent/guardian seems able body and sound mind, and I am sorry that they are “poor”, but if you are a high school dropout, have children out-of-wedlock/or before graduating from high school, otherwise HS educated only, lack poor personal finance skills, little or no job skills, then whose fault is it? Why should they get a penny? We have free public education and he11s be11s, if the “poor” cannot afford/or don’t have a desire for college, then go to your local community college and learn a trade. No excuses.

  270. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Btw, financial illiteracy is a problem in USA. The AICPA (Americna Institute of Certified Public Accountants) sponsors educational information such as this:
    http://www.360financialliteracy.org/

  271. Robbie Says:

    DC as i mentioned much earlier i personally know poeple you are descrbing in your 725am comment.

    i dont buy the “poor cant or didnt go to college had kids young” strawman either.

    there are plenty of successful people that went to school of hard knocks so to speak.

    and i do not feel sorry for them rather pity their govt influenced behavior as these are individuals who if not given these tax credits most would not game the system – would rather create wealth and better themselves –

    again self interest is a good thing and when they do their taxes hrblock and others openly volunteer (which is their job) all these great govt tax credits which lead to why would anyone say no to what they see as free money?

    and it only takes one tax year of getting thousands back and paying nothing in to realize that it is much better than just paying thousands into taxes. result: unintended (or maybe intended) consquences creates a dependent people.

    i never fault people for doing what is in their best interest in any given situation rather i fault those who create this environment. (liberals and rinos)

    human nature can be a beautiful thing if left alone.

  272. Michael Eden Says:

    Noir,

    I didn’t want to boot him, simply because I don’t like booting, and because having an adversary often helps rally the troops.

    I boot people for two reasons: 1) hate (and StevenH wasn’t a hater, but merely an irritator); and 2) failure to interact with arguments, simply because there’s no reason to engage someone in debate if they don’t bother to interact with your points.

    Steven actually admitted he wasn’t bothering to interact. He said it was because I was a blue meanie (or in my case, a red state meanie).

    The problem is that I was mocking him because he wouldn’t deal with the arguments that refuted him. If he had responded to the facts and arguments, I wouldn’t have mocked him. But when he refused to deal with points that showed he was wrong, he used my mocking as his rationale for not dealing with the points. And he used that for rhetorical jujitsu to make himself the victim.

    For a liberal, there can be no greater honor than somehow transforming yourself into a victim of conservatives.

    I suppose it’s the liberal version of terrorist “martyrdom.”

  273. Michael Eden Says:

    Dauntless,

    It almost sounds as if you don’t think liberals are compassionate for being generous with other people’s money.

    I routinely find myself in line behind someone who gets much nicer groceries than I do (e.g., more expensive meats, fresh bottled orange juice rather than the stuff I buy from concentrate, etc.). And I am no longer one bit surprised when that person pulls out a welfare card to “pay” for it. Me, I’m pulling out the coupons, and working to find sale items.

    My mother’s friend got into a conversation with a woman who spoke very little English (i.e., illegal immigrant) in a grocery store line. Not only did she get food stamp benefits, but she was getting taxpayer assistance to send her daughter to a much nicer private school than my mother’s friend’s granddaughter could get into.

    There’s a joke about a European liberal and an American conservative. The American conservative is riding the bus and sees someone getting into an expensive sports car, and thinks, “Someday I’M going to drive a car like that.” Versus the European liberal, who is riding the bus, sees the man getting into an expensive sports car, and says, “Someday that S.O.B is going be riding the bus, just like me!”

    I don’t begrudge people who are more successful than I am, and who have nicer stuff than I’ve got. But I DO begrudge those who don’t work, but who get taxpayer-funded benefits that I help pay for getting nicer stuff than I can afford.

    There are also serious “moral hazard” issues going on today. My next door neighbor getting a bailout on their mortgage when I’m working hard to pay like a sucker (for the record, my neighbor DID pay his mortgage, and that is just an example).

    When people who don’t work, or don’t pay, get taxpayer bailouts, that is only an encouragement for still others to not work or not pay.

    We are becoming a sick society.

  274. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Robbie/MichaelE:

    Yes, indeed…could not agree with you more.

  275. Noir Says:

    Michael,

    Liberal version of “martyrdom”, I`ve never heard that before but it`s an interesting comment and I`m sure there is some common psychological thread. There was no need to explain. Anyone who was reading the posts saw what was going on. I think you were EXTREMELY patient and dignified his arguments far too long.

    I am happy that you Dauntless and Robbie are keeping this going – it`s a wonderful read!

  276. Michael Eden Says:

    Robbie,

    In response to your 10:09 comment, I totally agree with your main statement:

    i never fault people for doing what is in their best interest in any given situation rather i fault those who create this environment

    When the government provides all kinds of loopholes and tax credits, it’s not the fault of those who legally use the system to best help themselves. It is the crazy politicians – overwhelmingly liberal Democrats – who have created the tens and tens and tens of thousands of pages that constitute our tax code.

    In the same way, I don’t begrudge the Hispanics who come to this country illegally; I would probably come over to make mine and my family’s life better, too, given that Latin America is largely a giant hell hole. I fault the politicians – again, overwhelmingly Democrat – who have prevented the United States from sealing our borders and keeping illegal immigrants out.

    It’s an important distinction, between those who create a terrible and immoral environment, based on self-centered political pandering, and those who merely play with the hand that politicians deal them.

  277. Michael Eden Says:

    Noir (from 6:08),

    When you stop and think about it, there is really a lot more connection between radical Islam and liberal secular humanism.

    Both are essentially radical faith commitments to perverted worldviews. An American Thinker article describes a form of embedded psychosis within the thinking of the left, due to unrealistic beliefs. And it can erupt into violence at any time.

    Both in actual fact have a profound history of violence behind them (from the left’s side, e.g., Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro…, to go along with William Ayers and the Weather Underground and the like, the Black Panthers, etc.).

    William Ayers, who palled around with Obama, dedicated one of his books to Kennedy assassin Sirhan Sirhan. Show me an analogous situation of a Republican president having someone do something similar.

    Both are seeking an all-encompassing totalitarian government that has dictatorial control over every aspect of the people’s lives.

    Both believe that the ends justifies the means, and that they can do ANYTHING that will give them power.

    Even the evil conception of “God” has been held in common by radical Muslims and liberal progressives. As I point out in another article, secular progressives actually began using a “God” of their own creation to justify amassing power. Woodrow Wilson was not a great deal different than the Ayatollah in using “God” to justify totalitarian and dictatorial control. He worshiped power, but masked his lust for government with religious words.

    Many Americans who previously didn’t see it before see it now: the only thing standing between Democrats and a true dictatorship is that they lack the power in our Constitutional system. And they have been working hard to overthrow meaningful constitutional interpretation so they can impose their own version of sharia law.

  278. michael Says:

    I am at work right now but i just read this article and it is the funniest thing i have ever read. no hate intended but it looks like it was written by someone who read someone elses work and is trying to claim their opinion as his or her own. there are so many holes in it it would take hours to show it. You seem to hate liberals and democrats and i dont really understand it. See, i look at your works and it makes me laugh. you get angry. I dont really understand that.

    Perhaps you will claim your anger comes from a desire to stop someone from hurting your country. Noble indeed. Yet, as a liberal who served in the military during wartime i cant help but think you want to be smarter than you really are. The difference between you as a conservative and i as a liberal is this…… I want to help educate you. You want me to go away.

    unfortuantely for you, i wont go away. unfortunately for me, you wont find a way to better educate yourself. its a shame. you are a funny guy.

  279. Michael Eden Says:

    Michael,

    Three paragraphs, and not a single thing but baloney rhetoric.

    I have to mock a person who says of my points, “there are so many holes in it it would take hours to show it.” And yet you can’t show a single hole. Not ONE.

    Then you go on to say, “I want to help educate you.”

    Well, educate me with WHAT? What did you say that “educated” me?

    Was it your mindless assertion about me “hating liberals”? Did you teach me the error of my ways by pointing out all my fallacies? Am I supposed to be stunned by your penetrating insights into my psyche? Was it your other mindless assertion re: your thoughts about how I want to be smarter than I really am (when you, clearly, being soooo superior, want to be STUPIDER than you are, I suppose)?

    I mean, just what in your bullpoop comment educated ANYBODY about ANYTHING?

    And that’s why I’m so “angry,” I suppose. It’s all these arrogant but completely idiotic liberals who think they’ve made some kind of point when they don’t have a single substantial thing to offer but their own self-aggrandizing smugness.

    I see pontificating weasels, and I grind my teeth.

    Fortunately, according to the latest political map following the landslide election -

    House Republican landslide map

    - I don’t have to worry about anywhere near as many pontificating weasels as I did just a couple of years ago…

  280. michael Says:

    and as far as your above post about a republican president with sketchy ties, how about g.w.b. having business ties with the bin laden family. since you guys like guilt by association, there you go.

  281. michael Says:

    well here goes with the holes in your…ummmm. logic?

    you didnt mention that reagan after the tax cuts then had to raise taxes to offset the dip in revenue. cant really blame you for not knowing that or maybe you just got interrupted by youe mother yelling from upstairs that your hot pockets were ready.

    you also didnt mention that the kennedy tax cuts were targeted at the bottom of them scale and it has been proven over and over that the rich save their tax cuts while those who are less well off spend almost all of theirs. once again, mom must have been calling.

    then as if to say that breaking the law or just being plain greedy is just dandy with you, instead of saying that while those on the lower economic scale pay what they have to in taxes and the rich have numerous ways to weasel out of paying them, you seem to think that billionaires hiding money is somehow patriotic.

    of course biden didnt say paying “higher” taxes was patriotic. he said paying your taxes was patriotic. intellectual integrity really isnt your strong suit.

    you seem to think that under obama is when the recession started. i guess you can blame someone else for what bush started but it just doesnt hold water. of course the deficit went up but obama had to pump money into the economy because as is common knowledge now, the banks and many businesses are sitting on cash but wont hire anyone. its funny they ask us to risk our own money but when it comes to them they need stability. they just sound like a bunch of greedy pansies. kind of like you.

    you also fail to mention that when clinton raised taxes in 93 is when the huge growth spurt started during his presidency. i know i know. he got a blow job in the oval office. how horrible. i guess you wouldnt vote for newt gingrich who cheated on his 2nd wife(sanctity of marriage) and then served her divorce papers while she was in the hospital. classy bunch of guys you roll with.

    spending is out of control on many levels. but both parties are to blame for that. taxes can be too high, and taxes can be too low. there is a middle ground. i just get annoyed when the tea baggers who make $50k a year side with millionaires who tell them their$300,000 tax cut is just as righteous as the baggers $300 cut. brilliant.

    any time you would like to point out a tax cut increasing revenue please be honest and make sure you also point out the tax increases afterward that had to be instituted to make up for it. doubt you will, but then you arent really up to the challenge.

  282. Michael Eden Says:

    Well, let’s see. I provide the actual figures in my article that show you are simply factually wrong about Reagan’s tax cuts and revenue. I offer facts; you offer assertions.

    Reagan raised taxes because he had a Congress full of Democrats to deal with. Ever hear of a guy named Tip O’Neal?

    Cutting tax rates increases revenue. It has every time it has been tried. I offer the analogy of having a minimum wage job, and living in my parents’ basement, versus getting a $5 million-a-year job and buying several huge mansions, yachts, maybe a couple of planes, and finding myself in debt. Would you say the guy with the $5 million job earns less revenue than the guy who gets minimum wage?

    You are completely wrong about John F. Kennedy, who said, “A rising tide lifts all boats.” Kennedy didn’t urge tax cuts for the poor. Kennedy urged tax cuts for ALL Americans.

    Anyone who wants to know the truth about Kennedy and tax cuts please read some of the statements made by him.

    Let’s see. Joe Biden didn’t say paying higher taxes was patriotic? From MSNBC:

    WASHINGTON — Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden said Thursday that paying more in taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans. The Republican campaign for president calls the tax increases their Democratic opponents propose “painful” instead of patriotic.

    You’re just wrong. It must hurt to be so wrong. But then again, “No brain no pain.”

    You say, “you seem to think that under obama is when the recession started.” And YOU seem to think that you can blame Bush forever for Obama’s incompetent misrule. You must think George W. Bush was the greatest president ever, because two years after he left office, he’s so great that he’s STILL the president. We’re all ignoring Obama as the complete and utter loser he is and turning instead to Bush.

    For the official record, one of the things “I seem to think” is that unemployment was 7.6% when Bush left office. And I “seem to think” that it is 9.6% now, two years after Bush left office. I also “seem to think” that Obama assured us that his massive billion dollar “stimulus” program would keep unemployment under 8%.

    One of us “seems to think” wrong.

    Why don’t you learn about Fannie and Freddie, which had Democrat ALL OVER them? Fannie and Freddie were such a massive failure that we’re still talking about a massive bailout of $685 BILLION to fix the black hole that they created.

    Bush tried SEVENTEEN TIMES to regulate and reform Fannie and Freddie. And he was blocked every time by DEMOCRATS.

    You claim that “Obama had to pump money into the economy” and refer to “common knowledge.” This election on Tuesday? Contemplate it. Because your “common knowledge” was a pacifier for idiot liberals. Nothing got rejected more on November 2 than the Keynesian economics that you believe in as an article of faith. The fact of the matter is that Obama did NOT have to pump more money into the economy. And people are pissed off at the trillions of dollars in crushing debt he’s saddled us with.

    You say, “you also fail to mention that when clinton raised taxes in 93 is when the huge growth spurt started during his presidency.” You say that because you are a totally ignorant clown.

    I guess you never heard of the “Republican Revolution” of 1994, did you? On your boneheaded braindead theory, the American people were SO grateful over Clinton’s magnificent handling of the economy that they chose to utterly reject the Democrat Party in the largest political asskicking until… well, until the asskicking your party got earlier this week.

    Even DEMOCRATS have started singing the tune that the Bush tax cuts – including for the rich – are the way to go.

    You’re just like Nancy Pelosi. You can’t understand, no matter how wrong you are. Nothing can ever refute you from the mindless little bubble you live in.

  283. michael Says:

    well thank you for admitting reagan raised taxes. im sure it took a lot out of you to do that. maybe mom will rub yourn feet for being a good boy.

    im sure you are relying solely on the laffer curve. but statistically it doesnt work.

    Reagan cut taxes in 1981. For the years 1981-1984, tax revenue from individual taxpayers (in billions) was 286, 298, 289 and 298. In other words, there was a total of 12 billion dollars of difference between the lowest total revenue collection and the highest point of revenue collection. It is just as easy to argue the rate from which the cuts occurred was already to the left of the laffer curve, indicating a tax decrease would lower revenue. After all, revenue didn’t increase, did it?

    In fairness to you, part of the reason for the decrease in revenue was a slow economy. The US economy grew 2.5% in 1981 and -1.9% in 1982. But, the US economy grew 4.5% in 1983 (the income taxes for 1983 were collected in 1984). Yet, tax revenue increased a measly 3.1%. This bolsters the argument that tax rates were already to the left of the laffer curve’s apex, largely because there was no dramatic increase in tax revenue as the laffer curve would stipulate despite a growing economy.

    For the years 1985-1988 tax revenues increased in each year. The respective total amounts were (in billions) 335, 349, 392 and 401. While it looks like the tax cuts eventually increased revenue, that isn’t the case. While im sure you will tout Reagan’s 1981 tax cut, you forget(up until you were forced to admit it) reagans tax increases….

    The following year, Reagan signed a big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.

    The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first two years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.

    The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today’s economy.

    For each year between 1985 and 1988, tax revenue increased from 334.5 billion to 401.2 billion – an increase of 20%. But for each of those years when tax revenue increased, there was also a legislative tax increase of one kind or another.

    The total overall increase in tax revenue under Regan was 40.70%. Compare Reagan’s increase to the Clinton administration’s increase of 97% (from 509.7 billion in 1993 to 1.004 trillion in 2000) which raised taxes on upper-income taxpayers. Again, this bolsters the argument US tax rates are to the left of the laffer curve apex because a tax increase increased tax revenue.

