-
Obama’s Imbroglios
May 23, 2013 | 41 comments
-
My Rahm Reunion
May 16, 2013 | 16 comments
-
The Left Hates Us
May 9, 2013 | 143 comments
-
Such a Dynamic Duo
May 2, 2013 | 49 comments
-
The Continuing Crisis
May 1, 2013 | 0 comments
The Current Crisis
Twenty Percent, Si. Twenty-Five Percent, No.
No, Mr. President, not everything Americans earn belongs to you.
WASHINGTON — It is clear from the way President Barack Obama has been talking about the federal budget recently, and about taxation since he came to office, that all the money that Americans earn belongs to the federal government. The key words in this conversation are “tax expenditures.” President Obama has lost a lot in tax expenditures and he wants more of those tax expenditures back. He can spend that money, he believes, more wisely than the citizenry — that is to say, you and me.
He has wiggled and wobbled on the nation’s finances over the years. First he spent money that he did not have. Then he threatened to raise taxes on the rich to pay for it. Then he spent again money that he did not have. Now he is getting very serious about the budget, by which he means the budget deficit which is so large you do not even want to think about it. So he is back to taxing the rich again, which eventually means you and me.
So he has announced a strategy to cut the deficit by $4.4 trillion over the next ten years. He is going to get $1.1 trillion of it back from winding down our war effort. He accounts for another $1.2 trillion from cuts that have already been enacted — he thought we would not notice. Then there is $430 billion from lower interest payments, which he assures us are coming from lower debt payments that he assures us are coming. Finally, there is the federal income tax. He will have the rich pay as high a tax rate as the middle class by raising their taxes $450 billion, using the “Buffett Rule.” That is the rule that Warren Buffett has proclaimed that millionaires and billionaires pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class.
Unfortunately for the President, the Buffett Rule is like much else in his administration. It is a hoax. Mr. Buffett was wrong, and the President did not check Mr. Buffett’s numbers, or, if he did, he did not think we would check the numbers. Sources as diverse as the Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press have demonstrated that millionaires and billionaires pay taxes — as you would expect — at a higher rate than the middle class. How could Mr. Obama, the smartest policy wonk of all, get things so wrong?
“This year,” the AP reports, “households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes….” Households with incomes of $50,000 to $75,000 average 15 percent. Yet if the President and Mr. Buffett have their way, not for long. Soon we shall all pay higher taxes, because millionaires and billionaires could have their wealth expropriated by the government and that would not be enough to slake the federal government’s thirst for our income. As the Wall Street Journal observes, “Mr. Obama could tax every billionaire in America at a 100% rate and still wouldn’t make a dent in the federal government deficit.”
During the Johnson Administration, LBJ was at an airport and about to get into the wrong helicopter. An army staff sergeant ran up and redirected him: “Mr. President, that is your helicopter over there.” To which the President replied, “Son they are all my helicopters.” President Obama suffers the same delusion. He believes all the money the citizenry earns is his money.
His government is now gorging itself on 25 percent of GDP. That is a peacetime record. Historically in peacetime the figure was more like 20 percent of GDP and lower. The way to budgetary solvency is not to raise taxes, and take even more money out of the productive sector of the economy. It is to cut spending back to the historic level of 20 percent, freeing the private sector to grow the economy. President Obama is throwing money at green projects like Solyndra, now under congressional investigation, and other farfetched schemes. It appears he cannot spend his “tax expenditures” more wisely than private investors, who create jobs that last longer that last even beyond the next fiscal budget.
It is time his opposition remind him of a historic rule for budgetary formulation: “Twenty percent, si. Twenty-five percent, no.”
About the Author
R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn’t Work: Social Democracy’s Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (80) | Leave a comment
More Articles by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
More Articles From The Current Crisis
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/22/twenty-percent-si-twenty-five
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Eugenic Abortion 2.0
- Self-Righteous Republic
- The (Real) Great Divide
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Darin| 9.22.11 @ 6:44AM
Like most liberals, Obama suffers from a superiority complex. He's convinced the "common folk" are stupid and do not have the right to spend what they earn in the manner they choose. Thus, he and likeminded "better" people are making decisions on how to spend what we earn "for our own good." Sadly, Obama is too ignorant to realize this makes us all slaves to the government. Or perhaps he does realize this and it is exactly what he wants.
Michael Tomlinson| 9.22.11 @ 7:04AM
Warren Buffett, the man who is so eager to pay more taxes, is wrangling with the Internal Revenue Service over money the IRS claims is owed to the government. That's right Buffett and his company are fighting the IRS not to pay their "fair share" in taxes.
Buffett’s own company, Berkshire Hathaway, has had plenty of opportunity to pay more taxes. He has been in a drawn out battle with the IRS over an overdue tax bill totaling about $1 billion, according to a story Sept. 2 on Hotair.com.
Here is a radical suggestion to wealthy Democrats like Buffett, Soros (who is involved in the LightSquared scandal, Gates, Immlet, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, Geithner, etc. just pay your taxes without taking dedcuctions either personally or in your businesses and shut up.
David W| 9.22.11 @ 8:46AM
In my opinion, Buffet (and the rest of the guilt ridden liberal rich) is not only a hypocrit but is truly beneath contempt for his outright lies and specious reasoning.
Occam's Tool| 9.22.11 @ 2:25PM
Michael, Berkshire is publically owned---Buffett can't follow your suggestion with his Company.
