Steve,
Perhaps you and other democrats should take this opportunity to clarify your position on taxes.
Since implementing Bush’s tax cuts, the actual revenues coming into the federal coffers have increased substantially. If the reason for taxes is to provide money for government use, the tax cuts have supplied more than what were initially projected without them.
If, on the other hand, taxes are a means to punish success, to lower everyone to one common (poor) denominator, these tax cuts are failing miserably.
People aspire to be rich. Dj seems to think that the democrat’s problem is an inability to convince the bulk of the population that their station in life is permanent and they should vote to drag anyone more successful down to their level.
Try this in ’08. “You’re poor. You’ve always been poor. You’ll always be poor. Vote Democrat!
Maybe this would work and you would win elections following this strategy. At the very least, it would be more honest than what democrats do now.
Posted by jwest at September 20, 2006 12:47 PMjwest,
Maybe you should go fuck yourself with a loaded shotgun.
Maybe you should realize that wages as a share of GDP are the lowest EVER, and realize that these increased revenues are coming from bloated corporate profits...thus tranferring what could have been paid as wages into the government coffers as tax receipts.
Aren't you one of the cumstains yelling incessantly that "Americans know how to spend their money better than DC!?" If so, then why do you support policies which divert money that could be paid to Americans into government coffers?
Why? Because you're a clueless, working-man screwing, middle-class loathing, Horatio Alger-myth-promoting fucktard, that's why.
Fuck off, you lying piece of shit.
Personally, I think Obama addressed the Democratic position on taxes quite well in his commencement address at Knox College in 2005:
Like so much of the American story, once again, we face a choice. Once again, there are those who believe that there isn’t much we can do about this as a nation. That the best idea is to give everyone one big refund on their government—divvy it up by individual portions, in the form of tax breaks, hand it out, and encourage everyone to use their share to go buy their own health care, their own retirement plan, their own child care, their own education, and so on.
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. And it is especially tempting because each of us believes we will always be the winner in life’s lottery, that we’re the one who will be the next Donald Trump, or at least we won’t be the chump who Donald Trump says: “You’re fired!”
But there is a problem. It won’t work. It ignores our history. It ignores the fact that it’s been government research and investment that made the railways possible and the internet possible. It’s been the creation of a massive middle class, through decent wages and benefits and public schools that allowed us all to prosper. Our economic dependence depended on individual initiative. It depended on a belief in the free market; but it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, the idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we’re all in it together and everybody’s got a shot at opportunity. That’s what’s produced our unrivaled political stability.
If you are so inclined, I highly recommend the entire address:
http://www.knox.edu/x9803.xml
Nice post, Ann.
And don't hold your breath for Tom Beaumont to get back to you, Steve. The DMR's a lean, mean slacking reporter firing machine. You'll be lucky to get a one-liner back. I've also not been a fan of Baeumont's work, but haven't bothered complaining to him or his editor.
Posted by idiosynchronic at September 20, 2006 01:17 PMYou're too kind Steve. I'm just trying to keep the record straight.
In fairness to Tom Beaumont of the Register, his story caught something of the spirit of the Governor's remarks in so far as the Governor does believe that Democrats tend to get themselves caught in the position of being anti-success and tend to talk about increasing taxes in isolation rather than in terms of a balanced budget initiative.
If only the story had included the key point that the Governor opposes the Bush tax cuts for both moral and economic reasons!
Posted by Nate Wilcox at September 20, 2006 01:22 PMSince implementing Bush’s tax cuts, the actual revenues coming into the federal coffers have increased substantially. If the reason for taxes is to provide money for government use, the tax cuts have supplied more than what were initially projected without them.
If that were an accurate statement, we'd have no national debt. But we do. HUGE. And let's just call that what it is: deferred taxes. Because someday, someone is going to have to pay for all those bonds we sold to China so we could have more cash to throw at Iraq.
Posted by ann at September 20, 2006 01:24 PMFair enough? Warner's position in the Hotline is no different than Kerry/Edwards during the campaign. Kerry talked frequently on the need to balance the budget, fiscal responsibility and fairness - to imply otherwise is still mischaracterzing Kerry's position.