    Compounding you boy Reagan’s fiscal problems were his massive increases in discretionary spending(of course you will blame democrats). Discretionary spending was 307.9 billion in 1981 and 488.8 billion in 1989 – a 58% increase. So, while government revenue increased 40% during Reagan’s presidency, discretionary government spending increased 68%. Reagan never balanced a budget. To pay for the difference, Reagan increased total US debt from 1.028 trillion in 1981 to 2.8 trillion in 1989. The debt/GDP ratio of debt under Reagan increased in every year of his presidency from 32.8% in 1981 to 51% in 1989.

    Most right wingers often advance the argument the US needed that spending to win the cold war. The problem is we have never paid that debt back. We are still paying for the cold war – 15 years later. Basically, the US is paying the interest on its national charge card.

    Bush II implemented Reagan’s concept to a T. Bush II has also achieved the exact same result.

    G.W. cut taxes twice – once in 2001 and once in 2003 (the right wing has started to only talk about Bush 2003 cuts, conveniently forgetting the first). Tax revenue from individual tax payers was 994 trillion in 2001 and 927 billion in 2005 – a 6.7% decrease. Some of this stagnation is from weak economic growth. US GDP grew 1.6% in 2002. However, the economy grew 2.7% in 2002, 4.2% in 2003 and 3.5% in 2005. Starting in the second quarter of 2004, the economy grew at better than 3% for 10 quarters. Yet, from 2003 – 2004, tax revenue from individual taxpayers increased from 797 billion to 809 billion.

    Even comparing the growth in tax revenue from individual taxpayers over a longer time frame does not help Bush’s overall figure. Going back 9 years (1 longer than Bush’s two terms) gives Bush a 41% increase in individual taxpayer revenue (from 656 billion to 927 billion). Again, Clinton’s tax increase on the rich which led to a 97% increase in revenue from individual taxpayers provided more government revenue (while still growing the economy at a healthy clip and eventually balancing his last three budgets).

    Bush has also declined to use the other side of standard conservative economic thinking – a proportionate cut in government spending – coinciding with his tax cuts. Bush’s discretionary spending increased from 649 billion to 967 billion – a 48% increase. Compare this increase to the “tax and spend” liberal Clinton, whose disrectionary spending increased from 539 billion in 1993 to 614 billion in 2000 — a 13% increase.

    This massive increase in government spending occured at a time when government revenue decreased and once again led to an increase in total national debt. The debt/GDP ratio under Bush increased in every year of his presidency, rising from 57% in 2001 to 63% in 2005. It only got worse from there of course.

    Under Reagan, the tax cuts led to stagnant government revenue from individual taxpayers. It wasn’t until he started raising taxes the government revenue started to increase. However, Reagan spent like a “tax and spend” liberal, increasing the debt/GDP ratio in each year of his presidency from 33% to 51%.

    Under Bush II, the tax cuts led to a 6.7% decline in revenue for the first 4 years of his presidency. Because his spending increases far outpaced the decrease in government revenue, the total national debt outstanding increased 41%.

    To compare, Clinton increased taxes on the upper-income taxpayers, which led to a 97% increase in government revenue. He grew the economy at a health pace. He decreased the debt/GDP ratio in each year starting in 1995 of his presidency.

    it must suck to talk to someone who knows what they are talking about.

  284. Michael Eden Says:

    it must suck to talk to someone who knows what they are talking about.

    It would actually be pretty nice to talk to someone who knows what they’re talking about.

    Unfortunately, I’m talking to you.

    I’m going to block you, Michael. Allow me to explain to the world why.

    Because you are a liar and a hypocrite. Not to mention a plagiarist.

    You introduced yourself to me with the following comments:

    I am at work right now but i just read this article and it is the funniest thing i have ever read. no hate intended but it looks like it was written by someone who read someone elses work and is trying to claim their opinion as his or her own.

    i cant help but think you want to be smarter than you really are.

    I googled part of *your* diatribe:

    For the years 1985-1988 tax revenues increased in each year. The respective total amounts were (in billions) 335, 349, 392 and 401. While it looks like the tax cuts eventually increased revenue, that isn’t the case. While im sure you will tout Reagan’s 1981 tax cut, you forget(up until you were forced to admit it) reagans tax increases….

    and found this Comment by KennyBabes dated 2006-02-22 08:07:52 at this site:

    For the years 1985-1988 tax revenues increased in each year. The respective total amounts were (in billions) 335, 349, 392 and 401. While it looks like the tax cuts eventually increased revenue, that isn’t the case. While the RWNM continually touts Reagan’s 1981 tax cut, they forget several ofReagan’s tax increases:

    And without wasting time showing at least several other sections that you lifted, you pirated your rant. You, the guy who attacked me by saying my work “looks like it was written by someone who read someone elses work and is trying to claim their opinion as his or her own,” are a damn lying plagiarist.

    You’d be ashamed of yourself, if you were capable of shame.

    Now, me, every word in this article you mock is my work. The only things that aren’t my direct words I legitimately quote.

    So you are just a patently dishonest vermin who attacks me for something I didn’t do even while YOU YOURSELF DO IT.

    You are not an honest person, Michael. And there is no point having a discussion with a liar. Because the truth and the facts don’t matter to a liar. And someone like you can and will say anything and claim lies as fact.

    And I’m not going to waste my time with you.

    So begone. You’re blocked. You don’t deserve to post to a legitimate discussion.

    That said:

    Since you didn’t bother to read my article that you are so ignorantly commenting upon, I shall simply repeat what we can know about the Reagan tax cuts:

    So let’s move on to Ronald Reagan. Reagan had two major tax cutting policies implemented: the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981, which was retroactive to 1981, and the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

    Did Reagan’s tax cuts decrease federal revenues? Hardly:

    We find that 8 of the following 10 years there was a surplus of revenue from 1980, prior to the Reagan tax cuts. And, following the Tax Reform Act of 1986, there was a MASSIVE INCREASE of revenue.

    So Reagan’s tax cuts increased revenue. But who paid the increased tax revenue? The poor? Opponents of the Reagan tax cuts argued that his policy was a giveaway to the rich (ever heard that one before?) because their tax payments would fall. But that was exactly wrong. In reality:

    “The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.”

    So Ronald Reagan a) collected more total revenue, b) collected more revenue from the rich, while c) reducing revenue collected by the bottom half of taxpayers, and d) generated an economic powerhouse that lasted – with only minor hiccups – for nearly three decades. Pretty good achievement considering that his predecessor was forced to describe his own economy as a “malaise,” suffering due to a “crisis of confidence.” Pretty good considering that President Jimmy Carter responded to a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

    Reagan whipped inflation. Just as he whipped that malaise and that crisis of confidence.

    This might explain why a Gallup poll showed that Ronald Reagan is regarded as our greatest president, while fellow tax-cutting great John F. Kennedy is tied for second with Abraham Lincoln. Because, in proving Democrat policies are completely wrongheaded, he helped people. Including poorer people who benefited from the strong economy he built with his tax policies.

  285. Noir Says:

    While you were busy blocking him Michael, I was writing this response to allow others to see how he characterized the players. I hope you will still post it.

    Very funny how you want us to view the “rich” and their EARNED income. They are evil and greedy and have “numerous ways to “save their tax cuts while those who are less well off spend almost all of theirs”. the “rich” are busy “breaking the law or just being plain greedy…”while those on the lower economic scale pay what they have to in taxes”. The “rich have numerous ways to weasel out of paying them”.

    Oh yes sure we all believe that when you are poor you are somehow noble, pure and innocent, getting up every day to eek out a living. No no, we never see the poor commit crime (remember all those mothers looting to get diapers for their babies? That`s what you libs told us they were doing.) Nor do we EVER see our NOBLE poor game the system like those welfare mothers who have baby after baby in order to get more money from the system. Nor do we ever see intergenerational welfare citizens/illegals. Nor do we ever see the noble poor spending their welfare (other people`s EARNED income) on cigarettes, alcohol or in casinos. The are walking around in rags without $300. sneakers, iphones and pads or watching big flat screen TV`s at home, purchased with money that belongs to others. They are out stimulating the economy as Pelosi just recently told us, only they are doing it with other peoples EARNED income. We never see the poor on unemployment deliberately not looking for a job when they just started receiving it. Of course the poor are out there everyday looking immediately. The studies that show that if people receive money for 6 months, they will wait till the last weeks to look, if they receive for a year, they will wait that long till the last weeks to look for a job. And we never see them working “off the books” while continuing to collect. Nor do we EVER see the poor from other countries coming here and engaging in the stealing of identity, social security cards. The noble poor have no right to continually suck off the teat of the taxpayers EARNED income. Hardly any of the evil greedy rich are trust fund babies. They worked hard to get where they are. Is a family of 3 or 4 who EARNS $250,000 and lives in the tri-state area REALLY rich in your mind?

    It would follow under what you`ve implied that the Demoncrats are also the more noble politicians because they are the ones who treasure and value our poor and illegals more than Republicans. It couldn`t or wouldn`t possibly be that they are also sucking off the teat of the poor? It`s not that they are trying to institutionalize them as a dependent class and scare them if they don`t vote the lib line? We don`t already see any strong arm tactics from the poor who now DEMAND their entitlements (even the illegal ones). Why is it that these groups need “leaders”?

    No, I`ll tell you who is evil and greedy anybody who tries to steal what belongs to another!

  286. michael Says:

    actually the unemployment rate when bush left office was %8.5. you are just wrong. must hurt to be so wrong. when bush came into office the rate was %4.7. its interesting you would make an argument using those numbers. if you want to argue it that way then bush is according to your “logic” 3x a worse president than obama.

    when you see weasels and grind your teeth, i see bloated hate merchants like yourself and laugh. its one thing to be angry. its another to be angry and know what the hell you are talking about. you dont. im not sure if you are trying to make a name for yourself but you really arent doing a good job of it.

    i also like how you use the new york post as a reference. you are too funny. i dont mind people like you living in your own world but when you try and pawn your stupidity off as fact its annoying. i dont hate you. i feel sorry for you.

  287. Richard g. Says:

    I am enjoying this.

  288. Robert Says:

    Hotel rooms are boring and blackberry screens are very small. I have read all of this to the detriment of my eyes and neck. People are angry I guess. For as many lies as a democrat has spewed there are an equal number for republicans.

    At some point someone will have to pay higher taxes. There will never be a free lunch.

    Plagiarism is idiotic of course. Man google is awesome. But I don’t really see much of a difference between what michael did and you m. eden do.He just didn’t say the words weren’t his. You redirect to someone else’s article and then rant for awhile. I just can’t take you seriously.

  289. Robert Says:

    I will say from what I have seen the amount of time and effort you put into this is laudable. You just seem so pissed off.

  290. Michael Eden Says:

    Noir,

    Thanks for pointing out the implicit class warfare of Michael’s tirade (if that part was even actually his tirade).

    I saw it, too. But focused on other parts of his gibberish.

    That whole “the rich are evil for using legal loopholes to avoid having the government confiscate their hard-earned wealth” thing is pathological. Thanks for bringing it up.

  291. Michael Eden Says:

    I know, Robert.

    You’re so very original. When Republicans win, it’s because of all the “anger” of “pissed off” people. When Democrats get their way, it’s all because of “hope and change.” Way to take that incredibly tired mainstream media crapfest and personalize it to me.

    That said, another thing: you talk about my anger. What about YOUR anger? I don’t remember going to your blog and attacking you. Why is it that you come to my blog and try to hit me and then assert that I’M the one who’s angry???

    You offer this:

    At some point someone will have to pay higher taxes. There will never be a free lunch.

    And it’s true, as far as it goes. We’ve got tons of debt, and liberals will never allow any meaningful reduction in spending. Further, their entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare – and now ObamaCare – have saddled America with $200 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities that we can never repay.

    So, yeah. There is no free lunch. Democrats keep promising one. But they lie.

    And now we’re on the verge of total collapse. And they’re still lying.

    All that said, increasing tax rates on the rich DOES NOT increase tax revenues. It LOWERS tax revenues.

    You want to increase revenues? Lower the tax rate. And as investors and businesses expand their portfolios and operations, we create a larger economic base. And the rich end up paying MORE taxes because they earn and invest rather than shelter and hide their money.

    If I take away your ability to earn a reasonable profit, you’re not going to invest or expand.

    Then you proceed to speak like a fool. You see little difference between me and a plagiarist. And I can only conclude that you are such a moral idiot that you can’t tell the difference between right and wrong.

    You characterize me as “redirecting to someone else’s article and then ranting for awhile.” Because you are a nasty piece of work who can’t give anyone who doesn’t think like you any credit whatsoever.

    What I am in fact doing when I “redirect” is to offer support for what I am saying. And if I DIDN’T “redirect to someone else’s article,” you would be accusing me of not providing any support for what I’m saying.
    Because you’re just unfair and unwilling to respond to facts when you can find some little thing to quibble about instead.

    You don’t take me seriously because if you did you’d have to confront facts. And you aren’t about reality.

  292. Robbie Says:

    i think we are seeing election derangement syndrome!

    as pj orouke said the weekend before the election – “we are not holding an election tues we are holding a restraining order!”

    -and the above graph (edens post) showing house 2010 election results shows just that.

    so block away michael eden.

    and boy bush 2 is quite the statesmen compared to the manchild aka campaigner aka community agitator in chief. even obama flunky oprah had him on exclusively regarding his new book decision points.

    cant wait until someone writes in detail about the midwest academy where chicago community organizers aka agitators aka marxists learn to keep their socialism “quiet” as they mobilize urban eco terrorists to ply their “war” against banks – corporations (anotherwords capitalism).

    nior one point to add to your excellent post is that someone earning 250k a year is not wealthy by any standard as that number represents gross income whereas their net income may be much less depending on business and what type of year they had.

    so the liberals demonize these so called wealthy who are the majority producers and job creators in America. which makes these liberals (aka progressives) marxists pure and simple!

  293. Robbie Says:

    RE “cant wait until someone writes in detail about the midwest academy where chicago community organizers aka agitators aka marxists learn to keep their socialism “quiet” as they mobilize urban eco terrorists to ply their “war” against banks – corporations (anotherwords capitalism).”

    heard this someplace and have now discovered (thanks google) it pertains to a recent book called:

    “radical in chief barack obama and the untold story of american socialism” by stanly kurtz.

    as i spent the last hour or so kind of wondering where i obtained the info about the midwest academy i thought gee wouldnt it be great if we conservatives aka Americans didnt have to use our God given time, talents and mind to keep tract of nitwits, poor ideologies, etc?

    i liken us to a running back giving opponents the stiff arm as we make our way ensuring America remains as founded.

  294. Michael Eden Says:

    Robbie,

    I don’t like to block people. But when a guy tirades me as someone who steals other people’s ideas, and THEN commits blatant plagiarism in the very next breath, well, what can you say?

    I remember from Ann Coulter’s book “Godless” that this phenomena has been and continues to be alive and well with Democrats (who are just pathologically dishonest people). She described it with religion, how Democrats literally were receiving special training on how to appear “spiritual” so they could deceive people who otherwise would never vote for them. Your mention of the “Chicago School of Alinsky Studies” is just another page out of the same book.

    Agree with you. It would be a good article.

    JFK was a fierce anti-communist Cold Warrior. Modern Democrats pissed on most everything Kennedy stood for, and are in fact Marxist by any historically accurate understanding of Marxism.

  295. Michael Eden Says:

    Robbie,

    As to your words,

    as i spent the last hour or so kind of wondering where i obtained the info about the midwest academy i thought gee wouldnt it be great if we conservatives aka Americans didnt have to use our God given time, talents and mind to keep tract of nitwits, poor ideologies, etc?

    i liken us to a running back giving opponents the stiff arm as we make our way ensuring America remains as founded.