But he certainly can privately. And won't. Because he is an asshole, as you correctly surmised.
Brian Mc| 9.22.11 @ 7:56AM
The social, cultural, economic paradigms fostered by this monstrosity we call the federal government pails in comparison to the destructive mindset that perpetrated it. I see no alternative short of revolution that will reverse it.
I might be out of line here but let me analogyze. We argue with the left about the arrangement of the deck chairs while the ship goes down...all the while ignoring the damage to the hull caused by navigating too closely to the 'socialist' coast and never having cleaned its surface of parasites. Putting out to sea at this point is fruitless. Scrape the free-loaders from the hull, all the liberal employees of the federal departments would be a good start since they seem to be congregated around the rudder and propeller, inspect the state of the damage and repair it. Pump out the bilge and dump the excess cargo; we are swamping and it's time we roll up our sleeves and get dirty. The ship is worth saving but the cargo and the barnacles must go. If it isn't part and parcel to the structural integrity of the ship, (We the People), it must be cast off to either sink or swim on its own. So, if the excess baggage and upgrades fails to be mentioned directly in that most sacred document, The Constitution: let's call it our ship's blueprint, it must go. And while the captain's on the stern deck hitting drives into the ocean, cast him overboard, as well.
The Bishop| 9.22.11 @ 8:04AM
What if, after all is said and done, we find out that the President is really a tall leprechaun who has a pot which is a cornucopia of gold and all of this was just a test of faith by us, the ignorant masses, and he will provide prosperity from his kettle of gold well into the future? Well, that's just as plausible as any of the fiscal policies propounded by the current rectal-cranial administration. I'm just sayin'.
Normando| 9.22.11 @ 8:14AM
I wonder why, when federal tax revenue is discussed, the assumption is always that revenue should fall in the 20% range regardless. How about 10% or 9%? How about taxing just enough to finance constitutional requirements, like boarder security, and then let society take care of the rest voluntarily?
John Navratil| 9.22.11 @ 8:19AM
Normando,
Amen! My reaction to this article, precisely!
Dan Hirsch| 9.22.11 @ 9:21AM
Think about it this way: When the federal budget is 25% of GDP $3 of GDP activity must generate the $1 of federal spending. So we are at an effective tax rate of 33%. Corporations do not pay taxes themselves, their stockholders, employees, and customers do. When government borrows, individual taxpayers and corporations repay the principal and the interest. There is no escaping that fundamental GDP - tax relationship. They can borrow, they can inflate, they can do anything they want, but real money leaves the productive sector and is consumed by the government sector.
If federal spending were to go to 10%, then only the fed's spending $1 would have to come from the profits of $9 of private activity. Boy, we would all be as busy as we wanted to be!
Getting there requires many, many gored sacred cows and a lot of political will. The statists, the politicians who like things just the way they are have got to be driven from office (with votes) and their replacements have got to be watched by a decidedly hawklike citizenry.
It could happen, but we all got to get busy...
DTOM
Al Adab| 9.22.11 @ 11:16AM
This issue and debate clearly defines one of the great philosophical divides betweent The Left and Conservatives. To The Left all income is government property except what it chooses to allow us to keep. For Conservatives income (and wealth) belongs as property to the earner except for what the owner allows the government to take for certain limited purposes.
Nothing more clearly demonstrates this difference than the constant call for "fairness", redistribution and higher taxes. What is fair about one persons property being taxed at a different rate than any others? The Buffetts and Ron Howards of the world can send their money to whatever government agency they might choose. But they should not be in a position to decide what percentage of mine I get to keep.
Claypoole| 9.24.11 @ 9:50AM
With thanks to Ray Stevens, "I believe if ten percent is good enough for Jesus, then it ought to be enough for Uncle Sam."
guthriej| 9.22.11 @ 1:58PM
OK, sure, but what happened to spending during 8 years of Bush II when the GOP had total control for 6 of those years? Recall that Hayek dedicated "The Road to Serfdom" to "Socialists of all parties".
Al Adab| 9.22.11 @ 3:20PM
Guthriej:
Never forget that the GOP and Conservatives are not the same. Yes, Hayek was right in that too.
John Navratil| 9.22.11 @ 3:24PM
guthriej,
You won't find a lot of defense of Bush's spending record in this forum. Conservatives were screaming for Bush to use his veto pen. Instead we got Bush's famous partnerships with the Left who most certainly were not complaining. The most notable criticism of Bush I recall was when he didn't go along with expanding "Chip" - children were going to die in the streets.
But to answer your question, it went up precipitiously. That's when we thought precipitious was bad. The word has been redefined. But you might well look at the budget numbers to observe that what was bad in the first six years (the peak of the wars) became much worse in the last two under Pelosi. The subsequent two years are the stuff of legends.
But.... whose counting? Certainly not the Democrats who haven't seen fit to pass a budget in the last two and one-half years.
Siegfried X| 9.22.11 @ 6:54PM
The 2000's were the Lost Decade of the Republican Party. What happened was that in the late 90's the Republican Party leadership took a hard left turn. This was partially a reaction to the failures of the (conservative) Gingrich speakership.
So we ended up with a decade of Bush / McCain "Democrat Lite", until the Tea Party finally pulled the Republican Party back to its roots.
