Posts Tagged ‘ratio’

Remember Democrats And Media Mocking The GOP For Refusing A 10:1 Ratio Of Spending Cuts To Tax Increases? Try 41:1 The Other Way, HYPOCRITES!!!

January 4, 2013

Do you remember that one?  It provided rotting red meat for liberals for months.  Republicans are so “obstructionist” that they wouldn’t even consider $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes.

Well, here’s the question: would liberals consider $10 in tax increases for every $1 in spending cuts?

The answer is no.

Would liberals consider $20 in tax hikes for every $1 in spending cuts?

No again.

Well, surely they would consider $30 in tax hikes for every $1 in spending cuts?

Absolutely not.  And you’re a racist to think they ought to.

Okay, how about $40 in tax increases for just $1 in spending cuts?  Would that be okay?

Well, you’re finally getting warm:

Fiscal Cliff Deal: $1 in Spending Cuts for Every $41 in Tax Increases
by Matthew Boyle
31 Dec 2012

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the last-minute fiscal cliff deal reached by congressional leaders and President Barack Obama cuts only $15 billion in spending while increasing tax revenues by $620 billion—a 41:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts.   When Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush increased taxes in return for spending cuts—cuts that never ultimately came—they did so at ratios of 1:3 and 1:2.   “In 1982, President Reagan was promised $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes,” Americans for Tax Reform says of those two incidents. “The tax hikes went through, but the spending cuts did not materialize. President Reagan later said that signing onto this deal was the biggest mistake of his presidency.   “In 1990, President George H.W. Bush agreed to $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes. The tax hikes went through, and we are still paying them today. Not a single penny of the promised spending cuts actually happened.”

That’s right, kids.  The Democrat Party is MORE THAN four times more “obstructionist” than the Republicans even by the Democrats own incredibly demagogic standard.  They insisted upon and were willing to send America off the cliff to get a 41:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts.

And if you are a Democrat, you are a quintessential, abject hypocrite by definition.  Because liberalism equals “hypocrisy,” and you cannot even possibly be a liberal without walking through the lie that is your life as a massive hypocrite.

Republicans have twice played this game in modern political history, with both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush falling for Democrats’ promises to enact spending cuts if the Republican presidents would enact tax hikes.  And both times the Democrats proved that they were abject liars and hypocrites by breaking their words after getting what they wanted.

The bottom line is this: the liberal establishment thought it was insane that Republicans would not believe their lies again and fall into the new trap of their empty rhetoric, but 41:1 going the opposite direction – more than four times more insane by any definition of insantiy, mind you – is not insane at all.

You cannot negotiate with Democrats because history has proven over and over again that Democrats are dishonest liars.  It’s the “Lucy and the football thing” that plays out over and over again.  Only every time the Democrats yank away the football after promising that this time they’re really hold it, America gets weaker and closer to complete financial collapse.

Democrats bait and switch with rhetoric all the damn time.  The Democrat Party is the party that dishonestly says it is “investing” money rather than be honest enough to admit they’re spending it, such that I could “invest” in a Ferrari and three prostitutes for the weekend and pat myself on the back for “investing.”  Let me ask you something: if you’re completely broke, but decide to go shopping for clothes anyway, and you tell yourself that you’re going to spend $1,000 on your credit card, but instead “only” end up spending $985, did you “cut” your spending?  No, you dumbass; you went nuts and spent $985 you shouldn’t have spent; you didn’t “cut” anything.  Your debts went UP, not down, you big giant dumbass.  That’s the game Democrats play year after year with their dishonest promises of “spending cuts.”  They have NEVER cut spending in their deplorable lives; instead, they try to tell us that if they projected their out-of-control spending by 10 percent a year but they only increase their spending beyond previous spending by say 9%, that they somehow “cut” spending.

Do you know what an actual “spending cut” would look like, you who aren’t so evil and blind that you voted for Obama?   It would look like the US budget getting smaller and smaller rather than bigger and bigger.  It would look like the government NOT having trillion-plus dollar deficits every single year of Obama’s God damn America presidency, that’s what it would look like.

It wouln’t look like this, in other words.

And that doesn’t include the $500 billion financial black hole of megadeath that Democrats have imposed through their evil relationship with unions just on California alone.  If you add up the debt of blue states in unfunded liabilities being handed out to unions, and America is a headless chicken walking.