    Andrew Jackson (a man who should have borne much more watching himself) said,

    “But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government.” — Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

    That was well said, and expresses a vital sentiment to everyone who is truly a patriot.

    And it goes hand in hand with an article about sheep, wolves and sheepdogs by a different writer I put on my site.

    Most people are sheep. They don’t even self-reflect, much less reflect about their community and their nation.

    There are those of us (and I include many who have posted comments as “us”) who are sheepdogs. We are those who have taken it upon ourselves to stand up, to watch, and when necessary to fight.

    Sometimes it IS a burden. We are watching and working when others are sleeping apathetically.

    But I think there should be a sense of pride, as well.

    But for those like us, the nation perishes.

    “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” Hosea 4:6

  296. Michael Eden Says:

    I blocked Michael. And I’m going to RE-block him again. But I thought I’d let him have his final say.

    Here’s Michael’s final words on this site:

    actually the unemployment rate when bush left office was %8.5. you are just wrong. must hurt to be so wrong. when bush came into office the rate was %4.7. its interesting you would make an argument using those numbers. if you want to argue it that way then bush is according to your “logic” 3x a worse president than obama.

    when you see weasels and grind your teeth, i see bloated hate merchants like yourself and laugh. its one thing to be angry. its another to be angry and know what the hell you are talking about. you dont. im not sure if you are trying to make a name for yourself but you really arent doing a good job of it.

    i also like how you use the new york post as a reference. you are too funny. i dont mind people like you living in your own world but when you try and pawn your stupidity off as fact its annoying. i dont hate you. i feel sorry for you.

    To provide the Reader’s Digest version, Michael accused me of stealing my ideas from others (when I never have). And then immediately after he made that accusation, he wrote a post which I proved he plagiarized. Which demonstrates what a liar and a hypocrite he truly is.

    I let him back because Michael is the sort of arrogant fool who doesn’t realize he is a fool. And he makes a few points that were so easy to shove back in his face that I couldn’t resist the easy stomp on this cockroach.

    First of all, for all of Michael’s “you are just wrong. must hurt to be so wrong” smack talk, it is Michael who is once again factually wrong.

    From the Bureau of Labor Statistics, February 10, 2009:

    “Both the number of unemployed persons (11.6 million) and the unemployment rate (7.6 percent) rose in January.”

    So much for Michael’s crap about unemployment being 8.5% when Bush left office.

    Second, Michael mocks me for my reference to the New York Post to demonstrate that Fannie and Freddie are going to need a bailout of $685 billion, saying:

    i also like how you use the new york post as a reference. you are too funny. i dont mind people like you living in your own world but when you try and pawn your stupidity off as fact its annoying.

    This is interesting because, for all of his mockery, Michael is the proverbial ignoramus who has apparently never heard of “the genetic fallacy.” He mocks a legitimate and accurate story simply because he is so totally ignorant of logic (and see his first words to me here) that he ignores one of the central tenants of logic.

    If Michael was as smart as his smart mouth, he would have noticed that the New York Post was actually merely citing a Bloomberg article. He might also have noticed that the same facts are presented in great papers like The Wall Street Journal. Or he could have gone to the source itself, and seen the S & P article on the subject. But instead of bothering to check the integrity of the article, Michael simply chooses to reveal what an imbecile he is.

    Dishonest people literally hate the truth. And they will find any reason – no matter how ignorant or foolish – to disregard the truth, and mock those who tell it.

    Which is why (again) that I’m blocking this turd.

    Lastly, Michael boasts that when Bush came into office unemployment was 4.7%. There is something to be learned here.

    My first question would be, well, so what? For the historical record, Clinton left George Bush with the Dot-com bubble bursting. It began on March 11, 2000 – more than 10 months before Bush assumed office on Jan 20, 2001. Unemployment was going up as Clinton left office, and really took a nosedive shortly after Bush took office. The Nasdaq lost 78% of its value due to this Clinton-era bubble. $7.1 TRILLION in wealth was vaporized (43% of the the Market Capitalization of the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Full Cap between 2000 Q1 and Q1 2003).

    It was a massive, massive hit that Clinton passed on to Bush.

    Then add to that the 9/11 attack eight months into Bush’s presidency.

    And maybe you can understand why unemployment went up dramatically in the early months of the Bush administration.

    Now go back and read this very article – particularly the section on George W. Bush. And you get a chance to see what he had to overcome – and how well he actually did overcoming a HUGE hit.

    Not only was Bush able to increase tax revenue (as my article demonstrates), but the Bush tax cuts set into motion the longest consecutive job growth of any president ever. 52 consecutive moths, beginning in August 2003 (as a direct result of his tax cuts) and continuing until December 2007.

    Another thing to realize is that both Clinton and Bush had the same upper limit to unemployment (7.8%). And both had very nearly an identical eight year average unemployment rate (Clinton 5.19%; Bush 5.22%).

    Think about it: the streets were paved with gold during the Clinton years because unemployment was at a low 5.19%. But Bush was the worst president in history because unemployment was 3/100ths of a percent higher. And that’s after Bush overcame two of the most devastating economic events in American history during the first year of his term. That’s Democrat rhetoric for you.

    It’s rather funny how Democrats invariably insist that we must continue to blame Bush for Obama’s high unemployment two full years into Obama’s presidency (and probably years into the future as well), while at the same time refusing to assign Clinton ANY blame whatsoever for Bush’s high unemployment following the Dot-com crash.

    Well, so much for Michael.

  297. Jeff C. Says:

    Michael,

    You and I are entirely on the same boat…….unfortunately it is slowly sinking.

    I am a CPA….I find we pretty much all think alike, especially those of us Christians.

    I remember back in the early 90′s an article in the Journal of Accountancy, that was along the lines of 28 – 30% being the effective tax rate at the top of the Laffer curve. They didn’t use the Laffer curve lingo but related that according to their studies an effective tax rate above this would result in negative economic growth and less tax receipts. I haven’t been able to track it down on the Internet yet though…..

  298. Jeff C. Says:

    What would be very interesting to me Michael is to see a real good study done on how much the top 1% or 5% paid in 1986 tax code dollars before 1981. Of course probably impossible because the info on how much was diverted to tax shelters and passive investments and such is long gone.

    No matter how you slice it the tax burden on the top income earners has gone up up and up…….

  299. Michael Eden Says:

    The Laffer Curve is the sneering liberals favorite whipping boy, even though there have been many other studies that came to similar conclusions, and even though the concept has been proven over and over again.

    I pointed out how it was empirically proven by Andrew Mellon nearly a century ago. And his method was as scientific as any could be. He theorized that reducing tax rates would actually stimulate the economy and INCREASE tax revenues. And then he performed the experiment and PROVED it. And it’s been proven every single time it has been tried since.

    Always glad to hear from a fellow Christian with common sense.

    I believe that one day soon Christ Himself will give all of His people a “bail out” to the hell the world is creating called “the rapture.”

  300. Michael Eden Says:

    Bill O’Reilly said something interesting on his program last night (Tuesday). He said that when the tax rates were sky high for the rich, the fed didn’t collect any more from them. Why? Because they hid all their money in tax shelters.

    And that’s completely true.

    The higher the rates are, the more that the richest Americans will avoid taxes. I mean, even liberal John Kerry avoids taxes (e.g., the recent yacht thing).

    The rich flock to tax shelters, to tax-free municipal bonds, to purchasing collectibles, whatever. They hide their taxable income, and they don’t pay taxes. And the only thing that gets hurt is the economy – because when the rich shelter their income, it isn’t getting put to use.

  301. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Michael E./Jeff C.: I’m an accountant too and I could not agree with you more, as Michael E on the Laffer curve. However Laffer supported Clinton, which I could not figure that out, when it was the Republican controlled Congress that did the grunt work, not Bubba. The public at large needs to be educated:

    Article 1 Section 7, US Constitution

    “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”

    No president creates a budget surplus/deficit: Congress does that.

    Anyway, you are exactly right about the 1-5% taxpayers. I’m sure you know about this: IRS Tax Stats

    http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/index.html?portlet=5.

    You can find out who pays the most or the least. The great Thomas Sowell has a recent 3 part series about Mellon here:
    http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell102610.php3

    The problem with the left, they just continue to deny it, as we can see in the posts here on this thread the Michael E. started. They get off on a tangent of other irrelevant economic data to defend their claim. They fail or refuse to that tax policy and business regulations, affect economic behavior. I recently found out that China’s corporate tax rate is 16% and what is ours? 35%? Laughable.

  302. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Oh, btw, MichaelE, Have a nice Veteran’s Day. My son is in JROTC in high school and will be in the local Veteran’s Day parade.

  303. Michael Eden Says:

    Dauntless,

    You make some great points. And thanks for citing that Sowell article. I look forward to reading it.

    I have tried to explain this garbage that “Bill Clinton balanced the budget” before.

    From my article “Obama Turns To Clinton To Advance The ‘Democrats As Party Success’ Myth As His Economy Turns to Crap” (the links I cited don’t show in this copy/paste, but the general idea shines through):

    As usual, the media isn’t telling the full truth about Clinton. Or what happened to create the healthy economy of the 1990s.

    The mainstream media is remarkably consistent: you can count upon them to never give Democrats the blame they deserve, and you can count upon them to never give Republicans the credit they deserve, about anything.

    Bill Clinton is widely hailed for presiding over a great economy that featured a budget surplus.

    But let’s consider a very basic fact:

    From the Herald-Journal, January 27, 1984”

    If you took a quiz on government and were asked who writes the national budget, would you answer “The President” or “The Congress”?

    The correct answer is “The Congress.”

    The U.S. Constitution says that power belongs to Congress. All through our history, the Congress has exercised that power. The president cannot spend one thin dime that has not been approved by Congress.

    Article One of the Constitution of the United States refutes the argument that Bill Clinton should receive credit for his “surplus”. It was the Republican-dominated CONGRESS featuring promises that stemmed from the Contract with America, that resulted in the healthy budget that Clinton the media gave Clinton credit for producing. Even though all he did was sign (often after vetoes) that which Republicans had actually produced.

    What we don’t get told very was that Bill Clinton did such a miserable job running the country for his first two years in office that he suffered the largest (at least until this coming November) political defeat in American history when the Republicans swept into power over both the House and the Senate. We’re not told that Republicans continued to be the majority party in both the House and Senate during the years that the media assigned Clinton all the credit.

    It was those Republicans who were most responsible for the good times that resulted. They are most certainly responsible for the budget surpluses that Democrats have congratulated themselves for ever since. The very first item on the Republicans’ agenda was the Fiscal Responsibility Act.

    One quick example of these Republican changes was welfare reform. In his 1996 State of the Union, after losing even more fights, Bill Clinton was famously forced to admit, “The era of big government is over.” And Republicans were making that statement true by passing welfare reform legislation and an avalanche of other cost-cutting measures that made a budget surplus possible.

    We didn’t have the internet back when Clinton was president. We couldn’t overcome the media’s lies and bias. We can now. We need to realize that the media will try to recreate the same propaganda as they did before: give Obama all the credit for the Republican Congress’ budget balancing, even as they give Republicans all the blame for their uncaring cruelty in making people suffering by reducing government spending.

    And, yeah, amazing as it might be to average Americans, today’s Democrat Party is actually more communist than the communist Chinese.

    It’s amazing.

  304. Michael Eden Says:

    Thanks for the Veterans Day good wishes, Dauntless. Hope you had a great one, too.

    I took advantage of Applebee’s free meal for veterans. Had steak and potatoes, and they gave us an incredible meal!!!

    If Applebee’s intended to earn good will for their generosity, they succeeded with this veteran. I’ll eat there now just to say “Thank you” for their saying “Thank you.”

  305. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    1)Same here, I’ve explained too before to leebruls, but they are still in a trance over Bubba. Even the numbers from the Bureau of Public Debt, for crying out loud, as they are on my blog, “There was no Clinton surplus”…they still refuse to accept cold hard numbers. I had a lively discussion with a leebrul about it once, and showed him the numbers, how to calculate, and he still could not understand. And explained that CBO excluded Intragovernmental Holdings (explained on my blog) and he still could not accept that is was wrong for the CBO to do that. As a matter of fact, I revised it with more explanation…trying to figure out how to insert Excel data.

    2) Yeah, I went Applebee’s too. My wife and son was off, and reminded me. So, my son and I went for lunch. Wife went to see her dad. He is a Marine. I had the steak, mashed potatoes and broccolli. It was great.

  306. Robbie Says:

    Michael Eden and Dauntless Conservativel;

    from sarah palins twitter:

    It’s the Soldier, not the reporter,

    Who has given us the freedom of the press.

    It’s the Soldier, not the poet,

    Who has given us the freedom of speech.

    It’s the Soldier, not the politicians,

    Who ensures our right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

    It’s the Soldier who salutes the flag,

    Who serves beneath the flag,

    And whose coffin is draped by the flag.

    THANKYOU FOR YOUR SERVICE!

  307. Michael Eden Says:

    I’ve got a really good article on the “myth of the Clinton budget surplus” in my files. But here’s one for the general idea, for those who aren’t familiar with the difference between intergovernmental versus public debt – and how Clinton played games.

    Yep. You had what I had. Seven oz sirloin steak and mashed potatoes. Darn good, too.

  308. Michael Eden Says:

    Robbie,

    I went to the head of an American Legion post, and it had this incredible little ditty about the soldier that had a similar theme.

    Your citation of Sarah’s version makes me want to go back to that post and write enough of it down to find it online.

    No federal employee (including Congress and the president) should make more money than our soldiers whenever our troops are in combat, until the shooting is over. That would probably keep a lot of wars from happening.

    That would pro

  309. Robbie Says:

    yeah instead obama insists on mirandizing enemy combatants on the battle field (i thought the fbi was an in country govt entity?)and having injured soldiers private health insurance responsible for injuries from battle? (latter was suggested by obama administration over a year ago not sure if it is actual policy)

    i have beyond had it with these j#$offs (need i mention harry ‘this war is lost’ reid) and so has America. as i know i am not the only citizen patriot whose blood boils when hearing stuff like this.

    simply put if you are going to go to war YOU GO ROMAN you would think after 911 this would not even need to be said.

    i dont watch a lot of late nite tv – except when dennis miller is on – liked this from the tonight show:

    http://www.breitbart.tv/tonight-show-dennis-miller-bashes-pelosi-to-raucus-cheers-from-military-crowd/

  310. Robbie Says:

    what also cracks me up is some in hollywood somehow thinks they are the ones protecting freedom of speech, press, expression et al.

    really these (some are drug addled) nit wits like sean penn, oliver stone, john cusak, micheal moore (the fraudumentary film maker) and others actually think that anyone outside of their cult (18% of this country that is liberal) think they are anything but disengenuous buffoons.

  311. Michael Eden Says:

    There are officers and enlisted men leaving the military out of Harry Reid’s re-election.

    The most flagrantly un-American president and Senate Majority Leader of the most flagrantly un-American major political party in American history. That’s all you can say about Obama, Reid and the Democrats.

  312. Michael Eden Says:

    I’ve got an article posted that features Sean Penn saying journalists who don’t like dictator Chavez should be thrown in jail. Fortunately, most “journalists” in America LOVE dictator Hugo Chavez, of course.

  313. Michael Eden Says:

    I’ve got a confession to make. I was wrong about something I affirmed to in one of my comments. And why was I wrong? Because I agreed with a liberal (apparently truly NEVER a wise thing to do).

    Someone who turned out to be a particularly slimy species of liberal who called himself Michael said:

    you didnt mention that reagan after the tax cuts then had to raise taxes to offset the dip in revenue.

    Butchered grammar aside, I responded:

    “Reagan raised taxes because he had a Congress full of Democrats to deal with. Ever hear of a guy named Tip O’Neal?”

    Why did I agree that Reagan raised taxes? Because I’ve had all kinds of liberals point that out, as though somehow it proved that Reagan acknowledged that he was wrong.