W| 9.22.11 @ 7:39PM
After the 9/11 attack Bush seemed focus only on the war. The conservative agenda, if it ever existed, was forgotten. Bush worked with Ted K on the education law, with Feingold-McCain on the campaign laws to restrict free speech, tried to pass an amnesty bill, spent money worse than previous Democrats. And he did not pardon Libby, left the wounded on the battlefield as Cheney put it.
The only real conservative move was to appoint Roberts and Alito, but first he nominated a dud named Hariet Myers.
I still voted for him twice because the alternatives were far worse.
Pecos Pete| 9.22.11 @ 9:09AM
Normando: Right on.
Mr. Tyrrell says, ""Twenty percent, si. Twenty-five percent, no."
I say, 10 % is more than enough.
And BTW, Brian Mc above is also correct.
Brian Mc| 9.22.11 @ 9:19AM
Thanks Pecos, my heart cries for this country and the fact that so many of us have been led to believe that income is a privelage as opposed to a right in a free republic. God help us reverse that mindset or else all talk is superfluous.
Lagiusmeatius| 9.23.11 @ 1:11PM
Normando,
Unfortunately any range discussed, whether it be 10% or 20%, is arbitrarily chosen and thus how that money is spent is ultimately more important than how much money is spent. I am not saying that remaining within a budget is unimportant -- rather I'm just saying that a 20% range spent on productive measures is far better than staying within a 10% range and spending it all on S#!+. As for taxing just enough to "finance constitutional requirements", one could interpret this in a plethora of ways. One could say that upholding or enforcing the freedom of speech, as the first amendment, or other civil rights (like 14th amendment) should be financed by these same taxes. Trying to "finance" the enforcement of the 1st or 14th amendment once again could be interpreted in a plethora of ways. Does this mean we should use tax dollars for organizations like the ACLU to "finance" the enforcement of idiosyncratic interpretations of constitutional rights? This proposal of yours definitely involves many complicated facets that would need to be elucidated prior to implementation.
As for letting society "take care of the rest voluntarily", we'd all be in denial if we tried to surmise that by getting rid of taxation all together, that people would do things radically different with their extra income. If someone is getting taxed 25% of their gross income for example, then a portion of their check is going for taxes that include expenses for military and defense (the largest expense by far), roads and highway construction, police, public transit, education, veteran's benefits, and many other services. Do you really think that if people weren't taxed, except for "enforcing the constitution" (whatever that means to you personally), that they would cough up this extra money for roads, police, military, etc.? Do you think that people would be considerably more generous to the poor in America (or in the rest of the world for that matter)? I don't want to sound cynical, but I hardly think that MOST people would make up for those taxes (collected under the enforcement of the law), by helping others and paying for things voluntarily -- no more significantly than they do at the present. If it were true that people would do that, then wouldn't you think that people that have excess income right now would give more, even if they're already being taxed? If they have more than enough, even after taxes, and can afford to help more (and still live comfortably), then they would. Unfortunately this isn't the case as is seen by the poverty levels in America, the crime rates, among many other things -- despite people (including you and I) that live comfortably enough to be able to sit at a computer typing away on a blog. If everyone was really considerate enough to "take care of the rest voluntarily", then you'd be right, but that just isn't the case -- at least not at this point in time. I just don't believe that citizens would do things radically different with their money if they were taxed less or not at all. If you really think so, then I admire your optimism. I'm fairly optimistic most of the time, but when it comes to describing the current state of our nation, including the selfishness and self-interest that so many have -- I lose some of that optimism. It doesn't mean that it can't change, but it's not the way things are now. Your thoughts?
Peace and love to you Normando,
-Lagius
Louis Jenkins| 9.22.11 @ 8:30AM
The Federal Gov. takes the money. They have become so used to that fact that nothing will change their behavior. Obama is the henchman, and will take and take until there is nothing left. Suppose he received the tax money he now proposes. Do you think he would be satisfied with that paltry amount? Of course not. He will come up with another proposal, and another, until, yes, we are destitude. That's his way. May God grant us the courage to make the changes necessary. We will need it.
Nancy in NC| 9.22.11 @ 4:54PM
We may need more than courage, if it's not too late. This country is morally bankrupt. Too many feel entitled to someone else's money. Perhaps if I had a billion dollars I might be willing to pay more in taxes. But why should I be forced to pay a percentage higher than my secretary? After all 10% of a billion is still a lot of money.
The truth be known is that the tax code is the problem and crony capitalism. If we could clean up the tax code (no exemption or subsidies) and everyone pays a flat 10%, we might solve our problems.
Otherwise, we are toast...burnt toast at that.
Lagiusmeatius| 9.23.11 @ 1:59PM
Nancy,
I humbly disagree. We all know that taxing a person 10% that is only able to make ends meet to feed their children (this was my case growing up with 3 siblings and a single mother who was divorced from an abusive con-artist that bankrupted her)---so taxing a 10% rate is far more detrimental to this family that is just able to make ends meet, than taxing a billionaire, even 90% or more of their income. That billionaire will not have to worry about whether or not they'll have enough to eat tonight, but the family just making ends meet, even if their taxed 1% will be far more affected by that taxation. The math is pretty simple, and while growing up, my family was living proof of this false concept of "fairness".