Democrats claim they’ll collect $620 billion more in revenue because of their tax hikes.  You watch; they won’t.  Because they are breathtakingly stupid people who refuse to pull their heads out of their anuses long enough to realize that when they raise tax rates on the rich, the rich raise the prices of their goods and services to recoup the losses of Marxist, class-warring Democrats and the rich shelter their money.  But every time America has cut its tax rates, we have actually INCREASED our income tax revenues – with the rich paying a higher overall share of the tax burden as they are encouraged to work harder and invest more because they are allowed to keep more of what they earn.

41:1.  From the party that mocked the other side for refusing to consider 10:1 after being repeatedly lied to by the party that just demanded 41:1 or else they’d destroy America.

Let me simply state the truth: Democrats are bad people.  They are bad people who feel entitled to other people’s money.  They are bad people who simply do not believe in any kind of personal responsibility.  They are bad people who trust in massive human government while they mock those who put their trust in God.  They are bad people who at the very least are forcing the next generation to shoulder an impossible burden while they spend that generation’s wages right now.  And ultimately, they are bad people who either want our children to starve and our old people to die of medical abandonment, or who are simply so demon-possessed and so deranged that they simply cannot consider the obvious financial consequences of their incredibly reckless and immoral actions.  Because that is what is going to happen due to their wicked policies when America collapses due to their wicked spending.

America has become a truly sick and depraved culture, and we are about to go the way of the Dodo bird.

I believe that it’s too late for America.  In voting for Obama and for Democrat Party this November, we have fatally wounded ourselves.  And while many conservatives are hoping for a “2010-style” tea party revolution in which Republicans make historic landslide gains, I believe that will be far too little, far too late.  The American people have crossed the moral threshold to vote for Romans chapter one as evil becomes good and good becomes evil.  And Democrats just proved yet again that after $222 trillion in out-of-control spending which is going up by nearly a trillion every single month, they haven’t yet even begun to spend until every single American is crushed under the wheels of their slick evil.

Why isn’t America mentioned in the Bible?  Because when it mattered the most (NOW!), you were too damned depraved and too damn wicked to do the right thing.  And by the time the Antichrist comes, we won’t be able to do anything but worship him even more than we worship Obama and take his damn mark so we can burn in hell for a trillion times a trillion-trillion-trillion millennia.

Meanwhile, Obama’s tax-cheating Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is now the “$13.6 trillion dollar man” after spending that morally and logically insane sum in just four years of God damn America.  While Obama’s Federal Reserve has been essentially creating so many trillions of dollars out of thin air that it is way past impossible to calculate with QE1, QE2, Operation Twist and now the aptly named “QE Forever.”  What they have actually done is rob senior citizens and those who tried to save blind by stealing the value of their savings out from under their very noses.

Why does the Antichrist come according to the Book of Revelation?  You ought to know, Democrats; because you just voted to not only elect but re-elect his useful idiot.

Hal Lindsey once famously popularized the phrase, “the Great Snatch” to describe the soon-coming Rapture of all true Christian believers.  I’ve been calling it “the Great Bailout,” because I am hoping that Jesus is going to bail Christians out of the mess that secular humanist Democrats have created before we experience the consequences of their massive – and massively godless – disaster.

What are you placing your trust in?

Why Barack Obama and Democrats Are Wrong On The Economy

July 11, 2008

Let me ask you a question: when did a poor person ever give you your job?

Let me be even more precise: when did a poor person ever give you a high paying job with excellent benefits?

Hello? Is this thing on? Do I hear crickets chirping?

The fact of the matter is this: all the Marxist-style class-warfare demagoguery of the Democrats aside, we desperately need the rich and the jobs they create by means of their education, expertise, inspiration, hard work, and investment.

How many times have you heard the phrase, “the rich need to pay their fair share of taxes?” from Barack Obama and from Democrats?

Do you have any idea how much the rich are paying in taxes?

In 2005, the top 1% paid 39.4% of the federal income tax burden. The wealthiest Americans have been increasingly paying more and more of the total tax burden. In 2000, the wealthiest 1% paid 37.4%.

According to the Treasury Department, perhaps for the first time ever, the richest 1% of taxpayers will have paid more than 40% of the income tax burden. The top 5% will pay just under 60% of the total taxes. The richest 10% will pay 70% of taxes.

The top 50% of income earners will pay 97% of the tax burden. The bottom 50% of income earners will pay only 3% of taxes. And the the bottom 45% of income earners will actually pay 0% of the federal tax burden. Americans in the bottom quintile who have jobs get reimbursed for some or all of their 15 percent payroll tax through the earned-income tax credit (EITC), a fairly efficient poverty-abatement program.

The richest 1.3 million tax-filers — those Americans with adjusted gross incomes of more than $365,000 in 2005 — paid more income tax than all of the 66 million American tax filers below the median in income. Ten times more.