Posted by Pamela at September 20, 2006 02:05 PMPamela,
The Governor never intended to criticize Kerry's policy positions -- he was simply answering a question about why he thought he was successful in selling a similar package in Virginia when Kerry's calls for simlilar policies didn't win the election in 2004.
ann my dear, we had a debt when Bush was sworn in and we have increased it. Lots of reasons for this, but lets just say the amounts adding to the debt is getting smaller and smaller. 5.9 trillion in 2001, 8.2 trillion now. Yeah we had three years of balanced budgets in the 90's. The Clinton admin decided to pay down some Social Security IOUs to the amount of some 300 billion(from the surplus). Even in those three years we added some 20 to 40 billion to the actual debt.
Posted by peter at September 20, 2006 02:45 PMSince implementing Bush’s tax cuts, the actual revenues coming into the federal coffers have increased substantially. If the reason for taxes is to provide money for government use, the tax cuts have supplied more than what were initially projected without them.
Could have sworn I read an article in the last 2-3 months that says that is absolutely not true. No time to look now, but I'm not sure that's the case.
Posted by CG at September 20, 2006 02:54 PMpeter, hon, my post made no reference to how things were when Clinton was in office (you must have an obsession!)....my point is that if we have enough money to do everything the government needs to do, and then some, as ujest claims, why are we are cutting vital services in the US and increasing the national debt to horrifying levels? Again, someone, someday, is going to have to pay for all those bonds we sold to China....
Posted by ann at September 20, 2006 02:57 PMJust covering my bases my dear. And did I say anything negative about the prior admin? The surplus had to go somewhere and SS was as good as any for it to go.
Posted by peter at September 20, 2006 03:08 PMjwest said:
"Since implementing Bush’s tax cuts, the actual revenues coming into the federal coffers have increased substantially. If the reason for taxes is to provide money for government use, the tax cuts have supplied more than what were initially projected without them."
Actually, no, they haven't.
Quoting from the CBPP, which knows a far lot more about this than jwest or even the OMB:
When discussing revenue growth since the enactment of the tax cuts, Administration officials frequently focus only on revenue growth since 2004. This provides a convenient “starting point” for their arguments, as it sets a very low bar. Measured as a share of the economy, revenues in 2004 were at their lowest level since 1959. Given this historically low starting point, it is not surprising that revenues have recovered significantly since then. Yet supporters of the tax cuts selectively cite revenue growth over just the past two years to argue that the tax cuts are fueling the large increase in revenues.
Measured since the current business cycle began, however (in March 2001, shortly before enactment of the President’s first tax cuts), total per capita revenue growth has been near zero after adjusting for inflation and population growth, even after taking into account the stronger revenue growth now projected for 2006. Based on OMB’s revised revenue estimate, real per-capita revenues in 2006 still will be only 0.2 percent above the level they attained more than five years ago at the start of the business cycle. In other words, the current revenue “surge” is merely restoring revenues to where they were half a decade ago. And in the case of individual income tax revenues, real per-capita revenues are 11 percent below where they were at that time.
Despite Administration claims about standout revenue growth in 2005 and 2006, the most striking record set during the current business cycle has been one related to revenue losses. In 2001, 2002, and 2003, revenues fell in nominal terms for three straight years, an occurrence unprecedented since before World War II.
This discouraging record, and the fact that real per-capita revenues have barely reached the level they were at when the business cycle began more than five years ago, largely reflects the impact of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and since. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the tax cuts enacted since 2001 have reduced revenues by $1 trillion between 2001 and 2006.
Wrong again jwest. But at least we have those Bush deficits now, don't we?
Posted by Steve Soto at September 20, 2006 04:35 PMIs God of War your alter ego, Steve? I can't think of any other reason you haven't banned him.
Posted by Zhombre at September 20, 2006 04:39 PMAccording to the Treasury's Bureau of the Public Debt, when the reckless George took office in Jan 01, the national debt was a touch over 5.7 trillion.
Today it's very slightly under 8.5 trillion, almost a 50% increase in 5 1/2 years.
So peter's numbers are "shaved" on both ends in his Leader's favor, as one would expect.
Posted by euzoius at September 20, 2006 05:55 PMPeople like Peter, well, you can't use reason with them or facts. They have been indoctrinated into the bushcult and the only thing that will work is deprogramming. Another seventies thing that I imagine will be back in vogue soon.
Posted by Ga6thDem at September 20, 2006 07:47 PM