Let's try a hypothetical thought experiment. Pretend that you are ragged poor. You have just enough money to feed your family, but often you are choosing between feeding your kids or yourself. For the sake of the experiment, let's say that everyone in your city (except for a few wealthy %) are just as poor as you are. Now the few people that aren't ragged poor (several millionaires and billionaires) are being taxed 10% of their income, and you are being taxed nothing at all. Do you think that's unfair to the billionaire? Should you and all the other poor people in the city be "paying their fair share", sacrifice eating for a day a week so you can cough up an extra 10% too? Would you think it's "unfair" if the billionaire was taxed even more the following year (15%) if it meant that the money would be used to feed hungry families or pay for your medical care? I think that if the circumstances dramatically changed for you or I (whether it was toward wealth or poverty), our concept of "fairness" could change as well (for most people it would for sure). This thought experiment, as well as my own personal experience demonstrates that the current method of taxation is far from "fair" for the majority of people in the country (even if they are middle class), let alone those living in extreme poverty in this "land of opportunity". The middle class is taxed far more than they should be, and the wealthy class, far less than they should be, in terms of the best interests of the majority (middle class). If we reverse our tax rates (this "redistribution of wealth") to what the tax rates were back in the 1950's (i.e. 90% for those making more than 400K, and 17% for those making up to 4K per year -- each dollar here in the 50's being worth about $9 normalized for inflation to 2011), many people call it communism, even if we were a capitalist country back in the 1950's -- and keeping the status quo or lowering tax rates for the wealthy would still be considered "capitalism"....how ironic. May I also remind those interested that in 1950, the U.S. economy was the strongest in the world.
To conclude, opportunities are not equal by any means. If you don't believe me, ask your parents, or your grandparents -- most people that lived during the great depression, most people born into a family that is poor, or born with any social "abnormalities" (like being of a certain race or sex), etc. Opportunity for success or wealth is far from equal in this country, and although some people have or have had opportunity to work harder and be more prosperous, most people's lives will largely depend on the socioeconomic status of the family that they are born into. Let's not forget that people are products of their environment, which includes their basic education, morals, aptitudes, interests, and financial means to go to school, etc. With this in mind, those that try to defend the wealthy with a false premise of equal opportunity are just kidding themselves. Those that try to defend bad tax policy for similar reasons aren't doing the majority any favors...your thoughts?
Peace and love to you Nancy,
-Lagius
Bruce Berger| 9.23.11 @ 8:20PM
Lagius,
You seem to think that you have written something profound here. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but most of us engaged in your thought experiment by the time we were about 12 years old.
I had a very long discussion about this with my then 11-year old son a few years ago.
The fact is life is unfair at so many levels. (I feel that life has been unfair to me because I don't look like Brad Pitt).
Tax policy should not be directed to correct unfairness. It should be motivated solely by raising money efficiently as possible, while stifling economic activity as little as possible. Most economists would agree that a flat tax rate, with little to no deductions accomplishes that.
Lagiusmeatius| 9.26.11 @ 10:34AM
Bruce Berger,
Actually I don't think that what I wrote is profound at all -- it's fairly elementary and easy for many to come to the same conclusion. The fact that you said "You seem to think that you have written something profound here" without me doing so, implies that I've hit you below the belt somehow -- and for that I apologize. It's fairly easy to see that we do not have equal opportunity, yet most people think that the current unlimited capitalistic system somehow thrives by protecting an equal opportunistic American society. I'm just illustrating that we don't have equal opportunity, and so trying to protect the status quo with the premise that we do have equal opportunity lacks common sense. If most people truly and critically engaged in this thought experiment and actually tried to put themselves in the shoes of someone in a less wealthy socioeconomic class -- then the experiment would speak for itself. Unfortunately, many still seem to want to defend the current distribution of wealth which was originally redistributed from the poor and middle classes to the wealthy class by means of certain tax policy, the prices of goods and services, large disparities between base salaries in large corporations, etc. Look at the number of people in the middle class several decades ago, and compare it with that of today, and you'd see that the middle class has shrunk, and the poor and wealthy classes have increased in size (mostly the poor)-- that is to say that the number of people making between 75 and 125% of the median income (i.e. middle class) have decreased since the late 1960's to early 70's, with the poor to lower middle class numbers increasing (and a few elite wealthy individuals precipitated in the process). Meanwhile the tax rates were on average decreasing for the wealthy class during this same time frame (especially during the Reagan and Bush II administrations). Cause and effect is indeed extremely complicated, but some reasonable conclusions can be still be inferred from some of these causal relationships.
You mention the concept of "unfairness", and state that tax policy should not be directed to correct unfairness -- but it also shouldn't be directed to precipitate gross unfairness either. One fact is simple, if you design a tax policy, the relative burden that the tax policy will place on different groups of people is a factor in determining it's implemented structure. Trying to relieve the burden from the poor, who obviously can't afford the taxes is more important from a humanitarian and moral standpoint even though it may not be as "profit-bearing" as taxing the poor just the same. Creating tax policy from a solely business, profit-based point of view is merely perpetuating a corporatocracy and thus jeopardizes whatever we have left of our democracy. Handling the federal or state budgets from this solely business point of view, likewise threatens true democracy and thus the poor and middle class. If every tax expenditure is seen as merely an expense to be minimized, then the quality of the services paid for by those taxes will be minimized and rationed as well. Unfortunately, taxation and budgetary matters have indeed been designed and governed largely from a business standpoint and thus serve to benefit the corporatocracy (Corporations and their wealthy constituents) rather than the majority (i.e. the middle class).