    Well, I’ve been watching the Brit Hume series on Conservatives. And guess what? Liberals, as usual, have re-written history. Regan in point of fact did NOT raise income tax rates. He stood firm. He stayed his course. Reagan – who was in a terribly difficult position with Democrats in control of the House and following a midterm election in which his party had lost seats (sound familiar?), and under intense pressure to abandon his policy – refused to back down.

    The only taxes that Reagan allowed to increase were things like gasoline taxes. Liberals are playing a game of apples and oranges, and calling the whole thing “apples.” In point of fact, Reagan specifically did NOT raise income taxes.

    Obama just utterly caved on one of his major promises (tax hikes for the wealthy). He has been trying to argue that the Bush tax cuts created all the deficits – even as his own policies first doubled and then TRIPLED the Bush deficits. Reagan, in contrast, held firm and refused to cave in and retreat from his policy.

    Reagan stuck to his guns. Unlike the coward-in-chief in office now.

    And Reagan not only won the debate, but he was completely vindicated. Not long after he faced that crisis – in 1983 – the economy began to seriously take off.

  314. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Better tighten’ it up over there in bluestateland. :) (chuckle, chuckle)

  315. Michael Eden Says:

    Dauntless,

    Over here in bluestateland, if you don’t have something seriously rattling around in your skull, people look at you strange.

  316. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Yes, indeed…btw, you can find the numbers in House here. Just scroll through a small window called “Congress overview”, highlight any Congress and click on it and you can see the number of democrats and Republicans for each Congress.
    http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/house_history/index.html

    and you can go here to find the same for the Senate:
    http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

    and you can go here and find some archived reports about the Reagan years.
    http://www.house.gov/jec/
    I found this one and it is on my blog
    http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

  317. thestadlers@msn.com Says:

    During the 2008 Presidential campaign Bill O’Reilly interviewed Obama. When the tax issue came up, O’Reilly (the self-proclaimed “tough guy”) played right into Obama’s class warfare rhetoric. I wanted to reach in and slap him for not introducing the revenue stimulating effect of tax rate reduction. O’Reilly must be sophisticated enough to realize the facts. Why he gave Obama a pass on taxes I have no idea.

  318. Michael Eden Says:

    For the most part, I can live without Bill O’Reilly.

    He loves to say he’s watching out for the rest of us “little guys.” My sweaty pimply butt he is.

    O’Reilly has the virtue of appearing “conservative” when compared to most of the rest of the mainstream media offering, which is so far to the left it is unreal.

    Bottom line: the “tax cuts cause budget deficits” crap depends on several simply awful assumptions: 1) that the government actually owns ALL of what citizens produce, such that not giving the government all of your money is somehow a “cost” to the government; 2) that the government is better able to decide – in a frankly socialist central planning system – than private citizens in a free market how to best spend money; 3) that rich people don’t change their behavior in any way, shape or form as their taxes increase, such that they absolutely don’t EVER shelter their money given high tax rates; 4) or that rewarding people for taking risks and investing their own money creates less investment than punishing people for taking risks and investing their own money.

    If you believe all four of these assumptions, congratulations: you are stupid enough to be a “journalist.”

    If you ever DO get a chance to slap these people, could you do me a huge favor and slap them twice (once for ME)???

  319. Michael Eden Says:

    Those are GREAT links, Dauntless.

    Thanks for providing them.

    People don’t realize the opposition Reagan had to overcome. Versus the total control and worship Obama had with a massively Democrat majority in both the House and the Senate.

  320. Robbie Says:

    what about this supposed tax deal that fell apart and i am thankful for that.

    as what the point of supply side econ if it is watered down by keynesian econ.

    that i think is an important distinction.

    conservatives want supply side economics while liberals aka democrats aka progressives aka marxists are always pushing the extremely flawed keynesian model.

    the keynesian ecnomic model has never and will never work.

    dems push it because it guarentees a larger more powerful government – more entitlements – and more people on gov payroll or welfare = more dem votes.

    its called the democrat plantation for a reason. trust me i know i live in illinois.

  321. Noir Says:

    After all these years if the statists could just point to one place where these policies have worked and are still working. Ya know…..like… places where they don`t have to lock the people in or… some place where the people aren`t rioting in the streets.

    I don`t understand why our side doesn`t even pose that as a question!

  322. Robbie Says:

    the stateist – love that – seek ‘equality’ above all else.

    i think its less the point of whether it works or not as it is whether it is deemed ‘equal’ or ‘fair’.

    and of course we all know all being equal will only lead to an equality of misery.

    for crying out loud the pilgrims figured this out in the 1600s you think we could learn from them.

    we need to keep our eye on the ball the main tenets of liberalism progressiveism et al have been

    confiscating private property – taxing and redistributing wealth whether it be our labor, land or healthcare.

    abortion rights (most Americans think that if roe v wade were overturned abortion would be illegal – roe v wade was just more leftist one size fits all using the highest court in the land to impose their will on all of us),

    diminishing gun rights (wake up America you dial 911 AFTER a crime has been committed – those who wish to ought to have a right to protect themselves so yes i am for concealed or open carry laws)

    environmentalism – there is no global warming (http://wattsupwiththat.com/)
    yet we have spent $80 billion of our tax money since 1989 on this fraudelent science. thats a madoff style fraud. and al gore has just bought a $9 million house on the ca coast – obviously he is not concerned about the oceans rising by 2050. al gore should see this movie. http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/

    the enviro movement also extends to eco warfare on industries like mining, oil exploration, drilling and producing… basically anything the will ensure the rising cost of energy on Americans.

    and convienantly by and large the education system and media are a liberal shill in each of these tenets.

  323. Michael Eden Says:

    Fantastic point, Robbie.

    The failure of modern liberalism is – literally – as old as America.

    When the Pilgrims first came, they shared in everything equally. But it didn’t work. Because human nature took over, and people began to see that harder work didn’t pay off. So more and more Pilgrims – understanding that they would get the same share anyway – didn’t bother to put their backs into it anymore. And those who did work were discouraged by those who didn’t.

    And, now, we’ve got liberals wanting to repeat the SAME mistakes that utterly failed in our own past, and which utterly failed everywhere else it was tried, all over again.

    You’ve got a nice littany of liberal “brilliant” ideas. Their garbage worldview and the ideas that flow from their garbage comes right out of the Bible. But, of course, only in a bad way:

    Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools — Romans 1:22

    For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who in their wickedness suppress the truth — Romans 1:18

    You love evil more than good, Falsehood more than speaking what is right — Psalm 52:3

    But he who sins against Me injures himself; all those who hate Me love death — Proverbs 8:36

    Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! — Isaiah 5:20

    You who hate good and love evil, Who tear off their skin from them And their flesh from their bones — Micah 3:2

    In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe to keep them from seeing the light of the glorious gospel of the Messiah, who is the image of God — 2 Corinthians 4:4

    Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron — 1 Timothy 4:2

    For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths — 2 Tim 4:3-4

  324. Michael Eden Says:

    Noir,

    You make the valid point that you “don`t understand why our side doesn`t even pose that as a question!” It IS something of a mystery, why Republicans seem to have such a difficult time responding to the idiocy they are constantly confronted with.

    I actually responded to a very similar observation here. You might check that discussion out.

    Glenn Beck has been all over this pattern of leftist government, followed by failure, followed by violence, followed by still MORE leftist government, followed by still MORE failure, and so on and so forth.

    There is a significant movement in the left that wants the failure, wants the collapse, and especially wants the violence, because they believe they can (and history has often proved them right) use the collapse of society to impose their hateful socialist utopias.

    What you see going on in Europe now can be called “Socialist Withdrawal Syndrome.” People were promised a set of impossible benefits and outcomes that were simply unsustainable. And when those benefits and outcomes are necessarily taken away – or else the society will literally collapse and implode – the people erupt in violence demanding that they keep being able to suck off Other Peoples’ Money.

    Amazingly, the violence that erupts over the failure of liberalism/socialism is ACTUALLY SEEN BY THE LEFT AS A SUCCESS. Why? Because they don’t give a damn that the violence is due to their own demonstrated and documented failure; they only see the new violence as an opportunity to further collapse the system and thus impose still MORE of their policies which will, of course, lead to MORE failure and more violence down the road.

    Socialists are, on the whole, no more capable of moral learning than cockroaches. And, like mindless parasites and predators, they only view every development as an opportunity to feed themselves and gorge off the misery they inflict again and again.

    I mean, not to come across as harsh or anything…

  325. Michael Eden Says:

    what about this supposed tax deal that fell apart and i am thankful for that.

    I’m a little more cautious and pragmatic (and pragmatism aint necessarily a good thing) about the so-called tax deal.

    I was disappointed when I heard that the tax cuts would only be extended for two years. That just isn’t long enough to give businesses the planning horizon they need. At the same time, I am appalled that we’re talking about just “extending” unemployment benefits for another year (to make it THREE YEARS’ worth of getting paid for not working!!!). I like the payroll tax “holiday.”

    But I was willing to accept it. It wasn’t good; but it could have been worse. And we’ve got a moron for a president who would veto much anything better, inflicting high taxes on ALL taxpayers as a result.

    Now the thing has been larded up with all kinds of pork. And I will frankly be appalled if Republicans accept it.

    I want them to say, “We want the deal that Obama negotiated, or pound sand.”

    Keynesian economics. Pay one man to dig a needless hole. And then pay another man to fill that needless hole back up. And that, of course, is good for the economy. Because it “creates” jobs.

    Well, needless jobs. Insane jobs. Jobs that can only result in foolishness and failure not very far down the line.

    I came to the conclusion that by banging my head against a concrete wall, I could jog my brain into better function. So I banged and banged. I ended up even dumber, of course, with a concussion and memory loss. But as soon as I get out of the hospital, I’m going to try and try again. Because once I decide a priori that banging my head against the wall (a la Keynesianism) works, no amount of past failures or evidence to the contrary can matter.

  326. Marylu Says:

    I will forward this great article to all those I try to explain about tax cuts. They praise Clinton for how great things were while he was in office.
    I may have missed a comment about Clinton’s high taxes. Great article!

  327. Robbie Says:

    thanks for the bible quotes (good amo) as some in my family think you can be sorta liberal and a good Catholic – and yes she is mind numbing to talk to about virtually anything – literally some of your lib dissenters on this and other threads mirror her lunatic arguments.

    some would argue politics should be kept separate from religion – i would argue no way because if we allow America to slowly descend into democratic socialism we fundamentally alter our country as founded by evolving or substituting government granted rights in the place of Divine Providence – man’s God given rights.

    also this from Mark Levins website aptly titled ‘why work’ and relates to those 47% of Americans who pay no income tax yet recieve tax refunds via credit etc. –

    shows family that makes 14k or less actually has more disposable income than family making 60k!!

    http://www.marklevinshow.com/goout.asp?u=http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/255012/why-work-veronique-de-rugy

    Merry Christmas!

  328. Michael Eden Says:

    “some would argue politics should be kept separate from religion – i would argue no way because if we allow America to slowly descend into democratic socialism we fundamentally alter our country as founded by evolving or substituting government granted rights in the place of Divine Providence – man’s God given rights.”

    Precisely right, Robbie. If we agree that politics should be kept separate from religion (i.e., church should be removed from state), we have affirmed the premise of official state atheism.

    The funny thing is that the Supreme Court has ruled on more than one occasion that atheism itself is a religion, and “state atheism” exists in EVERY COMMUNIST STATE.

    That article from Levin actually citing how a welfare mom ends up with more money than a family earning $60 grand is priceless. It is amazing how decent American people are getting ripped off by societal parasites and the liberals who enable them to BE societal parasites.

    I know what you’re talking about. I’ve got an aunt (by marriage) who is a nice lady who gets nasty real quick when her liberal views are in any way challenged.

    I’m building a collection of such verses, and love adding to it.

    Merry Christmas to you and yours!

  329. Michael Eden Says:

    Marylu,

    Here’s another article dealing with Bill Clinton: http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/obama-turns-to-clinton-to-advance-the-democrats-as-party-of-success-myth-as-his-economy-turns-to-crap/

    The funny thing is that Bill Clinton did such a crappy job that he suffered the worst first midterm election in fifty years before the “shellacking” that Obama got. And he ended up so badly that Al Gore, in his unsuccessful bid to continue the Clinton legacy, had to REPEATEDLY argue that he was his own man and wouldn’t be like Slick Willy.

    Bill Clinton left George Bush with the Dotcom crash, which vaporized $7.1 TRILLION in American wealth, and which destroyed 78% of the Nasdaq value. Combined with 9/11 – a result of Clinton’s failed foreign policy – and the massive destruction of the airline and travel industries, Clinton walked away from all kinds of hell that he created. And then you can add to that Clinton’s awful imposing of even worse Community Reinvestment Act policies that were nothing short of a time bomb waiting to explode the US housing market as soon as the housing market hit a speed bump.

    Anybody who says Clinton was “great” for the economy – and who then turns around and blames the 2008 economic implosion on Bush – is simply patently dishonest. Because Clinton left behind a lot of crap to go along with that aforementioned Dotcom financial meltdown.

    And yet today we’re constantly assured that during the Clinton years the streets were paved with gold.

    Amazing how the media just keeps pounding away at the truth over and over until people believe propaganda.

    Thanks for reading, and for you comment.

    And Merry Christmas!

  330. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Robbie said:”or substituting government granted rights in the place of Divine Providence – man’s God given rights.”

    Robbie, you might want to read an article I came across a few years ago by Rabbi Marc Gellman called “The Spiritual State: ‘We Hold These Truths to Be Sacred’

    Notice Gellman’s 3rd theory concerning the origins of our rights:

    “The third theory of how and why we have rights is the one Jefferson authored, the one I revere, and the one I hope the high court affirms without too many subjunctive clauses. This is the theory that our rights come from God through the state, which is created by the consent of the governed to protect the dignity of all its citizens, who are all made in the image of God. The state, in this view of rights, is always subject to critique based on its success or failure to respect the God-given freedoms of its citizens. This critique is why we can judge the democratically elected Hitler government of Germany as immoral, illegitimate and sinful. We are judged not on the purity of our democratic processes but on the actual result of our efforts to secure freedom for all. What people forget, Jefferson might remind the court if he still had a larynx, is that our rights do not derive from the beliefs of any one religion. They derive from a nonsectarian national religious belief that our rights are secured by our being created in the image of God. Even though all Americans do not believe this, it is the reason why the rights of all Americans are secure. They are beyond the perversions of reason or the vagaries of political power. These rights are not achievements. They are endowments from God. How that God is variously conceived and worshiped by religions, or even if that God is worshipped at all, is of no concern to the state. What is of concern is that neither unaided human reason nor the whims of the government are sufficient to establish and guarantee freedom. Only a national belief that we are created beings can do the job. Now that job is on trial by morons (and I say that without any negative connotation) who want to set adrift our God-given freedoms, represented perfectly but not exclusively by the Ten Commandments.

    Perhaps Jefferson would say all that, or perhaps he would do something more dramatic and more profound. I bet he would approach the justices and place before them a yellowing piece of paper upon which was written his first version of the Declaration of Independence, the one that does not begin with, “We hold these rights to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights …” At first, Jefferson did not write “self-evident” because he knew that such rights as he imagined were absolutely not self-evident to reason or to the state. The rights that created America are the result of a spiritual/political leap of faith that grounds our rights in a formative national religious belief that we are all made in the image of God. From this belief has grown an exceedingly great and tolerant nation where people with different faiths and no faith at all have flourished.

    The words on that yellowing paper, the words Jefferson wanted to open the Declaration of Independence, contain no contradictions. They are made of whole cloth and they are woven on the loom of faith and freedom. This is what Thomas Jefferson wrote: “We hold these truths to be sacred …”

    Perfect.

    Maybe he would just put this paper down and then float over to Monticello to see if the fruit trees are awakening from their long winter’s slumber.”

    http://www.newsweek.com/2005/03/01/the-spiritual-state-we-hold-these-truths-to-be-sacred.html

    Probably the best commentary on the subject I have ever seen.