If that isn’t “a fair share,” I don’t know what would be.  It is simply a fact that the rich are most definitely paying their “fair share” and then a whole bunch more.

The Democrat Party today consists of demagoguing liars, ideologically-brainwashed fools, the hopelessly naive, and the inexcusably ignorant.

Unfortunately, we have more liars, fools, and naively deluded, and ignorant people in this country today than we’ve ever had before. And, given the fruits of the liberal-dominated education system, we will continue to have more and more of all four of these classes of people. Liars, fools, the naive, and the ignorant constitute a powerful voter block indeed.

What is fascinating is that the tax plan that Demcocrats falsely claim “favors the rich” actually end up requiring the rich to pay the overwhelming majority of the tax burden.

Prior to the Reagan Revolution in 1981, the top marginal federal income tax rate was 70% (it is currently 35% under President Bush). At the 70% rate, the top 1% paid only 19% of the federal income tax burden, and the top 5% paid 37%. With the tax rate cut in half, the top 1% are paying more than twice as much of the total tax burden – nearly 40% – and the top 5% are paying nearly 60%.

And not only do the rich pay a higher percentage of their wealth in taxes under the lower taxes of the Bush plan, but they pay a higher ratio of their wealth in taxes than they did when the rates were higher:

for the top 5 percent and 10 percent of earners, the ratio of taxes paid compared with income earned has risen. For example, in 1980, the top 10 percent earned 32 percent of the income and paid 44 percent of the taxes—a ratio of 1.4. In 2004, this group earned more of the income (44 percent) but paid a lot more of the taxes (68 percent)—a ratio of 1.6. In other words, progressivity—in terms of share of total taxes paid—has risen. On the other hand, for the top 1 percent of earners, progressivity has declined from a ratio of 2.2 in 1980 to 1.9 in 2004.

There are several reasons for this relationship between lower tax rates for the rich and the rich actually ending up paying more taxes:

First, when one punishes hard work, creativity, and investment, the result will invariably be less hard work, creativity, and investment. Let me put it this way: I need some yard work done, liberals. How about you come over and break your back working for me, and when your finished, I’ll give you 30% of your wages, and give the other 70% to all those “poor” who didn’t do anything? Don’t like that deal. Guess what? Nobody else does either.

Another reason lowering taxes actually results in the rich paying more taxes is the reduction in sheltering assets:

Keep in mind as well that the IRS only records the income that taxpayers report. Its data don’t include income that the rich hide in tax shelters or otherwise defer. And there is evidence that lower tax rates since 1981 have caused the rich to declare more of what they earn. In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share. With lower rates and fewer tax loopholes after the 1986 reform, there is less incentive to shelter income to avoid tax.

With high taxes, there is a greater incentive to pay accountants to move assets around to conceal them or bury them in non-taxable locations. As long as there are taxes, there will always be tax shelters, of course, (I still remember my outrage in 2004 over learning that George Bush – who called for lower taxes – was paying the maximum tax rate of 35% while John Kerry – who called for everyone else to pay higher taxes – was sheltering his own wealth and paying less than 18% in taxes). But lowering taxes reduces sheltering, and makes it more worthwhile to invest.

A third reason that lower taxes for the rich result in the rich paying more taxes is due to the incentive to increase their investment. Stephen Moore, the senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal editorial board, points out that the capital gains tax is essentially a voluntary tax because asset owners can avoid it by simply holding onto their stocks, homes, or businesses. This “lock-in” effect can be economically inefficient, because owners have a tax incentive to hold on to poor investments rather than drawing out the cash and putting it into assets that would be more productive. When the capital gains tax is cut, people unlock their assets and reinvest in other enterprises.

The 1997 tax reform, passed by a Republican Congress under President Clinton, reduced the capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent, and taxable capital gains nearly doubled over the next three years. The 2003 reform brought the rate down to 15 percent, and between 2002 and 2005 there was a 154 percent increase in capital gains reported as income.

Democrats cry that gains by the rich have come at the expense of the declining living standard for the middle class. But that is simply stupid. Think of Bill Gates, the wealthiest man in America. Has Bill Gates made your life better, or worse (periodic aggravation over some stupid computer glitch aside)? Bill Gates has made the work of millions of businesses and individuals more easy and more productive. And if Bill Gates suddenly took his tens of billions of dollars and moved to France, the income distribution in America would all of a sudden appear far more equitable, but no one would be better off (except in France, which would all-of-a-sudden become tens of billions of dollars richer).