Taxes' primary purpose is to pay for government programs and services, which affect different groups of people in different ways and thus the premise "It should be motivated solely by raising money efficiently as possible, while stifling economic activity as little as possible" is also morally depleted, because tax policies are about collecting revenue from certain groups of people for specific reasons based on their usage of said government services and more importantly their ability to pay for them. If you have two options, and you must choose one: take from the poor to give to the rich or vice versa, which would you choose and why? That pretty much summarizes the thought experiment, and certainly places a dividing line between several ideologies.
The reality is that wealth obtained by those that are currently wealthy had to come from somewhere (money does NOT grow on trees). There are currently about 400 billionaires in this country, which have about $1.5 trillion total net worth-- included in the group of about 496,000 UHNWI (Ultra-High-Net-Worth-Individuals) each with a net worth of $30 Million or more, thus have AT LEAST $14.9 trillion total net worth -- combined with the more than 10,000,000 remaining millionaires in this country, which have AT LEAST $10 trillion dollars of wealth (assuming only $1M each) -- we have at least $25 to 30 trillion dollars of net worth held by this 3% of the U.S. population, and a total net worth of all U.S. households of about $57 trillion. So at least 50% (since my figures were all conservative underestimates) of the wealth in this country is held by 3% of the population. Are you saying that tax policy has had nothing to do with this large disparity? What about the fact that 40 out of our 100 senators are included in this group of millionaires? Do you think that these men and women, who design and implement our tax policy are really representative of the middle class, let alone it's best interests? I think it's far more likely that most of them will design tax policy (as well as any monetary-related legislation) that betters the interests of others in their class (i.e. millionaires and above). The lobbyists that these corporations utilize (with a blank check) to further that policy can't be matched by the average middle class American. You mention that "I feel that life has been unfair to me because I don't look like Brad Pitt." Well, ironically, if you were an elitist millionaire or billionaire, with access to plastic surgery, you'd probably be able to take care of that -- although if you were that rich, you may not care so much about your looks anymore. Again, I only illustrate here that the concept of "unfairness" is relative to your financial means of addressing it. Those in the wealthy class don't have much to bitch about, even if taxes were bumped up to their 1950's rates.
So tell me another one.
Peace and love to you Bruce Berger,
-Lagius
Andy| 9.24.11 @ 6:18PM
Let's not forget that the US economic position and standard of living in the 1950s was the result of the horrendous destruction wrought on Europe, Asia, and North Africa during the second World War. We were the only people in the game, so companies could afford to pay exorbitant salaries for putting on car doors in a factory. Those times are clearly over, and they were never the result of high taxes on the wealthy. In all likelihood, growth proceeded in spite of tax policy, not because of it.
Lagiusmeatius| 9.26.11 @ 10:38AM
Andy,
See above. The middle class has shrunk since the late 1960's to early 70's and the largest disparities were seen when tax rates decreased for the wealthy class (especially during the Reagan and Bush II administrations). So your cause-and-effect assumption requires further analysis and justification.
Peace and love to you Andy,
-Lagius
Timothy L. Pennell| 9.22.11 @ 8:36AM
Record Unemployment. Record Foreclosures. Record Bankruptcies. Record Homelessness. 46 MILLION people below the Poverty line. Record number of CHILDREN living in Poverty. People living on Unemployment Benefits, for YEARS. Record number of Americans on FOOD STAMPS, and using FOOD BANKS. The first DOWNGRADE of our Credit in our HISTORY. The DOLLAR is about to be replaced, as the World's Reserve Currency, and our Bankers, in China, are dictating who we can sell F16s to.
And, all of it, on purpose.
He is Overloading The System. It's what the LEFT has been trying to do, for the last 50 YEARS. It's how they plan to Break the Back, of the Middle Class. And, their time is finally here.
"We are the ones we've been waiting for."
I bet you thought he was talking to YOU.
Pecos Pete| 9.22.11 @ 9:13AM
TLP: All of the above are "unexpected" according to the economists quoted by the MSM. Unexpected! Unbelievable.
Brian Mc| 9.22.11 @ 9:22AM
Speaking of MSM...where are all the stories involving the homeless that were constantly paraded through our living rooms back in the eighties?
Al Adab| 9.22.11 @ 11:24AM
Those stories are on the same editorial floor as the ones about Obama's personal investments in certain solar energy companies back about 2005. Those same companies that got, spent and lost about a half-billion of OUR money. Gore I understand was a shareholder too. Something rotten in Denmark?
Harry the Horrible| 9.22.11 @ 8:52AM
Obama (and his "advisors") are missing the point. We CAN'T tax enough money out of this country enough to make up the deficit.
If we need more revenue, we need more business. That does two things - it creates more tax payers and removes more people from "entitlement" rolls. We need to massively deregulate and we need to cut taxes. We need to make it easy for entrepreneurs to start businesses and for their businesses to grow.
Redstateboy| 9.22.11 @ 9:09AM
once again... a story no one's talking about. Congress voted down funds to run the Gov't after Sept 30th! One of the sticking points? 1.5 Billion tax dollars for Electric Car R&D. 1.5 Billion of OUR dollars for a product no one - even Liber-uls don't want. TAS piece yesterday illustrating this Gov't and this President engaged in Venture Capitalism - with Taxpayer dollars - was spot on.