  331. Robbie Says:

    do conservative christians speak in terms of what gives glory to God while psuedo liberal christians in terms of Jesus’s message of love?

    as apparently every thing i say mixing politics with religion is denigrating or in (direct – her words) conflict to Jesus’s message of love.

    just noticing a trend with my dear relative. my knowledge of theology is limited.

  332. Michael Eden Says:

    You’re talking about liberal “Christians” like Howard Dean?

    When Dean was asked in a debate to name his favorite book of the New Testament, he answered “The Book of Job.” Not only was he unable to articulate at the time why he favored it, he could not even come up with the name of a single actual New Testament book.

    Oh, yeah, these liberal “Christians” dearly want to live out the Bible, don’t they?

    “Love” for liberals is “The North American Man/Boy Love Association.”

    I had an aunt ask me what I thought about the Arizona law. So I told her. A week later, I get this newspaper article detailing an extremely mainline liberal approach to illegal immigration (Jesus would have torn down our borders and let terrorists and drug dealers and gangs and murderers into our country, because that’s “love,” you know). And she hand wrote something that essentially said, “You’re a lousy Christian for supporting the Arizona law.”

    The article, as I remember, cited a single verse about treating the sojourner in the land fairly (because clearly, after all, treating the “sojourner fairly” equals opening our borders and giving illegal immigrants all the benefits of U.S. citizenship, right?).

    I’m thinking, “What about the Philistines, and the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, and the Edomites and the Ammonites, etc etc??? Does she not remember God repeatedly telling the Jews to drive them from the land so that they won’t contaminate the culture and the values God was trying to instill in His people (which, of course, is exactly what these peoples did when Israel failed to carry out God’s command)??? How can you be so ignorant of the Bible, and then tell me I’m a lousy Christian because I follow the Book upon which Christianity is based??? Just what kind of moral idiot are you???

    Not to mention the fact that I NEVER would have launched such a vicious attack on my aunt. I wanted to respond to her, but other family members asked me not to, basically saying my aunt would just further wig out because that’s what liberals do, isn’t it?

    The same sort of people who say Job is their favorite New Testament book and who have spent the last 40 years trying to purge Christianity from America just piss away 99.999% of Scripture so they can strip a single verse out of meaningful context and say “There, we’re better Christians than you are.” Now excuse us while we fund people who put images of Jesus Christ in jars of urine and call it “art.” Excuse us while we fund images of Jesus being consumed by ants. Pardon us while we fund exhibits of Jesus in sex acts.

    The lithograph, on display since Sept. 11 at the tax-funded Loveland Museum Gallery in Loveland, Colo., is part of an 82-print exhibit by 10 artists who have worked with Colorado printer Bud Shark. It includes several images of Jesus, including one in which he appears to be receiving oral sex from a man as the word “orgasm” appears beside Jesus’ head.

    Dozens of protesters gathered at the museum over the weekend to object to Chagoya’s work, including Loveland Councilman Daryle Klassen, who failed to get the issue on the council agenda but said he’ll keep pressing to have what he has called “smut” and “pornography” taken down.

    “This is a taxpayer-supported, public museum and it’s family-friendly,” Donna Rice, another member of the city council, told the Denver Post. “This is not something the community can be proud of.”

    Because liberals’ “Jesus” is a homosexual pervert who gets oral sex from his worshipers.

    Because that’s “Christianity” to liberals. Oh, that and supporting murdering 52 million innocent babies and supporting gay marriage and the utter destruction of all Judeo-Christian values that have existed for the last 2,000 years.

    Did Jesus talk about love? Sure He did. He ALSO talked more about hell than ANYONE IN THE BIBLE. So I guess He was talking about liberals and liberalism, but not the way liberals would ever want to hear.

    One day liberals will stand before a just and holy God and find out that the fact that they were literally five times more murderous than Adolf Hitler – because they thought it was better for mothers to murder their own children rather than love and nurture them – isn’t so “Christian” after all.

  333. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Michael E said: “because they thought it was better for mothers to murder their own children rather than love and nurture them – isn’t so “Christian” after all.”

    They WILL face those the children they aborted on that day is the way I would state it.

  334. Robbie Says:

    my aunt’s similar she uses liberal tactics – what she uses for any subject – consequently on politics, us history she is patently wrong headed – while when it comes to religion my knowledge of theology is limited nevertheless i recognize her lib tactics like projection, circular reasoning, blanket irrelvant statments – speaking in platitudes and a disengenuous that would make anyone aggravated.

    part of me thinks she doesnt even believe what she conjures up
    (thats my hope) as her messages take several days to respond whereas mine about 30 seconds.

    like your post i may clip some part i think my next tactic (this phrase my next tactic would bug her she might call me angry or partisan etc – what ‘tactic’ means to me is my next act to praise or give glory to God) will be to link abortion, death panels in healthcare (today obamacare could be ruled unconstitutional) to support dems by not opposing their agenda.

    after all is not inaction in effect condoning this liberal agenda. i mean my aunt can attend all the sun afternoon theology lessons or classes but if she does not actively oppose those who seek to increase abortion (taxpayer funded mind you) gay marriage, or liberty killing and just plain killing healthcare is she really living in the image of God?

  335. Robbie Says:

    also what really raised my ire is she took a (passive aggressive) shot at michelle malkin – i had provided a link to a post regarding the hypocracy of dems and the tax hikes – i thought of my aunt how can you not like or agree with malkin – i have great patience and initially will treat liberals as if they have a concussion or something. and when their dog and pony show or charade is exhausted as it always does then i go in for the kill.

    incidently i did forward this blog address onto my aunt but i know she is only interested in sitting around the campfire singing cumbaya irregardless of the condition of our republic – truth just aint her style.

  336. West Says:

    read your post above about immigration and your aunt – especially like your response in the context of the Bible.

    found this today and my jaw dropped.

    http://dailyherald.com/article/20101213/discuss/712149999/

  337. Robbie Says:

    hope!

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101213/ap_on_re_us/us_health_care_overhaul_virginia

    = no tax payer funded abortions or euthansia of our elderly through rationed health care!

  338. Michael Eden Says:

    They WILL face those the children they aborted on that day is the way I would state it.

    Dauntless,

    That is a very good way to state it, indeed.

    Actually, in contemplation, I believe we’re both going to be right. They’ll see the children they murdered, probably in the glorified rapture bodies Christ will give them. And they’ll stand before God and answer for their crimes against humanity.

  339. Michael Eden Says:

    Robbie,

    What is interesting is that Marxism came under the guise that religion was evil (an opiate for the masses which numbed them to oppression) and that they had a better and more just way for a society.

    And, of course, history bears witness that Marxism has been the greatest source of human tragedy in human history.

    And what do the liberals do in response to history? Try to bring back the greatest source of human tragedy in human history. Try and try and try again.

    Obama said in his remarks that liberals have been trying for “a hundred years” to gain socialist control over the health care system. And that’s true. They’ve been trying since Karl Marx showed them the way.

    Democrats (yes, that’s right, DEMOCRATS) tried for a hundred years to keep slavery going. Until Republicans defeated them politically (Abraham Lincoln) and militarily.

  340. Michael Eden Says:

    West,

    The article my aunt sent me (and scribbled about what a lousy Christian I was) was similar.

    All human beings were created in the image of God. From that part, they venture on to the fallacy of the false conclusion.

    Because that doesn’t mean that “all human beings” should be in the United States. Or that “all human beings” should be allowed to break our laws and become United States citizens by fiat. Or even that the United States should take care of all the hungry children of the world at the expense of their own.

    St. Paul put it this way:

    “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8)

    And we are clearly failing to take care of our own households, even as liberals keep demanding that we take care of more and more who are not our own, and not of our household.

    The crap this article is based on is simply liberation theology: a candy coating of Christian moralizing over a hard kernal of Marxist redistributionism.

    Neither Jesus nor any of His apostles ever once suggested that an all-powerful federal government should rise up to take care of the poor.

    That’s what Marxism is based on; and, interestingly, Marxism is also based on replacing God with the State.

  341. Robbie Says:

    “Robbie, you might want to read an article I came across a few years ago by Rabbi Marc Gellman called “The Spiritual State: ‘We Hold These Truths to Be Sacred’”

    dauntless
    yes it is perfect!

  342. Michael Eden Says:

    For those interested, I just updated this article with EXTREMELY cool facts from the Joint Economic Committee which appears at the bottom of the article.

    I also included titles and links to three relevant articles.

  343. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Yes, Michael E, those were good resources I found.

  344. Robbie Says:

    M Eden check out this site http://www.peoplesworld.org/ – i like how it bothers the democrats none the least that there core beliefs are aligned with what was once called the ‘daily worker’ or communist party usa.

  345. Michael Eden Says:

    Robbie. Looks like that site full of communism is a treasure for those who want to actually consider the clear relationship between the worldview and ideology of the communists and the worldview and ideology of the Democrat Party.

    I’ve tried to beat that horse in the past:

    “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” – Barack Hussein Obama.

    Oops. That was actually Karl Marx. My bad.

    Not that it really matters. Both men think pretty much share the same politics. Obama with his “spread the wealth around” mindset is basically saying the exact same thing as Marx in a slightly different way:

    “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

    I pointed out that Obama has nothing if not a Marxist pedigree. The pastor Obama CHOSE to lead him for 23 years is a confirmed Marxist; and Obama himself wrote in his book that he chose to associate himself with the MARXIST professors (rather than those token few nasty free market profs).

    The class warfare, the hatred of Judeo-Christianity, the hostility toward tradition or historic morality, it’s all Marxist.

    I agree with you, Robbie. Just how is it that Democrats reject the central tenant of Marxism, namely, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”???

    One good way to deal with Democrats is to memorize that slogan and quote it to Democrats word-for-word, and ask them if they agree with it. And then tell them, “Congratulations. You are officially a Marxist.” If they are familiar with the fact that the statement is Marxist, demand they explain how the Democrat Party repudiates that statement, and would never want anything so vile for America.

  346. GD Says:

    I’m very interested in this bit:

    “George Bush (who won the Iraq War after suffering the greatest attack on US soil in the midst of a recession he inherited from President Clinton).”

    If you could elaborate on that please. Do you have any sources? I don’t think I’ve ever read about Clinton’s recession, although I have familiarized myself with his false surpluses.

  347. GD Says:

    Actually, I apologize, I started reading into the comments and found the answer I was looking for.

    Your words exude intelligence.

  348. GD Says:

    What are your thoughts on the Clinton surplus myth?
    http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

    Either there were no surpluses, or the Republicans created them. I have read up on the former, but you state the latter. Any ideas?

  349. Michael Eden Says:

    GD,

    You ask some very good questions. And I’m happy to give you a further answer.

    Regarding “the myth of the Clinton surplus,” and whether it is a myth or whether Republicans were responsible for the surplus, I’d say it’s actually a little of both. First off, there are clearly some elements of the “surplus” that were clearly falsified. Here again is one article that describes this chicanery. Bottom line, Bill Clinton reduced the very publicized “public debt” by borrowing money from the “intergovernmental debt.” Which is to say that a significant component of the “surplus” was actually budgetary smoke and mirrors.

    But it wasn’t ENTIRELY smoke and mirrors, either. Because of a few things:
    1) As a result of Reagan winning the Cold War and bringing about the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Communist Bloc, and as a result of Bush I winning the Gulf War, Bill Clinton was able to (though he shouldn’t have done it) massively cut the military/defense budget. If that isn’t enough, Clinton literally gutted the intelligence budget and decimated the CIA. Presto: Bill Clinton was able to cut hundreds of billions of dollars in spending. He didn’t win anything; he shouldn’t be able to claim credit for anything. And no way could he have gotten away with this if his predecessors hadn’t defeated major enemies. But somehow Bill Clinton got total credit for what his predecessors won for America.

    [P.S., Clinton's decimating of our intelligence capability most certainly deserves some "credit" for America being caught totally unprepared for the 9/11 attacks].

    2) Also as a result of the great victories Reagan and Bush won, there was a massive increase in global trade that began to develop. It took a few years to really get going, and it was Bill Clinton who largely benefited (again, through no action of his own). Whole world markets that had never been opened to US business competition began to open up.

    3) As a result of both 1) and 2), interest rates went down and the money supply went up. Clinton was able to refinance significant parts of the US debt and lower our deficit through lower interest rates. Again, Clinton was the beneficiary, not the cause, of this fortuity.

    Finally, 4) after Clinton’s policies were largely rejected by the American people in a historic 1994 landslide victory for Republicans, said Republicans began to impose fiscal restraint. Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice before signing it the third time. And when it was popular, the media suddenly ascribed credit to Clinton for the thing he had fought tooth-and-nail against. It was REPUBLICANS who had run on balancing the budget (literally their very first platform on the Contract with America), not Clinton.

    So in point of fact Clinton DID juggle the numbers to create a myth, but there were nevertheless some genuine spending reductions – which prior Republican administrations, and then the Republican Congress which took over as the American people rejected “Slick Willy,” should get credit for.

    And yet Republicans literally get no credit whatsoever from the media propaganda.

    Then there is the Clinton recession. A better and more well-known term would be “the Dotcom bubble. I write about it here:

    George Bush inherited the policies that led to the 9/11 disaster only months into his presidency. George Bush inherited the Dotcom disaster that wiped out 78% of the value of the Nasdaq index along with $7.1 trillion in American wealth that was just vaporized as a result of Bill Clinton’s economy. And rather than spend the next two years blaming his predecessor, Bush cut taxes and turned the economy around. At least until Democrat policies such as the Community Reinvestment Act and Democrat refusal to reform and regulate Democrat-created Fannie and Freddie brought America crashing down.

    Why don’t we blame the president who actually sued banks to force them to make bad loans to people who couldn’t afford the home loans that the banks were forced to provide?
    ??

    By the standard the Democrats used to demonize George Bush in 2004, Barack Obama is the worst president in American history.

    And for the record, that $7.1 TRILLION in wealth that was vaporized due to the Dotcom Bubble – and more appropriately known as the Clinton Recession – is greater than the total sum of the entire Cold War. Just so you get an idea as to how huge that is.

    Hope that helps.

    Happy New Year!

  350. GD Says:

    Oh that certainly helps, thank you. You just explained to me something I’ve been searching months for. You’ve earned yourself another subscriber!

  351. Michael Eden Says:

    That’s great, GD. I can ALWAYS use another friend!

    You said something earlier that I’d make a quick comment about: “Your words exude intelligence.”

    I’m glad you put it that way. Because it’s not about ME exuding intelligence, but rather about the truth and the rightness of the ideas I stand behind.

    Basically, I approach politics the way I approach everything else: from a Judeo-Christian worldview. There are brilliant people out there who have bought into the secular-humanist worldview. And it frankly doesn’t matter how smart they are; because they’ve bought into a completely distorted view of the world, and they can’t possibly understand reality as it really is. In the end, their intelligence can actually work against them, because they are able to generate all kinds of sophisticated-sounding rationalizations to explain every failure of their system.

    I’d rather have truth than intelligence. I’d rather have common sense than have sophistication. And I’d rather be on God’s side than have the whole world in my corner.

    You get a sense of how God felt about big government from 1 Samuel chapter 8 (I’ve got an article that cites and discusses it here). And, for what it’s worth, another one here.

    Liberals ever want more government. But it invariably becomes government AS God, government as Savior and Lord.

    Bill Clinton famously said, “The era of big government is over.” Because the American people had rejected big government. And yet somehow the mainstream media managed to morph whatever success Bill Clinton had as a justification of the exact opposite thing.

    Here’s another article I think you’ll really enjoy, in terms of learning things that the mainstream media won’t ever tell you: “Obama Turns To Clinton To Advance The ‘Democrats As Party Success’ Myth As His Economy Turns to Crap.”

    It’s amazing how clear things become when you turn to the Bible and the ideas of our founding fathers for guidance rather than a bunch of self-appointed geniuses who deny everything that both the Bible and our founding fathers stood for.

