But Bush ran up deficits! Yes, but the "O" is running up deficits that are huge by any metric (percentage of GDP, absolute size)
But Bush ran up deficits! Yes, but he also cut taxes to shorten a recession, the shock of 9-11 and dot.com bust.
But Bush ran up deficits and he cut taxes!! Yes as opposed to the "O" who is threatening the prosperous and prosperity in this country. Let's see, we have the "rich" paying income, health care and social security surcharges and it is not even August. The "O" is spending so much money we may never recover while at the same time inhibiting the economic engine which has made this country great. Hey "O", really think unemployment is going to top out at 9.5%?
But Bush ran up deficits! Yes, he should not have we admit that Republicans lost their Conservative ways but now we have the fox guarding the hen house redistributing "their money" back to its rightful owners with the mantra of "social justice".
But Bush ran up deficits! Yes! And Conservatives, and now it seems the awakening American people, realize that was bad but this is much, much worse.
7 comments:
EDITORIAL: Eat the rich
In a message accompanying his fiscal year 2010 budget, Barack Obama said: "For the better part of three decades, a disproportionate share of the nation's wealth has been accumulated by the very wealthy. Yet, instead of using the tax code to lessen these increasing wage disparities, changes in the tax code over the past eight years exacerbated them."
In fact, IRS figures show that the top 5 percent of wage earners pay 60 percent of total income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay virtually zero.
Most Popular Stories
EDITORIAL: If only we could tax more
J.C. WATTS: Sonia Sotomayor and bootstraps
LETTERS: With economists like these, who needs enemies?
EDITORIAL: Eat the rich
LETTERS: Brace yourself for coming tax hikes
EDITORIAL: Ensign woes
EDITORIAL: Firemen's pensions past due for reform
EDITORIAL: Education 'consultants'
EDITORIAL: Hoe, hoe, hoe
LETTERS: So now you're in favor of regulation, eh?
Never mind. Mr. Obama and his congressional Democrats still believe the pie should be cut in equal pieces. So whether or not their proposals will really generate enough to "pay for" their ambitious plans to socialize medicine and ban fossil fuels, "equalization" takes on a life of its own.
According to figures compiled by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget on May 8, Mr. Obama proposes to:
1) Reinstate the 36 percent and 39.6 percent personal income tax rates for taxpayers earning more than $250,000 (married) and $200,000 (single).
2) Reinstate the personal exemption phase-out and limitation on itemized deductions for those taxpayers earning more than $250,000 or $200,000, respectively.
3) Increase the top rate on capital gains and dividends from 15 percent to 20 percent for those taxpayers earning more than $250,000 or $200,000, respectively.
Also being bandied about is the elimination of the Social Security "cap" -- the level beyond which additional wages are no longer subject to Social Security taxes, under the sensible rationale that there's also a cap on how high benefits can rise under the program. Eliminating the cap will complete the process of turning the program into an outright wealth transfer scheme, since wealthy conscripts will never be able to get all their "contributions" back.
Democrats including Mr. Obama also seek a jacked-up death tax. And -- if you haven't heard enough -- "House Democrats at work on health legislation are narrowing in on an income tax surcharge on the highest-paid wage earners to help pay the cost of subsidizing insurance for the 50 million who lack it," The Associated Press reported last week.
Rep. Shelley Berkley, a Democrat from Nevada and a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, said the proposed surtax on high-income taxpayers appealed to her and others as a way to avoid a "nickel-and-dime" approach involving numerous smaller tax increases.
Yes, holding off the crying brats while breaking into the individual little piggy banks can become tedious, can't it?
It seems frighteningly clear where this administration stands on the moral question of whether all of a "wealthy" person's earnings really belong to folks such as Barack Obama and Shelley Berkley, who hold power so they may arbitrarily decide how much we deserve to retain and how much shall be seized and "spread around."
When is the last time a Republican president balanced a budget?
Dubya ran massive deficits in times of growth. He handed off an economy in collapse; the worst economy since the 1930's. Structurally, Bushes (already large) deficits would grow exponentially in the face of recession. So, you thought Obama would have balanced the budget by now? After all, it has been almost six months. You thought the deficit should be the priority in a deflationary death spiral?
You are long on partisan rhetoric and very short on understanding economics or budgets. Geez - those crazy budgets actually include forecasts, assumptions, "predictions" - can you believe it? Don't they just realize massive tax cuts will balance the budget? Just like they did for Reagan and GWB? Geez...
Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Bush cut taxes at the lowest end as a fig leaf when he was cutting taxes for the wealthy. Now - after Bush did that with a Republican Congress, you and other Republicans are bemoaning the fact that only about half of Americans pay income taxes! Who took all those taxpayers off the rolls, Doc?
By eliminating large numbers of people that paid few taxes while cutting the taxes of those that paid a lot, Bush reduced the federal revenues by 20% as a percentage of GDP. He pissed away his inherited surplus. This same act increased the portion of a substantially reduced pie that the wealthy were paying. You are proud of this? This is something that a Republican would want to bring up right about now?
Good grief, just what kind of policy are you promoting? Specifically, how do you propose to balance the budget? How do we pay down $11T+ of debt build up by the GOP? How do we do this in the face of a deep recession? We are all anxious to hear your thoughtfully formed ideas...
The fact remains that the only way "O" can pay for his social justice extravaganza is by taxing the high earners into oblivion.
The fact remains that what constitutes a high earner must become lower.
The fact remains that had he cut taxes instead of using the budget to pay off campaign supporters and achieve social justice, the economy would have turned by now.
"O" owns this!
Your "facts" are not facts, but rather, opinions. Two are rather paranoid and one is hasty. How many economic policies move the needle but three months after enactment?
Tax cuts do you knucklehead!
He need to cut taxes and quit threatening the high earners!
Tax cuts? Not so. In fact, they must be very fleeting. We cut taxes all through the past 8 years and now we need more tax cuts? What good are all the others if we need new ones now? Do we just cut taxes every year until there is no more revenue? The Paraguay approach?
Supply side theory is short sighted, intellectually empty, and finally DISCREDITED!
Post a Comment