Pecos Pete| 9.22.11 @ 9:15AM
RSB: Time for another King O speech about the urgency of now, else the government will shut down and the old folks won't receive their pension checks. We'll all be eating dog food soon. Etc.
Mike D.| 9.22.11 @ 9:47AM
Plays to enough idiots as to be something near effective. If it didn't work they wouldn't do it.
Anthony| 9.22.11 @ 9:41AM
Warren Buffett is a political hack and a toad. His disingenuous anology of his paying less in taxes than his secretary was a bold face lie!!!
The 15% this toad pays in capital gains has already been taxed at the earned level, and he knew it when he told this to the gullible Obozo.
The problem is, we have a president with a 5th grade business accumen and a hatred for America that makes him susceptable to this bulllshit!!!
So, where are all the high paid tzars to tell Obozo Buffett is as big a jerk as Obozo is???
Time to rid America of this affirmative action joke of a president!!!
Strider| 9.22.11 @ 3:36PM
Apparently Buffett has abandoned his lifelong "value" investing philosophy in favor of "buy the bailout" investing. Note his recent huge purchase of BAC stock. One wonders what kind of sweetheart deal the feds gave him to make that buy.
As for taxes, Buffett can pay all the extra tax he wants. Just write a check to the Bureau of Public Debt; they'll be happy to accept it. Of course, the day he actually puts his money where his mouth is will be the day Auburn University unveils its 4-meter-tall bronze statue of Bear Bryant.
George S| 9.22.11 @ 9:45AM
Billionaires pay taxes at a higher rate than secretaries? Only a math denier would make such a claim. Ninety eight percent of mathematicians have reached a consensus that 29.1% is a lower tax rate than 15%. It says so... right there in their government funded study.
NYMPH| 9.22.11 @ 12:35PM
That study brought to you by the same scientists that did the global warming studies I presume?
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.22.11 @ 10:01AM
Emmett,
I don't think Obama and crew care a fig about "spending wisely for us" as you viewed it.
They are only about power and control over us...forever.
Al Adab| 9.22.11 @ 11:47AM
A wise man once asid, "The issue is never the issue, the issue is control."
What this administration hopes to accomplish is the centralization of the nations economy and control of peoples economic activity as well. After all Central planning has such a track record of success.
Got jumped on yesterday for responding to one of your posts Ken, so I hope that doesn't follow today.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.22.11 @ 5:31PM
Al Adab,
thank you for taking the risk, heh. You might be consigned to hell as well.
In the mean time.....1776 thoughts.
Margie| 9.22.11 @ 7:33PM
Ken,
Since you are a liar, you are consigning your own to Hell, you disingenuous punk.
Margie| 9.22.11 @ 7:40PM
Which version of the Bible pleases you best, liar?
Here, let me offer you just a few of the them. Perhaps just one will stand up to your Papist scrutiny:
"Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates.
Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood." Rev. 22:14 & 15.
I'd like to stress, as God also does, vs.15:
KJV
For without [are] dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
NKJV
But* outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.
Footnote:
* NU-Text and M-Text omit But.
NLT
Outside the city are the dogs—the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idol worshipers, and all who love to live a lie.
NIV
Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
ESV
Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
RVR
Mas los perros estarán fuera, y los hechiceros, los fornicarios, los homicidas, los idólatras, y todo aquel que ama y hace mentira.
NASB
Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.
RSV
Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood.
ASV
Without are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie.
YLT
and without [are] the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the whoremongers, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and every one who is loving and is doing a lie.
DBY
Without [are] the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and every one that loves and makes a lie.
WEB
For without [are] dogs, and sorcerers, and lewd men, and murderers, and idolaters, and whoever loveth and maketh a lie.
HNV
Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
VUL
foris canes et venefici et inpudici et homicidae et idolis servientes et omnis qui amat et facit mendacium
TR
ἔξω δὲ οἱ κύνες καὶ οἱ φάρμακοι καὶ οἱ πόρνοι καὶ οἱ φονεῖς καὶ οἱ εἰδωλολάτραι καὶ πᾶς ὁ φιλῶν καὶ ποιῶν ψεῦδος
mGNT
ἔξω οἱ κύνες καὶ οἱ φάρμακοι καὶ οἱ πόρνοι καὶ οἱ φονεῖς καὶ οἱ εἰδωλολάτραι καὶ πᾶς φιλῶν καὶ ποιῶν ψεῦδος
Margie| 9.22.11 @ 7:34PM
Don't you worry Al Adab,
I know where you (don't stand).
Coward.
W| 9.22.11 @ 7:42PM
Margie,
Al Adab is probably the most decent, respectful, and intelligent person on this site.
Al Adab| 9.22.11 @ 8:56PM
Thank you W:
I have been called many things but not "coward".
The loss of fellowship with Margie saddens me but apparently is unavoidable.
Margie| 9.22.11 @ 10:06PM
It wasn't unavoidable, Al Adab. But it would have been if you stood up to Ken's character assassination of me, but you were silent.
Be honest~ if you were a friend, you would've been outraged.
I value the truth more than friends, anyhow. They're a dime a dozen, apparently.
Margie| 9.22.11 @ 10:06PM
Screw you, W.