  352. Julia Downs Says:

    I am trying to cite this article for debate and I’m wondering about your credentials. Education, former jobs held, etc.
    Thanks.

  353. Michael Eden Says:

    I responded to Julia in a private email.

  354. Rusty Laderman Says:

    I am aware this really is sort of off subject but I am thinking about beginning my very own site and was thinking what is usually essential create? I am thinking having a blog site like the one you have http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/09/08/tax-cuts-increase-revenues-they-have-always-increased-revenues would likely cost you a pretty penny? I’m not really very internet smart so I’m not really hundred percent positive. Any specific recommendations or help and advice is considerably highly valued. Kudos.

  355. Obama Needs to Go! Says:

    Oh are comments closed? Sorry I’m not good at blog comments.

  356. Michael Eden Says:

    Comments aren’t “closed”; the first comment from a unique individual gets held up for moderation approval. From there your comments should go through.

  357. Jacob Smidt Says:

    I actually have the same question as Julia about your former credentials and such

    Thanks very much!!

  358. Michael Eden Says:

    Jacob,

    I can tell you that I am not an “economist” or an “accountant,” although I did graduate from a shool of business in marketing and advertising management.

    But nothing I argue has any validity or any falsity because of my credentials or lack thereof; focus on the arguments and the facts supporting those arguments. If what I’m arguing is true, then it doesn’t matter if I just walked out of a mental institution after a lifetime of commitment; if what I’m saying is false, it doesn’t matter if I’m an Ivy League egghead.

  359. Anonymous Says:

    Hey,
    I am a student Democrat studying politics and economics in college. While this article proves that there are instances in history where tax cuts have increased revenue, regardless of what common sense may cause you to believe. However when Reagan and Kennedy cut taxes, the individual tax rate was much higher. It made sense to cut the tax rat from 91%-70%. One of my friends dad’s who is a professor of economics in UC Berkeley (one of the best schools in the world said)

    Brad DeLong on the 1980s tax cuts: “As I read the evidence … reducing the top tax rate from 70% to 50% is probably a revenue gainer and surely not much of a loser. From 50% to 28% is, I think, very different: a big revenue loser

    While tax cuts have worked in the past, they are not a one sized fits all solution. In fact they can be part of the problem.

  360. Michael Eden Says:

    Anonymous,

    The fact remains – no matter how you choose to spin it – that EVERY SINGLE TIME we have ever had a tax rate cut, revenues have increased.

    It’s really not counter to common sense to see why that is. The infamous “luxury” or “yacht” tax is a premium example:

    Laid-Off Boatyard Workers Rehired
    By JON NORDHEIMER,
    Published: August 16, 1993

    Judy Ott spends more time aboard million-dollar yachts than most millionaire playboys and crowned heads of Europe.

    Yet the only part of the world she travels is between her South Jersey home and the Viking Yacht Company’s manufacturing sheds on the banks of the Bass River here, where she spends her days applying the finishing touches to wooden stateroom panels in luxury vessels taking shape on the plant’s twin 1,000-foot-long assembly lines.

    Ms. Ott is one of thousands of boatyard workers in the metropolitan New York region trickling back to jobs they lost two years ago after Congress passed a 10 percent luxury tax on boats with a price tag of more than $110,000. Rehirings at Viking began earlier this year in anticipation of the repeal of the luxury tax, an event that took place last week in the new budget package that squeezed through Congress.

    The tax had been aimed at the small number of Americans rich enough to afford the kind of boats Ms. Ott helps assemble in an area where boat building offers the only year-round jobs outside of those available at the Atlantic City casinos, about 15 miles south. Hurting ‘Working People’

    “You had to be an ignoramus to believe the luxury tax was only going to soak the rich,” Ms. Ott said as she brushed a sealer on the door of a passageway aboard a 50-foot fat-beamed boat nearing completion after three months of fabrication. “The only people it hurt was working people like myself,” she said, slapping the sealer against the wood paneling in short, angry strokes.

    A single parent with three children, Ms. Ott survived on unemployment benefits of $287 a week for the nearly two years she was without a job. At the same time, her former husband could not pay child support, she said, because the recession killed the small business he ran.

    The worst part was worrying about getting sick without medical benefits. Her coverage ended with her furlough in 1991 and did not resume, she said, until she was called back to work last month.

    Robert T. Healey, the silver-haired dynamo who with his brother, William, started Viking Yacht in 1959, said, “All these people suffered needlessly because the politicians in Washington needed a symbol in 1990 to sell the American people a new tax increase.” The Healeys built Viking into one of the top luxury boat manufacturers in the world.

    “It’s a saying in the industry that big companies make little boats, and little companies make big boats,” Mr. Healey, 64, said with a smile. A lawyer turned businessman, he serves as chairman of the board of Viking, a family-owned enterprise. 700 Jobs Eliminated

    In 1990, the year before the tax was levied, Viking built nearly 200 motor yachts and luxury sports fishing vessels and grossed about $100 million in sales. Its plants in New Gretna and St. Petersburg, Fla., employed 1,451 workers. The next year, with sales plummeting and inventory backing up, the Healey brothers shut the Florida plant, eliminating 700 jobs.

    By the end of 1991, the work force at the 400,000-square-foot New Gretna plant was reduced to 60, kept going a small number of orders from foreign buyers unaffected by the tax and Americans who swung a deal that had Viking, in effect, discounting the boats by 10 percent. By the end of 1992, Viking had sold only 45 boats, costing a total of $23 million.

    The National Marine Manufacturers Association, a trade group, estimated that the tax caused 100,000 layoffs nationwide. For every dollar collected on the tax, the Federal Government paid out $5 in unemployment and other costs associated with the layoffs, the trade group estimated.

    In 1990, the boating industry in the New York area employed more than 60,000 people: 19,000 in New Jersey, 31,200 in New York and 12,000 in Connecticut. About one in three of these workers were employed in manufacturing, equipment and supplies, the others in service and sales, according to industry figures.

    The recession, of course, adversely affected the boating industry, Mr. Healey said, forcing layoffs and business failures. In each of two previous recessions, in the mid-1970′s and early 1980′s, luxury boat sales dropped about 35 percent, in part because of soaring energy prices that blunted the market for yachts that can gulp up to two gallons of fuel a minute when under way. In this recession, Mr. Healey said, yacht sales collapsed by 80 percent, an outcome he directly attributed to the tax.

    Boat building is an tradition deep in the tidal salt marshes where Burlington County reaches entirely across the state from the Delaware River to claim a narrow neck of beachhead on the Atlantic where the Bass and Mulica Rivers run into the sea below Tuckerton.

    New Gretna was little more than a marsh when the Garden State Parkway rammed south in the 1950′s and sand for use in the toll road was quarried here, leaving a huge water-filled crater. The Healey brothers bought the land and turned it into a marina, moving easily into building handcrafted wooden yachts and, by the early 1970′s, into fiberglass production.

    When layoffs hit Viking two years ago, two local bars and the only bank in the roadside community of New Gretna also closed down. Now Viking has rehired 275 workers and will add another 50 by the end of this month, said William Healey, 65, the company president.

    One of those rehired is David Wilson, a 21-year old computer draftsman whose father, Bruce, is Viking’s chief designer and whose grandfather started with Viking in 1959 as a painter. “There’s no other work in the area for someone with technical skills,” said David Wilson, who spent his one-year layoff mowing grass at $6 an hour.

    The fact is that when you tax the rich you actually only end up attacking the poor. The rich shelter their incomes and the poor lose their jobs.

    When you cut taxes (especially for the rich who do most of the investing and job-creating), you incentivize them to risk their money by investing. You also encourage them to make purchases that boost the economy.

    And that is simply a fact, which has been proven over and over and over again.

    We’ve got another example with Jack Daniels. Democrats thought they could add a tax to JD. But Jack Daniels assured the state that they would move if that stupid tax wasn’t rescinded. And take all of their jobs with them to a different state. Guess what happened? Democrats got a taste of common sense.

  361. Julia Says:

    It is no surprise that religious dogma was included at the top. Typical.

  362. Michael Eden Says:

    That’s your “refutation” of my article, Julia? Seriously?

    If I am somehow “religious” than any fact I state can be categorically discarded?

    It is amazing how breathtakingly stupid and irrational anti-religious bigots can truly be.

    As much of a fundamentalist Christian as I might be, Julia, I will never become so idiotic in my ideological zeal that I would completely discount a historic presentation on taxes because somebody doesn’t worship Jesus. Because I would have to become as dumb as you to do that.

  363. Anonymous Says:

    Michael,

    But we must expect this from liberals and statists. They can NEVER win with their ideas (unless their ideas are just about redistributing somebody else`s money and even that failed concept is about to necessarily end as the country goes bankrupt!) and so they are only left with degrading by personalizing the intent or character of the person making a given statement.

    And *THAT* Julia is what is TYPICAL of YOU!

  364. Michael Eden Says:

    Anonymous,

    Julia’s remark was even more breathtaking than what I usually get from the left – and I get some really stupid comments from the left.

  365. Anonymous Says:

    Michael,

    It was me Noir, that posted that. I am not “Anonymous” (I have come to despise that word of late.). I can’t see to log into my Word Press account.

    Just wanted to to know ;))

  366. Michael Eden Says:

    Noir sounds better than “Anonymous.”

    Hope you get your eyes back soon. :)

  367. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    MichaelE and Noir: Julia was just another ‘hit ‘n run” liburl…nothing to substantial to substaniate her argument.

  368. Michael Eden Says:

    Well, Dauntless,

    Who needs facts when you’ve got labels? Particularly when you can be maximally bigoted even as you denounce the other side with your assertions of their bigotry?

    Julia’s comment captures the essense of the debate: secular humanist liberals are “tolerant and open-minded,” while religious people are of course bigots.

    Therefore said tolerant and open-minded liberals can dump all the hate and intolerance they want on the people with whom they disagree with a sense of impunity.

  369. Chris Hartpence Says:

    Oh my…2012 looks to be a good year indeed. I’ve been looking for you, I think. Best take an extra blood pressure pill before reading what’s at the end of yonder link tho.

    I look forward to making your acquaintance .

    *salutes*

    http://uvent.info/uventnew/index.php?board=2.0

    -=Vel=-

  370. Michael Eden Says:

    Chris,

    Oh, joy, another liberal.

    Do you feel superior when you feed crap like this on the article mocking the Republican Party platform:

    Institute a national book burning day

    You DO know that it has always BEEN and always WILL BE the left that has been the number one book burners in the world, don’t you? Why not ask your buddies Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot how it’s done?

    You DO know that it is the LEFT and more specificially the DEMOCRAT PARTY that is out to destroy free speech in the name of “fairness,” don’t you? I mean, you do know that the man whom you voted for for president in 2004 said:

    SEN. JOHN KERRY: “And I have to tell you, I say this to you politely. The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it’s exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual.”

    “It doesn’t deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do. And the problem is everything is put into this tit-for-tat equal battle and America is losing any sense of what’s real, of who’s accountable, of who is not accountable, of who’s real, who isn’t, who’s serious, who isn’t?”

    I mean, so let’s burn all those books written by conservatives, because their ideas simply aren’t legitimate and should clearly be destroyed.

    Charles Schumer compared conservative free speech to porn; which certainly makes it a lot easier to denounce.

    You DO know that Democrats are doing everything they can do to pass amendments to restrict free speech even as we speak, right? Please see also here: “Democrats: Free Speech for Me, Not for Thee.”

    And of course you also know that Democrats want to force the American people to buy their books even as they try to burn the other sides’ books, don’t you?

    No, Chris, I’m really not looking all that forward to making your acquaintance.

    I’ve actually got far more interesting people to talk to, fwiw.

  371. Chris Hartpence Says:

    Hey Mike, and g’morning.

    Glad you enjoyed my parody of the Right’s platform. It stings when there’s a ring of truth, yes?

    I observe tho, that you kept to relatively safe waters, and attacked the parody, rather than the stuff backed up by data (the parody, being a comedic device, meant to exaggerate the silly positions of the right, obviously was not back-linked, and yet, it is the one piece you chose to attack. Quite telling. But I don’t blame you. It is somewhat difficult to call irs.gov, gop.gov, and the like part of the “liberal conspiracy.” Well…at least it’s difficult to do with a straight face, tho I suspect you will eventually make a valiant attempt to pull it off.

    I am not saying, and have never said that the “other side” (the left) is blameless. Clearly and obviously, they are not. Just as clearly and obviously the right is not. And for the record, I’m not a liberal, but a moderate, tho I understand your confusion. In today’s lexicon, “anybody to the left of me” is, by definition, a Librocommiefascist, right? And as such, is probably a terrorist, and almost certainly an enemy of the “real Americans.”

    The difference is…I can poke a bit of fun (via the parody you chose to attack) at the right, and still not regard you as enemies of America (not “real Americans,” which is the refrain we so often hear FROM the right). I can (and do) still hold out the hope that somewhere out there, is a member of the right who might be open to an actual conversation.

    So far, no luck, but I am eternally optimistic.

    As I said…a pleasure. :)

    Looking forward to more of your particular brand of “wisdom.”

    -=Vel=-

  372. Chris Hartpence Says:

    PS: And for the record..yes. I know the Kerry quote you speak of, and he’s got a point.

    The facts that constitute the news should not be subject to the dictates and whims of the market. The facts should be portrayed as the facts, nothing more.

    If you want to pose a bizarre theory about something, you should certainly be able to do so, but it should be given the weight that it’s worth (that of a theory, and not a fact).

    To do otherwise is to spin “infotainment” into “news” (as opposed to news, without the quotes).

    I suspect, however, that the distinction will be lost on you, but again, I remain hopeful that it won’t be.

    -=Vel=-

  373. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    After a look at the “Myth Busting” threads on Chris H’s forum page there is nothing “moderate” about Chris H. Chris H stated “I’m not a liberal, but a moderate,” Uhuh.

  374. Chris Hartpence Says:

    Well, Dauntless, there’s a fairly simple explanation for that. I was a Reagan Republican. Contrary to Michael’s belief (above), I did NOT vote for Kerry. Against my better judgement, I voted Republican, even though I knew, even back then, that the republican party had more or less gone insane, and since that time, it has only worsened.

    I am quick to give credit where credit is due, and the R’s have come up with some good ideas. The progressive income tax system, Earned Income Credit, and the individual mandate are but three examples of these. Good, effective ideas, sadly abandoned by the new rabid wing that seems to have taken over the party I used to call home.

    I’m all ABOUT honest debate on the issues, and that specifically is where I take issue with the modern republican party. Your purity tests and purgings leave me cold. Your willful ignorance. Twisting of facts to suit your agenda, rather than simply letting the facts speak for themselves. THAT is the republican party I miss.

    I have no idea when (or even if) it will return, but until then, I will knock down your toy arguments and point out the obvious flaws, and take great pride in dong so, because frankly, you’re wrecking the Party of Lincoln, and I am not amused.

    -=Vel=-

  375. Michael Eden Says:

    Glad you enjoyed my parody of the Right’s platform. It stings when there’s a ring of truth, yes?

    Chris,

    You just don’t live in the real world, do you?

    No, I didn’t enjoy your parody. And no, I think I pointed out that there’s absolutely no ring of truth whatsover to it. I believe I adequately documented that it has been the DEMOCRAT Party that has been behind attacking free speech. And in fact if you want to go back in history and examine when free speech was most under attack and most censored (example, World War I and World War II), it was under DEMOCRAT rule that it occurred.

    And I really don’t want to keep “bantering” with someone who is rather obviously incapable of having a legitimate conversation.

    Here’s Obama demonizing Republicans:

    “Their [the Republicans'] plan says we should go back to the good old days before the financial crisis when Wall Street was writing its own rules. They want to roll back all the reforms that we put into place.”

    Obama demonizing Republicans:

    “I ran for President for the same reason many people came to this country in the first place: Because I believe America should be a place where you can always make it if you try; a place where every child, no matter what they look like, where they come from, should have a chance to succeed. … So that’s why I put forward the American Jobs Act. … Independent economists who do this for a living have said the American Jobs Act would lead to more growth and nearly 2 million jobs next year. No other jobs plan has that kind of support from actual economists — no plan from Congress, no plan from anybody. But apparently, none of this matters to Republicans in the Senate.”

