Economically, I’ve lost ground because of interest rates, the cost of medical care, the price of oil, and the way that affects everything else. But because I’m a member of the middle class, I can afford not to worry about economics too much just now.
What really concerns me most is the lowering of the principles that I thought our government was founded on and that we could depend upon and the loss of civil liberties. Members of at least two branches of our government have made it clear that they feel comfortable in blatant lying to the public. (I can remember being criticized here because I wouldn’t use the word lying. I don’t have any trouble now.)
Sometimes I feel like rodents are eating at the foundations of a really fine house which will continue to look okay until the day it collapses.
I can’t really think of a more lethal combination of personality traits than those held by Bush, Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld. There would be a Shakespearean play in there somewhere, except there is no one noble to be brought low.
Meanwhile, parts of the Southern coast are still waiting for relief from Hurrican Katrina. Let them eat cake.
Both of these theories are true. It’s common sense. But it it not because of lower taxes, the cause is deficit spending. If spending were cut along with taxes, it would basically negate the effects. If taxes were left alone and spending were increased, the economy would grow larger by way of the above theories. If you borrow money, and inject it into the economy, the economy will grow.
The problem is that deficit spending has many disadvantages. But modern conservatives believe that the advantages outweigh them, and they will use spin and untruth to try to justify it.
But how much later are these increases supposed to kick in? From 2000 to 2005, tax revenue increased by 4% while inflation increased by more than 12%. Historically, tax revenue outpaces inflation. Is it going to take 7, 10, 15 years? By the time the benefits kick in, the problems of the deficit will outweigh them. We’re spending $400 billion per year on debt management (basically interest). We are now paying an extra $100 to $200 billion per year on the budget because of the tax cuts in 2001. Taxes will eventually have to be raised because of our foolishness now.
Proof about the increase in the poor? Not just headcount but as a percentage of the population. And proof about the rich being protected, please? It’s kind of hard to buy that old line when the top 1% of the richest people in the country wind up paying more than 50% of the taxes of the country.
Like the Onion head line said when Bush won. “At last the era of peace and prosperity is finally over.”
The Repubs have changed everything. They have changed the tax system to increase the wealth of the super rich. They control most mass media and are able to convince people that they are sharing the proceeds. They have given corporations the opportunity to fleece the people on a grand scale. Oil, Pharm and Medical are 3 examples. The amount of peple without health coverage has skyrocketed. Health problems are the biggest contributor of bankrupsy. Bankrupsy has been changed to make it more difficult. This of course does not affect the rich.
Manufacturing has been shipped abroad. With it went high paying jobs. The unemployment rate which has always been disguised is virtually hidden.The middle class has ben evicerated.
The military industrial complesx is running the show. They are robbing the system by waging unnecessary wars and looting the treasury.
No I do not think as a whole we are better off.
According to Keynes, the economy is driven by aggregate demand. So the most important thing we can do for the economy is stimulate demand. One really effective way to do that is to give people more money, and let them spend it. And it doesn’t matter who spends the money, so it’s just as effective for the government to spend huge gobs of money as private individuals. In fact, some Keynesians oppose tax cuts in part because if we gave money back to individuals, the individuals tend to save some of that money, while the government tends to spend it all (and then some). They feel that it’s vital to the economy to ensure that lots of money is spent, and the government tends to do that better than individuals.
So in that way, injecting more money into the economy – either through borrowing or tax cuts or government spending – helps the economy grow. That seems close to what you believe.
But supply siders disagree. They don’t think aggregate demand and money supply are as important. They argue that what grows the economy is the return on invested capital. They think the size of the economy isn’t determined by how much money is spent, it’s determined by how many products and jobs the economy can churn out. So they favor tax cuts directed towards businesses and areas that spend their money on things that increase the capacity of the economy, for example building factories or expanding their work force. And while the government does a really, really good job of spending money, they tend to do a really, really poor job of investing in capital. So supply siders want to get money out of the hands of the government, and they want to get it into the hands of business and individuals.
They’re two completely separate, and largely inconsistent, ideas.
You were doing so well, and then you had to go and throw that last little bit of partisan wackery in there. A shame really.
Cite please?