W| 9.22.11 @ 10:58PM
No thanks
Claypoole| 9.24.11 @ 10:12AM
And I thought that someday we might all get together for a party..............oh, well.
Occam's Tool| 9.22.11 @ 2:26PM
Yup...Obama is definitely a Big Brother type, Ken.
NYMPH| 9.22.11 @ 12:32PM
There you go, making it difficult for The One to understand you writing in Mexican. (Si, No) I will help the prez out though, nice guy that I am. He can find the Mexican to English dictionary, next to the Austrian to English dectionary.
George F.| 9.22.11 @ 1:21PM
I am completely fed up with this administration's lies and the way they look down their noses at the people of this country. They need their posteriors soundly kicked and given a test to determine their ability at common sense which they are sure to fail.
William Huff| 9.22.11 @ 1:22PM
Back to my original question which NO ONE has answered. Why do they (the Gov't) not know that jobs are created based on employer's needs due to an increased demand for their product of services - NOT because of a reduction in taxes or benefit costs.
R Givens| 9.22.11 @ 1:56PM
It helps if customers have a few extra bucks in their pockets, which is something the GOP seems determined to prevent.
Cutting spending reduces the money in circulation and hence lowers business. No cuts should be made until the economy recovers.
Drunken Sailor| 9.22.11 @ 2:13PM
You are a idiot.
You are obviously a Big goverment spending =increased demand believer. So let me see if I understand your theory.
Big goverment spending of money they don't have will equal increased demand/business, this will lead to higher employment. Thus more people will have money to spend and tax to go to the goverment to pay for all that spending + interest on the money they didn't have. This equals success in your mind?
You do realize the Check advance system of spending is a downward spiral don't you?
Richard Davis| 9.23.11 @ 9:26AM
Do you realize that the Federal government can borrow a $1 trillion for 30 years for $12.5 billion a year? 1.25% interest rate. The drop in Federal revenues due to this recession is about $400 billion. If we borrowed $200 billion a year for the next five years to rebuild our infrastructure (which we won't, because we don't have the political will) and put the 15 million unemployed back to work, the return on our investment (governments have return on investment) would exceed out interest costs by a factor of at least 10. GE is not gonna rebuild our bridges as an investment, nor is Lockheed gonna rebuild our highways to increase Federal revenues. Our streets and highways and bridges and airports and water and sewer systems are all socialist. No private company builds those things. Once they are built, a private company will buy them for their revenue, but no private company builds public infrastructure on spec.
John Navratil| 9.22.11 @ 4:42PM
R Givens,
It helps to put money in peoples pockets if the government isn't there taking their skim, first. Please try to explain how government spending helps anyone but the person who is getting more put into their pocket than the government is taking out.
Nancy in NC| 9.22.11 @ 4:57PM
I suppose you keep using that charge card that's all maxed out. Pus bucket.
Nancy in NC| 9.22.11 @ 5:11PM
The economy recovers??? When will that be? About the time hell freezes over?
Wayne| 9.22.11 @ 9:41PM
I read your comment three times and it still makes no sense. The GOP wants to lower taxes which would put more money in the wallet of workers, money they could spend. How does taking more money from people give them more money to spend
John Navratil| 9.22.11 @ 5:11PM
William Huff,
I did not see your question asked elsewhere.
Jobs are created when the employment of the individual makes money for the employer. Obviously, a demand for the employers product is needed in order to provide the profits necessary to pay. Cost of the employee is balanced against regulation (overtime, healthcare, e.g.), substitutions (automation, out-sourcing e.g.) and direct cost (demand for labor, and taxes such as employment, unemployment ins. costs, etc.)
It is quite possible for an employer to find reductions in taxes and benefit costs sufficient to drive the costs in favor of hiring. As an exercise, imagine the taxes and benefit costs increasing substantially and its effect on future hiring.
That said, your original assertion is true. No demand for the product means no demand for labor to manufacture the product.
Merlin| 9.23.11 @ 5:00AM
William Huff
Your original question must have been posted elsewhere. A reduction in taxes, benefit costs, regulations, etc reduces the cost of the product or service, thereby increasing the demand. More people can affort it.
First rule of economics: Production is wealth. If noone produces a potato, you won't be eating French fries.
SunDevil LT| 9.22.11 @ 1:30PM
As usual Mr. Tyrell an excellent rundown of the misdirection our Dear Leader presents on a daily basis.
I would like to offer one correction, if I may: although most of our leaders seem unaware of it, this is not peacetime. Even discounting Iraq as won and done, we're still fighting a war in Afghanistan.
That being said, being in a war is no excuse for the rampant fiscal irresponsibility of the current Commander in Chief. When we finally exit Afghanistan, I fully believe we'll be in an even worse mess if the President gets reelected.
DL| 9.22.11 @ 2:40PM
Perhaps war is peace in Mr. Tyrrell's mind.
R Givens| 9.22.11 @ 1:51PM
The GOP notion of destroying the economy as a political strategy is doomed to failure because we see them obstructing the rebuilding process with every breath.
Obama has them cornered and defeated with his (finally) strategy of exposing the economic traitors. It is only a matter of time before major bridge collapses killing a few dozen people and the GOP is SUNK for 20 years! Don't these morons realize that obstructing infrastructure repair puts them on the hook for a guarantee that there will be no disaster.
And good riddance for those with no sympathy for small business people like myself
The GOP (Grand Obstructionist Party) is in a lose lose position. If the economy remains down they take the blame and lose. And if the economy goes up Obama takes credit and wins.