Barack Obama has come out and stated that he would raise the capital gains tax. He falsely believes that only the rich pay them, but he is simply wrong. The latest polls show that 52 percent of Americans own stock and thus benefit directly from lower capital gains and dividend taxes. Reduced tax rates on dividends also triggered a huge jump in the number of companies paying out dividends. As the National Bureau of Economic Research put it, “The surge in regular dividend payments after the 2003 reform is unprecedented in recent years.” Dividend income is up nearly 50 percent since the 2003 tax cut. And money market funds, pension funds, and various other vehicles which are very invested in the rewards of lowered capital gains benefit the overwhelming majority of Americans.

Barack Obama also claims that he will lower taxes for most Americans, but the reality is that most Americans pay very little in taxes. Again, the bottom 50% are paying only an infinitesimal percentage of the taxes, so you can’t give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Just how much should the rich be expected to pay? How will penalizing their productivity not undermine that productivity? At the same time, Obama is committing himself to spending nearly two trillion dollars in new spending. And when the rich begin to reduce their investments, shelter their money, and conceal their assets in tax-free vehicles, where do you think he will go to get the money to fund his programs?

The simple fact of the matter is that the richest Americans are paying far more than their fair share of taxes. As Stephen Moore notes:

But Barack Obama has decided the rich still don’t pay enough. He would redistribute the tax burden even more heavily on small business owners and the entrepreneurial class (two-thirds of the tax filers in the highest income tax bracket are small-business owners.) The nonpartisan Tax Foundation’s Scott Hodge has just crunched the numbers on the Obama plan and concludes that “more than $131 billion would be redistributed from the top 1 percent of taxpayers to all other taxpayers.”

Sounds fair, no? Only 1.13 million taxpayers, out of some 128 million, would end up paying higher taxes, according to the Obama camp.

But in the real world, who ends up paying a tax is not just the person on whose tax return it falls. History has demonstrated time and again that raising tax rates on the wealthy in the name of “redistribution” leads to so much income shifting, reduced work and investment, and redeployment of money into tax shelters, that the rich usually pay less, not more taxes, at higher rates. The burden of paying for government shifts to others, including some who may not file an income tax return at all – because they no longer have jobs or no longer earn enough to pay income tax…

Somebody needs to give the Obama campaign a refresher on all this. The Tax Foundation’s Mr. Hodge wonders: “Can a tax system so focused on redistribution be compatible with economic growth?” Probably not but the Obama brain trust wants to give it a try anyway.

The Tax Foundation had this to say about the Obama plan:

“Under the Obama plan for 2009,” explains Hodge, “more than $131 billion would be redistributed from the top 1 percent of taxpayers to all other taxpayers.”

As a result, the top 1 percent of households would pay more federal taxes of all kinds than the bottom 80 percent of households. That lopsided distribution under Obama does include payroll taxes and other federal taxes, but it excludes the new payroll tax hike that Obama plans to levy on people making more than $250,000 because details about that plan are currently unclear.

“In other words,” says Hodge, “it is at this point a cautious estimate to say that in 2009, under Obama’s plan, 1.13 million Americans would pay more in all federal taxes than 128 million of their fellow citizens combined.”

This is outright confiscation. It is Democrats urging their voters to seize the assets of a minority of voters. It is “the tyranny of the masses” that our founders so rightly feared. And it is wrong.

Lower taxes for the rich result in more investment, a stronger stock market, more hiring, and more products and services that benefit people’s lives. The redistributionism favored by Democrats, on the other hand, result in counterproductive policies that hurt the very people that they propose to help.

In a Foreign Affairs article titled, “An Empty Revolution: The Unfulfilled Promises of Hugo Chávez,” Francisco Rodríguez points out that:

Even critics of Hugo Chávez tend to concede that he has made helping the poor his top priority. But in fact, Chávez’s government has not done any more to fight poverty than past Venezuelan governments, and his much-heralded social programs have had little effect. A close look at the evidence reveals just how much Chávez’s “revolution” has hurt Venezuela’s economy — and that the poor are hurting most of all.

You’ve heard that proverb: “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”? Whoever coined it probably had liberals in mind.

When President Bill Clinton took office, he initially veered to the left with the help of a Democrat House and Senate. The result was so disasterous that the largest political landslide in U.S. history occurred under his watch, with Republicans and their “Contract With America” sweeping in. And the economic strength of the mid 1990s was due far more to the resurgence of Republican ideas than it was to the wisdom of Democratic economic stratgies.

As we consider the prospect of the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate becoming president with a filibuster proof Democratic Congress, we should soberly consider the disaterous lessons of redistributionism and socialist style governments and learn from those mistakes rather than repeat them.