As for the years you’ve chosen, Bush took office in 2001, so he had no effect in 2000. He got a small tax cut in place after that, but his main, stimulative tax cuts took place in 2003. So a better analysis would be 2003 to present.
And I don’t know where you got this idea that from 2000 to 2005, tax revenues increased 4%. Tax revenues were flat for a while, but they’re certainly increasing now:
And if we include 2006 in your calculations ,the numbers get even better:
So tax receipts now are breaking previous records … which were set last year.
Of course, there’s no way to be sure that these gains are the result of Bush’s tax cuts. I tend to believe that the President has less effect on the economy than most of us give him credit for. In fact, I seem to remember a NY Times or Washington Post editorial suggesting that the effects of a President’s economic policies aren’t felt until the next President is in office (although my Google-fu can’t seem to find it now).
Who knows? But the economy is in really good shape right now (which may or may not be because of Bush’s tax cuts). And I don’t think we’re overwhelmed by the deficit yet.
The full year 2000 isn’t being used in the calculations. I’m measuring the rate of change for 5 years, the first year being from Fiscal Year End 2000 (9-30-00) to FYE 2001 (9-30-01) , of which Bush presided for 8 months. And if i recall correctly, his tax cuts were retroactiveto 1-1-01, so his policy affected 75% of the first year.
I use the first year as FYE 2000 because that’s the last point before the change. It’s the base for comparison, similar to the control variable in an experiment.
That makes more sense to me now. There was a noticable drop in revenue in 2003 and i never could figure out if it were because of the Iraq war or after-effects of 9-11. It makes the pattern a little more clearer.
I will name some more years in which tax receipts have broken the previous record: 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1990, 1989, 1988, 1987, 1986, 1985, etc. … i could go on for about 200 more years.
It’s like the old Chris Rock bit “You’re supposed to take care of your kids!”. You’re supposed to break the tax receipt record every year!
This is the why i posted in the first place, and why i let my partisan wackery run loose. I have heard this argument from conservative pundits (and in this thread, among a list of conservative talking points), and it’s pure bullshit and it pisses me off. I hate the misuse of statistics.
You’re right that “tax receipts” have gone up 4% between 2000 and 2005, but “government receipts” have gone up 9.3%. The difference appears to be that “government receipts” takes into consideration everything that the government takes in, including “social insurance” (welfare, medicare, medicaid, etc.). I would have thought that was a form of tax receipts, but I guess I’m wrong.
To carry your point forward, in the 2nd quarter of 2006, tax receipts have gone up to 1,570,720. That’s an increase of 19%. And if we look at “government receipts,” which includes tax receipts, we get an increase from 2000 to the 2nd quarter of 2006 of 24%.
So we’re outpacing inflation by a pretty hefty margin.
Care to make a wager on that one?
I will bet you one bottle of Johnny Walker blue (full disclosure – this is a $200 bottle of scotch) that we did not break the previous record for tax receipts in all 200 years of our nation’s history. In fact, to make the bet more favorable to you, I’d be willing to bet that we didn’t break the record for tax receipts in every year since 1975.
I haven’t looked at the numbers yet. I’ll agree to use the website you cited, which I think we can both agree is politically neutral and shows all the relevant years. If you don’t drink, then you are welcome to choose something that costs $220 or less, which I will mail to you if I lose the wager.
What do you say? Do we have a bet? (No fair peeking before answering this.)
In a perfect world, yes. But in this world, we’ve got economic cycles. And economic cycles tend to cause fluctuations in government tax receipts, separate and apart from the tax rates. Bush was dealing with a recession. Tax receipts go down in a recession, not because tax rates go down, but because economic activity goes down.
So why did you use the number of “tax receipts” and not “government receipts”?
I’m not accusing you of dishonesty or lying through statistics. It just seems that you chose the number that best made your argument and ignored another number that would have made your argument weaker, and I’m wondering if you’ve got some neutral explanation.
Ford Motor announced ending 44 000 more jobs. Closing of 16 more plants. They did not say they were moving off shore. They are.
As GM announced a plant closing last yeay a comperable plant opened in China. If it an be done cheaper off shore it will. We are just another market.Our standard of living will eventually have to reach the average across the globe.