The idea of attacking Social Security and Health Care is the most suicidal platform I can ever remember seeing. Don't these dildoes know that old people vote and they vote EVERYTIME.
STUPID doesn't accurately reflect the GOP positions — suicidally insane comes closer.
Drunken Sailor| 9.22.11 @ 2:19PM
"Obama has them cornered and defeated with his (finally) strategy of exposing the economic traitors."
Thanks, needed that laugh.
Let me ask you a question. One of the arguments for the first stimulus bill was to improve infrastructure. Instead the money went to unions, bailing out car manf, and green energy cons like Solyondra.
So if that bridge collapes and kills someone why wouldn't the public point the finger at the Democrat in the White House and the Democrat controlled congress that sent the money to places besides fixing that bridge?
Richard Davis| 9.22.11 @ 3:13PM
Most of the money that was intended for infrastructure was diverted to tax cuts to buy the Republican votes to override the filibuster - hell of a way to run a democracy!!!
John Navratil| 9.22.11 @ 4:37PM
Richard Davis,
Where, precisely, are those tax cuts? Please don't say "extending the Bush cuts" as if not raising taxes is a cut.
John Navratil| 9.22.11 @ 4:38PM
Richard Davis,
I almost forgot to point out that with the Franken debacle the Senate was filibuster-proof. Would you like to restate?
Nancy in NC| 9.22.11 @ 5:10PM
We are NOT a democracy. We are, supposedly, a Constitutional Republic. That might explain your problem.
John Navratil| 9.22.11 @ 5:27PM
Nancy in NC,
Your statement is not quite correct. A democracy is literally, from the Greek, a government of the people. A Republic, from the latin 'res publica' - the public thing, is a government formed by those empowered to vote in which representatives are elected. A republic can be formed where only male property owners are entitled to vote. It is arguably not a democracy. With universal suffrage (OK - no children or felons), our system is most certainly a democracy - an indirect democracy - and a republic.
I don't mean to be too pedantic, but I often find the confusion used to obfuscate rather than clarify the issues. Some have even gone so far as to redefine the Greek 'demos' meaning 'people' as 'mob'; a redefinition which might surprise the demographers among us.
I hope you don't mind.
Nancy in NC| 9.22.11 @ 5:08PM
I'm all for building roads and fixing bridges. Obama isn't all that interested in that. He would prefer high speed trains and green energy loans to folks like Solandryl.
We don't have money to do any of that as we are too busy taking care of the everyday needs of 40% of the population, legal or otherwise.
You can trash the GOP, and I agree, they need thrashing as well. But the moron in charge is completely clueless about how economics work.
I can tell you that my business is the worst it's been since we started it. People are afraid to spend money and feel the future is too uncertain. The stock market took another beating today..surely that will make everybody feel better!
DaveS| 9.22.11 @ 3:38PM
Now, Emmett: you've got me lowering my opinion of LBJ even further. Reagan would never say LBJ's words or sentiment to anyone - never mind a dutiful sergeant of our fine military.
As for BHO, why are you wasting anymore time on him? we get it; try some other loosey goosey liberal, demagogue, totalitarian, or Soros/Alinsky-lover. wait, you've already done that! How could I have forgotten HRC???
no hussein 2012| 9.22.11 @ 6:40PM
But the hussein is vastly superior to earners, the affirmative action punk says so!
Siegfried X| 9.22.11 @ 6:50PM
"He [Obama] believes all the money the citizenry earns is his money."
Yes. And his deficit reduction plan includes outright confiscation of corporate funds, which can't even be called a tax. Obama would take tens of billions from drug companies and banks, to pay for citizen's benefits which the government currently pays for.
Obama runs his presidency the same as dictator Chavez in Venezeula. Both think they can ignore and change the law whenever they choose. Both think they can confiscate any asset in the country for the sake of "the People".
POST American| 9.23.11 @ 2:54AM
--------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------
"Understand, there's NO reason why
ANY nation should be borrowing money,
should be in debt, to ANYONE
--least of all a country like the USA.
It's ALLLLL a FAKE money CON---job.
-----------ALLLLL of it."
-ALAN WATT
(essential online coverage)
Absolutely!
And throwing in the Rockefellow EUGENICS
and 'shadow government' cabals ---along with
those CHEM-trails, the GMO, the FUKISHIMA
HAARP induced (--?) on cue event
--and the subsequent DEPOP OP saturation of the
northern hemisphere with fallout
------TRULY, USURY and psychopathy
(--ie depravity) go hand n' hand.
TRULY.
TRULY.
Even 'atheists' are nodding their heads now.
------------------------TRULY----------------------------
-----------------------------TAKE HEED
TAKE ACTION---------------------------
bluecollarbytes| 9.23.11 @ 9:00PM
It's your 'obligation' to pay more in order to pay back the govt which made your good fortunes possible.
Smith 98| 9.24.11 @ 11:41AM
I used to complain that our government was too big by half, sad to say that's literally true now. What we need is a 10 year sunset law that sunsets automatically every law, regulation, tax increase and politician. If they want to extend these...a debate and discussion. Except the politicans!
Corporations get tax breaks because they are the tax collector for the IRS...otherwise the government has to chase down 200 million tax payers every 2 weeks. What a great idea!