    Well, Obama is a proven liar without shame or honor. Independent economists have given Obama and his crappy jobs plan a failing grade and NONE of them gives him an excellent one:

    (AP) WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama gets mediocre marks for his handling of the economy, and Mitt Romney easily outpolls his Republican rivals in an Associated Press survey of economists. [...]

    Half of the 36 economists who responded to the Dec. 14-20 AP survey rated Obama’s economic policies “fair.” And 13 called them “poor.” Just five of the economists gave the president “good” marks. None rated him as “excellent.”

    And you personally are a liar for trying to claim that you vile Democrats aren’t EVERY SCINTILLA as spiteful toward the other side as we are. It’s not that Republicans have a different view as to what works according to your president; it’s that we hate America and we don’t care if we’re stopping the advance of freedom and goodness.

    Here’s Obama labelling Republicans as social Darwinists who don’t care about their fellow human beings:

    In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it — Social Darwinism — every man or woman for him or herself. It’s a tempting idea, because it doesn’t require much thought or ingenuity. It allows us to say that those whose health care or tuition may rise faster than they can afford — tough luck. It allows us to say to the Maytag workers who have lost their job — life isn’t fair. It let’s us say to the child who was born into poverty — pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

    Here’s Obama denouncing Republicans in the same way for an entire speech: “The Republicans wanted what I called the “foxes guard the henhouse approach” in which we further deregulate the insurance companies and let them run wild…”

    Here is Joe Biden viciously attacking the Republican Party for being Republicans:

    Here is Joe Biden saying the Republican Party hates people who work for a living:

    “There is an organized effort to place blame for budget shortfalls on educators and other public workers. It is one of the biggest scams in modern American history,” said the VP in a hostile, anti-Republican tirade today at the National Education Association’s delegates assembly in Chicago.

    “The new Republican Party has undertaken the most direct assault on labor, not just in my lifetime … but literally since the 1920s,” he said in the address at McCormick Place. “This is not your father’s Republican Party. This is a different breed of cat.”

    And of course we can go back to Obama pre-election and see demonizing people with who don’t support him is old hat:

    “And it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” Obama said.

    I’m already sick and tired of you and your vile and idiotic false presentations of the Republicans.

    I think you can get lost now.

  376. Michael Eden Says:

    Yeah, Dauntless,

    What you see is that deep down, liberals know they are vile. They literally run away from themselves.

    I’ve been forced to encounter a TON of lying liberals who deceitfully try to pass themselves off as “bi-partisan” or “moderate” even as they demonically attack the right. Thank you for exposing that Chris here is just another one of the same.

    It’s funny that this turd – who has called the Republicans book burners and racists on the blog he’s pitching – is saying he used to vote Republican and didn’t vote for John Kerry. Which is another way of him saying that he used to be a racist book burner, but then Obama came along and he realized that Barry Hussein is the messiah and he converted. The bottom line is he’s completely full of crap.

  377. Michael Eden Says:

    Chris,

    Um, hey, lying turd, remember you had the chutzpah to post your blog site (which I allowed) which is full of unhinged lunatic attacks.

    I’m not going to stand corrected by a lying fool who posts vile and irrational hate on Republcians while calling on the very Republicans that he posts vile and irrational hate on to be more civil.

    You can just get lost.

  378. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    ChrisH said: “I have no idea when (or even if) it will return, but until then, I will knock down your toy arguments and point out the obvious flaws, and take great pride in dong so, because frankly, you’re wrecking the Party of Lincoln, and I am not amused.”

    For starters Chris: “47% of Americans pay no FEDERAL income taxes”.

    ChrisH stated: “it is another meaningless statistic, used by the conservative crowd to whip the base into a parasite-hating frenzy, so let’s take a closer look at the number and what lies behind it.” Really Chris?

    A meaningless statisitc? Since when is the 47% so special that they should not pay FEDERAL INCOME TAX? Why should they not pay their fair share? because the high income earners are most certainly paying far more than their fair share. And your worthless godboy potus potificates how the rich don’t pay their faire share?Really? Let me put it to you this way. Why DISCRIMINATE (we can’t discriminate against race, creed,color, religion, etc. right?) against one income group over another income group? When we drive up to the gas pump, we all pay the same gasoline tax, right? When we retail shop, we all pay the same sales tax, right? So, why discriminate with income tax?

    The IRS, love ‘em or hate ‘em, is the most authorative on this subject. Here it is in black and white:

    As of federal tax year 2008…

    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08inratesharesnap.pdf

    IRS statistical data.
    http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/

  379. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    MichaelE said “Thank you for exposing that Chris here is just another one of the same.”

    Oh, my pleasure.

  380. Michael Eden Says:

    Dauntless,

    The Democrats’ slogan that “the rich don’t pay their fair share” is about as valid as the Occupy Movement’s slogan that they somehow represent the bottom 99 percent of wage earners.

    The fact that both movements are characterized by flagrent lies is, of course, besides the point as far as they are concerned.

  381. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    MichaelE said: “The Democrats’ slogan that “the rich don’t pay their fair share”

    Yeah, and I am getting sick of hearing it. FDR’s mantra in the 1930s-40s was “Soak the rich!!!” and it still lives on today. Even Hoover caved in to it.

    http://thedauntlessconservative.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/dynamics-of-tax-policy-during-1920s-through-1940s/

  382. Michael Eden Says:

    Good old Warren Harding and Andrew Mellon understood reality and introduced “fiscal conservatism” to a country that had forgotten it under Woodrow Wilson.

    Good old John F. Kennedy who brought it back by REDUCING taxes in order to INCREASE growth and revenue as a means to fight the Soviet Union.

    Good old Ronald Reagan who put these same policies into practice in the face of Carter’s “malaise” with the result of creating a trajectory of prosperity that lasted twenty years.

    Good old George W. Bush who similarly increased economic growth and federal revenue by cutting tax rates. Too bad he started out in such a deep hole thanks to the Clinton Dotcom bubble (which wiped out 78% of the Nasdaq and which vaporized $7.1 trillion in American wealth) and the Clinton-created 9/11 attacks. The resulting wars enabled the official party of treason (that’s the Democrat Party, kids) to backstab a president and an army at war for the first time in history since Republican Lincoln had the same problem with similiarly treasonous Democrat vermin. Bush still could have pulled off greatness, but Democrats were determined to create an economic implosion by rabidly refusing to allow Bush to reform and regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when there was still time to do so.

    Bad old Barry Hussein who was determined to do everything that failed in the past and eradicate everything that worked.

  383. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    MichaelE: You are most certainly correct. Bob Hope understood democrats quite well:

    http://thedauntlessconservative.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/democrats-according-to-bob-hope/

  384. Michael Eden Says:

    Ah, yes.

    “Thanks for the memories,” Dauntless.

  385. Frederic L. Milliken Says:

    GREAT ARTICLE! Very thorough. Would you let me reprint it on my blog The Lexington Libertarian? Of course it would all be attributed to you and nothing to me. You would be my guest editorialist!

    Fred
    Roadrunner75088@msn.com

  386. Michael Eden Says:

    Frederic L. Milliken,

    I appreciate your asking, but I feel free to re-post other writer’s good articles (giving them full credit and inserting a link to their site in the title) and I have no objection to your doing that with mine.

    It’s all about getting the truth out, from my own point of view.

    The only time I expect more than “attribution credit” is when someone is using my work to make a profit. And it doesn’t appear that you’re blogging for bucks.

    Good luck with your blog. LOVE the Revolutionary War re-enactment pics!!!

  387. Frederic L. Milliken Says:

    OK, much appreciated. The reprint of your article is now posted on The Lexington Libertarian with a few introductory comments by me. I have suggested that all my readers visit your site. If I can ever be of any assistance to you please do not hesitate to ask.

  388. Michael Eden Says:

    Thanks for having my back, Frederic.

    Wish you every success on your own blog. Keep hunting and pecking out the truth!

  389. Janet Says:

    After reading this thread in its entirety I would say that StevenH was treated quite badly by you and your cohorts. He was civil yet you insulted him time and again. One of your peers referred to him as a troll. That’s unfortunate because it buttresses the notion that you and your far right ilk are not civil people. StevenH presented good arguments and rebuttals and you, Michael, called him names and merely restated your erroneous stances as if restatement made them true.

    Although I loathe reductionism, here it is in a nutshell: Tax cuts raise revenues but always result in a net loss of tax revenue to the government. Always. The mellon, Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts all resulted in a net loss of tax income even though they did raise revenue. Reagan’s tax hikes and Volcker’s Keynesian manipulation of interest rates created the increase in tax revenues. The Reagan tax cuts also generated tax revenue…but at a loss compared to what the tax revenue would have been if the rates were not cut.

    In other words, there are no free lunches. Tax cuts do not and have never been self-financing. Nothing is free. You should know that being a hardworking conservative.

    But playing to the prejudices of the wealthy…”cut my taxes and we all benefit?…well go ahead and cut my taxes then..” never goes out of style.

  390. Michael Eden Says:

    Janet,

    First of all I’m going to go back and provide a few facts:

    Why did I boot StevenH? I gave my reason:

    I didn’t want to boot him, simply because I don’t like booting, and because having an adversary often helps rally the troops.

    I boot people for two reasons: 1) hate (and StevenH wasn’t a hater, but merely an irritator); and 2) failure to interact with arguments, simply because there’s no reason to engage someone in debate if they don’t bother to interact with your points.

    Steven actually admitted he wasn’t bothering to interact. He said it was because I was a blue meanie (or in my case, a red state meanie).

    What did StevenH say to admit that he wasn’t bothering to interact?

    You wonder why i do not answer the substance of your arguments. Excuse me for being blunt, but you have often tended to litter the substance of your arguments with irrelevant insults and inaccurate accusations.

    BUT IT WAS PRECISELY BECAUSE HE WAS REFUSING TO ANSWER THE SUBSTANCE OF MY ARGUMENTS THAT I INSULTED HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

    And I will likewise go after ANYBODY who comes on to this blog claiming they want to debate who ignores arguments they don’t want to deal with. You can count on that.

    And by the way I like “booting” people a lot more these days. I simply will not tolerate those who refuse to interact with arguments and facts.

    A couple more things:

    Number one: what on earth is morally wrong with you liberals?

    I recently wrote a pice titled, “Of Liberalism, Victimism, Avoidance, Projectionism And Other Personality Disorders.” In it I described this pathological mindset of you people to play PC jujitsu to make yourselves the victims in any discussion – with the mindset then being under liberalsm, “the victim always wins.”

    Why do you do that??? Which is another way of my asking, “Why is it that you personally are such a pathologically dishonest and hypocritical person, Janet???”

    Why didn’t you demonize Barack Obama when he said Republicans want dirtier air and dirtier water? Why didn’t you go after him (and LIBERALISM) when the Democrat in the highest office in the land suggested that Republicans wanted more children with autism and Downs Syndrome???? Why weren’t you so outraged that you would leave the Democrat Party when Rep. Alan Grayson during the healthcare debate said, “Republicans want you to die quickly.”

    You denounce me for being uncivil when your top messiah ROUTINELY is uncivil??? And conservatives don’t have a right to punch back???

    I DESPISE people who pull that kind of dishonest crap. And I get it every single day. You point your fingers so self-righteously at conservatives and your side is twice as guilty as we are for the thing you demonize us for doing. And to the extent that I’m extreme, people like YOU make me more extreme. Because you are pathologically incapable of personal self-introspection and therefore I know that you will continue being vile. And just like an enemy who firebombs your cities and uses poison gas on your troops, we have to fight back or just surrender and become your slaves.

    Negative attacks work. That is a sad fact of documented reality. And as long as the left throws bombs EVEN AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS SUCH AS THE PRESIDENCY, you can bet that I’m going to pick up my own weapons and keep fighting back no matter what hypocrites like you say.

    I wrote an article titled, “Do Unto Obama As Liberals Did Unto Bush.” I think that’s self-explanatory.

    As a result of that particular article, a liberal rag called the Daily Beast denounced me as “one particularly unhinged culture warrior.” What that author never deigns to acknowledge is the fact that turnabout is rather very clearly fair play after eight years of unrelenting Bush derangement syndrome that literally began on election day as Democrats said Bush wasn’t even really elected. So why can’t conservatives do the same that the author’s side did to us??? And you are every bit as intellectually and morally dishonest as that writer, Janet.

    You liberals are children who coldcock another kid in the face from behind and then run screaming to the teacher that that kid you just blindsided wants to hit you.

    Second, when you say,

    Tax cuts raise revenues but always result in a net loss of tax revenue to the government. Always. The mellon, Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts all resulted in a net loss of tax income even though they did raise revenue.

    I have to ask:

    HOW IN THE HELL DO YOU RAISE TAX REVENUE (I.E., GENERATE MORE MONEY FOR THE GOVERNMENT than did the previous liberal administration) AND LOSE TAX INCOME (I.E., COST THE GOVERNMENT MONEY) AT THE SAME TIME???

    Here are a couple more articles for consideration:

    Hey Democrats, Why Is It That States With The Highest Tax Rates Have The Highest Debt???

    If Raising Taxes Would Get America Out Of Trouble, WHY IS THE EURO ZONE IN SUCH DEEP SH!T???

    ‘Unexpected’ Increase In Tax Revenues: More Confirmation That Lower Taxes Increases Growth/Revenue

    If Rich People Are Evil Like Obama Says, You’d Better Pray They Don’t Get Their Taxes Raised

    People like you will never understand that a “hardworking conservative” like me demands to be allowed to keep more of what I worked so hard for. People like you will never understand that if investors are denied the right to profit they will not invest, and if job creators are denied the right from profiting from the jobs they create they will not create jobs. Your universe is frozen into the static mindset that if you raise taxes 20%, you will ergo sum receive 20% more revenue. Because human beings are herd animals who are no more capable of changing their behavior than cows. And you may very well be such a cow, Janet, but people like me are not: and if you raise our taxes, we will “progressively” shelter our incomes and protect ourselves from your tax burdens AND YOU WILL LOSE REVENUE.

    Another question I have is why do people like you on the left believe that government owns ALL of our wealth, and have the right to take as much of it as they want???

    The truth boils down to this: regardless of what you SAY, in the end you are NOT INTERESTED IN INCREASING TAX REVENUE; YOU WANT MORE POWER AND MORE CONTROL OVER THE PEOPLE YOU TAX AND REGULATE.

    Listen to this exhange between Obama and ABC anchor Charles Gibson:

    MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
    SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

    The Senator then proceeded to bash evil rich (sorry for the redundancy) people, so the moderator asked the question again:

    MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

    You are simply factually wrong. But you are either too ignorant or like Obama too ideological to give a damn that you are factually wrong.

    I would actually be interested in hearing your explanation that you can raise revenue (from the prior liberal progressive tax the crap on the rich policies) but lose revenue at the same time and in the same sense.

    But here’s the thing: I can’t stand you dishonest hypocrite liberals who constantly come on to my blog whining about how mean conservatives are when you have NEVER ONCE COMPLAINED ABOUT THE INCIVILITY IN YOUR OWN DAMN PARTY AND IDEOLOGY.

    You have already documented that you are an intrinsically deceitful person.

    If anyone wants to have a discussion with me ON THE ISSUES, fine, but if you try to insinuate that conservatives are “not civil people” in comparison to liberals, just get lost. Because you simply are not remotely worthy of having any kind of discussion with.

  391. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    MichaelE: I just have weigh in on this, if I may. Poor Janet makes no sense when she states:
    *Tax cuts raise revenues but always result in a net loss of tax revenue to the government.*

    No Janet, you have it all backwards. What you don’t seem to comprehend is the FACT that tax cuts STIMULATE economic activity, comsumer and business spending and people get hired. All this brings in REVENUE to federal, state and local tax coffers.

    *Always.*

    Then show us the math.

    *The mellon, Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts all resulted in a net loss of tax income even though they did raise revenue.

    Not true.

    http://thedauntlessconservative.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/the-reagan-tax-cuts-lessons-for-tax-reform/

    Janet said: *Reagan’s tax hikes and Volcker’s Keynesian manipulation of interest rates created the increase in tax revenues.”*

    Interest rates? The government borrowed money was at VERY HIGH interest rates thanks to Volker.While there was tax increases there were tax cuts.The NET EFFECT is what GENERATED REVENUE per OMB. Reagan had a demoncrat Congress to contend with and he could not always get what he wanted. Same goes for any POTUS…can’t always get what you want because you have to go through Congress.

    http://thedauntlessconservative.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/the-reagan-tax-cuts-lessons-for-tax-reform/

    Janet said: *The Reagan tax cuts also generated tax revenue…but at a loss compared to what the tax revenue would have been if the rates were not cut.*

    Janet. You fail ECON 101. You fail calculate human creativity in FREE society using THEIR money that THEY EARNED. There is an “optimun point’ of tax rates explained by Arthur Laffer. Simply stated, you can’ have 0% tax rate nor a 100%, but an optimum rate that doesn’t EXCESSIVELY burden people and businesses while generated an acceptable level of revenue that keeps government functioning.

    Janet said” * your far right ilk are not civil people” Really, Janet. Did you follow the OWS movement? They cursed at poice, destroyed property, vandalized property, urinated and defecated in the street, set fires burning property? Are you serious. Here is just a sample of one of your left goons, Maxine Waters, telling the Tea Party to “go to hell”. There is more Janet.

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rep-maxine-waters-tells-the-tea-party-to-go-straight-to-hell-at-heated-california-town-hall/

    Why don’t you take a look who supported the OWS.
    http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2011/10/31/the-99-official-list-of-ows/

  392. Michael Eden Says:

    Dauntless,

    I always love it when you weigh in with your weighty graphs.

    Janet has a head full of assertions, though. Your facts are useless to her.

    If I only had just a penny for every hypocrite liberal who self-righteously attacked us for “not being civil.” Liberalism means being incapable of personal self-introspection.

    I’ve had liberals allege that Reagan raised taxes rather than cut them. Which is interesting, given how much liberals truly despise Reagan (for clearly NOT raising taxes). Reagan was a man with a vision to end the Cold War by economically defeating the USSR. In order to do so, he compromised with the left that ALWAYS ran the House during his presidency and ran the Senate during half his presidency. That meant allowing taxes to be raised in a few instances. But Reagan always believed in negotiating/compromising ONLY THROUGH STRENGTH; so he CUT far more taxes than he raised. And the result was a boom that lasted twenty years.

    For the record, Obama was in a unique position in which he COULD get whatever he wanted through Congress during his first two years when he dominated the House and held a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. And what he did was ram a failed stimulus through that proved Keynesian economics doesn’t work and impose an unconstitutional and immoral ObamaCare. Now he’s bitching that Repubicans won’t bow down before him and give him more failed policies that he already demonstrated won’t work.

  393. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    MichaelE; I wanted to comment more on Janet, but I was a little pushed for time..my work is long and hard…not much time to blog….anyway here is a couple of main points I wanted to say:
    1) While it is true that there were some tax increases in RR years. They available from the Treasury Dept here in a PDF file.

    REVENUE EFFECTS OF MAJOR TAX BILLS
    http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/ota81.pdf

    1)Here is the tax cuts that I would argued that got economy rolling:

    Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 C phased-in 23% cut in individual tax rates; top rate dropped from 70% to 50% C accelerated depreciation deductions; replaced depreciation system with ACRS C indexed individual income tax parameters (beginning in 1985) C created 10% exclusion on income for two-earner married couples ($3,000 cap) C phased-in increase in estate tax exemption from $175,625 to $600,000 in 1987 C reduced Windfall Profit taxes C allowed all working taxpayers to establish IRAs C expanded provisions for employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) C replaced $200 interest exclusion with 15% net interest exclusion ($900 cap) (begin in 1985)
    Tax Reform Act of 1986 C reduced individual income tax rates (top rate 28%) and repealed capital gains exclusion
    lowered corporation income tax rates; top rate lowered to 34 percent
    C increased personal exemption amount from $1,080 to $2,000
    C set uniform capitalization rules for manufacturing or construction

    The above mentioned (It is not neat in appearance, but I have limitations on editing functions) on this blog WERE KEY CUTS that were important to the average investor…even the average Joe with a 401k at his/her workplace. Depreciation acceleration increases REVENUE for CORPORATIONS by increasing the depreciation expense, which is a write off on their IRS Form 1120. Couple that with incentives for the average Joe as well as the wealthy to INVEST and whaddayhave? Goons like Janet ( I am losing my patiences with the left) fail to see this. This drove the economic expansion.

    On the other hand, the tax increases did not appear to affect the economic expansion too much, but every dollar the Janet’s wonderful gubmint takes in is less money in the market place to could be put to work…a simple concept goons like Janet cannot comprehend.

    2) A few metrics the goons like Janet miss. A Federal income/corporate tax cut/increase is not just that simple.

    Go to: http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=188060,00.html Scroll down to table 23 and 24. Notice in the RR years the change income levels and tax rates tagged to the income levels and compare them to the previous years. Take look at the RR years and notice the income level changes along with the rate changes? Income level changes that went along with the tax rate change (up or down) played a critical role. More ‘average’ Joes received a tax incentive to invest….well whaddayaknow….an economic boom.This is a metric that the left goons like Janet overlook. As an experienced tax pro/corporate accountant, I know what I am talking about.

    3) left goons worship the state and the state is their milk. The left fail to understand the power of human creativity even in the most adverse economic conditions.

    For once, I would like to see a CPA run for POTUS instead of a @#$%^&* lawyer.

  394. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    …continued…maybe Janet and her cohorts in class envy could learn a lesson from TJ. Thank God they had a undestanding of human nature like no other group people.

    “With all [our] blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens–a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.” –Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:320

  395. Michael Eden Says:

    Dauntless,

    Did I just hear you announce your candidacy??? You’d have MY vote, anyway!!!

    Tax policy is necessarily difficult these days because we’ve got a hundred thousand plus page tax code. And there are LOTS of taxes!!! Just get on a dang airplane or pay your cell phone bill and then look at the itemizations!!!

    Liberals love to play the game of false dilemma: either we go with the Democrats death by ten thousand taxes or the Republicans have absolutely no taxes at all and wouldn’t that be stupid because the government needs money?!?!

    So Reagan made a compromise here and there to get what he most wanted. And while he raised a few taxes to appease Democrats he managed to lower the curve significantly. As you do a great job describing. And lo and behold people who are allowed to keep more of their money and who are rewarded for their investments actually invest more money!!! Rocket science!!!

  396. Michael Eden Says:

    As to your quote from Jefferson -

    Wouldn’t it have been awesome to get Ronald Reagan and Thomas Jefferson together and just sit at the table and listen???

    “Government is like a baby: an alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.” — Ronald Reagan, just shooting the breeze, 1965.

  397. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    MichaelE: yes it would be awesome for RR and TJ at a table in a tavern.

  398. Michael Eden Says:

    Dauntless,

    I believe we’ll get our chance to hear that discussion; all we have to do is wait till we get to heaven!!!

  399. Pat Says:

    America needs to stop the tax hypocrisy, and view taxes as organized robbery by Congress which is why the GOP, nor corporations want to be taxed, and spend millions on lobbyists to prevent it. When Congress gets more in taxes, they spend more, not less. There is little fiscal responsibility, hence, the deficit, by using foreign loans instead of taxes.

    But none mind Congressional insider trading, or pork barrel earmarks, or the expense of inflating costs of health care under the bureaucracy of management disguise.

    No group is more committed to organized robbery than Congress whose automatic pay raises depend upon tax theft from the public, or supplemental foreign loans, in the name of the public, to enrich themselves and their crony capitalists.

    A regressive tax system for the rich, and a progressive tax system for the poor has public finance upside down, usng class wars to confuse what is a relatively simple and opague problem.

    Citizens United actually increased the ability of Congress to rob Americans by now using elections to do so in addition to the tax system.
    Stop Congressional money laundering in favor of Congress, and tax the rich so they hold costs down, rather than participate in the robbing of the poor for the rich – the upside down Robin Hood system now in place. – of robbing the poor to pay the rich.

    And people wonder why white collar crime is on the rise, and Congress and Corporates are immune. Notable cases like Enron and Worldcom, and Madoff simply taught them how to do it better. It didn’t curb it or end it.

  400. HinkleyHadAVision Says:

    Oh dear, conservatives really are morons.

  401. Michael Eden Says:

    HinkleyHadAVision,

    Please go look in a mirror when you talk about anybody being a moron.

    You don’t have a single reason to offer for your snide, snotty, arrogant and yet tragically imbecilic view. And when you respond to an article that offers FACTS and SUPPORT and you come in shooting with nothing more than a lame-ass opinion, well, that word “moron” was created for just such as you.

  402. Anonymous Says:

    Wow HinkleyHadAVision, you didn`t even TRY to argue the points made, just name calling right from the beginning.

  403. Michael Eden Says:

    Anonymous,

    Dang, I didn’t even consider this lunatic’s avatar: “Hinkley Had A Vision.”

    Do you see what a rabid Nazi fascist piece of crap this turd is???

    I would personally rather be dead than sit down and type a name for myself as “OswaldHadAVision.” I would rather be dead.

    If you EVER want to see where the pure hate is coming from, just go look at a Democrat.

    It is a fact that I have become harsher and more angry as a result of my blogging. It is because I keep getting garbage like this posting to me. As a result I have come to realize that this is a WAR pure and simple. Against people and against a party that have zero morality and who will do ANYTHING. And if you don’t want more of these people, you had better damn well rise up before it is too late.

  404. Noir Says:

    Hi Michael,
    It`s Noir. For the life of me I cannot figure out why I now come up as anonymous all the time on this link!

    Well the left, has a fascination with killers and would-be killers. It`s why they promote Che on t-shirts, why they love Castro. I am really at the point where I am finding more and more it is useless to argue with them. They are irrational, they cannot employ logic. They are histrionic and I guess because they are so overwhelmed by trying to think outside the socialist box that they immediately go into some kind of decompensating mode – hence the bullying and name calling almost immediately. Their philosophy is one of CONTROLLING EVERYTHING about another person – your money, what you feed yourself and your kids, what medical procedures you can have, your religion and even the very definition of words. They have no sense of history and are led by a pathological liar who can`t even figure out where the hell he was born.

    I can`t wait till November. We are going to see 1980 all over again ;))

  405. Noir Says:

    ok now I did figure out how to log in as me- just a technology wiz I guess LOL

  406. Michael Eden Says:

    Noir,

    I just provided this comment in response to somebody else who hit the head on the nail. It seems pretty appropriate here, too:

    Liberals are THOROUGHLY postmodern. And one of the tenets of postmodernism is that either a) there IS no “external” reality or b) human brains cannot access “reality” if there really is one at all.

    They then dive into theories of language by which we create or fabricate our OWN “reality.” We make something true by our words. And in particular if a bunch of liberals agree on somebody’s words, then THAT’S reality.

    As a thinking conservative, I commit to the correspondence theory of truth: something is “true” if and only if it corresponds to reality. I believe in metaphysical realism, namely, that there really truly IS a “real world” for reality to correspond TO. I believe in the referential theory of language, namely, that language is accurate when it is referring to a real thing in the real world.

    In abandoning God, and liberals have very much done that, they have abondoned reality.

    Ultimately, the only way to be able to understand/comprehend the real world is to see it as GOD sees it. And the only way that human beings – who by the way were created in God’s image – can accurately understand/comprehend the world is to seek to see it as God sees it and revealed in His Word. Something that liberals actively despise and ridicule.

    Liberals are stupid people not because they have low IQs but rather because they pathologically refuse to see the world as God views it. They have radically rejected truth and will have nothing whatsoever to do with it. Instead, they have a bunch of theories, of “-isms” that have been utterly refuted by history. But of course they don’t know that their theories have been utterly refuted by history because that is something that is true and THEY HATE THE TRUTH.

    So, yeah, they’re out there continually trying to create their own reality through rhetorical gibberish. They’re out there trying to create one Utopia after another never understanding that the world simply doesn’t work the way they believe it does.

    And so “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” — Romans 1:22

    No surprise whatsoever that the party that has 54 MILLION “Xs” on their kill sheet for the 54 million babies they’ve murdered would wear “Che” T-shirts. It’s kind of fitting, in the ironic way you described it.

    Liberals are biblical – in the worst possible way:

    You love evil more than good, Falsehood more than speaking what is right. — Psalm 52:3

    But he who sins against Me injures himself; all those who hate Me love death — Proverbs 8:36

    Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! — Isaiah 5:20

    You who hate good and love evil, Who tear off their skin from them And their flesh from their bones — Micah 3:2

    Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools – Romans 1:22

    For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who in their wickedness suppress the truth – Romans 1:18

    In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe to keep them from seeing the light of the glorious gospel of the Messiah, who is the image of God. — 2 Corinthians 4:4

    Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron — 1 Timothy 4:2

    For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. — 2 Tim 4:3-4

    Modern American liberalism is FACISM. Our political system has thus far protected most of America – you, know, the 1/6th of all Americans they’ve MURDERED notwithstanding – from their hateful political ideology. All they need is power and we’ll see the truly ugly side of the Democrat Party:

    “Let me remind you this [Americans allegedly dying because of lack of universal health care] has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.” — Rep. John Dingell

  407. Anonymous Says:

    I only see that you use false data to butress your arguments– i.e., Heritage Foundation. It only means that your arguments are bunk!

  408. Michael Eden Says:

    Anonymous,

    Three things:

    1) You are a liar. I use FAR MORE DATA than merely Heritage. Anybody who reads this article can see the numerous sources to know that you are a liar without shame.

    2) But even in saying that Heritage “always” lies is nothing more than an example of the most blatant and frankly dumbass fallacy in logic – the genetic fallacy.

    3) I also notice that you seem to feel that your assertions are worth their weight in gold. You don’t bother to cite ANYTHING to “butress” your OWN argument. People like you who assert bullcrap without even bothering to think you should have some kind of fact to back you up make me want to puke. God gave you a brain once; too bad you crapped it down the toilet and then flushed.

    You are a truly dishonest and stupid waste of my time. But at least you won’t be bothering me again.

  409. Goldni Says:

    Michael keep up the good work! I was trying to find your thread about Obama complaining when he says “day one..when I took office. I inherited a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit.”

    You correctly pointed out that HE VOTED FOR EVERY BIT OF THE SPENDING he “inherited.” Can you help me? I need some details.Got a good argument going on over at Google Plus.

    God Bless you and your family man!
    Happy Thanksgiving!

  410. Michael Eden Says:

    Goldni,

    Well, I did point out that a whopping load of the debt that Obama says he “inherited” was at his specific behest here.

    That was after the election (Obama also voted for TARP while Bush was still president and received HALF of the $700 billion.

    Prior to the election, as a Senator, Obama also voted for a massive amount of government spending too, of course. But I don’t have that the dollar amount of spending Obama voted for as Senator.

    Hope that helps, and Happy Thanksgiving – along with God’s blessings – upon you and yours.

  411. Anonymous Says:

    you are and idiot

  412. Michael Eden Says:

    “you are and idiot”

    Anonymous,

    I believe that anyone who bothers to carefully read your sentence is forced to conclude that you were looking into a mirror and pointing right at yourself with your non-typing hand when you typed this. Because, dude, let me say it right back at you: “you are and idiot.”

    Now get lost, you waste of time.

  413. Holly Says:

    You really make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this matter to
    be actually something which I think I would never
    understand. It seems too complex and extremely broad for me.
    I’m looking forward for your next post, I’ll try to get the hang of it!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers

%d bloggers like this: